[Illustration: Book Spines, 1829 set of Jefferson Papers]

MEMOIR, CORRESPONDENCE, AND MISCELLANIES, FROM THE PAPERS OF THOMASJEFFERSON. 

Edited by Thomas Jefferson Randolph. 

[Illustration: Steel engraving by Longacre from painting of G. Stuart]

[Illustration: Titlepage of Volume Three (of four)]

VOLUME IV. 

LETTER I. --TO LEVI LINCOLN, August 30, 1803

TO LEVI LINCOLN. 

Monticello, August 30, 1803. 

Deak. Sir, The enclosed letter came to hand by yesterday's post. You will besensible of the circumstances which make it improper that I shouldhazard a formal answer, as well as of the desire its friendly aspectnaturally excites, that those concerned in it should understand thatthe spirit they express is friendly viewed. You can judge also from yourknowledge of the ground, whether it may be usefully encouraged. I takethe liberty, therefore, of availing myself of your neighborhood toBoston, and of your friendship to me, to request you to say to theCaptain and others verbally whatever you think would be proper, asexpressive of my sentiments on the subject. With respect to the dayon which they wish to fix their anniversary, they may be told, thatdisapproving myself of transferring the honors and veneration for thegreat birthday of our republic to any individual, or of dividing themwith individuals, I have declined letting my own birthday be known, andhave engaged my family not to communicate it. This has been the uniformanswer to every application of the kind. 

On further consideration as to the amendment to our constitutionrespecting Louisiana, I have thought it better, instead of enumeratingthe powers which Congress may exercise, to give them the same powersthey have as to other portions of the Union generally, and to enumeratethe special exceptions, in some such form as the following. 

'Louisiana, as ceded by France to the United States, is made a part ofthe United States, its white inhabitants shall be citizens, and stand, as to their rights and obligations, on the same footing with othercitizens of the United States, in analogous situations. Save only thatas to the portion thereof lying north of an east and west line drawnthrough the mouth of Arkansas river, no new State shall be established, nor any grants of land made, other than to Indians, in exchange forequivalent portions of land occupied by them, until an amendment of theconstitution shall be made for these purposes. 

'Florida also, whensoever it may be rightfully obtained, shall becomea part of the United States, its white inhabitants shall thereupon becitizens, and shall stand, as to their rights and obligations, on thesame footing with other citizens of the United States, in analogoussituations. '

I quote this for your consideration, observing that the less that issaid about any constitutional difficulty, the better: and that it willbe desirable for Congress to do what is necessary, in silence. I findbut one opinion as to the necessity of shutting up the country forsome time. We meet in Washington the 25th of September to prepare forCongress. Accept my affectionate salutations, and great esteem andrespect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER II. --TO WILSON C NICHOLAS, September 7, 1803

TO WILSON C NICHOLAS. 

Monticello, September 7, 1803. 

Dear Sir, Your favor of the 3rd was delivered me at court; but we were muchdisappointed at not seeing you here, Mr. Madison and the Governor beinghere at the time. 1 enclose you a letter from Monroe on the subject ofthe late treaty. You will observe a hint in it, to do without delay whatwe are bound to do. There is reason, in the opinion of our ministers, to believe, that if the thing were to do over again, it could not beobtained, and that if we give the least opening, they will declare thetreaty void. A warning amounting to that has been given to them, andan unusual kind of letter written by their minister to our Secretary ofState, direct. Whatever Congress shall think it necessary to do, shouldbe done with as little debate as possible, and particularly so far asrespects the constitutional difficulty. I am aware of the force ofthe observations you make on the power given by the constitution toCongress, to admit new States into the Union, without restraining thesubject to the territory then constituting the United States. But when Iconsider that the limits of the United States are precisely fixed by thetreaty of 1783, that the constitution expressly declares itself to bemade for the United States, I cannot help believing the intention wasnot to permit Congress to admit into the Union new States, which shouldbe formed out of the territory for which, and under whose authorityalone, they were then acting. I do not believe it was meant that theymight receive England, Ireland, Holland, &tc. Into it, which wouldbe the case on your construction. When an instrument admits twoconstructions, the one safe, the other dangerous, the one precise, theother indefinite, I prefer that which is safe and precise. I hadrather ask an enlargement of power from the nation, where it is foundnecessary, than to assume it by a construction which would make ourpowers boundless. Our peculiar security is in the possession of awritten constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant ofthe treaty-making power as boundless. If it is, then we have noconstitution. If it has bounds, they can be no others than thedefinitions of the powers which that instrument gives. It specifies anddelineates the operations permitted to the federal government, and givesall the powers necessary to carry these into execution. Whatever ofthese enumerated objects is proper for a law, Congress may make the law;whatever is proper to be executed by way of a treaty, the President andSenate may enter into the treaty; whatever is to be done by a judicialsentence, the judges may pass the sentence. Nothing is more likely thanthat their enumeration of powers is defective. This is the ordinary caseof all human works. Let us go on then perfecting it, by adding, by wayof amendment to the constitution, those powers which time and trial showare still wanting. But it has been taken too much for granted, that bythis rigorous construction the treaty power would be reduced to nothing. I had occasion once to examine its effect on the French treaty, made bythe old Congress, and found that out of thirty odd articles which thatcontained, there were one, two, or three only, which could not now bestipulated under our present constitution. I confess, then, I thinkit important, in the present case, to set an example against broadconstruction, by appealing for new power to the people. If, however, our friends shall think differently, certainly I shall acquiesce withsatisfaction; confiding, that the good sense of our country will correctthe evil of construction when it shall produce ill effects. 

No apologies for writing or speaking to me freely are necessary. On thecontrary, nothing my friends can do is so dear to me, and proves to metheir friendship so clearly, as the information they give me of theirsentiments and those of others on interesting points where I am to act, and where information and warning is so essential to excite in me thatdue reflection which ought to precede action. I leave this about the21st, and shall hope the District Court will give me an opportunityof seeing you. Accept my affectionate salutations, and assurances ofcordial esteem and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER III. --TO DOCTOR BENJAMIN RUSH, October 4, 1803

TO DOCTOR BENJAMIN RUSH. 

Washington, October 4, 1803. 

Dear Sir, No one would more willingly than myself pay the just tribute due tothe services of Captain Barry, by writing a letter of condolence to hiswidow, as you suggest. But when one undertakes to administer justice, it must be with an even hand, and by rule; what is done for one, must bedone for every one in equal degree. To what a train of attentionswould this draw a President? How difficult would it be to draw the linebetween that degree of merit entitled to such a testimonial of it, andthat not so entitled? If drawn in a particular case differently fromwhat the friends of the deceased would judge right, what offence wouldit give, and of the most tender kind? How much offence would be givenby accidental inattentions, or want of information? The first stepinto such an undertaking ought to be well weighed. On the death of Dr. Franklin, the King and Convention of France went into mourning. So didthe House of Representatives of the United States: the Senate refused. I proposed to General Washington that the executive departments shouldwear mourning; he declined it, because he said he should not know whereto draw the line, if he once began that ceremony. Mr. Adams was thenVice-President, and I thought General Washington had his eye on him, whom he certainly did not love. I told him the world had drawn sobroad a line between himself and Dr. Franklin, on the one side, and theresidue of mankind, on the other, that we might wear mourning for them, and the question still remain new and undecided as to all others. Hethought it best, however, to avoid it. On these considerations alone, however well affected to the merit of Commodore Barry, I thinkit prudent not to engage myself in a practice which may becomeembarrassing. 

Tremendous times in Europe! How mighty this battle of lions and tigers?With what sensations should the common herd of cattle look on it? Withno partialities certainly. If they can so far worry one another as todestroy their power of tyrannizing the one over the earth, the other thewaters, the world may perhaps enjoy peace, till they recruit again. 

Affectionate and respectful salutations. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER IV. --TO M. DUPONT DE NEMOURS, November 1, 1803

TO M. DUPONT DE NEMOURS. 

Washington, November 1, 1803. 

My Dear Sir, Your favors of April the 6th and June the 27th were duly received, andwith the welcome which every thing brings from you. The treaty which hasso happily sealed the friendship of our two countries, has been receivedhere with general acclamation. Some inflexible federalists have stillventured to brave the public opinion. It will fix their character withthe world and with posterity, who, not descending to the other points ofdifference between us, will judge them by this fact, so palpable as tospeak for itself, in all times and places. For myself and my country Ithank you for the aids you have given in it; and I congratulate you onhaving lived to give those aids in a transaction replete with blessingsto unborn millions of men, and which will mark the face of a portion onthe globe so extensive as that which now composes the United States ofAmerica. It is true that at this moment a little cloud hovers in thehorizon. The government of Spain has protested against the right ofFrance to transfer; and it is possible she may refuse possession, andthat this may bring on acts of force. But against such neighbors asFrance there, and the United States here, what she can expect from sogross a compound of folly and false faith, is not to be sought in thebook of wisdom. She is afraid of her enemies in Mexico. But not morethan we are. Our policy will be to form New Orleans and the country onboth sides of it on the Gulf of Mexico, into a State; and, as to allabove that, to transplant our Indians into it, constituting them aMarechaussee to prevent emigrants crossing the river, until we shallhave filled up all the vacant country on this side. This will secureboth Spain and us as to the mines of Mexico, for half a century, and wemay safely trust the provisions for that time to the men who shall livein it. 

I have communicated with Mr. Gallatin on the subject of using yourhouse in any matters of consequence we may have to do at Paris. Heis impressed with the same desire I feel to give this mark of ourconfidence in you, and the sense we entertain of your friendship andfidelity. Mr. Behring informs him that none of the money which will bedue from us to him, as the assignee of France, will be wanting at Paris. Be assured that our dispositions are such as to let no occasion passunimproved, of serving you, where occurrences will permit it. 

Present my respects to Madame Dupont, and accept yourself assurances ofmy constant and warm friendship. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER V. --TO ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON, November 4, 1803

TO ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON. 

Washington, November 4, 1803. 

Dear Sir, A report reaches us this day from Baltimore (on probable, but notcertain grounds), that Mr. Jerome Bonaparte, brother of the FirstConsul, was yesterday* married to Miss Patterson of that city. Theeffect of this measure on the mind of the First Consul, is not for me tosuppose; but as it might occur to him _primâ facie_, that the executiveof the United States ought to have prevented it, I have thought itadvisable to mention the subject to you, that if necessary, you may byexplanations set that idea to rights. You know that by our laws, allpersons are free to enter into marriage, if of twenty-one years of age, no one having a power to restrain it, not even their parents; and thatunder that age, no one can prevent it but the parent or guardian. Thelady is under age, and the parents, placed between her affectionswhich were strongly fixed, and the considerations opposing the measure, yielded with pain and anxiety to the former. 

 * November 8. It is now said that it did not take place on the 3rd, but will this day. 

Mr. Patterson is the President of the bank of Baltimore, the wealthiestman in Maryland, perhaps in the United States, except Mr. Carroll; a manof great virtue and respectability; the mother is the sister of the ladyof General Samuel Smith; and, consequently, the station of the family insociety is with the first of the United States. These circumstances fixrank in a country where there are no hereditary titles. Your treaty hasobtained nearly a general approbation. The federalists spoke and votedagainst it, but they are now so reduced in their numbers as to benothing. The question on its ratification in the Senate was decided bytwenty-four against seven, which was ten more than enough. The vote inthe House of Representatives for making provision for its execution, was carried by eighty-nine against twenty-three, which was a majorityof sixty-six, and the necessary bills are going through the Housesby greater majorities. Mr. Pichon, according to instructions from hisgovernment, proposed to have added to the ratification a protestationagainst any failure in time or other circumstances of execution, onour part. He was told, that in that case we should annex a counterprotestation, which would leave the thing exactly where it was; thatthis transaction had been conducted from the commencement of thenegotiation to this stage of it, with a frankness and sincerityhonorable to both nations, and comfortable to the heart of an honest manto review; that to annex to this last chapter of the transaction such anevidence of mutual distrust, was to change its aspect dishonorablyfor us both, and contrary to truth as to us; for that we had not thesmallest doubt that France would punctually execute its part; and Iassured Mr. Pichon that I had more confidence in the word of the FirstConsul than in all the parchment we could sign. He saw that we hadratified the treaty; that both branches had passed by great majoritiesone of the bills for execution, and would soon pass the other two;that no circumstances remained that could leave a doubt of our punctualperformance; and like an able and an honest minister (which he is in thehighest degree) he undertook to do, what he knew his employers would dothemselves, were they here spectators of all the existing circumstances, and exchanged the ratification's purely and simply; so that thisinstrument goes to the world as an evidence of the candor and confidenceof the nations in each other, which will have the best effects. This wasthe more justifiable, as Mr. Pichon knew that Spain had entered with usa protestation against our ratification of the treaty, grounded, first, on the assertion that the First Consul had not executed the conditionsof the treaties of cession, and secondly, that he had broken a solemnpromise not to alienate the country to any nation. We answered, thatthese were private questions between France and Spain, which they mustsettle together; that we derived our title from the First Consul, anddid not doubt his guarantee of it: and we, four days ago, sent offorders to the Governor of the Mississippi territory and GeneralWilkinson, to move down with the troops at hand to New Orleans, toreceive the possession from Mr. Laussat. If he is heartily disposed tocarry the order of the Consul into execution, he can probably command avolunteer force at New Orleans, and will have the aid of ours also, ifhe desires it, to take the possession and deliver it to us. If he isnot so disposed, we shall take the possession, and it will rest with thegovernment of France, by adopting the act as their own and obtaining theconfirmation of Spain, to supply the non-execution of their stipulationto deliver, and to entitle themselves to the complete execution of ourpart of the agreements. In the mean time, the legislature is passing thebills, and we are preparing every thing to be done on our part towardsexecution, and we shall not avail ourselves of the three months' delayafter possession of the province, allowed by the treaty for the deliveryof the stock, but shall deliver it the moment that possession is knownhere, which will be on the eighteenth day after it has taken place. 

*****

Accept my affectionate salutations, and assurances of my constant esteemand respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER VI. --TO DAVID WILLIAMS, November 14, 1803

TO DAVID WILLIAMS. 

Washington, November 14, 1803. 

Sir, I have duly received the volume on the claims of literature; whichyou did me the favor to send me through Mr. Monroe: and have readwith satisfaction the many judicious reflections it contains, on thecondition of the respectable class of literary men. The efforts fortheir relief, made by a society of private citizens, are truly laudable:but they are, as you justly observe, but a palliation of an evil, thecure of which calls for all the wisdom and the means of the nation. Thegreatest evils of populous society have ever appeared to me to springfrom the vicious distribution of its members among the occupationscalled for. I have no doubt that those nations are essentiallyright, which leave this to individual choice, as a better guide to anadvantageous distribution, than any other which could be devised. But when, by a blind concourse, particular occupations are ruinouslyovercharged, and others left in want of hands, the national authoritiescan do much towards restoring the equilibrium. On the revival ofletters, learning became the universal favorite. And with reason, because there was not enough of it existing to manage the affairs ofa nation to the best advantage, nor to advance its individuals to thehappiness of which they were susceptible, by improvements in theirminds, their morals, their health, and in those conveniences whichcontribute to the comfort and embellishment of life. All the efforts ofthe society, therefore, were directed to the increase of learning, and the inducements of respect, ease, and profit were held up for itsencouragement. Even the charities of the nation forgot that misery wastheir object, and spent themselves in founding schools to transfer toscience the hardy sons of the plough. To these incitements were addedthe powerful fascinations of great cities. These circumstances have longsince produced an overcharge in the class of competitors for learnedoccupation, and great distress among the supernumerary candidates; andthe more, as their habits of life have disqualified them for re-enteringinto the laborious class. The evil cannot be suddenly, nor perhaps everentirely cured: nor should I presume to say by what means it may becured. Doubtless there are many engines which the nation might bring tobear on this object. Public opinion and public encouragement are amongthese. The class principally defective is that of agriculture. It isthe first in utility, and ought to be the first in respect. The sameartificial means which have been used to produce a competition inlearning, may be equally successful in restoring agriculture to itsprimary dignity in the eyes of men. It is a science of the very firstorder. It counts among its handmaids the most respectable sciences, such as Chemistry, Natural Philosophy, Mechanics, Mathematicsgenerally, Natural History, Botany. In every College and University, aprofessorship of agriculture, and the class of its students, might behonored as the first. Young men closing their academical education withthis, as the crown of all other sciences, fascinated with its solidcharms, and at a time when they are to choose an occupation, instead ofcrowding the other classes, would return to the farms of their fathers, their own, or those of others, and replenish and invigorate a calling, now languishing under contempt and oppression. The charitable schools, instead of storing their pupils with a lore which the present state ofsociety does not call for, converted into schools of agriculture, mightrestore them to that branch, qualified to enrich and honor themselves, and to increase the productions of the nation instead of consuming them. A gradual abolition of the useless offices, so much accumulated in allgovernments, might close this drain also from the labors of the field, and lessen the burthens imposed on them. By these, and the better meanswhich will occur to others, the surcharge of the learned, might intime be drawn off to recruit the laboring class of citizenss the sum ofindustry be increased, and that of misery diminished. 

Among the ancients, the redundance of population was sometimes checkedby exposing infants. To the moderns, America has offered a more humaneresource. Many, who cannot find employment in Europe, accordingly comehere. Those who can labor do well, for the most part. Of the learnedclass of emigrants, a small portion find employments analogous to theirtalents. But many fail, and return to complete their course of misery inthe scenes where it began. Even here we find too strong a current fromthe country to the towns; and instances beginning to appear of thatspecies of misery, which you are so humanely endeavoring to relieve withyou. Although we have in the old countries of Europe the lesson of theirexperience to warn us, yet I am not satisfied we shall have the firmnessand wisdom to profit by it. The general desire of men to live by theirheads rather than their hands, and the strong allurements of greatcities to those who have any turn for dissipation, threaten to make themhere, as in Europe, the sinks of voluntary misery. I perceive, however, that I have suffered my pen to run into a disquisition, when I had takenit up only to thank you for the volume you had been so kind as to sendme, and to express my approbation of it. After apologizing, therefore, for having touched on a subject so much more familiar to you, and betterunderstood, I beg leave to assure you of my high consideration andrespect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER VII. --TO JOHN RANDOLH, December 1, 1803

TO JOHN RANDOLH. 

Washington, December 1, 1803. 

Dear Sir, The explanations in your letter of yesterday were quite unnecessary tome. I have had too satisfactory proofs of your friendly regard, to bedisposed to suspect any thing of a contrary aspect. 

I understood perfectly the expressions stated in the newspaper towhich you allude, to mean, that 'though the proposition came from therepublican quarter of the House, yet you should not concur with it. ' Iam aware, that in parts of the Union, and even with persons to whom Mr. Eppes and Mr. Randolph are unknown, and myself little known, it will bepresumed from their connection, that what comes from them comes from me. No men on earth are more independent in their sentiments than they are, nor any one less disposed than I am to influence the opinions of others. We rarely speak of politics, or of the proceedings of the House, butmerely historically; and I carefully avoid expressing an opinion on themin their presence, that we may all be at our ease. With other members, Ihave believed that more unreserved communications would be advantageousto the public. This has been, perhaps, prevented by mutual delicacy. Ihave been afraid to express opinions unasked, lest I should be suspectedof wishing to direct the legislative action of members. They haveavoided asking communications from me, probably, lest they should besuspected of wishing to fish out executive secrets. I see too manyproofs of the imperfection of human reason, to entertain wonder orintolerance at any difference of opinion on any subject; and acquiescein that difference as easily as on a difference of feature or form:experience having long taught me the reasonableness of mutual sacrificesof opinion among those who are to act together for any common object, and the expediency of doing what good we can, when we cannot do all wewould wish. 

Accept my friendly salutations, and assurances of great esteem andrespect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER VIII. --TO MR. GALLATIN, December 13, 1803

THOMAS JEFFERSON TO MR. GALLATIN. 

The Attorney General having considered and decided, that theprescription in the law for establishing a bank, that the officers inthe subordinate offices of discount and deposit, shall be appointed 'onthe same terms and in the same manner practised in the principal bank, 'does not extend to them the principle of rotation, established by thelegislature in the body of directors in the principal bank, it followsthat the extension of that principle has been merely a voluntary andprudential act of the principal bank, from which they are free todepart. I think the extension was wise and proper on their part, becausethe legislature having deemed rotation useful in the principal bankconstituted by them, there would be the same reason for it in thesubordinate banks to be established by the principal. It breaks in uponthe _esprit de corps_, so apt to prevail in permanent bodies; it givesa chance for the public eye penetrating into the sanctuary of thoseproceedings and practices, which the avarice of the directors mayintroduce for their personal emolument, and which the resentments ofexcluded directors, or the honesty of those duly admitted, might betrayto the public; and it gives an opportunity at the end of the year, or atother periods, of correcting a choice, which, on trial, proves to havebeen unfortunate; an evil of which themselves complain in their distantinstitutions. Whether, however, they have a power to alter this or not, the executive has no right to decide; and their consultation with youhas been merely an act of complaisance, or from a desire to shield soimportant an innovation under the cover of executive sanction. Butought we to volunteer our sanction in such a case? Ought we to disarmourselves of any fair right of animadversion, whenever that institutionshall be a legitimate subject of consideration? I own I think the mostproper answer would be, that we do not think ourselves authorized togive an opinion on the question. 

From a passage in the letter of the President, I observe an idea ofestablishing a branch bank of the United States in New Orleans. Thisinstitution is one of the most deadly hostility existing, against theprinciples and form of our constitution. The nation is, at this time, so strong and united in its sentiments, that it cannot be shaken at thismoment. But suppose a series of untoward events should occur, sufficientto bring into doubt the competency of a republican government to meeta crisis of great danger, or to unhinge the confidence of the people inthe public functionaries; an institution like this, penetrating by itsbranches every part of the Union, acting by command and in phalanx, may, in a critical moment, upset the government. I deem no government safewhich is under the vassalage of any self-constituted authorities, or anyother authority than that of the nation, or its regular functionaries. What an obstruction could not this bank of the United States, with allits branch banks, be in time of war? It might dictate to us the peacewe should accept, or withdraw its aids. Ought we then to give furthergrowth to an institution so powerful, so hostile? That it is so hostilewe know, 1. From a knowledge of the principles of the persons composingthe body of directors in every bank, principal or branch; and those ofmost of the stock-holders: 2. From their opposition to the measures andprinciples of the government, and to the election of those friendly tothem: and, 3. From the sentiments of the newspapers they support. Now, while we are strong, it is the greatest duty we owe to the safety of ourconstitution, to bring this powerful enemy to a perfect subordinationunder its authorities. The first measure would be to reduce them to anequal footing only with other banks, as to the favors of the government. But, in order to be able to meet a general combination of the banksagainst us, in a critical emergency, could we not make a beginningtowards an independent use of our own money, towards holding our ownbank in all the deposits where it is received, and letting the Treasurergive his draft or note for payment at any particular place, which, in awell conducted government, ought to have as much credit as any privatedraft, or bank note, or bill, and would give us the same facilitieswhich we derive from the banks? I pray you to turn this subject in yourmind, and to give it the benefit of your knowledge of details; whereas, I have only very general views of the subject. Affectionate salutations. 

Washington, December 13, 1803. 

LETTER IX. --TO DOCTOR PRIESTLEY, January 29, 1804

TO DOCTOR PRIESTLEY. 

Washington, January 29, 1804. 

Dear Sir, Your favor of December the 12th came duly to hand, as did the secondletter to Doctor Linn, and the treatise on Phlogiston, for which I prayyou to accept my thanks. The copy for Mr. Livingston has been delivered, together with your letter to him, to Mr. Harvie, my secretary, whodeparts in a day or two for Paris, and will deliver them himself to Mr. Livingston, whose attention to your matter cannot be doubted. I havealso to add my thanks to Mr. Priestley, your son, for the copy of yourHarmony, which I have gone through with great satisfaction. It isthe first I have been able to meet with, which is clear of those longrepetitions of the same transaction, as if it were a different onebecause related with some different circumstances. 

I rejoice that you have undertaken the task of comparing the moraldoctrines of Jesus with those of the ancient Philosophers. You are somuch in possession of the whole subject, that you will do it easier andbetter than any other person living. I think you cannot avoid giving, as preliminary to the comparison, a digest of his moral doctrines, extracted in his own words from the Evangelists, and leaving out everything relative to his personal history and character. It would be shortand precious. With a view to do this for my own satisfaction, I had sentto Philadelphia to get two Testaments (Greek) of the same edition, andtwo English, with a design to cut out the morsels of morality, and pastethem on the leaves of a book, in the manner you describe as having beenpursued in forming your Harmony. But I shall now get the thing done bybetter hands. 

I very early saw that Louisiana was indeed a speck in our horizon, whichwas to burst in a tornado; and the public are un-apprized how near thiscatastrophe was. Nothing but a frank and friendly developement of causesand effects on our part, and good sense enough in Bonaparte to see thatthe train was unavoidable, and would change the face of the world, savedus from that storm. I did not expect he would yield till a war tookplace between France and England, and my hope was to palliate andendure, if Messrs. Ross, Morris, &c. Did not force a premature ruptureuntil that event. I believed the event not very distant, but acknowledgeit came on sooner than I had expected. Whether, however, the good senseof Bonaparte might not see the course predicted to be necessary andunavoidable, even before a war should be imminent, was a chance whichwe thought it our duty to try: but the immediate prospect of rupturebrought the case to immediate decision. The denouement has been happy:and I confess I look to this duplication of area for the extending agovernment so free and economical as ours, as a great achievement tothe mass of happiness which is to ensue. Whether we remain in oneconfederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, Ibelieve not very important to the happiness of either part. Those ofthe western confederacy will be as much our children and descendantsas those of the eastern, and I feel myself as much identified withthat country, in future time, as with this: and did I now foresee aseparation at some future day, yet I should feel the duty and the desireto promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing allthe good for both portions of our future family which should fall withinmy power. 

Have you seen the new work of Malthus on Population? It is one of theablest I have ever seen. Although his main object is to delineatethe effects of redundancy of population, and to test the poor lawsof England, and other palliations for that evil, several importantquestions in political economy, allied to his subject incidentally, aretreated with a masterly hand. It is a single octavo volume, and I havebeen only able to read a borrowed copy, the only one I have yet heardof. Probably our friends in England will think of you, and give you anopportunity of reading it. 

Accept my affectionate salutations, and assurances of great esteem andrespect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER X. --TO ELBRIDGE GERRY, March 3, 1804

TO ELBRIDGE GERRY. 

Washington, March 3, 1804. 

Dear Sir, Although it is long since I received your favor of October the 27th, yet I have not had leisure sooner to acknowledge it. In the Middle andSouthern States, as great an union of sentiment has now taken placeas is perhaps desirable. For as there will always be an opposition, Ibelieve it had better be from avowed monarchists than republicans. NewYork seems to be in danger of republican division; Vermont is solidlywith us; Rhode Island with us on anomalous grounds; New Hampshire onthe verge of the republican shore; Connecticut advancing towards it veryslowly, but with steady step; your State only uncertain of making portat all. I had forgotten Delaware, which will be always uncertainfrom the divided character of her citizens. If the amendment of theconstitution passes Rhode Island (and we expect to hear in a day ortwo), the election for the ensuing four years seems to present nothingformidable. I sincerely regret that the unbounded calumnies of thefederal party have obliged me to throw myself on the verdict of mycountry for trial, my great desire having been to retire at the endof the present term, to a life of tranquillity; and it was my decidedpurpose when I entered into office. They force my continuance. If wecan keep the vessel of State as steadily in her course for another fouryears, my earthly purposes will be accomplished, and I shall be freeto enjoy, as you are doing, my family, my farm, and my books. That yourenjoyments may continue as long as you shall wish them, I sincerelypray, and tender you my friendly salutations, and assurances of greatrespect and esteem. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XI. --TO GIDEON GRANGER, April 16, 1804

TO GIDEON GRANGER. 

Monticello, April 16, 1804. 

Dear Sir, *****

In our last conversation you mentioned a federal scheme afloat, offorming a coalition between the federalists and republicans, of whatthey called the seven eastern States. The idea was new to me, and aftertime for reflection, I had no opportunity of conversing with you again. The federalists know that, _eo nomine_, they are gone for ever. Theirobject, therefore, is, how to return into power under some other form. Undoubtedly they have but one means, which is to divide the republicans, join the minority, and barter with them for the cloak of their name. I say, join the minority; because the majority of the republicans, notneeding them, will not buy them. The minority, having no other means ofruling the majority, will give a price for auxiliaries, and that pricemust be principle. It is true that the federalists, needing theirnumbers also, must also give a price, and principle is the coin theymust pay in. Thus a bastard system of federo-republicanism will rise onthe ruins of the true principles of our revolution. And when this partyis formed, who will constitute the majority of it, which majority isthen to dictate? Certainly the federalists. Thus their proposition ofputting themselves into gear with the republican minority, is exactlylike Roger Sherman's proposition to add Connecticut to Rhode Island. The idea of forming seven eastern States is moreover clearly to form thebasis of a separation of the Union. Is it possible that real republicanscan be gulled by such a bait? And for what? What do they wish, that theyhave not? Federal measures? That is impossible. Republican measures?Have they them not? Can any one deny, that in all important questionsof principle, republicanism prevails? But do they want that theirindividual will shall govern the majority? They may purchase thegratification of this unjust wish, for a little time, at a great price;but the federalists must not have the passions of other men, if, aftergetting thus into the seat of power, they suffer themselves to begoverned by their minority. This minority may say, that whenever theyrelapse into their own principles, they will quit them, and draw theseat from under them. They may quit them, indeed, but, in the mean time, all the venal will have become associated with them, and will give thema majority sufficient to keep them in place, and to enable them to ejectthe heterogeneous friends by whose aid they get again into power. Icannot believe any portion of real republicans will enter into thistrap; and if they do, I do not believe they can carry with them the massof their States, advancing so steadily as we see them, to an union ofprinciple with their brethren. It will be found in this, as in allother similar cases, that crooked schemes will end by overwhelming theirauthors and coadjutors in disgrace, and that he alone who walks strictand upright, and who in matters of opinion will be contented that othersshould be as free as himself, and acquiesce when his opinion is fairlyoverruled, will attain his object in the end. And that this may bethe conduct of us all, I offer my sincere prayers, as well as for yourhealth and happiness. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XII. --TO MRS. ADAMS, June 13, 1804

TO MRS. ADAMS. 

Washington, June 13, 1804. 

Dear Madam, The affectionate sentiments which you have had the goodness to expressin your letter of May the 20th, towards my dear departed daughter, haveawakened in me sensibilities natural to the occasion, and recalledyour kindnesses to her, which I shall ever remember with gratitude andfriendship. I can assure you with truth, they had made an indelibleimpression on her mind, and that to the last, on our meetings after longseparations, whether I had heard lately of you, and how you did, wereamong the earliest of her inquiries. In giving you this assurance, Iperform a sacred duty for her, and, at the same time, am thankful forthe occasion furnished me, of expressing my regret that circumstancesshould have arisen, which have seemed to draw a line of separationbetween us. The friendship with which you honored me has ever beenvalued, and fully reciprocated; and although events have been passingwhich might be trying to some minds, I never believed yours to beof that kind, nor felt that my own was. Neither my estimate of yourcharacter, nor the esteem founded in that, has ever been lessened for asingle moment, although doubts whether it would be acceptable may haveforbidden manifestations of it. 

Mr. Adams's friendship and mine began at an earlier date. It accompaniedus through long and important scenes. The different conclusions we haddrawn from our political reading and reflections, were not permitted tolessen mutual esteem; each party being conscious they were the result ofan honest conviction in the other. Like differences of opinion existingamong our fellow citizens, attached them to the one or the other of us, and produced a rivalship in their minds which did not exist in ours. Wenever stood in one another's way. For if either had been withdrawn atany time, his favorers would not have gone over to the other, but wouldhave sought for some one of homogeneous opinions. This considerationwas sufficient to keep down all jealousy between us, and to guard ourfriendship from any disturbance by sentiments of rivalship: and I cansay with truth, that one act of Mr. Adams's life, and one only, evergave me a moment's personal displeasure. I did consider his lastappointments to office as personally unkind. They were from among mymost ardent political enemies, from whom no faithful co-operation couldever be expected; and laid me under the embarrassment of acting throughmen, whose views were to defeat mine, or to encounter the odium ofputting others in their places. It seems but common justice to leave asuccessor free to act by instruments of his own choice. If my respectfor him did not permit me to ascribe the whole blame to the influence ofothers, it left something for friendship to forgive, and after broodingover it for some little time, and not always resisting the expression ofit, I forgave it cordially, and returned to the same state of esteemand respect for him which had so long subsisted. Having come into lifea little later than Mr. Adams, his career has preceded mine, as mineis followed by some other; and it will probably be closed at the samedistance after him which time originally placed between us. I maintainfor him, and shall carry into private life, an uniform and high measureof respect and good will, and for yourself a sincere attachment. 

I have thus, my dear Madam, opened myself to you without reserve, whichI have long wished an opportunity of doing; and without knowing how itwill be received, I feal[sp. ] relief from being unbosomed. And I havenow only to entreat your forgiveness for this transition from a subjectof domestic affliction, to one which seems of a different aspect. Butthough connected with political events, it has been viewed by me moststrongly in its unfortunate bearings on my private friendships. Theinjury these have sustained has been a heavy price for what has nevergiven me equal pleasure. That you may both be favored with health, tranquillity, and long life, is the prayer of one who tenders you theassurance of his highest consideration and esteem. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XIII. --TO GOVERNOR PAGE, June 25, 1804

TO GOVERNOR PAGE. 

Washington, June 25, 1804. 

Your letter, my dear friend, of the 25th ultimo, is a new proof ofthe goodness of your heart, and the part you take in my loss marks anaffectionate concern for the greatness of it. It is great indeed. Othersmay lose of their abundance, but I, of my want, have lost even the halfof all I had. My evening prospects now hang on the slender thread ofa single life. Perhaps I maybe destined to see even this last cord ofparental affection broken! The hope with which I had looked forwardto the moment, when, resigning public cares to younger hands, I was toretire to that domestic comfort from which the last great step is to betaken, is fearfully blighted. When you and I look back on the countryover which we have passed, what a field of slaughter does it exhibit!Where are all the friends who entered it with us, under all theinspiring energies of health and hope? As if pursued by the havoc ofwar, they are strewed by the way, some earlier, some later, and scarcea few stragglers remain to count the numbers fallen, and to mark yet, by their own fall, the last footsteps of their party. Is it a desirablething to bear up through the heat of the action to witness the death ofall our companions, and merely be the last victim? I doubt it. We have, however, the traveller's consolation. Every step shortens the distancewe have to go; the end of our journey is in sight, the bed wherein weare to rest, and to rise in the midst of the friends we have lost. 'Wesorrow not, then, as others who have no hope'; but look forward to theday which 'joins us to the great majority. ' But whatever is to be ourdestiny, wisdom, as well as duty, dictates that we should acquiesce inthe will of Him whose it is to give and take away, and be contented inthe enjoyment of those who are still permitted to be with us. Of thoseconnected by blood, the number does not depend on us. But friends wehave, if we have merited them. Those of our earliest years stand nearestin our affections. But in this too, you and I have been unlucky. Of ourcollege friends (and they are the dearest) how few have stood with us inthe great political questions which have agitated our country: and thesewere of a nature to justify agitation. I did not believe the Lilliputianfetters of that day strong enough to have bound so many. Will not Mrs. Page, yourself, and family, think it prudent to seek a healthier regionfor the months of August and September? And may we not flatter ourselvesthat you will cast your eye on Monticello? We have not many summersto live. While fortune places us then within striking distance, let usavail ourselves of it, to meet and talk over the tales of other times. 

Present me respectfully to Mrs. Page, and accept yourself my friendlysalutations, and assurances of constant affection. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER, XIV. --TO P. MAZZEI, July 18, 1804

TO P. MAZZEI. 

Washington, July 18, 1804. 

My Dear Sir, It is very long, I know, since I wrote you. So constant is the pressureof business that there is never a moment, scarcely, that somethingof public importance is not waiting for me. I have, therefore, on aprinciple of conscience, thought it my duty to withdraw almost entirelyfrom all private correspondence, and chiefly the trans-Atlantic;I scarcely write a letter a year to any friend beyond sea. Anotherconsideration has led to this, which is the liability of my letters tomiscarry, be opened, and made ill use of. Although the great body of ourcountry are perfectly returned to their ancient principles, yet thereremains a phalanx of old tories and monarchists, more envenomed, as alltheir hopes become more desperate. Every word of mine which they can gethold of, however innocent, however orthodox even, is twisted, tormented, perverted, and, like the words of holy writ, are made to mean everything but what they were intended to mean. I trust little, therefore, unnecessarily in their way, and especially on political subjects. Ishall not, therefore, be free to answer all the several articles of yourletters. 

On the subject of treaties, our system is to have none with any nation, as far as can be avoided. The treaty with England has therefore, notbeen renewed, and all overtures for treaty with other nations have beendeclined. We believe, that with nations as with individuals, dealingsmay be carried on as anvantageously[sp. ], perhaps more so, while theircontinuance depends on a voluntary good treatment, as if fixed by acontract, which, when it becomes injurious to either, is made, by forcedconstructions, to mean what suits them, and becomes a cause of warinstead of a bond of peace. 

We wish to be on the closest terms of friendship with Naples, and wewill prove it by giving to her citizens, vessels, and goods all theprivileges of the most favored nation; and while we do this voluntarily, we cannot doubt they will voluntarily do the same for us. Our interestsagainst the Barbaresques being also the same, we have little doubt shewill give us every facility to insure them, which our situation may askand hers admit. It is not, then, from a want of friendship that we donot propose a treaty with Naples, but because it is against our systemto embarrass ourselves with treaties, or to entangle ourselves atall with the affairs of Europe. The kind offices we receive from thatgovernment are more sensibly felt, as such, than they would be, ifrendered only as due to us by treaty. 

Five fine frigates left the Chesapeake the 1st instant for Tripoli, which, in addition to the force now there, will, I trust, recover thecredit which Commodore Morris's two years' sleep lost us, and for whichhe has been broke. I think they will make Tripoli sensible, that theymistake their interest in choosing war with us; and Tunis also, shouldshe have declared war, as we expect, and almost wish. 

Notwithstanding this little diversion, we pay seven or eight millions ofdollars annually of our public debt, and shall completely dischargeit in twelve years more. That done, our annual revenue, now thirteenmillions of dollars, which by that time will be twenty-five, will paythe expenses of any war we may be forced into, without new taxes orloans. The spirit of republicanism is now in almost all its ancientvigor, five sixths of the people being with us. Fourteen of theseventeen States are completely with us, and two of the other three willbe in one year. We have now got back to the ground on which you left us. I should have retired at the end of the first four years, but that theimmense load of tory calumnies which have been manufactured respectingme, and have filled the European market, have obliged me to appeal oncemore to my country for a justification. I have no fear but that I shallreceive honorable testimony by their verdict on those calumnies. At theend of the next four years I shall certainly retire. Age, inclination, and principle all dictate this. My health, which at one time threatenedan unfavorable turn, is now firm. The acquisition of Louisiana, besidesdoubling our extent, and trebling our quantity of fertile country, isof incalculable value, as relieving us from the danger of war. It hasenabled us to do a handsome thing for Fayette. He had received a grantof between eleven and twelve thousand acres north of the Ohio, worth, perhaps, a dollar an acre. We have obtained permission of Congress tolocate it in Louisiana. Locations can be found adjacent to the city ofNew Orleans, in the island of New Orleans and in its vicinity, the valueof which cannot be calculated. I hope it will induce him to come overand settle there with his family. Mr. Livingston having asked leave toreturn, General Armstrong, his brother-in-law, goes in his place: he isof the first order of talents. 

Remarkable deaths lately, are, Samuel Adams, Edmund Pendleton, AlexanderHamilton, Stephens Thompson Mason, Mann Page, Bellini, and ParsonAndrews. To these I have the inexpressible grief of adding the name ofmy youngest daughter, who had married a son of Mr. Eppes, and hasleft two children. My eldest daughter alone remains to me, and has sixchildren. This loss has increased my anxiety to retire, while it hasdreadfully lessened the comfort of doing it. Wythe, Dickinson, andCharles Thomson are all living, and are firm republicans. You informedme formerly of your marriage, and your having a daughter, but have saidnothing in you late letters on that subject. Yet whatever concerns yourhappiness is sincerely interesting to me, and is a subject of anxiety, retaining, as I do, cordial sentiments of esteem and affection for you. Accept, I pray you, my sincere assurances of this, with my most friendlysalutations. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XV. --TO MRS. ADAMS, July 22, 1804

TO MRS. ADAMS. 

Washington, July 22, 1804. 

Dear Madam, Your favor of the 1st instant was duly received, and I would not againhave intruded on you, but to rectify certain facts which seem not tohave been presented to you under their true aspect. My charities toCallendar are considered as rewards for his calumnies. As early, Ithink, as 1796, I was told in Philadelphia, that Callendar, the authorof the 'Political Progress of Britain, ' was in that city, a fugitivefrom persecution for having written that book, and in distress. Ihad read and approved the book; I considered him as a man of genius, unjustly persecuted. I knew nothing of his private character, andimmediately expressed my readiness to contribute to his relief, and toserve him. It was a considerable time after, that, on application froma person who thought of him as I did, I contributed to his relief, andafterwards repeated the contribution. Himself I did not see till longafter, nor ever more than two or three times. When he first began towrite, he told some useful truths in his coarse way; but nobody soonerdisapproved of his writing than I did, or wished more that he would besilent. My charities to him were no more meant as encouragements to hisscurrilities, than those I give to the beggar at my door are meantas rewards for the vices of his life, and to make them chargeable tomyself. In truth, they would have been greater to him, had he neverwritten a word after the work for which he fled from Britain. Withrespect to the calumnies and falsehoods which writers and printers atlarge published against Mr. Adams, I was as far from stooping to anyconcern or approbation of them, as Mr. Adams was respecting those ofPorcupine, Fenno, or Russell, who published volumes against me forevery sentence vended by their opponents against Mr. Adams. But I neversupposed Mr. Adams had any participation in the atrocities of theseeditors, or their writers. I knew myself incapable of that base warfare, and believed him to be so. On the contrary, whatever I may have thoughtof the acts of the administration of that day, I have ever bornetestimony to Mr. Adams's personal worth; nor was it ever impeached in mypresence, without a just vindication of it on my part. I never supposedthat any person who knew either of us, could believe that either of usmeddled in that dirty work. But another fact is, that I 'liberated awretch who was suffering for a libel against Mr. Adams. ' I do not knowwho was the particular wretch alluded to; but I discharged every personunder punishment or prosecution under the sedition law, because Iconsidered, and now consider, that law to be a nullity, as absolute andas palpable as if Congress had ordered us to fall down and worship agolden image; and that it was as much my duty to arrest its executionin every stage, as it would have been to have rescued from the fieryfurnace those who should have been cast into it for refusing to worshipthe image. It was accordingly done in every instance, without askingwhat the offenders had done, or against whom they had offended, butwhether the pains they were suffering were inflicted under the pretendedsedition law. It was certainly possible that my motives for contributingto the relief of Callendar, and liberating sufferers under the seditionlaw might have been to protect, encourage, and reward slander; but theymay also have been those which inspire ordinary charities to objects ofdistress, meritorious or not, or the obligation of an oath to protectthe constitution, violated by an unauthorized act of Congress. Which ofthese were my motives, must be decided by a regard to the general tenorof my life. On this I am not afraid to appeal to the nation at large, to posterity, and still less to that Being who sees himself our motives, who will judge us from his own knowledge of them, and not on thetestimony of Porcupine or Fenno. 

You observe, there has been one other act of my administrationpersonally unkind, and suppose it will readily suggest itself to me. Ideclare on my honor, Madam, I have not the least conception what act isalluded to. I never did a single one with an unkind intention. My soleobject in this letter being to place before your attention, that theacts imputed to me are either such as are falsely imputed, or as mightflow from good as well as bad motives, I shall make no other addition, than the assurances of my continued wishes for the health and happinessof yourself and Mr. Adams. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XVI. --TO JAMES MADISON, August 15, 1804

TO JAMES MADISON. 

Monticello, August 15, 1804. 

Dear Sir, Your letter dated the 7th should probably have been of the 14th, as Ireceived it only by that day's post. I return you Monroe's letter, whichis of an awful complexion; and I do not wonder the communications itcontains made some impression on him. To a person placed in Europe, surrounded by the immense resources of the nations there, and thegreater wickedness of their courts, even the limits which nature imposeson their enterprises are scarcely sensible. It is impossible that Franceand England should combine for any purpose; their mutual distrust anddeadly hatred of each other admit no co-operation. It is impossible thatEngland should be willing to see France re-possess Louisiana, or getfooting on our continent, and that France should willingly see theUnited States re-annexed to the British dominions. That the Bourbonsshould be replaced on their throne and agree to any terms ofrestitution, is possible: but that they and England joined, couldrecover us to British dominion, is impossible. If these things arenot so, then human reason is of no aid in conjecturing the conduct ofnations. Still, however, it is our unquestionable interest and duty toconduct ourselves with such sincere friendship and impartiality towardsboth nations, as that each may see unequivocally, what is unquestionablytrue, that we may be very possibly driven into her scale by unjustconduct in the other. I am so much impressed with the expediency ofputting a termination to the right of France to patronize the rights ofLouisiana, which will cease with their complete adoption as citizens ofthe United States, that I hope to see that take place on the meetingof Congress. I enclose you a paragraph from a newspaper respecting St. Domingo, which gives me uneasiness. Still I conceive the British insultsin our harbor as more threatening. We cannot be respected by France as aneutral nation, nor by the world or ourselves as an independent one, if we do not take effectual measures to support, at every risk, ourauthority in our own harbors. I shall write to Mr. Wagner directly(that a post may not be lost by passing through you) to send us blankcommissions for Orleans and Louisiana, ready sealed, to be filled up, signed, and forwarded by us. Affectionate salutations and constantesteem. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XVII. --TO GOVERNOR CLAIBORNE, August 30, 1804

TO GOVERNOR CLAIBORNE. 

Monticello, August 30, 1804. 

Dear Sir, Various circumstances of delay have prevented my forwarding till nowthe general arrangements of the government of the territory of Orleans. Enclosed herewith you will receive the commissions. Among these is onefor yourself as Governor. With respect to this I will enter into frankexplanations. This office was originally destined for a person * whosegreat services and established fame would have rendered him peculiarlyacceptable to the nation at large. Circumstances, however, exist, which do not now permit his nomination, and perhaps may not at any timehereafter. That, therefore, being suspended, and entirely contingent, your services have been so much approved, as to leave no desire tolook elsewhere to fill the office. Should the doubts you have sometimesexpressed, whether it would be eligible for you to continue, still existin your mind, the acceptance of the commission gives you time to satisfyyourself by further experience, and to make the time and manner ofwithdrawing, should you ultimately determine on that, agreeable toyourself. Be assured, that whether you continue or retire, it will bewith every disposition on my part to be just and friendly to you. 

*****

I salute you with friendship and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

 [* In the margin is written by the author, 'La Fayette. ']

LETTER XVIII. --TO MRS. ADAMS, September 11, 1804

TO MRS. ADAMS. 

Monticello, September 11, 1804, Your letter, Madam, of the 18th of August has been some days received, but a press of business has prevented the acknowledgment of it: perhaps, indeed, I may have already trespassed too far on your attention. Withthose who wish to think amiss of me, I have learned to be perfectlyindifferent; but where I know a mind to be ingenuous, and to need onlytruth to set it to rights, I cannot be as passive. The act of personalunkindness alluded to in your former letter, is said in your last tohave been the removal of your eldest son from some office to whichthe judges had appointed him. I conclude, then, he must have been acommissioner of bankruptcy. But I declare to you, on my honor, thatthis is the first knowledge I have ever had that he was so. It may bethought, perhaps, that I ought to have inquired who were such, beforeI appointed others. But it is to be observed, that the former lawpermitted the judges to name commissioners occasionally only, for everycase as it arose, and not to make them permanent officers. Nobody, therefore, being in office, there could be no removal. The judges, youwell know, have been considered as highly federal; and it was notedthat they confined their nominations exclusively to federalists. Thelegislature, dissatisfied with this, transferred the nomination to thePresident, and made the offices permanent. The very object in passingthe law was, that he should correct, not confirm, what was deemed thepartiality of the judges. I thought it therefore proper to inquire, not whom they had employed, but whom I ought to appoint to fulfilthe intentions of the law. In making these appointments, I put in aproportion of federalists, equal, I believe, to the proportion they bearin numbers through the Union generally. Had I known that your son hadacted, it would have been a real pleasure to me to have preferred himto some who were named in Boston, in what was deemed the same lineof politics. To this I should have been led by my knowledge of hisintegrity, as well as my sincere dispositions towards yourself and Mr. Adams. 

You seem to think it devolved on the judges to decide on the validity ofthe sedition law. But nothing in the constitution has given them a rightto decide for the executive, more than to the executive to decide forthem. Both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of actionassigned to them. The judges, believing the law constitutional, had aright to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment, because the power wasplaced in their hands by the constitution. But the executive, believingthe law to be unconstitutional, were bound to remit the execution of it;because that power has been confided to them by the constitution. Thatinstrument meant that its co-ordinate branches should be checks on eachother. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decidewhat laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves intheir own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive alsoin their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch. Nor doesthe opinion of the unconstitutionality, and consequent nullity of thatlaw, remove all restraint from the overwhelming torrent of slander, which is confounding all vice and virtue, all truth and falsehood, in the United States. The power to do that is fully possessed by theseveral State legislatures. It was reserved to them, and was deniedto the General Government, by the constitution, according to ourconstruction of it. While we deny that Congress have a right to controlthe freedom of the press, we have ever asserted the right of the States, and their exclusive right, to do so. They have, accordingly, all of themmade provisions for punishing slander, which those who have time andinclination resort to for the vindication of their characters. Ingeneral, the State laws appear to have made the presses responsible forslander as far as is consistent with its useful freedom. In those Stateswhere they do not admit even the truth of allegations to protect theprinter, they have gone too far. 

The candor manifested in your letter, and which I ever believed you topossess, has alone inspired the desire of calling your attention oncemore to those circumstances of fact and motive by which I claim to bejudged. I hope you will see these intrusions on your time to be, whatthey really are, proofs of my great, respect for you. I tolerate withthe utmost latitude the right of others to differ from me in opinion, without imputing to them criminality. I know too well the weakness anduncertainty of human reason, to wonder at its different results. Bothof our political parties, at least the honest part of them, agreeconscientiously in the same object, the public good: but they differessentially in what they deem the means of promoting that good. One sidebelieves it best done by one composition of the governing powers; theother, by a different one. One fears most the ignorance of the people;the other, the selfishness of rulers independent of them. Which isright, time and experience will prove. We think that one side of thisexperiment has been long enough tried, and proved not to promotethe good of the many: and that the other has not been fairly andsufficiently tried. Our opponents think the reverse. With whicheveropinion the body of the nation concurs, that must prevail. My anxietieson this subject will never carry me beyond the use of fair and honorablemeans of truth and reason; nor have they ever lessened my esteem formoral worth, nor alienated my affections from a single friend, who didnot first withdraw himself. Wherever this has happened, I confess I havenot been insensible to it: yet have ever kept myself open to a returnof their justice. I conclude with sincere prayers for your health andhappiness, that yourself and Mr. Adams may long enjoy the tranquillityyou desire and merit, and see in the prosperity of your family what isthe consummation of the last and warmest of human wishes, Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XIX. --TO MR. NICHOLSON, January 29, 1805

TO MR. NICHOLSON. 

Washington, January 29, 1805. 

Dear Sir, Mr. Eppes has this moment put into my hands your letter of yesterday, asking information on the subject of the gun-boats proposed to be built. I lose no time in communicating to you fully my whole views respectingthem, premising a few words on the system of fortifications. Consideringthe harbors which, from their situation and importance, are entitled todefence, and the estimates we have seen of the fortifications plannedfor some of them, this system cannot be completed on a moderate scalefor less than fifty millions of dollars, nor manned in time of war withless than fifty thousand men, and in peace, two thousand. And whendone, they avail little; because all military men agree, that wherever avessel may pass a fort without tacking under her guns, which is the caseat all our sea-port towns, she may be annoyed more or less, accordingto the advantages of the position, but can never be prevented. Ourown experience during the war proved this on different occasions. Ourpredecessors have, nevertheless, proposed to go into this system, andhad commenced it. But, no law requiring us to proceed, we have suspendedit. 

If we cannot hinder vessels from entering our harbors, we should turnour attention to the putting it out of their power to lie, or come to, before a town, to injure it. Two means of doing this may be adopted inaid of each other. 1. Heavy cannon on travelling carriages, which may bemoved to any point on the bank or beach most convenient for dislodgingthe vessel. A sufficient number of these should be lent to each sea-porttown, and their militia trained to them. The executive is authorized todo this; it has been done in a smaller degree, and will now be done morecompetently. 

2. Having cannon on floating batteries or boats, which may be sostationed as to prevent a vessel entering the harbor, or force herafter entering to depart. There are about fifteen harbors in the UnitedStates, which ought to be in a state of substantial defence. The wholeof these would require, according to the best opinions, two hundredand forty gun-boats. Their cost was estimated by Captain Rogers at twothousand dollars each; but we had better say four thousand dollars. Thewhole would cost one million of dollars. But we should allow ourselvesten years to complete it, unless circumstances should force it sooner. There are three situations in which the gun-boat may be. 1. Hauled upunder a shed, in readiness to be launched and manned by the seamen andmilitia of the town on short notice. In this situation she costs nothingbut an enclosure, or a centinel to see that no mischief is done to her. 2. Afloat, and with men enough to navigate her in harbor and take careof her, but depending on receiving her crew from the town on shortwarning. In this situation, her annual expense is about two thousanddollars, as by an official estimate at the end of this letter. 3. Fullymanned for action. Her annual expense in this situation is about eightthousand dollars, as per estimate subjoined. 'When there is generalpeace, we should probably keep about six or seven afloat in the secondsituation; their annual expense twelve to fourteen thousand dollars; therest all hauled up. When France and England are at war, we should keep, at the utmost, twenty-five in the second situation, their annual expensefifty thousand dollars. When we should be at war ourselves, some of themwould probably be kept in the third situation, at an annual expense ofeight thousand dollars; but how many, must depend on the circumstancesof the war. We now possess ten, built and building. It is the opinion ofthose consulted, that fifteen more would enable us to put every harborunder our view into a respectable condition; and that this should limitthe views of the present year. This would require an appropriation ofsixty thousand dollars, and I suppose that the best way of limiting it, without declaring the number, as perhaps that sum would build more. Ishould think it best not to give a detailed report, which exposes ourpolicy too much. A bill, with verbal explanations, will suffice for theinformation of the House. I do not know whether General Wilkinson wouldapprove the printing his paper. If he would, it would be useful. Acceptaffectionate and respectful salutations. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XX. --TO MR. VOLNEY, February 8, 1805

TO MR. VOLNEY. 

Washington, February 8, 1805. 

Dear Sir, Your letter of November the 26th came to hand May the 14th; the bookssome time after, which were all distributed according to direction. The copy for the East Indies went immediately by a safe conveyance. Theletter of April the 28th, and the copy of your work accompanyingthat, did not come to hand till August. That copy was deposited in theCongressional library. It was not till my return here from my autumnalvisit to Monticello, that I had an opportunity of reading your work. Ihave read it, and with great satisfaction. Of the first part I am less ajudge than most people, having never travelled westward of Staunton, so as to know any thing of the face of the country; nor much indulgedmyself in geological inquiries, from a belief that the skin-deepscratches, which we can make or find on the surface of the earth, do notrepay our time with as certain and useful deductions, as our pursuits insome other branches. The subject of our winds is more familiar to me. On that, the views you have taken are always great, supported in theiroutlines by your facts; and though more extensive observations, andlonger continued, may produce some anomalies, yet they will probablytake their place in this first great canvass which you have sketched. Inno case, perhaps, does habit attach our choice or judgment more thanin climate. The Canadian glows with delight in his sleigh and snow, the very idea of which gives me the shivers. The comparison of climatebetween Europe and North America, taking together its correspondingparts, hangs chiefly on three great points. 1. The changes between heatand cold in America are greater and more frequent, and the extremescomprehend a greater scale on the thermometer in America than in Europe. Habit, however, prevents these from affecting us more than the smallerchanges of Europe affect the European. But he is greatly affected byours. 2. Our sky is always clear; that of Europe always cloudy. Hence agreater accumulation of heat here than there, in the same parallel. 3. The changes between wet and dry are much more frequent and sudden inEurope than in America. Though we have double the rain, it falls in halfthe time. Taking all these together, I prefer much the climate of theUnited States to that of Europe. I think it a more cheerful one. Itis our cloudless sky which has eradicated from our constitutions alldisposition to hang ourselves, which we might otherwise have inheritedfrom our English ancestors. During a residence of between six and sevenyears in Paris, I never but once saw the sun shine through a whole day, without being obscured by a cloud in any part of it: and I never saw themoment, in which, viewing the sky through its whole hemisphere, I couldsay there was not the smallest speck of a cloud in it. I arrived atMonticello, on my return from France, in January, and during only twomonths' stay there, I observed to my daughters, who had been with me toFrance, that twenty odd times within that term, there was not a speck ofa cloud in the whole hemisphere. Still I do not wonder that an Europeanshould prefer his grey to our azure sky. Habit decides our taste inthis, as in most other cases. 

The account you give of the yellow fever, is entirely agreeable to whatwe then knew of it. Further experience has developed more and moreits peculiar character. Facts appear to have established, that it isoriginated here by a local atmosphere, which is never generated butin the lower, closer, and dirtier parts of our large cities, in theneighborhood of the water; and that, to catch the disease, you mustenter the local atmosphere. Persons having taken the disease in theinfected quarter, and going into the country, are nursed and buried bytheir friends, without an example of communicating it. A vessel goingfrom the infected quarter, and carrying its atmosphere in its hold intoanother State, has given the disease to every person who there enteredher. These have died in the arms of their families, without a singlecommunication of the disease. It is certainly, therefore, an epidemic, not a contagious disease; and calls on the chemists for some modeof purifying the vessel by a decomposition of its atmosphere, ifventilation be found insufficient. In the long scale of bilious fevers, graduated by many shades, this is probably the last and most mortalterm. It seizes the native of the place equally with strangers. It hasnot been long known in any part of the United States. The shadenext above it, called the stranger's fever, has been coeval with thesettlement of the larger cities in the southern parts, to wit, Norfolk, Charleston, New Orleans. Strangers going to these places in the monthsof July, August, or September, find this fever as mortal as the genuineyellow fever. But it rarely attacks those who have resided in themsome time. Since we have known that kind of yellow fever which is norespecter of persons, its name has been extended to the stranger'sfever, and every species of bilious fever which produces a black vomit, that is to say, a discharge of very dark bile. Hence we hear of yellowfever on the Allegany mountains, in Kentucky, &c. This is a matterof definition only: but it leads into error those who do not know howloosely and how interestedly some physicians think and speak. So faras we have yet seen, I think we are correct in saying, that the yellowfever, which seizes on all indiscriminately, is an ultimate degree ofbilious fever, never known in the United States till lately, nor farthersouth, as yet, than Alexandria, and that what they have recently calledthe yellow fever in New Orleans, Charleston, and Norfolk, is what hasalways been known in those places as confined chiefly to strangers, andnearly as mortal to them, as the other is to all its subjects. But bothgrades are local: the stranger's fever less so, as it sometimes extendsa little into the neighborhood; but the yellow fever rigorously so, confined within narrow and well defined limits, and not communicableout of those limits. Such a constitution of atmosphere being requisiteto originate this disease as is generated only in low, close, andill-cleansed parts of a town, I have supposed it practicable to preventits generation by building our cities on a more open plan. Take, forinstance, the chequer-board for a plan. Let the black squares only bebuilding squares, and the white ones be left open, in turf and trees. Every square of houses will be surrounded by four open squares, andevery house will front an open square. The atmosphere of such a townwould be like that of the country, insusceptible of the miasmata whichproduce yellow fever. I have accordingly proposed that the enlargementsof the city of New Orleans, which must immediately take place, shall beon this plan. But it is only in case of enlargements to be made, or ofcities to be built, that his means of prevention can be employed. 

The _genus irritabile vatum_ could not let the author of the Ruinspublish a new work, without seeking in it the means of discrediting thatpuzzling composition. Some one of those holy calumniators has selectedfrom your new work every scrap of a sentence, which, detached from itscontext, could displease an American reader. A cento has been made ofthese, which has run through a particular description of newspapers, andexcited a disapprobation even in friendly minds, which nothing but thereading of the book will cure. But time and truth will at length correcterror. 

Our countrymen are so much occupied in the busy scenes of life, thatthey have little time to write or invent. A good invention here, therefore, is such a rarity as it is lawful to offer to the acceptanceof a friend. A Mr. Hawkins of Frankford, near Philadelphia, has inventeda machine, which he calls a polygraph, and which carries two, three, orfour pens. That of two pens, with which I am now writing, is best;and is so perfect that I have laid aside the copying-press, for atwelvemonth past, and write always with the polygraph. I have directedone to be made, of which I ask your acceptance. By what conveyance Ishall send it while Havre is blockaded, I do not yet know. I think youwill be pleased with it, and will use it habitually as I do; because itrequires only that degree of mechanical attention which I know you topossess. I am glad to hear that M. Cabanis is engaged in writing on thereformation of medicine. It needs the hand of a reformer, and cannotbe in better hands than his. Will you permit my respects to him and theAbbe de la Roche to find a place here. 

A word now on our political state. The two parties which prevailed withso much violence when you were here, are almost wholly melted intoone. At the late Presidential election I have received one hundred andsixty-two votes against fourteen only. Connecticut is still federal by asmall majority; and Delaware on a poise, as she has been since 1775, andwill be till Anglomany with her yields to Americanism. Connecticut willbe with us in a short time. Though the people in mass have joined us, their leaders had committed themselves too far to retract. Pride keepsthem hostile; they brood over their angry passions, and give them ventin the newspapers which they maintain. They still make as much noise asif they were the whole nation. Unfortunately, these being the mercantilepapers, published chiefly in the seaports, are the only ones which findtheir way to Europe, and make very false impressions there. I am happyto hear that the late derangement of your health is going off, and thatyou are reestablished. I sincerely pray for the continuance of thatblessing, and with my affectionate salutations, tender you assurances ofgreat respect and attachment. 

Th: Jefferson. 

P. S. The sheets which you receive are those of the copying-pen of thepolygraph, not of the one with which I have written. 

LETTER XXI. --TO JUDGE TYLER, March 29, 1805

TO JUDGE TYLER. 

Monticello, March 29, 1805. 

Dear Sir, Your favor of the 17th found me on a short visit to this place, and Iobserve in it with great pleasure a continuance of your approbationof the course we are pursuing, and particularly the satisfaction youexpress with the last inaugural address. The first was, from the natureof the case, all profession and promise. Performance, therefore, seemedto be the proper office of the second. But the occasion restricted me tomention only the most prominent heads, and the strongest justificationof these in the fewest words possible. The crusade preached againstphilosophy by the modern disciples of steady habits, induced me to dwellmore in showing its effect with the Indians than the subject otherwisejustified. 

The war with Tripoli stands on two grounds of fact. 1st. It is madeknown to us by our agents with the three other Barbary States, that theyonly wait to see the event of this, to shape their conduct accordingly. If the war is ended by additional tribute, they mean to offer us thesame alternative. 2ndly. If peace was made, we should still, and shallever, be obliged to keep a frigate in the Mediterranean to overawerupture, or we must abandon that market. Our intention in sending Morriswith a respectable force, was to try whether peace could be forced bya coercive enterprise on their town. His inexecution of orders baffledthat effort. Having broke him, we try the same experiment under a bettercommander. If in the course of the summer they cannot produce peace, weshall recall our force, except one frigate and two small vessels, whichwill keep up a perpetual blockade. Such a blockade will cost us no morethan a state of peace, and will save us from increased tributes, andthe disgrace attached to them. There is reason to believe the examplewe have set, begins already to work on the dispositions of the powersof Europe to emancipate themselves from that degrading yoke. Should weproduce such a revolution there, we shall be amply rewarded for whatwe have done. Accept my friendly salutations, and assurances of greatrespect and esteem. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XXII. --TO DOCTOR LOGAN, May 11, 1805

TO DOCTOR LOGAN. 

Washington, May 11, 1805. 

Dear Sir, I see with infinite pain the bloody schism which has taken place amongour friends in Pennsylvania and New York, and will probably take placein other States. The main body of both sections mean well, but theirgood intentions will produce great public evil. The minority, whichever section shall be the minority, will end in coalition with thefederalists, and some compromise of principle; because these will notsell their aid for nothing. Republicanism will thus lose, and royalismgain, some portion of that ground which we thought we had rescued togood government. I do not express my sense of our misfortunes from anyidea that they are remediable. I know that the passions of men will taketheir course, that they are not to be controlled but by despotism, andthat this melancholy truth is the pretext for despotism. The duty of anupright administration is to pursue its course steadily, to know nothingof these family dissensions, and to cherish the good principles ofboth parties. The war _ad internecionem_ which we have waged againstfederalism, has filled our latter times with strife and unhappiness. Wehave met it, with pain indeed, but with firmness, because we believed itthe last convulsive effort of that Hydra, which in earlier times we hadconquered in the field. But if any degeneracy of principle should everrender it necessary to give ascendancy to one of the rising sectionsover the other, I thank my God it will fall to some other to performthat operation. The only cordial I wish to carry into my retirement, isthe undivided good will of all those with whom I have acted. 

Present me affectionately to Mrs. Logan, and accept my salutations, andassurances of constant friendship and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XXIII. --TO JUDGE SULLIVAN, May 21, 1805

TO JUDGE SULLIVAN. 

Washington, May 21, 1805. 

Dear Sir, An accumulation of business, which I found on my return here from ashort visit to Monticello, has prevented till now my acknowledgment ofyour favor of the 14th _ultimo_. This delay has given time to see theresult of the contest in your State, and I cannot but congratulate youon the advance it manifests, and the certain prospect it offers thatanother year restores Massachusetts to the general body of the nation. You have indeed received the federal unction of lying and slandering. But who has not? Who will ever again come into eminent office, unanointed with this chrism? It seems to be fixed that falsehood andcalumny are to be their ordinary engines of opposition; engines whichwill not be entirely without effect. The circle of characters equalto the first stations is not too large, and will be lessened by thevoluntary retreat of those whose sensibilities are stronger than theirconfidence in the justice of public opinion. I certainly have known, andstill know, characters eminently qualified for the most exalted trusts, who could not bear up against the brutal hackings and hewings of theseheroes of Billingsgate. I may say, from intimate knowledge, that weshould have lost the services of the greatest character of our country, had he been assailed with the degree of abandoned licentiousness nowpractised. The torture he felt under rare and slight attacks, provedthat under those of which the federal bands have shown themselvescapable, he would have thrown up the helm in a burst of indignation. Yet this effect of sensibility must not be yielded to. If we sufferourselves to be frightened from our post by mere lying, surely the enemywill use that weapon; for what one so cheap to those of whose system ofpolitics morality makes no part? The patriot, like the Christian, mustlearn that to bear revilings and persecutions is a part of his duty;and in proportion as the trial is severe, firmness under it becomes morerequisite and praiseworthy. It requires, indeed, self-command. Butthat will be fortified in proportion as the calls for its exercise arerepeated. In this I am persuaded we shall have the benefit of your goodexample. To the other falsehoods they have brought forward, should theyadd, as you expect, insinuations of want of confidence in you from theadministration generally, or myself particularly, it will, like theirother falsehoods, produce in the public mind a contrary inference. 

*********

I tender you my friendly and respectful salutations. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XXIV. --TO THOMAS PAINE, June 5, 1805

TO THOMAS PAINE. 

Washington, June 5, 1805. 

Dear Sir, Your letters, Nos. 1, 2, 3, the last of them dated April the 20th, werereceived April the 26th. I congratulate you on your retirement toyour farm, and still more that it is of a character so worthy of yourattention. I much doubt whether the open room on your second story willanswer your expectations. There will be a few days in the year in whichit will be delightful, but not many. Nothing but trees, or Venetianblinds, can protect it from the sun. The semi-cylindrical roof youpropose will have advantages. You know it has been practised on thecloth market at Paris. De Lorme, the inventor, shows many forms of roofsin his book, to which it is applicable. I have used it at home for adome, being one hundred and twenty degrees of an oblong octagon, and inthe capitol we unite two quadrants of a sphere by a semi-cylinder: allframed in De Lorme's manner. How has your planing machine answered? Hasit been tried and persevered in by any workman?

France has become so jealous of our conduct as to St. Domingo (which intruth is only the conduct of our merchants), that the offer to becomea mediator would only confirm her suspicions. Bonaparte, however, expressed satisfaction at the paragraph in my message to Congress on thesubject of that commerce. With respect to the German redemptioners, you know I can do nothing, unless authorized by law. It would be made aquestion in Congress, whether any of the enumerated objects to whichthe constitution authorizes the money of the Union to be applied, wouldcover an expenditure for importing settlers to Orleans. The letter ofthe revolutionary sergeant was attended to by General Dearborn, whowrote to him informing him how to proceed to obtain his land. 

Doctor Eustis's observation to you, that 'certain paragraphs in theNational Intelligencer, ' respecting my letter to you, 'supposed to beunder Mr. Jefferson's direction, had embarrassed Mr. Jefferson's friendsin Massachusetts; that they appeared like a half denial of the letter, or as if there was something in it not proper to be owned, or thatneeded an apology, ' is one of those mysterious half confidencesdifficult to be understood. That tory printers should think itadvantageous to identify me with that paper, the Aurora, &c. In order toobtain ground for abusing me, is perhaps fair warfare. But that any onewho knows me personally should listen one moment to such an insinuation, is what I did not expect. I neither have, nor ever had, any moreconnection with those papers than our antipodes have; nor know what isto be in them until I see it in them, except proclamations and otherdocuments sent for publication. The friends in Massachusetts who couldbe embarrassed by so weak a weapon as this, must be feeble friendsindeed. With respect to the letter, I never hesitated to avow and tojustify it in conversation. In no other way do I trouble myself tocontradict any thing which is said. At that time, however, there werecertain anomalies in the motions of some of our friends, which eventshave at length reduced to regularity. 

It seems very difficult to find out what turn things are to take inEurope. I suppose it depends on Austria, which knowing it is to stand inthe way of receiving the first hard blows, is cautious of entering intoa coalition. As to France and England we can have but one wish, thatthey may disable one another from injuring others. 

Accept my friendly salutations, and assurances of esteem and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

[The following, in the hand-writing of the Author, is inserted in hisMS. Of this period. Whether it was published, or where, is not stated. ]

Richmond, 1780, December 31. At 8 A. M. The Governor receives the firstintelligence that twenty-seven sail of ships had entered Chesapeake Bay, and were in the morning of the 29th just below Willoughby's point (thesouthern cape of James river); their destination unknown. 

1781, January 2. At 10 A. M. Information received that they had enteredJames river, their advance being at Warrasqueak bay. Orders wereimmediately given for calling in the militia, one fourth from some, and one half from other counties. The members of the legislature, which rises this day, are the bearers of the orders to their respectivecounties. The Governor directs the removal of the records into thecountry, and the transportation of the military stores from Richmond toWestham (on the river seven miles above); there to be carried across theriver. 

January 3. At 8 P. M. The enemy are said to be a little below Jamestown;convenient for landing, if Williamsburg is their object. 

January 4. At 5 A. M. Information is received that they had passedKennon's and Hood's the evening before, with a strong; easterly wind, which determines their object to be either Petersburg or Richmond. TheGovernor now calls in the whole militia from the adjacent counties. 

At 5 P. M. Information, that at 2 P. M. They were landed and drawn upat Westover (on the north side of the river, and twenty-five miles belowRichmond); and consequently Richmond their destination. Orders arenow given to discontinue wagoning the military stores from Richmond toWestham, and to throw them across the river directly at Richmond. 

The Governor having attended to this till an hour and a half in thenight, then rode up to the foundery (one mile below Westham), orderedCaptains Boush and Irish, and Mr. Hylton, to continue all night wagoningto Westham the arms and stores still at the foundery, to be thrownacross the river at Westham, then proceeded to Westham to urge thepressing the transportation there across the river, and thence went toTuckahoe (eight miles above and on the same side of the river) to seeafter his family, which he had sent that far in the course of the day. He arrived there at 1 o'clock in the night. 

January 5. Early in the morning, he carried his family across the riverthere, and sending them to Fine Creek (eight miles higher up) wenthimself to Britton's on the south side of the river, (opposite toWestham). Finding the arms, &c. In a heap near the shore, and exposedto be destroyed by cannon from the north bank, he had them removed undercover of a point of land near by. He proceeded to Manchester (oppositeto Richmond). The enemy had arrived at Richmond at 1 P. M. Having foundthat nearly the whole arms had been got there from Richmond, he set outfor Chetwood's to meet with Baron Steuben, who had appointed thatplace as a rendezvous and head-quarters; but not finding him there, and understanding he would be at Colonel Fleming's (six miles aboveBritton's), he proceeded thither. The enemy had now a detachmentat Westham, and sent a deputation from the city of Richmond to theGovernor, at Colonel Fleming's, to propose terms for ransoming thesafety of the city, which terms he rejected. 

January 6. The Governor returned to Britton's, had measures taken moreeffectually to secure the books and papers there. The enemy, havingburnt some houses and stores, left Richmond after twenty-four hours'stay there, and encamped at Four Mile Creek (eight or ten miles below);and the Governor went to look to his family at Fine Creek. 

January 7. He returned to Britton's to see further to the arms there, exposed on the ground to heavy rains which had fallen the night before, and thence proceeded to Manchester and lodged there. The enemy encampedat Westover. 

January 8. At half after 7 A. M. He crossed over to Richmond, andresumed his residence there. The enemy are still retained in theirencampment at Westover by an easterly wind. Colonel John Nicholas hasnow three hundred militia at the Forest (six miles off from Westover);General Nelson, two hundred at Charles City Court-House (eight milesbelow Westover); Gibson, one thousand, and Baron Steuben, eight hundred, on the south side of the river. 

January 9. The enemy are still encamped at Westover. 

January 10. At 1 P. M. They embark: and the wind having shifted a littleto the north of west, and pretty fresh, they fall down the river. BaronSteuben marches for Hood's, where their passage may be checked. Hereaches Bland's mills in the evening, within nine miles of Hood's. 

January 11. At 8 A. M. The wind due west and strong, they make goodtheir retreat. 

During this period, time and place have been minutely cited, in orderthat those who think there was any remissness in the movements of theGovernor, may lay their finger on the point, and say, when and where itwas. Hereafter, less detail will suffice. 

Soon after this, General Phillips having joined Arnold with areinforcement of two thousand men, they advanced again up to Petersburg, and about the last of April to Manchester. The Governor had remainedconstantly in and about Richmond, exerting all his powers for collectingmilitia, and providing such means for the defence of the State as itsexhausted resources admitted. Never assuming a guard, and with only theriver between him and the enemy, his lodgings were frequently withinfour, five, or six miles of them. 

M. De la Fayette about this time arrived at Richmond with somecontinental troops, with which, and the militia collected, he continuedto occupy that place, and the north bank of the river, while Phillipsand Arnold held Manchester and the south bank. But Lord Cornwallis, about the middle of May, joining them with the main southern army, M. De la Fayette was obliged to retire. The enemy crossed the river, andadvanced up into the country about fifty miles, and within thirty milesof Charlottesville, at which place the legislature being to meet inJune, the Governor proceeded to his seat at Monticello, two or threemiles from it. His office was now near expiring, the country underinvasion by a powerful army, no services but military of any avail;unprepared by his line of life and education for the command of armies, he believed it right not to stand in the way of talents better fittedthan his own to the circumstances under which the country was placed. He therefore himself proposed to his friends in the legislature, thatGeneral Nelson, who commanded the militia of the State, should beappointed Governor, as he was sensible that the union of the civil andmilitary power in the same hands, at this time, would greatly facilitatemilitary measures. This appointment accordingly took place on the 12thof June, 1781. 

This was the state of things, when, his office having actually expired, and no successor yet in place, Colonel Tarleton, with his regiment, ofhorse, was detached by Lord Cornwallis to surprise Mr. Jefferson(whom they thought still in office) and the legislature now sitting inCharlottesville. The Speakers of the two Houses, and some other membersof the legislature, were lodging with Mr. Jefferson at Monticello. Tarleton, early in the morning, (June 23, I believe, ) when within tenmiles of that place, detached a company of horse to secure him andhis guests, and proceeded himself rapidly with his main body toCharlottesville, where he hoped to find the legislature unapprized ofhis movement. Notice of it, however, had been brought both to Monticelloand Charlottesville about sunrise. The Speakers, with their colleagues, returned to Charlottesville, and, with the other members of thelegislature, had barely time to get out of his way. Mr. Jefferson sentoff his family, to secure them from danger, and was himself still atMonticello, making arrangements for his own departure, when LieutenantHudson arrived there at half speed, and informed him the enemy were thenascending the hill of Monticello. He departed immediately, and knowingthat he would be pursued if he took the high road, he plunged into thewoods of the adjoining mountain, where, being at once safe, he proceededto overtake his family. This is the famous adventure of Carter'sMountain, which has been so often resounded through the slanderouschronicles of Federalism. But they have taken care never to detail thefacts, lest these should show that this favorite charge amounted tonothing more, than that he did not remain in his house, and there singlyfight a whole troop of horse, or suffer himself to be taken prisoner. Having accompanied his family one day's journey, he returned toMonticello. Tarleton had retired after eighteen hours' stay inCharlottesville. Mr. Jefferson then rejoined his family, and proceededwith them to an estate he had in Bedford, about eighty miles southwest, where, riding in his farm some time after, he was thrown from his horse, and disabled from riding on horseback for a considerable time. But Mr. Turner finds it more convenient to give him this fall in his retreatbefore Tarleton, which had happened some weeks before, as a proof thathe withdrew from a troop of horse with a precipitancy which Don Quixotewould not have practised. 

The facts here stated most particularly, with date of time and place, are taken from the notes made by the writer hereof, for his ownsatisfaction, at the time: the others are from memory, but so wellrecollected, that he is satisfied there is no material fact misstated. Should any person undertake to contradict any particular, on evidencewhich may at all merit the public respect, the writer will take thetrouble (though not at all in the best situation for it) to produce theproofs in support of it. He finds, indeed, that, of the persons whom herecollects to have been present on these occasions, few have survivedthe intermediate lapse of four and twenty years. Yet he trusts thatsome, as well as himself, are yet among the living; and he is positivelycertain, that no man can falsify any material fact here stated. He wellremembers, indeed, that there were then, as there are at all times, some who blamed every thing done contrary to their own opinion, althoughtheir opinions were formed on a very partial knowledge of facts. Thecensures, which have been hazarded by such men as Mr. Turner, arenothing but revivals of these half-informed opinions. Mr. GeorgeNicholas, then a very young man, but always a very honest one, wasprompted by these persons to bring specific charges against Mr. Jefferson. The heads of these, in writing, were communicated through amutual friend to Mr. Jefferson, who committed to writing also theheads of justification on each of them. I well remember this paper, andbelieve the original of it still exists; and though framed when everyreal fact was fresh in the knowledge of every one, this fabricatedflight from Richmond was not among the charges stated in this paper, norany charge against Mr. Jefferson for not fighting, singly, the troop ofhorse. Mr. Nicholas candidly relinquished further proceeding. The Houseof Representatives of Virginia pronounced an honorable sentence ofentire approbation of Mr. Jefferson's conduct, and so much the morehonorable, as themselves had been witnesses to it. And Mr. GeorgeNicholas took a conspicuous occasion afterwards, of his own free will, and when the matter was entirely at rest, to retract publicly theerroneous opinions he had been led into on that occasion, and to makejust reparation by a candid acknowledgment of them. 

LETTER XXV. --TO DOCTORS ROGERS AND SLAUGHTER, March 2, 1806

TO DOCTORS ROGERS AND SLAUGHTER. 

Washington, March 2, 1806. 

Gentlemen, I have received the favor of your letter of February the 2nd, and readwith thankfulness its obliging expressions respecting myself. I regretthat the object of a letter from persons whom I so much esteem, andpatronized by so many other respectable names, should be beyond thelaw which a mature consideration of circumstances has prescribed for myconduct. I deem it the duty of every man to devote a certain portion ofhis income for charitable purposes; and that it is his further duty tosee it so applied as to do the most good of which it is capable. ThisI believe to be best insured, by keeping within the circle of his owninquiry and information, the subjects of distress to whose relief hiscontributions shall be applied. If this rule be reasonable in privatelife, it becomes so necessary in my situation, that to relinquish itwould leave me without rule or compass. The applications of this kindfrom different parts of our own, and from foreign countries, are farbeyond any resources within my command. The mission of Serampore, in theEast Indies, the object of the present application, is but one of manyitems. However disposed the mind may feel to unlimited good, our meanshaving limits, we are necessarily circumscribed by them. They are toonarrow to relieve even the distresses under our own eye: and to desertthese for others which we neither see nor know, is to omit doing acertain good for one which is uncertain. I know, indeed, there havebeen splendid associations for effecting benevolent purposes in remoteregions of the earth. But no experience of their effect has proved thatmore good would not have been done by the same means employed nearerhome. In explaining, however, my own motives of action, I must not beunderstood as impeaching those of others. Their views are those ofan expanded liberality. Mine may be too much restrained by the law ofusefulness. But it is a law to me, and with minds like yours, will befelt as a justification. With this apology, I pray you to accept mysalutations, and assurances of high esteem and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XXVI. --TO MR. DUANE, March 22, 1806

TO MR. DUANE. 

Washington, March 22, 1806. 

I thank you, my good Sir, cordially, for your letter of the 12th; which, however, I did not receive till the 20th. It is a proof of sincerity, which I value above all things; as, between those who practise it, falsehood and malice work their efforts in vain. There is an enemysomewhere endeavoring to sow discord among us. Instead of listeningfirst, then doubting, and lastly believing anile tales handed roundwithout an atom of evidence, if my friends will address themselves tome directly, as you have done, they shall be informed with franknessand thankfulness. There is not a truth on earth which I fear or woulddisguise. But secret slanders cannot be disarmed, because they aresecret. Although you desire no answer, I shall give you one to thosearticles admitting a short answer, reserving those which require moreexplanation than the compass of a letter admits, to conversation on yourarrival here. And as I write this for your personal satisfaction, Irely that my letter will, under no circumstances, be communicated to anymortal, because you well know how every syllable from me is distorted bythe ingenuity of political enemies. 

In the first place, then, I have had less communication, directly orindirectly, with the republicans of the east, this session, than I everhad before. This has proceeded from accidental circumstances, not fromdesign. And if there be any coolness between those of the south andmyself, it has not been from me towards them. Certainly there has beenno other reserve, than to avoid taking part in the divisions amongour friends. That Mr. R. Has openly attacked the administration issufficiently known. We were not disposed to join in league with Britain, under any belief that she is fighting for the liberties of mankind, and to enter into war with Spain, and consequently France. The House ofRepresentatives were in the same sentiment, when they rejected Mr. R. 'sresolutions for raising a body of regular troops for the westernservice. We are for a peaceable accommodation with all those nations, ifit can be effected honorably. This, perhaps, is not the only groundof his alienation; but which side retains its orthodoxy, the vote ofeighty-seven to eleven republicans may satisfy you: but you will bettersatisfy yourself on coming here, where alone the true state of thingscan be known, and where you will see republicanism as solidly embodiedon all essential points, as you ever saw it on any occasion. 

That there is only one minister who is not opposed to me, istotally unfounded. There never was a more harmonious, a more cordialadministration, nor ever a moment when it has been otherwise. And whiledifferences of opinion have been always rare among us, I can affirm, that as to present matters, there was not a single paragraph in mymessage to Congress, or those supplementary to it, in which there wasnot a unanimity of concurrence in the members of the administration. Thefact is, that in ordinary affairs every head of a department consults meon those of his department, and where any thing arises too difficult orimportant to be decided between us, the consultation becomes general. 

That there is an ostensible cabinet and a concealed one, a publicprofession and concealed counteraction, is false. 

That I have denounced republicans by the epithet of Jacobins, anddeclared I would appoint none but those called moderates of bothparties, and that I have avowed or entertain any predilection for thosecalled the third party, or Quids, is in every tittle of it false. 

That the expedition of Miranda was countenanced by me is an absolutefalsehood, let it have gone from whom it might; and I am satisfied it isequally so as to Mr. Madison. To know as much of it as we could was ourduty, but not to encourage it. 

Our situation is difficult; and whatever we do, is liable to thecriticisms of those who wish to represent it awry. If we recommendmeasures in a public message, it may be said that members are not senthere to obey the mandates of the President, or to register the edictsof a sovereign. If we express opinions in conversation, we have then ourCharles Jenkinsons, and back-door counsellors. If we say nothing, 'wehave no opinions, no plans, no cabinet. ' In truth, it is the fable ofthe old man, his son, and ass, over again. 

These are short facts, which may suffice to inspire you with caution, until you can come here and examine for yourself. No other informationcan give you a true insight into the state of things; but you will haveno difficulty in understanding them when on the spot. In the mean time, accept my friendly salutations and cordial good wishes. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XXVII. --TO WILSON C. NICHOLAS, March 24, 1806

TO WILSON C. NICHOLAS. --[Confidential. ]

Washington, March 24, 1806. 

Dear Sir, A last effort at friendly settlement with Spain is proposed to be madeat Paris, and under the auspices of France. For this purpose, GeneralArmstrong and Mr. Bowdoin (both now at Paris) have been appointed jointcommissioners: but such a cloud of dissatisfaction rests on GeneralArmstrong in the minds of many persons, on account of a late occurrencestated in all the public papers, that we have in contemplation to adda third commissioner, in order to give the necessary measure of publicconfidence to the commission. Of these two gentlemen, one being ofMassachusetts and one of new York, it is thought the third should bea southern man; and the rather, as the interests to be negotiatedare almost entirely southern and western. This addition is not yetultimately decided on; but I am inclined to believe it will be adopted. Under this expectation, and my wish that you may be willing to undertakeit, I give you the earliest possible intimation of it, that you maybe preparing both your mind and your measures for the mission. Thedeparture would be required to be very prompt; though the absence, I think, will not be long, Bonaparte not being in the practice ofprocrastination. This particular consideration will, I hope, reconcilethe voyage to your affairs and your feelings. The allowance to an extramission, is salary from the day of leaving home, and expenses tothe place of destination, or in lieu of the latter, and to avoidsettlements, a competent fixed sum may be given. For the return, acontinuance of the salary for three months after fulfilment of thecommission. Be so good as to make up your mind as quickly as possible, and to answer me as early as possible. Consider the measure as proposedprovisionally only, and not to be communicated to any mortal until wesee it proper. Affectionate salutations. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XXVIII. --TO WILSON C. NICHOLAS, April 13, 1806

TO WILSON C. NICHOLAS. 

Washington, April 13, 1806. 

Dear Sir, The situation of your affairs certainly furnishes good cause for yournot acceding to my proposition of a special mission to Europe. My onlyhope had been, that they could have gone on one summer without you. An unjust hostility against General Armstrong will, I am afraid, show itself whenever any treaty made by him shall be offered forratification. I wished, therefore, to provide against this, by joining aperson who would have united the confidence of the whole Senate. GeneralSmith was so prominent in the opposition to Armstrong, that it would beimpossible for them to act together. We conclude, therefore, to leavethe matter with Armstrong and Bowdoin. Indeed, my dear Sir, I wishsincerely you were back in the Senate; and that you would take thenecessary measures to get yourself there. Perhaps, as a preliminary, youshould go to our legislature. Giles's absence has been a most seriousmisfortune. A majority of the Senate means well. But Tracy and Bayardare too dexterous for them, and have very much influenced theirproceedings. Tracy has been of nearly every committee during thesession, and for the most part the chairman, and of course drawer of thereports. Seven federalists voting always in phalanx, and joined by somediscontented republicans, some oblique ones, some capricious, have sooften made a majority, as to produce very serious embarrassment to thepublic operations; and very much do I dread the submitting to them, atthe next session, any treaty which can be made with either England orSpain, when I consider that five joining the federalists, can defeat afriendly settlement of our affairs. The House of Representatives is aswell disposed as I ever saw one. The defection of so prominent a leaderthrew them into dismay and confusion for a moment; but they soon ralliedto their own principles, and let him go off with five or six followersonly. One half of these are from Virginia. His late declaration ofperpetual opposition to this administration, drew off a few others, whoat first had joined him, supposing his opposition occasional only, and not systematic. The alarm the House has had from this schism, hasproduced a rallying together, and a harmony, which carelessness andsecurity had begun to endanger. On the whole, this little trial of thefirmness of our representatives in their principles, and that of thepeople also, which is declaring itself in support of their publicfunctionaries, has added much to my confidence in the stability of ourgovernment; and to my conviction, that should things go wrong at anytime, the people will set them to rights by the peaceable exercise oftheir elective rights. To explain to you the character of this schism, its objects and combinations, can only be done in conversation; andmust be deferred till I see you at Monticello, where I shall probablybe about the 10th or 12th of May, to pass the rest of the month there. Congress has agreed to rise on Monday the 21st. 

Accept my affectionate salutations. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XXIX. --TO MR. HARRIS, April 18, 1806

TO MR. HARRIS. 

Washington, April 18, 1806. 

Sir, It is now some time since I received from you, through the house ofSmith and Buchanan, at Baltimore, a bust of the Emperor Alexander, for which I have to return you my thanks. These are the more cordial, because of the value the bust derives from the great estimation in whichits original is held by the world, and by none more than by myself. It will constitute one of the most valued ornaments of the retreat I ampreparing for myself at my native home. Accept, at the same time, myacknowledgments for the elegant work of Atkinson and Walker on thecustoms of the Russians. I had laid it down as a law for my conductwhile in office, and hitherto scrupulously observed, to accept of nopresent beyond a book, a pamphlet, or other curiosity of minor value;as well to avoid imputations on my motives of action, as to shut outa practice susceptible of such abuse. But my particular esteem for thecharacter of the Emperor places his image in my mind above the scope oflaw. I receive it, therefore, and shall cherish it with affection. Itnourishes the contemplation of all the good placed in his power, and ofhis disposition to do it. 

A little before Dr. Priestley's death, he informed me that he hadreceived intimations, through a channel he confided in, that theEmperor entertained a wish to know something of our constitution. I havetherefore selected the two best works we have on that subject, for whichI pray you to ask a place in his library. They are too much in detail tooccupy his time; but they will furnish materials for an abstract, tobe made by others, on such a scale as may bring the matter within thecompass of the time which his higher callings can yield to such anobject. 

At a very early period of my life, contemplating the history of theaboriginal inhabitants of America, I was led to believe that if therehad ever been a relation between them and the men of color in Asia, traces of it would be found in their several languages. I have thereforeavailed myself of every opportunity which has offered, to obtainvocabularies of such tribes as have been within my reach, correspondingto a list then formed of about two hundred and fifty words. In this Ihave made such progress, that within a year or two more I think to giveto the public what I then shall have acquired. I have lately seen areport of Mr. Volney's to the Celtic Academy, on a work of Mr. Pallas, entitled _Vocabulaires Comparés des Langues de toute la Terre_; witha list of one hundred and thirty words, to which the vocabulary islimited. I find that seventy-three of these words are common to thatand to my vocabulary, and therefore will enable us, by a comparison oflanguage, to make the inquiry so long desired, as to the probabilityof a common origin between the people of color of the two continents. Ihave to ask the favor of you to procure me a copy of the above work ofPallas, to inform me of the cost, and permit me to pay it here to youruse; for I presume you have some mercantile correspondent here, to whoma payment can be made for you. A want of knowledge what the book maycost, as well as of the means of making so small a remittance, obligesme to make this proposition, and to restrain it to the sole conditionthat I be permitted to reimburse it here. 

I enclose you a letter for the Emperor, which be pleased to deliver orhave delivered: it has some relation to a subject which the Secretary ofState will explain to you. 

Accept my salutations, and assurances of esteem and consideration. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XXX. --TO THE EMPEROR OF RUSSIA

TO THE EMPEROR OF RUSSIA. 

Washington, April 19, 1806. 

I owe an acknowledgment to your Imperial Majesty, of the greatsatisfaction I have received from your letter of August the 20th, 1805, and sincere expressions of the respect and veneration I entertain foryour character. It will be among the latest and most soothing comfortsof my life, to have seen advanced to the government of so extensive aportion of the earth, and at so early a period of his life, a sovereign, whose ruling passion is the advancement of the happiness and prosperityof his people; and not of his own people only, but who can extend hiseye and his good will to a distant and infant nation, unoffending in itscourse, unambitious in its views. 

The events of Europe come to us so late, and so suspiciously, thatobservations on them would certainly be stale, and possibly wide oftheir actual state. From their general aspect, however, I collectthat your Majesty's interposition in them has been disinterested andgenerous, and having in view only the general good of the greatEuropean family. When you shall proceed to the pacification which is tore-establish peace and commerce, the same dispositions of mind will leadyou to think of the general intercourse of nations, and to make thatprovision for its future maintenance, which, in times past, it has somuch needed. The northern nations of Europe, at the head of which yourMajesty is distinguished, are habitually peaceable. The United Statesof America, like them, are attached to peace. We have then with thema common interest in the neutral rights. Every nation, indeed, on thecontinent of Europe, belligerent as well as neutral, is interested inmaintaining these rights, in liberalizing them progressively with theprogress of science and refinement of morality, and in relievingthem from restrictions which the extension of the arts has long sincerendered unreasonable and vexatious. 

Two personages in Europe, of which your Majesty is one, have it in theirpower, at the approaching pacification, to render eminent service tonations in general, by incorporating into the act of pacification, acorrect definition of the rights of neutrals on the high seas. Sucha definition, declared by all the powers lately or still belligerent, would give to those rights a precision and notoriety, and cover themwith an authority, which would protect them in an important degreeagainst future violation; and should any further sanction be necessary, that of an exclusion of the violating nation from commercial intercoursewith all the others, would be preferred to war, as more analogous tothe offence, more easy and likely to be executed with good faith. Theessential articles of these rights, too, are so few and simple as easilyto be defined. 

Having taken no part in the past or existing troubles of Europe, we haveno part to act in its pacification. But as principles may then be settledin which we have a deep interest, it is a great happiness for us thatthey are placed under the protection of an umpire, who, looking beyondthe narrow bounds of an individual nation, will take under the cover ofhis equity the rights of the absent and unrepresented. It is only by ahappy concurrence of good characters and good occasions, that a stepcan now and then be taken to advance the well being of nations. If thepresent occasion be good, I am sure your Majesty's character will not bewanting to avail the world of it. By monuments of such good offices mayyour life become an epoch in the history of the condition of man, andmay He who called it into being for the good of the human family, giveit length of days and success, and have it always in his holy keeping. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XXXI. --TO COLONEL MONROE, May 4, 1806

TO COLONEL MONROE. 

Washington, May 4, 1806. 

Dear Sir, I wrote you on the 16th of March by a common vessel, and then expectedto have had, on the rising of Congress, an opportunity of peculiarconfidence to you. Mr. Beckley then supposed he should take a flyingtrip to London, on private business. But I believe he does not find itconvenient. He could have let you into the _arcana rerum_, which youhave interests in knowing. Mr. Pinckney's pursuits having been confinedto his peculiar line, he has only that general knowledge of what haspassed here, which the public possess. He has a just view of things sofar as known to him. Our old friend, Mercer, broke off from us some timeago, at first professing to disdain joining the federalists, yet fromthe habit of voting together, becoming soon identified with them. Without carrying over with him one single person, he is now in a stateof as perfect obscurity as if his name had never been known. Mr. J. Randolph is in the same track, and will end in the same way. His coursehas excited considerable alarm. Timid men consider it as a proof of theweakness of our government, and that it is to be rent into pieces bydemagogues and to end in anarchy. I survey the scene with a differenteye, and draw a different augury from it. In a House of Representativesof a great mass of good sense, Mr. Randolph's popular eloquence gave himsuch advantages as to place him unrivalled as the leader of the House;and, although not conciliatory to those whom he led, principles of dutyand patriotism induced many of them to swallow humiliations he subjectedthem to, and to vote as was right, as long as he kept the path of righthimself. The sudden defection of such a man could not but produce amomentary astonishment, and even dismay; but for a moment only. Thegood sense of the House rallied around its principles, and, without anyleader, pursued steadily the business of the session, did it well, andby a strength of vote which has never before been seen. Upon all tryingquestions, exclusive of the federalists, the minority of republicansvoting with him, has been from four to six or eight, against fromninety to one hundred; and although he yet treats the federalists withineffable contempt, yet having declared eternal opposition to thisadministration, and consequently associated with them in his votes, hewill, like Mercer, end with them. The augury I draw from this is thatthere is a steady good sense in the legislature, and in the body of thenation, joined with good intentions, which will lead them to discern andto pursue the public good under all circumstances which can arise, andthat no _ignis faiuus_ will be able to lead them long astray. In thepresent case, the public sentiment, as far as declarations of it haveyet come in, is, without a single exception, in firm adherence to theadministration. One popular paper is endeavoring to maintain equivocalground; approving the administration in all its proceedings, andMr. Randolph in all those which have heretofore merited approbation, carefully avoiding to mention his late aberration. The ultimate view ofthis paper is friendly to you, and the editor, with more judgment thanhim who assumes to be at the head of your friends, sees that the groundof opposition to the administration is not that on which it would beadvantageous to you to be planted. The great body of your friends areamong the firmest adherents to the administration, and in their supportof you will suffer Mr. Randolph to have no communications with them. Myformer letter told you the line which both duty and inclination wouldlead me sacredly to pursue. But it is unfortunate for you, to beembarrassed with such a _soi-disant_ friend. You must not commityourself to him. These views may assist you to understand such detailsas Mr. Pinckney will give you. If you are here at any time before thefall, it will be in time for any object you may have, and by that timethe public sentiment will be more decisively declared. I wish you werehere at present, to take your choice of the two governments of Orleansand Louisiana, in either of which I could now place you; and I verilybelieve it would be to your advantage to be just that much withdrawnfrom the focus of the ensuing contest, until its event should be known. The one has a salary of five thousand dollars, the other of two thousanddollars; both with excellent hotels for the Governor. The latter at St. Louis, where there is good society, both French and American, a healthyclimate, and the finest field in the United States for acquiringproperty. The former not unhealthy, if you begin a residence therein the month of November. The Mrs. Trists and their connections areestablished there. As I think you can within four months inform me whatyou say to this, I will keep things in their present state till the lastday of August, for your answer. 

The late change in the ministry I consider as insuring us a justsettlement of our differences, and we ask no more. In Mr. Fox, personally, I have more confidence than in any man in England, and itis founded in what, through unquestionable channels, I have hadopportunities of knowing of his honesty and his good sense. While heshall be in the administration, my reliance on that government will besolid. We had committed ourselves in a line of proceedings adapted tomeet Mr. Pitt's policy and hostility, before we heard of his death, which self-respect did not permit us to abandon afterwards; and the lateunparalleled outrage on us at New York excited such sentiments in thepublic at large, as did not permit us to do less than has been done. Itought not to be viewed by the ministry as looking towards them at all, but merely as the consequences of the measures of their predecessors, which their nation has called on them to correct. I hope, therefore, they will come to just arrangements. No two countries upon earth have somany points of common interest and friendship; and their rulers mustbe great bunglers indeed, if, with such dispositions, they break themasunder. The only rivalry that can arise, is on the ocean. Englandmay by petty larceny thwartings check us on that element a little, butnothing she can do will retard us there one year's growth. We shall besupported there by other nations, and thrown into their scale to make apart of the great counterpoise to her navy. If, on the other hand, sheis just to us, conciliatory, and encourages the sentiment of familyfeelings and conduct, it cannot fail to befriend the security of both. We have the seamen and materials for fifty ships of the line, and halfthat number of frigates, and were France to give us the money, andEngland the dispositions to equip them, they would give to Englandserious proofs of the stock from which they are sprung, and theschool in which they have been taught, and added to the efforts of theimmensity of sea-coast lately united under one power, would leave thestate of the ocean no longer problematical. Were, on the other hand, England to give the money, and France the dispositions to place uson the sea in all our force, the whole world, out of the continentof Europe, might be our joint monopoly. We wish for neither of thesescenes. We ask for peace and justice from all nations, and we willremain uprightly neutral in fact, though leaning in belief to theopinion that an English ascendancy on the ocean is safer for us thanthat of France. We begin to broach the idea that we consider the wholeGulf Stream as of our waters, in which hostilities and cruising are tobe frowned on for the present, and prohibited so soon as either consentor force will permit us. We shall never permit another privateer tocruise within it, and shall forbid our harbors to national cruisers. This is essential for our tranquillity and commerce. Be so good as tohave the enclosed letters delivered, to present me to your family, andbe assured yourself of my unalterable friendship. 

For fear of accidents I shall not make the unnecessary addition of myname. 

LETTER XXXII. --TO GENERAL SMITH, May 4, 1806

TO GENERAL SMITH. 

Washington, May 4, 1806. 

Dear Sir, I received your favor covering some papers from General Wilkinson. Ihave repented but of one appointment there, that of Lucas, whose temperI see overrules every good quality and every qualification he has. Not asingle fact has appeared, which occasions me to doubt that I could havemade a fitter appointment than General Wilkinson. One qualm of principleI acknowledge I do feel, I mean the union of the civil and militaryauthority. You remember that when I came into office, while we werelodging together at Conrad's, he was pressed on me to be made Governorof the Mississippi territory; and that I refused it on that veryprinciple. When, therefore, the House of Representatives took thatground, I was not insensible to its having some weight. But in theappointment to Louisiana, I did not think myself departing from my ownprinciple, because I consider it not as a civil government, but merelya military station. The legislature had sanctioned that idea by theestablishment of the office of Commandant, in which were completelyblended the civil and military powers. It seemed, therefore, that theGovernor should be in suit with them. I observed too, that the House ofRepresentatives, on the very day they passed the stricture on this unionof authorities, passed a bill making the Governor of Michigan, commanderof the regular troops which should at any time be within his government. However, on the subject of General Wilkinson nothing is in contemplationat this time. We shall see what turn things take at home and abroad inthe course of the summer. Monroe has had a second conversation with Mr. Fox, which gives me hopes that we shall have an amicable arrangementwith that government. Accept my friendly salutations, and assurances ofgreat esteem and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XXXIII. --TO MR DIGGES, July 1, 1806

THOMAS JEFFERSON TO MR DIGGES. 

Thomas Jefferson salutes Mr. Digges with friendship and respect, andsends him the newspapers received last night. He is sorry that only thelatter part of the particular publication which Mr. Digges wished tosee, is in them. He will be happy to see Mr. Digges and his friends onthe fourth of July, and to join in congratulations on the return ofthe day which divorced us from the follies and crimes of Europe, from adollar in the pound at least of six hundred millions sterling, and fromall the ruin of Mr. Pitt's administration. We, too, shall encounterfollies; but if great, they will be short, if long, they will be light:and the vigor of our country will get the better of them. Mr. Pitt'sfollies have been great, long, and inflicted on a body emaciated withage, and exhausted by excesses beyond its power to bear. July 1, 1806. 

LETTER XXXIV. --TO MR. BIDWELL, July 5, 1806

TO MR. BIDWELL. 

Washington, July 5, 1806. 

Sir, Your favor of June the 21st has been duly received. We have not as yetheard from General Skinner on the subject of his office. Three personsare proposed on the most respectable recommendations, and undercircumstances of such equality as renders it difficult to decide betweenthem. But it shall be done impartially. I sincerely congratulate you onthe triumph of republicanism in Massachusetts. The Hydra of Federalismhas now lost all its heads but two. Connecticut I think will soon followMassachusetts. Delaware will probably remain what it ever has been, amere county of England, conquered indeed, and held under by force, butalways disposed to counter-revolution. I speak of its majority only. 

Our information from London continues to give us hopes of anaccommodation there on both the points of 'accustomed commerce andimpressment. ' In this there must probably be some mutual concession, because we cannot expect to obtain every thing and yield nothing. ButI hope it will be such an one as may be accepted. The arrival of theHornet in France is so recently known, that it will yet be some timebefore we learn our prospects there. Notwithstanding the efforts madehere, and made professedly to assassinate that negotiation in embryo, ifthe good sense of Bonaparte should prevail over his temper, the presentstate of things in Europe may induce him to require of Spain, that sheshould do us justice at least. That he should require her to sell usEast Florida, we have no right to insist: yet there are not wantingconsiderations which may induce him to wish a permanent foundation forpeace laid between us. In this treaty, whatever it shall be, our oldenemies the federalists, and their new friends, will find enough to carpat. This is a thing of course, and I should suspect error where theyfound no fault. The buzzard feeds on carrion only. Their rallying pointis 'war with France and Spain, and alliance with Great Britain':and every thing is wrong with them which checks their new ardor to befighting for the liberties of mankind; on the sea always excepted. Thereone nation is to monopolize all the liberties of the others. 

I read, with extreme regret, the expressions of an inclination on yourpart to retire from Congress. I will not say that this time, more thanall others, calls for the service of every man; but I will say, there never was a time when the services of those who possess talents, integrity, firmness, and sound judgment, were more wanted in Congress. Some one of that description is particularly wanted to take the lead inthe House of Representatives, to consider the business of the nation ashis own business, to take it up as if he were singly charged with it, and carry it through. I do not mean that any gentleman, relinquishinghis own judgment, should implicitly support all the measures of theadministration; but that, where he does not disapprove of them, heshould not suffer them to go off in sleep, but bring them to theattention of the House, and give them a fair chance. Where hedisapproves, he will of course leave them to be brought forward by thosewho concur in the sentiment. Shall I explain my idea by an example? Theclassification of the militia was communicated to General Varnum andyourself merely as a proposition, which, if you approved, it was trustedyou would support. I knew, indeed, that General Varnum was opposed toany thing which might break up the present organization of the militia:but when so modified as to avoid this, I thought he might, perhaps, be reconciled to it. As soon as I found it did not coincide with yoursentiments, I could not wish you to support it; but using the samefreedom of opinion, I procured it to be brought forward elsewhere. It failed there also, and for a time, perhaps, may not prevail: but amilitia can never be used for distant service on any other plan; andBonaparte will conquer the world, if they do not learn his secret ofcomposing armies of young men only, whose enthusiasm and health enablethem to surmount all obstacles. When a gentleman, through zeal for thepublic service, undertakes to do the public business, we know that weshall hear the cant of backstairs counsellors. But we never heard thiswhile the declaimer was himself a backstairs man, as he calls it, but inthe confidence and views of the administration, as may more properly andrespectfully be said. But if the members are to know nothing but what isimportant enough to be put into a public message, and indifferent enoughto be made known to all the world; if the executive is to keep allother information to himself, and the House to plunge on in the dark, itbecomes a government of chance and not of design. The imputation was oneof those artifices used to despoil an adversary of his most effectualarms; and men of mind will place themselves above a gabble of thisorder. The last session of Congress was indeed an uneasy one for a time:but as soon as the members penetrated into the views of those who weretaking a new course, they rallied in as solid a phalanx as I haveever seen act together. Indeed I have never seen a House of betterdispositions. 

*****

Perhaps I am not entitled to speak with so much frankness; but itproceeds from no motive which has not a right to your forgiveness. Opportunities of candid explanation are so seldom afforded me, that Imust not lose them when they occur. The information I receive from yourquarter agrees with that from the south; that the late schism has madenot the smallest impression on the public, and that the seceders areobliged to give to it other grounds than those which we know to be thetrue ones. All we have to wish is, that, at the ensuing session, everyone may take the part openly which he secretly befriends. I recollectnothing new and true, worthy communicating to you. As for what is nottrue, you will always find abundance in the newspapers. Among otherthings, are those perpetual alarms as to the Indians, for no one ofwhich has there ever been the slightest ground. They are the suggestionsof hostile traders, always wishing to embroil us with the Indians, toperpetuate their own extortionate commerce. I salute you with esteem andrespect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XXXV. --TO MR. BOWDOIN, July 10, 1806

TO MR. BOWDOIN. 

Washington, July 10, 1806. 

Dear Sir, I believe that when you left America, the invention of the polygraph hadnot yet reached Boston. It is for copying with one pen while you writewith the other, and without the least additional embarrassment orexertion to the writer. I think it the finest invention of the presentage, and so much superior to the copying machine, that the latter willnever be continued a day by any one who tries the polygraph. It wasinvented by a Mr. Hawkins of Frankford, near Philadelphia, who is now inEngland, turning it to good account. Knowing that you are in the habitof writing much, I have flattered myself that I could add acceptably toyour daily convenience by presenting you with one of these delightfulmachines. I have accordingly had one made, and to be certain of itsperfection I have used it myself some weeks, and have the satisfactionto find it the best one I have ever tried; and in the course of twoyears' daily use of them, I have had opportunities of trying several. As a secretary, which copies for us what we write without the powerof revealing it, I find it a most precious possession to a man inpublic-business. I enclose directions for unpacking and using themachine when you receive it; but the machine itself must await a specialand sure conveyance under the care of some person going to Paris. It isready packed, and shall go by the first proper conveyance. 

As we heard two or three weeks ago of the safe arrival of the Hornetat L'Orient, we are anxiously waiting to learn from you the firstimpressions on her mission. If you can succeed in procuring us Florida, and a good western boundary, it will fill the American mind with joy. It will secure to our fellow-citizens one of their most ardent wishes, along peace with Spain and France. For be assured, the object of war withthem and alliance with England, which, at the last session of Congress, drew off from the republican band about half a dozen of its members, is universally reprobated by our native citizens from north to south. Ihave never seen the nation stand more firm to its principles, or rallyso firmly to its constituted authorities, and in reprobation of theopposition to them. With England, I think we shall cut off the resourceof impressing our seamen to fight her battles, and establish theinviolability of our flag in its commerce with her enemies. 

We shall thus become what we sincerely wish to be, honestly neutral, andtruly useful to both belligerents. To the one, by keeping open a marketfor the consumption of her manufactures, while they are excludedfrom all the countries under the power of her enemy; to the other, bysecuring for her a safe carriage of all her productions, metropolitanor colonial, while her own means are restrained by her enemy, and may, therefore, be employed in other useful pursuits. We are certainly moreuseful friends to France and Spain as neutrals, than as allies. I hopethey will be sensible of it, and by a wise removal of all grounds offuture misunderstanding to another age, enable you to present us suchan arrangement, as will insure to our fellow-citizens long and permanentpeace and friendship with them. With respect to our western boundary, your instructions will be your guide. I will only add, as a commentto them, that we are attached to the retaining the Bay of St. Bernard, because it was the first establishment of the unfortunate La Sale, wasthe cradle of Louisiana, and more incontestibly covered and conveyed tous by France, under that name, than any other spot in the country. Thiswill be secured to us by taking for our western boundary the Guadaloupe, and from its head around the sources of all waters eastward of it, to the highlands embracing the waters running into the Mississippi. However, all these things I presume will be settled before you receivethis; and I hope so settled as to give peace and satisfaction to us all. 

Our crops of wheat are greater than have ever been known, and are nownearly secured. A caterpillar gave for a while great alarm, but didlittle injury. Of tobacco, not half a crop has been planted for wantof rain; and even this half, with cotton and Indian corn, has yet manychances to run. 

This summer will place our harbors in a situation to maintain peace andorder within them. The next, or certainly the one following that, willso provide them with gunboats and common batteries, as to be _horsd'insulte_. Although our prospect is peace, our policy and purpose isto provide for defence by all those means to which our resources arecompetent. 

I salute you with friendship, and assure you of my high respect andconsideration. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XXXVI. --TO W. A. BURWELL, September 17, 1806

TO W. A. BURWELL. 

Monticello, September 17, 1806. 

Dear Sir, Yours of August the 7th, from Liberty, never got to my hands till the9th instant. About the same time, I received the Enquirer in whichDecius was so judiciously answered. The writer of that paper observed, that the matter of Decius consisted, first of facts; secondly, ofinferences from these facts: that he was not well enough informed toaffirm or deny his facts, and he therefore examines his inferences, and in a very masterly manner shows that even were his facts true, thereasonable inferences from them are very different from those drawn byDecius. But his facts are far from truth, and should be corrected. Ithappened that Mr. Madison and General Dearborn were here when I receivedyour letter. I therefore, with them, took up Decius and read himdeliberately; and our memories aided one another in correcting his boldand unauthorized assertions. I shall note the most material of them inthe order of the paper. 

1. It is grossly false that our ministers, as is said in a note, had proposed to surrender our claims to compensation for Spanishspoliations, or even for French. Their instructions were to make notreaty in which Spanish spoliations were not provided for; and althoughthey were permitted to be silent as to French spoliations carried intoSpanish ports, they were not expressly to abandon even them. 2. It isnot true that our ministers, in agreeing to establish the Colorado asour western boundary, had been obliged to exceed the authority of theirinstructions. Although we considered our title good as far as theRio Bravo, yet in proportion to what they could obtain east of theMississippi, they were to relinquish to the westward, and successivesacrifices were marked out, of which even the Colorado was not the last. 3. It is not true that the Louisiana treaty was antedated, lest GreatBritain should consider our supplying her enemies with money as a breachof neutrality. After the very words of the treaty were finally agreedto, it took some time, perhaps some days, to make out all the copies inthe very splendid manner of Bonaparte's treaties. Whether the 30th ofApril, 1803, the date expressed, was the day of the actual compact, orthat on which it was signed, our memories do not enable us to say. Ifthe former, then it is strictly conformable to the day of the compact;if the latter, then it was postdated, instead of being antedated. Themotive assigned, too, is as incorrect as the fact. It was so far frombeing thought, by any party, a breach of neutrality, that the Britishminister congratulated Mr. King on the acquisition, and declared thatthe King had learned it with great pleasure: and when Baring, theBritish banker, asked leave of the minister to purchase the debt andfurnish the money to France, the minister declared to him, that so farfrom throwing obstacles in the way, if there were any difficulty in thepayment of the money, it was the interest of Great Britain to aid it. 4. He speaks of a double set of opinions and principles; the oneostensible, to go on the journals and before the public, the otherefficient, and the real motives to action. But where are these doubleopinions and principles? The executive informed the legislature of thewrongs of Spain, and that preparation should be made to repel them, byforce, if necessary. But as it might still be possible to negotiatea settlement, they asked such means as might enable them to meet thenegotiation, whatever form it might take. The first part of this systemwas communicated publicly, the second, privately; but both were equallyofficial, equally involved the responsibility of the executive, and wereequally to go on the journals. 5. That the purchase of the Floridas wasin direct opposition to the views of the executive, as expressed in thePresident's official communication. It was not in opposition even to thepublic part of the communication, which did not recommend war, but onlyto be prepared for it. It perfectly harmonized with the private part, which asked the means of negotiation in such terms as covered thepurchase of Florida as evidently as it was proper to speak it out. Hespeaks of secret communications between the executive and members, ofbackstairs influence, &tc. . But he never spoke of this while he andMr. Nicholson enjoyed it almost solely. But when he differed from theexecutive in a leading measure, and the executive, not submitting tohim, expressed their sentiments to others, the very sentiments (to wit, for the purchase of Florida), which he acknowledges they expressed tohim, then he roars out upon backstairs influence. 6. The committee, hesays, forbore to recommend offensive measures. Is this true? Did notthey recommend the raising ------- regiments? Besides, if it was properfor the committee to forbear recommending offensive measures, was itnot proper for the executive and legislature to exercise the sameforbearance? 7. He says Monroe's letter had a most important bearing onour Spanish relations. Monroe's letter related, almost entirely, to ourBritish relations. Of those with Spain he knew nothing particular sincehe left that country. Accordingly, in his letter he simply expressedan opinion on our affairs with Spain, of which he knew we had betterinformation than he could possess. His opinion was no more than thatof any other sensible man; and his letter was proper to be communicatedwith the English papers, and with them only. That the executive did nothold it up on account of any bearing on Spanish affairs, is evident fromthe fact, that it was communicated when the Senate had not yet enteredon the Spanish affairs, and had not yet received the papers relating tothem from the other House. The moment the Representatives were ready toenter on the British affairs, Monroe's letter, which peculiarly relatedto them, and was official solely as to them, was communicated to bothHouses, the Senate being then about entering on the Spanish affairs. 

*****

These, my dear Sir, are the principal facts worth correction. Make anyuse of them you think best, without letting your source of informationbe known. Can you send me some cones or seeds of the cucumber-tree?Accept affectionate salutations, and assurances of great esteem andrespect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XXXVII. --TO ALBERT GALLATIN, October 12, 1806

TO ALBERT GALLATIN. 

Washington, October 12, 1806. 

Dear Sir, You witnessed, in the earlier part of the administration, the malignantand long continued efforts which the federalists exerted in theirnewspapers, to produce misunderstanding between Mr. Madison and myself. These failed completely. A like attempt was afterwards made, throughother channels, to effect a similar purpose between General Dearborn andmyself, but with no more success. The machinations of the last sessionto put you at cross questions with us all, were so obvious as to be seenat the first glance of every eye. In order to destroy one member of theadministration, the whole were to be set to loggerheads to destroy oneanother. I observe in the papers lately, new attempts to revive thisstale artifice, and that they squint more directly towards you andmyself. I cannot, therefore, be satisfied, till I declare to youexplicitly, that my affections and confidence in you are nothingimpaired, and that they cannot be impaired by means so unworthy thenotice of candid and honorable minds. I make the declaration, that nodoubts or jealousies, which often beget the facts they fear, may find amoment's harbor in either of our minds. I have so much reliance on thesuperior good sense and candor of all those associated with me, as to besatisfied they will not suffer either friend or foe to sow tares amongus. Our administration now drawing towards a close, I have a sublimepleasure in believing it will be distinguished as much by having placeditself above all the passions which could disturb its harmony, as by thegreat operations by which it will have advanced the well-being of thenation. 

Accept my affectionate salutations, and assurances of my constant andunalterable respect and attachment. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XXXVIII. --TO JOHN DICKINSON, January 13, 1807

TO JOHN DICKINSON. 

Washington, January 13, 1807. 

My Dear and Ancient Friend, I have duly received your favor of the 1st instant, and am ever thankfulfor communications which may guide me in the duties which I wish toperform as well as I am able. It is but too true, that great discontentsexist in the territory of Orleans. Those of the French inhabitants havefor their sources, 1. The prohibition of importing slaves. This may bepartly removed by Congress permitting them to receive slaves from theother States, which, by dividing that evil, would lessen its danger. 2. The administration of justice in our forms, principles, and language, with all of which they are unacquainted, and are the more abhorrent, because of the enormous expense, greatly exaggerated by the corruptionof bankrupt and greedy lawyers, who have gone there from the UnitedStates and engrossed the practice. 3. The call on them by the landcommissioners to produce the titles of their lands. The object of thisis really to record and secure their rights. But as many of them hold onrights so ancient that the title papers are lost, they expect theland is to be taken from them wherever they cannot produce a regulardeduction of title in writing. In this they will be undeceived by thefinal result, which will evince to them a liberal disposition of thegovernment towards them. Among the American inhabitants it is the olddivision of federalists and republicans. The former, are as hostilethere as they are every where, and are the most numerous and wealthy. They have been long endeavoring to batter down the Governor, who hasalways been a firm republican. There were characters superior to him, whom I wished to appoint, but they refused the office: I know no betterman who would accept of it, and it would not be right to turn him outfor one not better. But it is the second cause, above mentioned, whichis deep seated and permanent. The French members of the legislature, being the majority in both Houses, lately passed an act, declaringthat the civil, or French laws, should be the laws of their land, andenumerated about fifty folio volumes, in Latin, as the depositories ofthese laws. The Governor negatived the act. One of the Houses thereuponpassed a vote for self-dissolution of the legislature as a useless body, which failed in the other House by a single vote only. They separated, however, and have disseminated all the discontent they could. I proposeto the members of Congress in conversation, the enlisting thirtythousand volunteers, Americans by birth, to be carried at the publicexpense, and settled immediately on a bounty of one hundred andsixty acres of land each, on the west side of the Mississippi, on thecondition of giving two years of military service, if that countryshould be attacked within seven years. The defence of the country wouldthus be placed on the spot, and the additional number would entitle theterritory to become a State, would make the majority American, and makeit an American instead of a French State. This would not sweeten thepill to the French; but in making that acquisition we had some view toour own good as well as theirs, and I believe the greatest good of bothwill be promoted by whatever will amalgamate us together. 

I have tired you, my friend, with a long letter. But your tedium willend in a few lines more. Mine has yet two years to endure. I am tiredof an office where I can do no more good than many others, who would beglad to be employed in it. To myself, personally, it brings nothing butunceasing drudgery, and daily loss of friends. Every office becomingvacant, every appointment made, _me donne un ingrat, et cent ennemis_. My only consolation is in the belief, that my fellow-citizens at largegive me credit for good intentions. I will certainly endeavor to meritthe continuance of that good will which follows well intended actions, and their approbation will be the dearest reward I can carry intoretirement. 

God bless you, my excellent friend, and give you yet many healthy andhappy years. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XXXIX, --TO WILSON C. NICHOLAS, February 28, 1807

TO WILSON C. NICHOLAS. 

Washington, February 28, 1807. 

Dear Sir, Your letter of January the 20th was received in due time. But such hasbeen the constant pressure of business, that it has been out of my powerto answer it. Indeed, the subjects of it would be almost beyond theextent of a letter, and as I hope to see you ere long at Monticello, it can then be more effectually done verbally. Let me observe, however, generally, that it is impossible for my friends ever to render me soacceptable a favor, as by communicating to me, without reserve, factsand opinions. I have none of that sort of self-love which winces at it;indeed, both self-love and the desire to do what is best strongly inviteunreserved communication. There is one subject which will not admit adelay till I see you. Mr. T. M. Randolph is, I believe, determined toretire from Congress, and it is strongly his wish, and that of all here, that you should take his place. Never did the calls of patriotism moreloudly assail you than at this moment. After excepting the federalists, who will be twenty-seven, and the little band of schismatics, whowill be three or four (all tongue), the residue of the House ofRepresentatives is as well disposed a body of men as I ever sawcollected. But there is no one whose talents and standing, takentogether, have weight enough to give him the lead. The consequence is, that there is no one who will undertake to do the public business, andit remains undone. Were you here, the whole would rally round you in aninstant, and willingly co-operate in whatever is for the public good. Nor would it require you to undertake drudgery in the House. There areenough, able and willing to do that. A rallying point is all that iswanting. Let me beseech you then to offer yourself. You never will haveit so much in your power again to render such eminent service. 

Accept my affectionate salutations and high esteem. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XL. --TO JAMES MONROE, March 21, 1807

TO JAMES MONROE. 

Washington, March 21, 1807. 

Dear Sir, A copy of the treaty with Great Britain came to Mr. Erskine's handson the last day of the session of Congress, which he immediatelycommunicated to us; and since that, Mr. Purviance has arrived withan original. On the subject of it you will receive a letter fromthe Secretary of State, of about this date, and one more in detailhereafter. I should not have written, but that I perceive uncommonefforts, and with uncommon wickedness, are making by the federal papersto produce mischief between myself, personally, and our negotiators; andalso to irritate the British government, by putting a thousand speechesinto my mouth, not one word of which I ever uttered. I have, therefore, thought it safe to guard you, by stating the view which we have givenout on the subject of the treaty, in conversation and otherwise; forours, as you know, is a government which will not tolerate the beingkept entirely in the dark, and especially on a subject so interestingas this treaty. We immediately stated in conversation, to the membersof the legislature and others, that having, by a letter received inJanuary, perceived that our ministers might sign a treaty not providingsatisfactorily against the impressment of our seamen, we had, on the 3rdof February, informed you, that should such an one have been forwarded, it could not be ratified, and recommending, therefore, that you shouldresume negotiations for inserting an article to that effect; that weshould hold the treaty in suspense until we could learn from you theresult of our instructions, which probably would not be till summer, and then decide on the question of calling the Senate. We observed, too, that a written declaration of the British commissioners, given in atthe time of signature, would of itself, unless withdrawn, prevent theacceptance of any treaty, because its effect was to leave us bound bythe treaty, and themselves totally unbound. This is the statement wehave given out, and nothing more of the contents of the treaty has beenmade known. But depend on it, my dear Sir, that it will be considered asa hard treaty when it is known. The British commissioners appear tohave screwed every article as far as it would bear, to have taken everything, and yielded nothing. Take out the eleventh article, and the evilof all the others so much overweighs the good, that we should be glad toexpunge the whole. And even the eleventh article admits only that wemay enjoy our right to the indirect colonial trade, during the presenthostilities. If peace is made this year, and war resumed the next, thebenefit of this stipulation is gone, and yet we are bound for ten years, to pass no non-importation or non-intercourse laws, nor take anyother measures to restrain the unjust pretensions and practices of theBritish. But on this you will hear from the Secretary of State. If thetreaty cannot be put into an acceptable form, then the next best thingis to back out of the negotiation as well as we can, letting that dieaway insensibly; but, in the mean time, agreeing informally, that bothparties shall act on the principles of the treaty, so as to preservethat friendly understanding which we so sincerely desire, until the oneor the other may be disposed to yield the points which divide us. Thiswill leave you to follow your desire of coming home, as soon as you seethat the amendment of the treaty is desperate. The power ofcontinuing the negotiations will pass oyer to Mr. Pinckney, who, byprocrastinations, can let it die away, and give us time, the mostprecious of all things to us. The government of New Orleans is stillwithout such a head as I wish. The salary of five thousand dollarsis too small; but I am assured the Orleans legislature would make itadequate, would you accept it. It is the second office in the UnitedStates in importance, and I am still in hopes you will accept it. It isimpossible to let you stay at home while the public has so much needof talents. I am writing under a severe indisposition of periodicalheadache, without scarcely command enough of my mind to know whatI write. As a part of this letter concerns Mr. Pinckney as well asyourself, be so good as to communicate so much of it to him; and withmy best respects to him, to Mrs. Monroe, and your daughter, be assuredyourself, in all cases, of my constant and affectionate friendship andattachment. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XLI. --M. LE COMTE DIODATI, March 29, 1807

M. LE COMTE DIODATI. 

Washington, March 29, 1807. 

My Dear and Antient Friend, Your letter of August the 29th reached me the 18th of February. Itenclosed a duplicate of that written from Brunswick five years before, but which I never received, or had notice of, but by this duplicate. Beassured, my friend, that I was incapable of such negligence towardsyou, as a failure to answer it would have implied. It would illy haveaccorded with those sentiments of friendship I entertained for you atParis, and which neither time nor distance has lessened. I often pass inreview the many happy hours I spent with Madame Diodati and yourself onthe banks of the Seine, as well as at Paris, and I count them amongthe most pleasing I enjoyed in France. Those were indeed days oftranquillity and happiness. They had begun to cloud a little before Ileft you; but I had no apprehension that the tempest, of which I saw thebeginning, was to spread over such an extent of space and time. I haveoften thought of you with anxiety, and wished to know how you weatheredthe storm, and into what port you had retired. The letters now receivedgive me the first information, and I sincerely felicitate you on yoursafe and quiet retreat. Were I in Europe, _pax et panis_ would certainlybe my motto. Wars and contentions, indeed, fill the pages of historywith more matter. But more blest is that nation whose silent course ofhappiness furnishes nothing for history to say. This is what I ambitionfor my own country, and what it has fortunately enjoyed now upwards oftwenty years, while Europe has been in constant volcanic eruption. Iagain, my friend, repeat my joy that you have escaped the overwhelmingtorrent of its lava. 

At the end of my present term, of which two years are yet to come, Ipropose to retire from public life, and to close my days on my patrimonyof Monticello, in the bosom of my family. I have hitherto enjoyeduniform health; but the weight of public business begins to be too heavyfor me, and I long for the enjoyments of rural life, among my books, myfarms, and my family. Having performed my _quadragena stipendia_, Iam entitled to my discharge, and should be sorry, indeed, that othersshould be sooner sensible than myself when I ought to ask it. I have, therefore, requested my fellow-citizens to think of a successor forme, to whom I shall deliver the public concerns with greater joy than Ireceived them. I have the consolation too of having added nothing to myprivate fortune, during my public service, and of retiring with handsas clean as they are empty. Pardon me these egoisms, which, if everexcusable, are so when writing to a friend to whom our concerns arenot uninteresting. I shall always be glad to hear of your health andhappiness, and having been out of the way of hearing of any of ourcotemporaries of the _corps diplomatique_ at Paris, any details of theirsubsequent history, which you will favor me with, will be thankfullyreceived. I pray you to make my friendly respects acceptable to Madamela Comtesse Diodati, to assure M. Tronchin of my continued esteem, and to accept yourself my affectionate salutations, and assurances ofconstant attachment and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XLII. --TO MR. BOWDOIN, April 2, 1807

TO MR. BOWDOIN. 

Washington, April 2, 1807. 

Dear Sir, I wrote you on the 10th of July last; but neither your letter of Octoberthe 20th nor that of November the 15th mentioning the receipt of it, Ifear it has miscarried. I therefore now enclose a duplicate. As that wasto go under cover of the Secretary of State's despatches by any vesselgoing from our distant ports, I retained the polygraph therein mentionedfor a safer conveyance. None such has occurred till now, that the UnitedStates' armed brig the Wasp, on her way to the Mediterranean is to touchat Falmouth, with despatches for our ministers at London, and at Brest, with others for yourself and General Armstrong. 

You heard in due time from London of the signature of a treaty therebetween Great Britain and the United States. By a letter we received inJanuary from our ministers at London, we found they were making uptheir minds to sign a treaty, in which no provision was made against theimpressment of our seamen, contenting themselves with a note receivedin the course of their correspondence, from the British negotiators, assuring them of the discretion with which impressments should beconducted, which could be construed into a covenant only by inferences, against which its omission in the treaty was a strong inference; and inits terms totally unsatisfactory. By a letter of February the 3rd, theywere immediately informed that no treaty, not containing a satisfactoryarticle on that head, would be ratified, and desiring them to resume thenegotiations on that point. The treaty having come to as actually in theinadmissible shape apprehended, we, of course, hold it up until we knowthe result of the instructions of February the 3rd. I have but littleexpectation that the British government will retire from their habitualwrongs in the impressment of our seamen, and am certain, that withoutthat we will never tie up our hands by treaty, from the right of passinga non-importation or non-intercourse act, to make it her interest tobecome just. This may bring on a war of commercial restrictions. Toshow, however, the sincerity of our desire for conciliation, I havesuspended the non-importation act. This state of things should beunderstood at Paris, and every effort used on your part to accommodateour differences with Spain, under the auspices of France, with whomit is all-important that we should stand in terms of the strictestcordiality. In fact, we are to depend on her and Russia for theestablishment of neutral rights by the treaty of peace, among whichshould be that of taking no persons by a belligerent out of a neutralship, unless they be the soldiers of an enemy. Never did a nationact towards another with more perfidy and injustice than Spain hasconstantly practised against us: and if we have kept our hands off ofher till now, it has been purely out of respect to France, and from thevalue we set on the friendship of France. We expect, therefore, fromthe friendship of the Emperor, that he will either compel Spain to do usjustice, or abandon her to us. We ask but one month to be in possessionof the city of Mexico. 

No better proof of the good faith of the United States could havebeen given, than the vigor with which we have acted, and the expenseincurred, in suppressing the enterprise meditated lately by Burr againstMexico. Although at first he proposed a separation of the westerncountry, and on that ground received encouragement and aid from Yrujo, according to the usual spirit of his government towards us, yet he veryearly saw that the fidelity of the western country was not to beshaken, and turned himself wholly towards Mexico. And so popular is anenterprise on that country in this, that we had only to lie still, andhe would have had followers enough to have been in the city of Mexicoin six weeks. You have doubtless seen my several messages to Congress, which gave a faithful narrative of that conspiracy. Burr himself, afterbeing disarmed by our endeavors of all his followers, escaped from thecustody of the court of Mississippi, but was taken near Fort Stoddart, making his way to Mobile, by some country people, who brought him onas a prisoner to Richmond, where he is now under a course for trial. Hitherto we have believed our law to be, that suspicion on probablegrounds was sufficient cause to commit a person for trial, allowing timeto collect witnesses till the trial. But the judges here have decided, that conclusive evidence of guilt must be ready in the moment of arrest, or they will discharge the malefactor. If this is still insisted on, Burr will be discharged; because his crimes having been sown from Maine, through the whole line of the western waters, to New Orleans, we cannotbring the witnesses here under four months. The fact is, that thefederalists make Burr's cause their own, and exert their whole influenceto shield him from punishment, as they did the adherents of Miranda. Andit is unfortunate that federalism is still predominent in our judiciarydepartment, which is consequently in opposition to the legislative andexecutive branches, and is able to baffle their measures often. 

Accept my friendly salutations, and assurances of great esteem andrespect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XLIII. --TO WILLIAM B. GILES, April 20, 1807

TO WILLIAM B. GILES. 

Monticello, April 20, 1807. 

Dear Sir, Your favor of the 6th instant, on the subject of Burr's offences, wasreceived only four days ago. That there should be anxiety and doubt inthe public mind, in the present defective state of the proof, is notwonderful; and this has been sedulously encouraged by the tricks of thejudges to force trials before it is possible to collect the evidence, dispersed through a line of two thousand miles from Maine to Orleans. The federalists, too, give all their aid, making Burr's cause theirown, mortified only that he did not separate the union or overturn thegovernment, and proving, that had he had a little dawn of success, theywould have joined him to introduce his object, their favorite monarchy, as they would any other enemy, foreign or domestic, who could rid themof this hateful republic for any other government in exchange. 

The first ground of complaint was the supine inattention of theadministration to a treason stalking through the land in open day. Thepresent one, that they have crushed it before it was ripe for execution, so that no overt acts can be produced. This last may be true; though Ibelieve it is not. Our information having been chiefly by way of letter, we do not know of a certainty yet what will be proved. We have set onfoot an inquiry through the whole of the country which has been thescene of these transactions, to be able to prove to the courts, if theywill give time, or to the public by way of communication to Congress, what the real facts have been. For obtaining this, we are obliged toappeal to the patriotism of particular persons in different places, ofwhom we have requested to make the inquiry in their neighborhood, and onsuch information as shall be voluntarily offered. Aided by no processor facilities from the federal courts, but frowned on by their new-bornzeal for the liberty of those whom we would not permit to overthrowthe liberties of their country, we can expect no revealments from theaccomplices of the chief offender. Of treasonable intentions, thejudges have been obliged to confess there is probable appearance. Whatloop-hole they will find in the case, when it comes to trial, we cannotforesee. Eaton, Stoddart, Wilkinson, and two others whom I must notname, will satisfy the world, if not the judges, of Burr's guilt. And Ido suppose the following overt acts will be proved. 1. The enlistmentof men, in a regular way. 2. The regular mounting of guard roundBlannerhassett's island, when they expected Governor Tiffin's men to beon them _modo guerrino arraiati_. 3. The rendezvous of Burr with hismen at the mouth of Cumberland. 4. His letter to the acting Governor ofMississippi, holding up the prospect of civil war. 5. His capitulation, regularly signed with the aid of the Governor, as between twoindependent and hostile commanders. 

But a moment's calculation will show that this evidence cannot becollected under four months, probably five, from the moment of decidingwhen and where the trial shall be. I desired Mr. Rodney expressly toinform the Chief Justice of this, inofficially. But Mr. Marshall says, 'More than five weeks have elapsed since the opinion of the SupremeCourt has declared the necessity of proving the overt acts, if theyexist. Why are they not proved. ' In what terms of decency can wespeak of this? As if an express could go to Natchez, or the mouth ofCumberland, and return in five weeks, to do which has never taken lessthan twelve. Again, 'If, in November or December last, a body oftroops had been assembled on the Ohio, it is impossible to suppose theaffidavits, establishing the fact, could not have been obtained by thelast of March. ' But I ask the Judge, where they should have been lodged?At Frankfort? at Cincinnati? at Nashville? St. Louis? Natchez? NewOrleans? These were the probable places of apprehension and examination. It was not known at Washington till the 26th of March, that Burr wouldescape from the western tribunals, be retaken and brought to an easternone: and in five days after (neither five months nor five weeks, as theJudge calculated) he says, it is 'impossible to suppose the affidavitscould not have been obtained. ' Where? At Richmond he certainly meant, or meant only to throw dust in the eyes of his audience. But all theprinciples of law are to be perverted which would bear on thefavorite offenders, who endeavor to overturn this odious republic. 'Iunderstand, ' says the Judge, 'probable cause of guilt to be a casemade out of proof furnishing good reason to believe, ' &c. Speaking as alawyer, he must mean legal proof, i. E. Proof on oath, at least. But thisis confounding probability and proof. We had always before understoodthat where there was reasonable ground to believe guilt, the offendermust be put on his trial. That guilty intentions were probable, theJudge believed. And as to the overt acts, were not the bundle of lettersof information in Mr. Rodney's hands, the letters and facts published inthe local newspapers, Burr's flight, and the universal belief or rumorof his guilt, probable ground for presuming the facts of enlistment, military guard, rendezvous, threat of civil war, or capitulation, so asto put him on trial? Is there a candid man in the United States whodoes not believe some one, if not all, of these overt acts to have takenplace?

If there ever had been an instance in this or the precedingadministrations, of federal judges so applying principles of law as tocondemn a federal or acquit a republican offender, I should have judgedthem in the present case with more charity. All this, however, will workwell. The nation will judge both the offender and judges for themselves. If a member of the executive or legislature does wrong, the day is neverfar distant when the people will remove him. They will see then, andamend the error in our constitution, which makes any branch independentof the nation. They will see that one of the great co-ordinate branchesof the government, setting itself in opposition to the other two, andto the common sense of the nation, proclaims impunity to that classof offenders which endeavors to overturn the constitution, and arethemselves protected in it by the constitution itself: for impeachmentis a farce which will not be tried again. If their protection of Burrproduces this amendment, it will do more good than his condemnationwould have done. Against Burr, personally, I never had one hostilesentiment. I never, indeed, thought him an honest, frank-dealing man, but considered him as a crooked gun, or other perverted machine, whoseaim or shot you could never be sure of. Still, while he possessed theconfidence of the nation, I thought it my duty to respect in him theirconfidence, and to treat him as if he deserved it: and if his punishmentcan be commuted now for an useful amendment of the constitution, I shallrejoice in it. My sheet being full, I perceive it is high time tooffer you my friendly salutations, and assure you of my constant andaffectionate esteem and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XLIV. --TO GEORGE HAY, June 2, 1807

TO GEORGE HAY. 

Washington, June 2, 1807. 

Dear Sir, While Burr's case is depending before the court, I will trouble you fromtime to time with what occurs to me. I observe that the case of Marburyv. Madison has been cited, and I think it material to stop at thethreshold the citing that case as authority, and to have it denied to belaw. 1. Because the judges, in the outset, disclaimed all cognizance ofthe case; although they then went on to say what would have been theiropinion, had they had cognizance of it. This then was confessedly anextra-judicial opinion, and, as such, of no authority. 2. Because, hadit been judicially pronounced, it would have been against law; for toa commission, a deed, a bond, delivery is essential to give validity. Until, therefore, the commission is delivered out of the hands of theexecutive and his agents, it is not his deed. He may withhold or cancelit at pleasure, as he might his private deed in the same situation. Theconstitution intended that the three great branches of the governmentshould be co-ordinate, and independent of each other. As to acts, therefore, which are to be done by either, it has given no control toanother branch. A judge, I presume, cannot sit on a bench without acommission, or a record of a commission: and the constitution havinggiven to the judiciary branch no means of compelling the executiveeither to deliver a commission, or to make a record of it, shows it didnot intend to give the judiciary that control over the executive, butthat it should remain in the power of the latter to do it or not. Wheredifferent branches have to act in their respective lines, finallyand without appeal, under any law, they may give to it different andopposite constructions. Thus in the case of William Smith, the House ofRepresentatives determined he was a citizen, and in the case of WilliamDuane (precisely the same in every material circumstance) the judgesdetermined he was no citizen. In the cases of Callender and others, thejudges determined the sedition act was valid under the constitution, and exercised their regular powers of sentencing them to fine andimprisonment. But the executive determined that the sedition act wasa nullity under the constitution, and exercised his regular power ofprohibiting the execution of the sentence, or rather of executingthe real law, which protected the acts of the defendants. From thesedifferent constructions of the same act by different branches, lessmischief arises, than from giving to any one of them a control over theothers. The executive and Senate act on the construction, that untildelivery from the executive department, a commission is in theirpossession, and within their rightful power; and in cases of commissionsnot revocable at will, where, after the Senate's approbation and thePresident's signing and sealing, new information of the unfitness ofthe person has come to hand before the delivery of the commission, new nominations have been made and approved, and new commissions haveissued. 

On this construction I have hitherto acted; on this I shall ever act, and maintain it with the powers of the government, against any controlwhich may be attempted by the judges in subversion of the independenceof the executive and Senate within their peculiar department. I presume, therefore, that in a case where our decision is by the constitutionthe supreme one, and that which can be carried into effect, it is theconstitutionally authoritative one, and that that by the judges was_coram non judice_, and unauthoritative, because it cannot be carriedinto effect. I have long wished for a proper occasion to have thegratuitous opinion in Marbury v. Madison brought before the public, anddenounced as not law: and I think the present a fortunate one, becauseit occupies such a place in the public attention. I should be glad, therefore, if, in noticing that case, you could take occasion to expressthe determination of the executive, that the doctrines of that case weregiven extra-judicially and against law, and that their reverse will bethe rule of action with the executive. If this opinion should notbe your own, I would wish it to be expressed merely as that of theexecutive. If it is your own also, you would of course give to thearguments such a developement, as a case, incidental only, might renderproper. 

I salute you with friendship and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XLV. --TO ALBERT GALLATIN, June 3, 1807

THOMAS JEFFERSON TO ALBERT GALLATIN. 

I gave you, some time ago, a project of a more equal tariff on wines, than that which now exists. But in that I yielded considerably to thefaulty classification of them in our law. I have now formed one withattention, and according to the best information I possess, classingthem more rigorously. I am persuaded, that were the duty on cheap winesput on the same ratio with the dear, it would wonderfully enlargethe field of those who use wine, to the expulsion of whiskey. Theintroduction of a very cheap wine (St. George) into my neighborhood, within two years past, has quadrupled in that time the number of thosewho keep wine, and will ere long increase them tenfold. This would be agreat gain to the treasury, and to the sobriety of our country. I willhere add my tariff, wherein you will be able to choose any rate of dutyyou please; and to decide whether it will not, on a fit occasion, beproper for legislative attention. Affectionate salutations. 

[Illustration: page77]

LETTER XLVI. --TO GEORGE HAY, June 5, 1807

TO GEORGE HAY. 

Washington, June 5, 1807. 

Dear Sir, Your favor of the 31st instant has been received, and I think it will befortunate if any circumstance should produce a discharge of the presentscanty grand jury, and a future summons of a fuller: though the sameviews of protecting the offender may again reduce the number to sixteen, in order to lessen the chance of getting twelve to concur. It isunderstood, that wherever Burr met with subjects who did not choose toembark in his projects, unless approved by their government, he assertedthat he had that approbation. Most of them took his word for it, butit is said that with those who would not, the following stratagem waspractised. A forged letter, purporting to be from General Dearborn, was made to express his approbation, and to say that I was absentat Monticello, but that there was no doubt that, on my return, myapprobation of his enterprises would be given. This letter was spreadopen on his table, so as to invite the eye of whoever entered his room;and he contrived occasions of sending up into his room, those whom hewished to become witnesses of his acting under sanction. By this means, he avoided committing himself to any liability to prosecution forforgery, and gave another proof of being a great man in little things, while he is really small in great ones. I must add General Dearborn'sdeclaration, that he never wrote a letter to Burr in his life, exceptthat when here, once in a winter, he usually wrote him a billet ofinvitation to dine. The only object of sending you the enclosed lettersis to possess you of the fact, that you may know how to pursue it, if any of your witnesses should know any thing of it. My intention inwriting to you several times, has been to convey facts or observationsoccurring in the absence of the Attorney General, and not to make tothe dreadful drudgery you are going through the unnecessary addition ofwriting me letters in answer, which I beg you to relieve yourself from, except when some necessity calls for it. 

I salute you with friendship and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XLVII. --TO DOCTOR HORATIO TURPIN, June 10, 1807

TO DOCTOR HORATIO TURPIN. 

Washington, June 10, 1807. 

Dear Sir, Your favor of June the 1st has been duly received. To a mind like yours, capable in any question of abstracting it from its relation to yourself, I may safely hazard explanations, which I have generally avoided toothers, on questions of appointment. Bringing into office no desires ofmaking it subservient to the advancement of my own private interests, ithas been no sacrifice, by postponing them, to strengthen the confidenceof my fellow-citizens. But I have not felt equal indifference towardsexcluding merit from office, merely because it was related to me. However, I have thought it my duty so to do, that my constituents maybe satisfied, that, in selecting persons for the management of theiraffairs, I am influenced by neither personal nor family interests, andespecially, that the field of public office will not be perverted byme into a family property. On this subject, I had the benefit of usefullessons from my predecessors, had I needed them, marking what was to beimitated and what avoided. But, in truth, the nature of our governmentis lesson enough. Its energy depending mainly on the confidence of thepeople, in their Chief Magistrate, makes it his duty to spare nothingwhich can strengthen him with that confidence. 

*****

Accept assurances of my constant friendship and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XLVIII. --TO JOHN NORVELL, June 11, 1807

TO JOHN NORVELL. 

Washington, June 11, 1807. 

Sir, Your letter of May the 9th has been duly received. The subjects itproposes would require time and space for even moderate developement. Myoccupations limit me to a very short notice of them. I think there doesnot exist a good elementary work on the organization of societyinto civil government: I mean a work which presents in one fulland comprehensive view the system of principles on which such anorganization should be founded, according to the rights of nature. Forwant of a single work of that character, I should recommend Lockeon Government, Sidney, Priestley's Essay on the First Principles ofGovernment, Chipman's Principles of Government, and the Federalist. Adding, perhaps, Beccaria on Crimes and Punishments, because of thedemonstrative manner in which he has treated that branch of the subject. If your views of political inquiry go further, to the subjects of moneyand commerce, Smith's Wealth of Nations is the best book to be read, unless Say's Political Economy can be had, which treats the samesubjects on the same principles, but in a shorter compass, and morelucid manner. But I believe this work has not been translated into ourlanguage. 

History, in general, only informs us what bad government is. But as wehave employed some of the best materials of the British constitution inthe construction of our own government, a knowledge of British historybecomes useful to the American politician. There is, however, no generalhistory of that country which can be recommended. The elegant one ofHume seems intended to disguise and discredit the good principles of thegovernment, and is so plausible and pleasing in its style and manner, as to instil its errors and heresies insensibly into the minds of unwaryreaders. Baxter has performed a good operation on it. He has taken thetext of Hume as his ground-work, abridging it by the omission of somedetails of little interest, and wherever he has found him endeavoring tomislead, by either the suppression of a truth, or by giving it a falsecoloring, he has changed the text to what it should be, so that wemay properly call it Hume's history republicanized. He has, moreover, continued the history (but indifferently) from where Hume left it, to the year 1800. The work is not popular in England, because it isrepublican; and but a few copies have ever reached America. It is asingle quarto volume. Adding to this Ludlow's Memoirs, Mrs. Macaulay'sand Belknap's histories, a sufficient view will be presented of the freeprinciples of the English constitution. 

To your request of my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper shouldbe conducted, so as to be most useful, I should answer, 'by restrainingit to true, facts and sound principles only. ' Yet I fear such a paperwould find few subscribers. It is a melancholy truth, that a suppressionof the press could not more completely deprive the nation of itsbenefits, than is done by its abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itselfbecomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The realextent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are insituations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies ofthe day. I really look with commiseration over the great body of myfellow-citizens, who, reading newspapers, live and die in the belief, that they have known something of what has been passing in the world intheir time; whereas the accounts they have read in newspapers are justas true a history of any other period of the world as of the present, except that the real names of the day are affixed to their fables. General facts may indeed be collected from them, such as that Europe isnow at war, that Bonaparte has been a successful warrior, that he hassubjected a great portion of Europe to his will, &c. &c. ; but no detailscan be relied on. I will add, that the man who never looks into anewspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as hewho knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled withfalsehoods and errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the greatfacts, and the details are all false. 

Perhaps an editor might begin a reformation in some such way as this. Divide his paper into four chapters, heading the 1st, Truths. 2nd, Probabilities. 3rd, Possibilities. 4th, Lies. The 1st chapter would bevery short, as it would contain little more than authentic papers, andinformation from such sources, as the editor would be willing to riskhis own reputation for their truth. The 2nd would contain what, from amature consideration of all circumstances, his judgment should concludeto be probably true. This, however, should rather contain too littlethan too much. The 3rd and 4th should be professedly for those readerswho would rather have lies for their money than the blank paper theywould occupy. 

Such an editor too, would have to set his face against the demoralizingpractice of feeding the public mind habitually on slander, and thedepravity of taste which this nauseous aliment induces. Defamationis becoming a necessary of life; insomuch, that a dish of tea in themorning or evening cannot be digested without this stimulant. Even thosewho do not believe these abominations, still read them with complaisanceto their auditors, and instead of the abhorrence and indignation whichshould fill a virtuous mind, betray a secret pleasure in the possibilitythat some may believe them, though they do not themselves. It seems toescape them, that it is not he who prints, but he who pays for printinga slander, who is its real author. 

These thoughts on the subjects of your letter are hazarded at yourrequest. Repeated instances of the publication of what has not beenintended for the public eye, and the malignity with which politicalenemies torture every sentence from me into meanings imagined by theirown wickedness only, justify my expressing a solicitude, that this hastycommunication may in nowise be permitted to find its way into the publicpapers. Not fearing these political bull-dogs, I yet avoided puttingmyself in the way of being baited by them, and do not wish to volunteeraway that portion of tranquillity, which a firm execution of my dutieswill permit me to enjoy. 

I tender you my salutations, and best wishes for your success. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XLIX. --TO WILLIAM SHORT, June 12, 1807

TO WILLIAM SHORT. 

Washington, June 12, 1807. 

Dear Sir, ******

The proposition in your letter of May the 16th, of adding an umpire toour discordant negotiators at Paris, struck me favorably on reading it, and reflection afterwards strengthened my first impressions. I made ittherefore a subject of consultation with my coadjutors, as is our usage. For our government, although in theory subject to be directed by theunadvised will of the President, is, and from its origin has been, avery different thing in practice. The minor business in each departmentis done by the Head of the department, on consultation with thePresident alone. But all matters of importance or difficulty aresubmitted to all the Heads of departments composing the cabinet;sometimes by the President's consulting them separately andsuccessively, as they happen to call on him; but in the greatest cases, by calling them together, discussing the subject maturely, and finallytaking the vote, in which the President counts himself but as one. Sothat in all important cases the executive is, in fact, a directory, which certainly the President might control: but of this there was neveran example either in the first or the present administration. I haveheard, indeed, that my predecessor sometimes decided things against hiscouncil. 

*****

I adopted in the present case the mode of separate consultation. Theopinion of each member, taken separately, was, that the addition ofa third negotiator was not at this time advisable. For the present, therefore, the question must rest. Mr. Bowdoin, we know, is anxious tocome home, and is detained only by the delicacy of not deserting hispost. In the existing temper between him and his colleague, it wouldcertainly be better that one of them should make an opening forre-composing the commission more harmoniously. I salute you withaffection and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER L. --TO GEORGE HAY, June 12, 1807

TO GEORGE HAY. 

Washington, June 12, 1807. 

Dear Sir, Your letter of the 9th is this moment received. Reserving the necessaryright of the President of the United States to decide, independently ofall other authority, what papers, coming to him as President, the publicinterests permit to be communicated, and to whom, I assure you ofmy readiness, under that restriction, voluntarily to furnish, on alloccasions, whatever the purposes of justice may require. But the letterof General Wilkinson, of October the 21st, requested for the defenceof Colonel Burr, with every other paper relating to the charges againsthim, which were in my possession when the Attorney General went on toRichmond in March, I then delivered to him; and I have always taken forgranted he left the whole with you. If he did, and the bundle retainsthe order in which I had arranged it, you will readily find the letterdesired, under the date of its receipt, which was November the 25th: butlest the Attorney General should not have left those papers with you, I this day write to him to forward this one by post. An uncertaintywhether he is at Philadelphia, Wilmington, or New Castle, may producedelay in his receiving my letter, of which it is proper you should beapprized. But, as I do not recollect the whole contents of that letter, I must beg leave to devolve on you the exercise of that discretionwhich it would be my right and duty to exercise, by withholding thecommunication of any parts of the letter, which are not directlymaterial for the purposes of justice. 

With this application, which is specific, a prompt compliance ispracticable. But when the request goes to 'copies of the orders issuedin relation to Colonel Burr, to the officers at Orleans, Natchez, &c. By the Secretaries of the War and Navy departments, ' it seems to covera correspondence of many months, with such a variety of officers, civiland military, all over the United States, as would amount to the layingopen the whole executive books. I have desired the Secretary of War toexamine his official communications; and on a view of these, we may beable to judge what can and ought to be done towards a compliance withthe request. If the defendant alleges that there was any particularorder, which, as a cause, produced any particular act on his part, thenhe must know what this order was, can specify it, and a prompt answercan be given. If the object had been specified, we might then have hadsome guide for our conjectures, as to what part of the executive recordsmight be useful to him: but, with a perfect willingness to do what isright, we are without the indications which may enable us to do it. Ifthe researches of the Secretary at War should produce any thing properfor communication, and pertinent to any point we can conceive in thedefence before the court, it shall be forwarded to you. I salute youwith respect and esteem. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER LI. --TO GEORGE HAY, June 17, 1807

TO GEORGE HAY. 

Washington, June 17, 1807. 

Sir, In answering your letter of the 9th, which desired a communication ofone to me from General Wilkinson, specified by its date, I informedyou in mine of the 12th that I had delivered it, with all other papersrespecting the charges against Aaron Burr, to the Attorney General, when he went to Richmond; that I had supposed he had left them inyour possession, but would immediately write to him, if he had not, toforward that particular letter without delay. I wrote to him accordinglyon the same day, but having no answer, I know not whether he hasforwarded the letter. I stated in the same letter, that I had desiredthe Secretary at War, to examine his office, in order to comply withyour further request, to furnish copies of the orders which had beengiven respecting Aaron Burr and his property; and in a subsequent letterof the same day, I forwarded to you copies of two letters from theSecretary at War, which appeared to be within the description expressedin your letter. The order from the Secretary of the Navy, you said, youwere in possession of. The receipt of these papers had, I presume, sofar anticipated, and others this day forwarded will have substantiallyfulfilled, the object of a subpoena from the District Court of Richmond, requiring that those officers and myself should attend the Court inRichmond, with the letter of General Wilkinson, the answer to thatletter, and the orders of the departments of War and the Navy, thereingenerally described. No answer to General Wilkinson's letter, otherthan a mere acknowledgment of its receipt, in a letter written for adifferent purpose, was ever written by myself or any other. To thesecommunications of papers, I will add, that if the defendant supposesthere are any facts within the knowledge of the Heads of departments, orof myself, which can be useful for his defence, from a desire of doingany thing our situation will permit in furtherance of justice, we shallbe ready to give him the benefit of it, by way of deposition, throughany persons whom the Court shall authorize to take our testimony atthis place. I know, indeed, that this cannot be done but by consent ofparties; and I therefore authorize you to give consent on the part ofthe United States. Mr. Burr's consent will be given of course, if hesupposes the testimony useful. 

As to our personal attendance at Richmond, I am persuaded the Courtis sensible, that paramount duties to the nation at large control theobligation of compliance with their summons in this case; as they would, should we receive a similar one, to attend the trials of Blannerhassettand others, in the Mississippi territory, those instituted at St. Louisand other places on the western waters, or at any place, other than theseat of government. To comply with such calls would leave the nationwithout an executive branch, whose agency, nevertheless, is understoodto be so constantly necessary, that it is the sole branch which theconstitution requires to be always in function. It could not thenmean that it should be withdrawn from its station by any co-ordinateauthority. 

With respect to papers, there is certainly a public and a privateside to our offices. To the former belong grants of land, patents forinventions, certain commissions, proclamations, and other papers patentin their nature. To the other belong mere executive proceedings. Allnations have found it necessary, that for the advantageous conduct oftheir affairs, some of these proceedings, at least, should remain knownto their executive functionary only. He, of course, from the nature ofthe case, must be the sole judge of which of them the public interestswill permit publication. Hence, under our constitution, in requests ofpapers, from the legislative to the executive branch, an exception iscarefully expressed, as to those which he may deem the public welfaremay require not to be disclosed; as you will see in the enclosedresolution of the House of Representatives, which produced the messageof January 22nd, respecting this case. The respect mutually due betweenthe constituted authorities, in their official intercourse, as wellas sincere dispositions to do for every one what is just, will alwaysinsure from the executive, in exercising the duty of discriminationconfided to him, the same candor and integrity to which the nation hasin like manner trusted in the disposal of its judiciary authorities. Considering you as the organ for communicating these sentiments tothe Court, I address them to you for that purpose, and salute you withesteem and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER LII. --TO GEORGE HAY, June 19, 1807

TO GEORGE HAY. 

Washington, June 19, 1807. 

Dear Sir, Yours of the 17th was received last night. Three blank pardons had been(as I expect) made up and forwarded by the mail of yesterday, and I havedesired three others to go by that of this evening. You ask what is tobe done if Bollman finally rejects his pardon, and the Judge decidesit to have no effect? Move to commit him immediately for treason ormisdemeanor, as you think the evidence will support; let the courtdecide where he shall be sent for trial; and on application, I will havethe marshal aided in his transportation, with the executive means. Andwe think it proper, further, that when Burr shall have been convicted ofeither treason or misdemeanor, you should immediately have committed allthose persons against whom you should find evidence sufficient, whoseagency has been so prominent as to mark them as proper objects ofpunishment, and especially where their boldness has betrayed aninveteracy of criminal disposition. As to obscure offenders andrepenting ones, let them lie for consideration. 

I enclose you the copy of a letter received last night, and givingsingular information. I have inquired into the character of Graybell. Hewas an old revolutionary captain, is now a flour merchant in Baltimore, of the most respectable character, and whose word would be taken asimplicitly as any man's for whatever he affirms. The letter-writer, also, is a man of entire respectability. I am well informed, that formore than a twelvemonth it has been believed in Baltimore, generally, that Burr was engaged in some criminal enterprise, and that LutherMartin knew all about it. We think you should immediately despatch asubpoena for Graybell; and while that is on the road, you will have timeto consider in what form you will use his testimony; e. G. Shall LutherMartin be summoned as a witness against Burr, and Graybell held readyto confront him? It may be doubted whether we could examine a witnessto discredit our own witness. Besides, the lawyers say that they areprivileged from being forced to breaches of confidence, and thatno others are. Shall we move to commit Luther Martin, as _particepscriminis_ with Burr? Graybell will fix upon him misprision of treason atleast. And at any rate, his evidence will put down this unprincipled andimpudent federal bull-dog, and add another proof that the most clamorousdefenders of Burr are all his accomplices. It will explain why LutherMartin flew so hastily to the aid of 'his honorable friend, ' abandoninghis clients and their property during a session of a principal courtin Maryland, now filled, as I am told, with the clamors and ruin of hisclients. I believe we shall send on Latrobe as a witness. He will provethat Aaron Burr endeavored to get him to engage several thousand men, chiefly Irish emigrants, whom he had been in the habit of employing inthe works he directs, under pretence of a canal opposite Louisville, or of the Washita, in which, had he succeeded, he could with that forcealone have carried every thing before him, and would not have been wherehe now is. He knows, too, of certain meetings of Burr, Bollman, Yrujo, and one other whom we have never named yet, but have him not the less inour view. 

I salute you with friendship and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

P. S. Will you send us half a dozen blank subpoenas?

Since writing the within I have had a conversation with Latrobe. He saysit was five hundred men he was desired to engage. The pretexts were towork on the Ohio canal, and be paid in Washita lands. Your witnesseswill some of them prove that Burr had no interest in the Ohio canal, andthat consequently this was a mere pretext to cover the real object fromthe men themselves, and all others. Latrobe will set out in the stage ofto-morrow evening, and be with you Monday evening. T. J. 

LETTER LIII. --TO GOVERNOR SULLIVAN, June 19, 1807

TO GOVERNOR SULLIVAN. 

Washington, June 19, 1807. 

Dear Sir, In acknowledging the receipt of your favor of the 3rd instant, I availmyself of the occasion it offers of tendering to yourself, to Mr. Lincoln, and to your State, my sincere congratulations on the late happyevent of the election of a republican executive to preside over itscouncils. The harmony it has introduced between the legislative andexecutive branches, between the people and both of them, and betweenall and the General Government, are so many steps towards securing thatunion of action and effort in all its parts, without which no nation canbe happy or safe. The just respect, with which all the States have everlooked to Massachusetts, could leave none of them without anxiety whileshe was in a state of alienation from her family and friends. Youropinion of the propriety and advantage of a more intimate correspondencebetween the executives of the several States, and that of the Union, asa central point, is precisely that which I have ever entertained; andon coming into office I felt the advantages which would result from thatharmony. I had it even in contemplation, after the annual recommendationto Congress of those measures called for by the times, which theconstitution had placed under their power, to make communications inlike manner to the executives of the States, as to any parts of themto which their legislatures might be alone competent. For many are theexercises of power reserved to the States, wherein an uniformity ofproceeding would be advantageous to all. Such are quarantines, healthlaws, regulations of the press, banking institutions, training militia, &c. &c. But you know what was the state of the several governments whenI came into office. That a great proportion of them were federal, andwould have been delighted with such opportunities of proclaiming theircontempt, and of opposing republican men and measures. Opportunities sofurnished and used by some of the State governments, would have producedan ill effect, and would have insured the failure of the object ofuniform proceeding. If it could be ventured even now (Connecticut andDelaware being still hostile) it must be on some greater occasion thanis likely to arise within my time. I look to it, therefore, as a coursewhich will probably be to be left to the consideration of my successor. 

I consider, with you, the federalists as completely vanquished, andnever more to take the field under their own banners. They will nowreserve themselves to profit by the schisms among republicans, and toearn favors from minorities, whom they will enable to triumph overtheir more numerous antagonists. So long as republican minorities barelyaccept their votes, no great harm will be done; because it will onlyplace in power one shade of republicanism, instead of another. Butwhen they purchase the votes of the federalists, by giving thema participation of office, trust, and power, it is a proof thatanti-monarchism is not their strongest passion. I do not think that therepublican minority in Pennsylvania has fallen into this heresy, northat there are in your State materials of which a minority can be madewho will fall into it. 

With respect to the tour my friends to the north have proposed that Ishould make in that quarter, I have not made up a final opinion. Thecourse of life which General Washington had run, civil and military, the services he had rendered, and the space he therefore occupied in theaffections of his fellow-citizens, take from his examples the weight ofprecedents for others, because no others can arrogate to themselves theclaims which he had on the public homage. To myself, therefore, it comesas a new question, to be viewed under all the phases it may present. I confess, that I am not reconciled to the idea of a chief magistrateparading himself through the several States as an object of public gaze, and in quest of an applause, which, to be valuable, should be purelyvoluntary. I had rather acquire silent good will by a faithful dischargeof my duties, than owe expressions of it to my putting myself in the wayof receiving them. Were I to make such a tour to Portsmouth or Portland, I must do it to Savannah, perhaps to Orleans and Frankfort. As I havenever yet seen the time when the public business would have permitted meto be so long in a situation in which I could not carry it on, so I haveno reason to expect that such a time will come while I remain in office. A journey to Boston or Portsmouth, after I shall be a private citizen, would much better harmonize with my feelings, as well as duties; and, founded in curiosity, would give no claims to an extension of it. Ishould see my friends, too, more at our mutual ease, and be left moreexclusively to their society. However, I end as I began, by declaringI have made up no opinion on the subject, and that I reserve it as aquestion for future consideration and advice. 

In the mean time, and at all times, I salute you with great respect andesteem, Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER LIV. --TO GEORGE HAY, June 20, 1807

TO GEORGE HAY. 

Washington, June 20, 1807. 

Dear Sir, Mr. Latrobe now comes on as a witness against Burr. His presence hereis with great inconvenience dispensed with, as one hundred and fiftyworkmen require his constant directions on various public works ofpressing importance. I hope you will permit him to come away as soon aspossible. How far his testimony will be important as to the prisoner, Iknow not; but I am desirous that those meetings of Yrujo with Burr andhis principal accomplices should come fully out, and judicially, as theywill establish the just complaints we have against his nation. 

I did not see till last night the opinion of the Judge on the _subpoenaduces tecum_ against the President. Considering the question there as_coram non judice_, I did not read his argument with much attention. Yet I saw readily enough, that, as is usual, where an opinion is to besupported, right or wrong, he dwells much on smaller objections, andpasses over those which are solid. Laying down the position generally, that all persons owe obedience to subpoenas, he admits no exceptionunless it can be produced in his law books. But if the constitutionenjoins on a particular officer to be always engaged in a particularset of duties imposed on him, does not this supersede the general law, subjecting him to minor duties inconsistent with these? The constitutionenjoins his constant agency in the concerns of six millions of people. Is the law paramount to this, which calls on him on behalf of a singleone? Let us apply the Judge's own doctrine to the case of himself andhis brethren. The sheriff of Henrico summons him from the bench, toquell a riot somewhere in his county. The federal judge is, by thegeneral law, a part of the posse of the State sheriff. Would the Judgeabandon major duties to perform lesser ones? Again; the court of Orleansor Maine commands, by subpoenas, the attendance of all the judges ofthe Supreme Court. Would they abandon their posts as judges, and theinterests of millions committed to them, to serve the purposes of asingle individual? The leading principle of our constitution is theindependence of the legislature, executive, and judiciary, of eachother, and none are more jealous of this than the judiciary. But wouldthe executive be independent of the judiciary, if he were subject tothe commands of the latter, and to imprisonment for disobedience; if theseveral courts could bandy him from pillar to post, keep him constantlytrudging from north to south, and east to west, and withdraw himentirely from his constitutional duties? The intention of theconstitution, that each branch should be independent of the others, isfurther manifested by the means it has furnished to each, to protectitself from enterprises of force attempted on them by the others, andto none has it given more effectual or diversified means than to theexecutive. Again; because ministers can go into a court in London, as witnesses, without interruption to their executive duties, it isinferred that they would go to a court one thousand or one thousand fivehundred miles off, and that ours are to be dragged from Maine to Orleansby every criminal who will swear that their testimony 'may be of use tohim. ' The Judge says, 'it is apparent that the President's duties, as chief magistrate, do not demand his whole time, and are notunremitting. ' If he alludes to our annual retirement from the seatof government, during the sickly season, he should be told that sucharrangements are made for carrying on the public business, at andbetween the several stations we take, that it goes on as unremittinglythere, as if we were at the seat of government. I pass more hours inpublic business at Monticello than I do here, every day; and it is muchmore laborious, because all must be done in writing. Our stations beingknown, all communications come to them regularly, as to fixed points. It would be very different were we always on the road, or placed in thenoisy and crowded taverns where courts are held. Mr. Rodney is expectedhere every hour, having been kept away by a sick child. I salute youwith friendship and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER LV. --TO DOCTOR WISTAR, June 21, 1807

TO DOCTOR WISTAR. 

Washington, June 21, 1807. 

Dear Sir, I have a grandson, the son of Mr. Randolph, now about fifteen years ofage, in whose education I take a lively interest. 

*****

I am not a friend to placing young men in populous cities, because theyacquire there habits and partialities which do not contribute to thehappiness of their after life. But there are particular branches ofscience, which are not so advantageously taught any where else inthe United States as in Philadelphia. The garden at the Woodlands forBotany, Mr. Peale's Museum for Natural History, your Medical School forAnatomy, and the able professors in all of them, give advantages not tobe found elsewhere. We propose, therefore, to send him to Philadelphiato attend the schools of Botany, Natural History, Anatomy, and perhapsSurgery; but not of Medicine. And why not of Medicine, you will ask?Being led to the subject, I will avail myself of the occasion to expressmy opinions on that science, and the extent of my medical creed. But, tofinish first with respect to my grandson, I will state the favor I askof you, and which is the object of this letter. 

*****

This subject dismissed, I may now take up that which it led to, andfurther tax your patience with unlearned views of medicine; which, as inmost cases, are, perhaps, the more confident in proportion as they areless enlightened. 

We know, from what we see and feel, that the animal body is in itsorgans and functions subject to derangement, inducing pain, andtending to its destruction. In this disordered state, we observe natureproviding for the re-establishment of order, by exciting some salutaryevacuation of the morbific matter, or by some other operation whichescapes our imperfect senses and researches. She brings on a crisis, bystools, vomiting, sweat, urine, expectoration, bleeding, &c, which, forthe most part, ends in the restoration of healthy action. Experience hastaught us also, that there are certain substances, by which, applied tothe living body, internally or externally, we can at will produce thesesame evacuations, and thus do, in a short time, what nature would do butslowly, and do effectually, what perhaps she would not have strengthto accomplish. Where, then, we have seen a disease, characterizedby specific signs or phenomena, and relieved by a certain naturalevacuation or process, whenever that disease recurs under the sameappearances, we may reasonably count on producing a solution of it, bythe use of such substances as we have found produce the same evacuationor movement. Thus, fulness of the stomach we can relieve by emetics;diseases of the bowels, by purgatives; inflammatory cases, by bleeding;intermittents, by the Peruvian bark; syphilis, by mercury; watchfulness, by opium; &c. So far, I bow to the utility of medicine. It goes to thewell defined forms of disease, and happily, to those the most frequent. But the disorders of the animal body, and the symptoms indicatingthem, are as various as the elements of which the body is composed. Thecombinations, too, of these symptoms are so infinitely diversified, that many associations of them appear too rarely to establish a definitedisease: and to an unknown disease, there cannot be a known remedy. Here, then, the judicious, the moral, the humane physician should stop. Having been so often a witness to the salutary efforts which naturemakes to re-establish the disordered functions, he should rather trustto their action, than hazard the interruption of that, and a greaterderangement of the system, by conjectural experiments on a machine socomplicated and so unknown as the human body, and a subject so sacredas human life. Or, if the appearance of doing something be necessary tokeep alive the hope and spirits of the patient, it should be of the mostinnocent character. One of the most successful physicians I have everknown, has assured me, that he used more bread pills, drops of coloredwater, and powders of hickory ashes, than of all other medicines puttogether. It was certainly a pious fraud. But the adventurous physiciangoes on, and substitutes presumption for knowledge. From the scantyfield of what is known, he launches into the boundless region of whatis unknown. He establishes for his guide some fanciful theory ofcorpuscular attraction, of chemical agency, of mechanical powers, ofstimuli, of irritability accumulated or exhausted, of depletion by thelancet, and repletion by mercury, or some other ingenious dream, whichlets him into all nature's secrets at short hand. On the principle whichhe thus assumes, he forms his table of nosology, arrays his diseasesinto families, and extends his curative treatment, by analogy, to allthe cases he has thus arbitrarily marshaled together. I have livedmyself to see the disciples of Hoffman, Boerhaave, Stahl, Cullen, Brown, succeed one another like the shifting figures of a magic-lanthern, andtheir fancies like the dresses of the annual doll-babies from Paris, becoming, from their novelty, the vogue of the day, and yielding tothe next novelty their ephemeral favor. The patient, treated on thefashionable theory, sometimes gets well in spite of the medicine. Themedicine therefore restored him, and the young doctor receives newcourage to proceed in his bold experiments on the lives of his fellowcreatures. I believe we may safely affirm, that the inexperienced andpresumptuous band of medical tyros let loose upon the world, destroysmore of human life in one year, than all the Robin-hoods, Cartouches, and Macheaths do in a century. It is in this part of medicine that Iwish to see a reform, an abandonment of hypothesis for sober facts, thefirst degree of value set on clinical observation, and the lowest onvisionary theories. I would wish the young practitioner, especially, tohave deeply impressed on his mind the real limits of his art, and thatwhen the state of his patient gets beyond these, his office is to be awatchful, but quiet spectator of the operations of nature, giving themfair play by a well regulated regimen, and by all the aid they canderive from the excitement of good spirits and hope in the patient. I have no doubt, that some diseases not yet understood may in time betransferred to the table of those known. But, were I a physician, Iwould rather leave the transfer to the slow hand of accident, thanhasten it by guilty experiments on those who put their lives into myhands. The only sure foundations of medicine are, an intimate knowledgeof the human body, and observation on the effects of medicinalsubstances on that. The anatomical and clinical schools, therefore, arethose in which the young physician should be formed. If he enters withinnocence that of the theory of medicine, it is scarcely possible heshould come out untainted with error. His mind must be strong indeed, if, rising above juvenile credulity, it can maintain a wise infidelityagainst the authority of his instructers, and the bewitching delusionsof their theories. You see that I estimate justly that portion ofinstruction, which our medical students derive from your labors; and, associating with it one of the chairs which my old and able friend, Doctor Rush, so honorably fills, I consider them as the two fundamentalpillars of the edifice. Indeed, I have such an opinion of the talentsof the professors in the other branches which constitute the school ofmedicine with you, as to hope and believe, that it is from this sideof the Atlantic, that Europe, which has taught us so many other things, will at length be led into sound principles in this branch of science, the most important of all others, being that to which we commit the careof health and life. 

I dare say, that by this time you are sufficiently sensible that oldheads, as well as young, may sometimes be charged with ignorance andpresumption. The natural course of the human mind is certainly fromcredulity to scepticism: and this is perhaps the most favorable apologyI can make for venturing so far out of my depth, and to one, too, to whom the strong as well as the weak points of this science are sofamiliar. But having stumbled on the subject in my way, I wished to givea confession of my faith to a friend; and the rather, as I had perhaps, at times, to him as well as others, expressed my scepticism in medicine, without defining its extent or foundation. At any rate, it has permittedme, for a moment, to abstract myself from the dry and dreary wasteof politics, into which I have been impressed by the times on which Ihappened, and to indulge in the rich fields of nature, where alone Ishould have served as a volunteer, if left to my natural inclinationsand partialities. 

I salute you at all times with affection and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER LVI. --TO MR. BOWDOIN, July 10, 1807

TO MR. BOWDOIN. 

Washington, July 10, 1807. 

Dear Sir, I wrote you on the 10th of July, 1806; but supposing, from your notacknowledging the receipt of the letter, that it had miscarried, I senta duplicate with my subsequent one of April the 2nd. These having goneby the Wasp, you will doubtless have received them. Since that, yoursof May the 1st has come to hand. You will see by the despatches from thedepartment of State, carried by the armed vessel the Revenge, into whata critical state our peace with Great Britain is suddenly brought, bytheir armed vessels in our waters. Four vessels of war (three of themtwo-deckers) closely blockade Norfolk at this instant. Of the authorityunder which this aggression is committed, their minister here isunapprized. You will see by the proclamation of July the 2nd, that(while we are not omitting such measures of force as are immediatelynecessary) we propose to give Great Britain an opportunity of disavowaland reparation, and to leave the question of war, non-intercourse, orother measures, uncommitted, to the legislature. This country has neverbeen in such a state of excitement since the battle of Lexington. Inthis state of things, cordial friendship with France, and peace atleast with Spain, become more interesting. You know the circumstancesrespecting this last power, which have rendered it ineligible that youshould have proceeded heretofore to your destination. But this obstacleis now removed by their recall of Yrujo, and appointment of anotherminister, and, in the mean time, of a _chargé des affaires_, who hasbeen received. The way being now open for taking your station at Madrid, it is certainly our wish you should do so, and that this may be moreagreeable to you than your return home, as is solicited in yours of Maythe 1st. It is with real unwillingness we should relinquish the benefitof your services. Nevertheless, if your mind is decidedly bent on that, we shall regret, but not oppose your return. The choice, therefore, remains with yourself. In the mean time, your place in the jointcommission being vacated by either event, we shall take the measuresrendered necessary by that. We have seen, with real grief, themisunderstanding which has taken place between yourself and GeneralArmstrong. We are neither qualified nor disposed to form an opinionbetween you. We regret the pain which must have been felt by persons, both of whom hold so high a place in our esteem, and we have not beenwithout fear that the public interest might suffer by it. It has seemed, however, that the state of Europe has been such as to admit little to bedone, in matters so distant from them. 

The present alarm has had the effect of suspending our foreign commerce. No merchant ventures to send out a single vessel; and I think itprobable this will continue very much the case till we get an answerfrom England. Our crops are uncommonly plentiful. That of small grain isnow secured south of this, and the harvest is advancing here. 

Accept my salutations, and assurances of affectionate esteem andrespect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER LVII. --TO THE MARQUIS DE LA FAYETTE, July 14, 1807

TO THE MARQUIS DE LA FAYETTE. 

Washington, July 14, 1807. 

My Dear Friend, I received last night your letters of February the 20th and April the29th, and a vessel just sailing from Baltimore enables me hastily toacknowledge them; to assure you of the welcome with which I receivewhatever comes from you, and the continuance of my affectionate esteemfor yourself and family. I learn with much concern, indeed, the state ofMadame de la Fayette's health. I hope I have the pleasure yet to come oflearning its entire re-establishment. She is too young not to give greatconfidence to that hope. 

Measuring happiness by the American scale, and sincerely wishing that ofyourself and family, we had been anxious to see them established on thisside of the great water. But I am not certain that any equivalent can befound for the loss of that species of society, to which our habits havebeen formed from infancy. Certainly had you been, as I wished, at thehead of the government of Orleans, Burr would never have given me onemoment's uneasiness. His conspiracy has been one of the most flagitiousof which history will ever furnish an example. He meant to separate thewestern States from us, to add Mexico to them, place himself at theirhead, establish what he would deem an energetic government, and thusprovide an example and an instrument for the subversion of our freedom. The man who could expect to effect this, with American materials, mustbe a fit subject for Bedlam. The seriousness of the crime, however, demands more serious punishment. Yet, although there is not a man in theUnited States who doubts his guilt, such are the jealous provisions ofour laws in favor of the accused against the accuser, that I questionif he is convicted. Out of forty-eight jurors to be summoned, he is toselect the twelve who are to try him, and if there be any one who willnot concur in finding him guilty, he is discharged of course. I am sorryto tell you that Bollman was Burr's right hand man in all his guiltyschemes. On being brought to prison here, he communicated to Mr. Madisonand myself the whole of the plans, always, however, apologetically forBurr as far as they would bear. But his subsequent tergiversationshave proved him conspicuously base. I gave him a pardon, however, whichcovers him from every thing but infamy. I was the more astonished at hisengaging in this business, from the peculiar motives he should havefelt for fidelity. When I came into the government, I sought him out onaccount of the services he has rendered you, cherished him, offeredhim two different appointments of value, which, after keeping them longunder consideration, he declined for commercial views, and would havegiven him any thing for which he was fit. Be assured he is unworthy ofever occupying again the care of any honest man. Nothing has ever sostrongly proved the innate force of our form of government, as thisconspiracy. Burr had probably engaged one thousand men to follow hisfortunes, without letting them know his projects, otherwise than byassuring them the government approved of them. The moment a proclamationwas issued, undeceiving them, he found himself left with about thirtydesperadoes only. The people rose in mass wherever he was or wassuspected to be, and by their own energy the thing was crushed inone instant, without its having been necessary to employ a man ofthe military but to take care of their respective stations. His firstenterprise was to have been to seize New Orleans, which he supposedwould powerfully bridle the upper country, and place him at the doorof Mexico. It is with pleasure I inform you that not a single nativeCreole, and but one American of those settled there before we receivedthe place, took any part with him. His partisans were the new emigrantsfrom the United States and elsewhere, fugitives from justice or debt, and adventurers and speculators of all descriptions. 

I enclose you a proclamation, which will show you the critical footingon which we stand, at present, with England. Never, since the battle ofLexington, have I seen this country in such a state of exasperationas at present. And even that did not produce such unanimity. Thefederalists themselves coalesce with us as to the object, although theywill return to their old trade of condemning every step we take towardsobtaining it. 'Reparation for the past, and security for the future, ' isour motto. Whether these will be yielded freely, or will require resortto non-intercourse, or to war, is yet to be seen. We have actually neartwo thousand men in the field, covering the exposed parts of the coast, and cutting off supplies from the British vessels. 

I am afraid I have been very unsuccessful in my endeavors to serveMadame de Tesse in her taste for planting. A box of seeds, &c. Which Isent her in the close of 1805, was carried with the vessel into England, and discharged so late that I fear she lost their benefit, for thatseason. Another box, which I prepared in the autumn of 1806, has, I fear, been equally delayed from other accidents. However, I willpersevere in my endeavors. 

Present me respectfully to her, M. De Tesse, Madame de la Fayette, andyour family, and accept my affectionate salutations, and assurances ofconstant esteem and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER LVIII. --TO JOHN PAGE, July 17, 1807

TO JOHN PAGE. 

Washington, July 17, 1807. 

My Dear Friend, Yours of the 11th is received. In appointments to public offices of mereprofit, I have ever considered faithful service in either our first orsecond revolution as giving preference of claim, and that appointmentson that principle would gratify the public, and strengthen thatconfidence so necessary to enable the executive to direct the wholepublic force to the best, advantage of the nation. Of Mr. BoilingRobertson's talents and integrity I have long been apprized, and wouldgladly use them where talents and integrity are wanting. I had thoughtof him for the vacant place of secretary of the Orleans territory, butsupposing the salary of two thousand dollars not more than he makesby his profession, and while remaining with his friends, I have, indespair, not proposed it to him. If he would accept it, I should namehim instantly with the greatest satisfaction. Perhaps you could informme on this point. 

With respect to Major Gibbons, I do indeed recollect, that in somecasual conversation, it was said that the most conspicuous accomplicesof Burr were at home at his house; but it made so little impression onme, that neither the occasion nor the person is now recollected. On thissubject, I have often expressed the principles on which I act, with awish they might be understood by the federalists in office. I have neverremoved a man merely because he was a federalist: I have never wishedthem to give a vote at an election, but according to their own wishes. But as no government could discharge its duties to the best advantageof its citizens, if its agents were in a regular course of thwartinginstead of executing all its measures, and were employing the patronageand influence of their offices against the government and its measures, I have only requested they would be quiet, and they should be safe: andif their conscience urges them to take an active and zealous part inopposition, it ought also to urge them to retire from a post which theycould not conscientiously conduct with fidelity to the trust reposedin them; and on failure to retire, I have removed them; that is to say, those who maintained an active and zealous opposition to the government. Nothing which I have yet heard of Major Gibbons places him in dangerfrom these principles. 

I am much pleased with the ardor displayed by our countrymen on thelate British outrage. It gives us the more confidence of support in thedemand of reparation for the past, and security for the future, that isto say, an end of impressments. If motives of either justice or interestshould produce this from Great Britain, it will save a war: but if theyare refused, we shall have gained time for getting in our ships andproperty, and at least twenty thousand seamen now afloat on the ocean, and who may man two hundred and fifty privateers. The loss of theseto us would be worth to Great Britain many victories of the Nileand Trafalgar. The mean time may also be importantly employed inpreparations to enable us to give quick and deep blows. 

Present to Mrs. Page, and receive yourself my affectionate andrespectful salutations. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER LIX. --TO WILLIAM DUANE, July 20, 1807

TO WILLIAM DUANE. 

Washington, July 20, 1807. 

Sir, Although I cannot always acknowledge the receipt of communications, yetI merit their continuance by making all the use of them of which theyare susceptible. Some of your suggestions had occurred, and others willbe considered. The time is coming when our friends must enable us tohear every thing, and expect us to say nothing; when we shall need alltheir confidence that every thing is doing which can be done, and whenour greatest praise shall be, that we appear to be doing nothing. Thelaw for detaching one hundred thousand militia, and the appropriationfor it, and that for fortifications, enable us to do every thing forland service, as well as if Congress were here; and as to naval matters, their opinion is known. The course we have pursued, has gained for ourmerchants a precious interval to call in their property and our seamen, and the postponing the summons of Congress will aid in avoiding to givetoo quick an alarm to the adversary. They will be called, however, in good time. Although we demand of England what is merely of right, reparation for the past, security for the future, yet as their pridewill possibly, nay probably, prevent their yielding them to the extentwe shall require, my opinion is, that the public mind, which I believeis made up for war, should maintain itself at that point. They haveoften enough, God knows, given us cause of war before; but it has beenon points which would not have united the nation. But now they havetouched a chord which vibrates in every heart. Now then is the time tosettle the old and the new. 

I have often wished for an occasion of saying a word to you on thesubject of the Emperor of Russia, of whose character and value to us, Isuspect you are not apprized correctly. A more virtuous man, I believe, does not exist, nor one who is more enthusiastically devoted to betterthe condition of mankind. He will probably, one day, fall a victim toit, as a monarch of that principle does not suit a Russian noblesse. He is not of the very first order of understanding, but he is of ahigh one. He has taken a peculiar affection to this country and itsgovernment, of which he has given me public as well as personal proofs. Our nation being like his, habitually neutral, our interests as toneutral rights, and our sentiments, agree. And whenever conferencesfor peace shall take place, we are assured of a friend in him. In fact, although in questions of restitution he will be with England, in thoseof neutral rights he will be with Bonaparte and every other power inthe world, except England: and I do presume that England will never havepeace until she subscribes to a just code of marine law. I have goneinto this subject, because I am confident that Russia (while her presentmonarch lives) is the most cordially friendly to us of any power onearth, will go furthest to serve us, and is most worthy of conciliation. And although the source of this information must be a matter ofconfidence with you, yet it is desirable that the sentiments shouldbecome those of the nation. I salute you with esteem and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER LX. --TO GEORGE HAY, August 20, 1807

TO GEORGE HAY. 

Monticello, August 20, 1807. 

Dear Sir, I received yesterday your favor of the 11th. An error of the post-officehad occasioned the delay. Before an impartial jury Burr's conduct wouldconvict himself, were not one word of testimony to be offered againsthim. But to what a state will our law be reduced by party feelings inthose who administer it? Why do not Blannerhasset, Dayton, &c. Demand private and comfortable lodgings? In a country where an equalapplication of law to every condition of man is fundamental, how couldit be denied to them? How can it ever be denied to the most degradedmalefactor? The enclosed letter of James Morrison, covering a copy ofone from Alston to Blannerhasset, came to hand yesterday. I enclosethem, because it is proper all these papers should be in one deposite, and because you should know the case and all its bearings, that you mayunderstand whatever turns up in the cause. Whether the opinion of theletter-writer is sound, may be doubted. For however these, and othercircumstances which have come to us, may induce us to believe that thebouncing letter he published, and the insolent one he wrote to me, wereintended as blinds, yet they are not sufficient for legal conviction. Blannerhasset and his wife could possibly tell us enough. I commiseratethe sufferings you have to go through in such a season, and salute youwith great esteem and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER LXI. --TO GEORGE HAY, September 4, 1807

TO GEORGE HAY. 

Monticello, September 4, 1807. 

Dear Sir, Yours of the 1st came to hand yesterday. The event has been ------that is to say, not only to clear Burr, but to prevent the evidence fromever going before the world. But this latter case must not take place. It is now, therefore, more than ever indispensable, that not a singlewitness be paid or permitted to depart, until his testimony has beencommitted to writing, either as delivered in court, or as taken byyourself in the presence of any of Burr's counsel, who may choose toattend to cross-examine. These whole proceedings will be laid beforeCongress, that they may decide, whether the defect has been in theevidence of guilt, or in the law, or in the application of the law, andthat they may provide the proper remedy for the past and the future. Imust pray you also to have an authentic copy of the record made out(without saying for what) and to send it to me: if the Judge's opinionsmake not a part of it, then I must ask a copy of them, either under hishand, if he delivers one signed, or duly proved by affidavit. 

This criminal is preserved to become the rallying point of all thedisaffected and the worthless of the United States, and to be thepivot on which all the intrigues and the conspiracies which foreigngovernments may wish to disturb us with, are to turn. If he is convictedof the misdemeanor, the Judge must in decency give us respite by someshort confinement of him; but we must expect it to be very short. Be assured yourself, and communicate the same assurances to yourcolleagues, that your and their zeal and abilities have been displayedin this affair to my entire satisfaction and your own honor. 

I salute you with great esteem and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER LXII. --TO GEORGE HAY, September 7, 1807

TO GEORGE HAY. 

Monticello, September 7, 1807. 

Dear Sir, I received, late last night, your favor of the day before, and nowre-enclose you the subpoena. As I do not believe that the districtcourts have a power of commanding the executive government to abandonsuperior duties and attend on them, at whatever distance, I amunwilling, by any notice of the subpoena, to set a precedent whichmight sanction a proceeding so preposterous. I enclose you, therefore, aletter, public and for the court, covering substantially all they oughtto desire. If the papers which were enclosed in Wilkinson's letter may, in your judgment, be communicated without injury, you will be pleased tocommunicate them. I return you the original letter. 

I am happy in having the benefit of Mr. Madison's counsel on thisoccasion, he happening to be now with me. We are both strongly ofopinion, that the prosecution against Burr for misdemeanor shouldproceed at Richmond. If defeated, it will heap coals of fire on thehead of the Judge: if successful, it will give time to see whether aprosecution for treason against him can be instituted in any, andwhat other court. But, we incline to think, it may be best to sendBlannerhasset and Smith (Israel) to Kentucky, to be tried both for thetreason and misdemeanor. The trial of Dayton for misdemeanor may as wellgo on at Richmond. 

I salute you with great esteem and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER LXIII. --TO THE REV. MR. MILLAR, January 23, 1808

TO THE REV. MR. MILLAR, Washington, January 23, 1808. 

Sir, I have duly received your favor of the 18th, and am thankful to youfor having written it, because it is more agreeable to prevent than torefuse what I do not think myself authorized to comply with. I considerthe government of the United States as interdicted by the constitutionfrom intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision thatno law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise ofreligion, but from that also which reserves to the States the powersnot delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe anyreligious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, hasbeen delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with theStates, as far as it can be in any human authority. But it is onlyproposed that I should recommend, not prescribe, a day of fasting andprayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the United States anauthority over religious exercises, which the constitution has directlyprecluded them from. It must be meant, too, that this recommendation isto carry some authority, and to be sanctioned by some penalty on thosewho disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of somedegree of proscription, perhaps in public opinion. And does the changein the nature of the penalty make the recommendation the less a law ofconduct for those to whom it is directed? I do not believe it is forthe interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to directits exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religioussocieties, that the General Government should be invested with the powerof effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting andprayer are religious exercises; the enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the timesfor these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to theirown particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in theirown hands, where the constitution has deposited it. 

I am aware that the practice of my predecessors may be quoted. But Ihave ever believed, that the example of State executives led to theassumption of that authority by the General Government, without dueexamination, which would have discovered that what might be a right in aState government, was a violation of that right when assumed by another. Be this as it may, every one must act according to the dictates of hisown reason, and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been givento the President of the United States, and no authority to direct thereligious exercises of his constituents. 

I again express my satisfaction that you have been so good as to giveme an opportunity of explaining myself in a private letter, in whichI could give my reasons more in detail than might have been done in apublic answer: and I pray you to accept the assurances of my high esteemand respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER LXIV. --TO COLONEL MONROE, February 18, 1808

TO COLONEL MONROE. 

Washington, February 18, 1808. 

My Dear Sir, You informed me that the instruments you had been so kind as to bringfor me from England, would arrive at Richmond with your baggage, and youwished to know what was to be done with them there. I will ask thefavor of you to deliver them to Mr. Jefferson, who will forward themto Monticello in the way I shall advise him. And I must intreat youto send me either a note of their amount, or the bills, that I may beenabled to reimburse you. There can be no pecuniary matter betweenus, against which this can be any set-off. But if, contrary to myrecollection or knowledge, there were any thing, I pray that that maybe left to be settled by itself. If I could have known the amountbeforehand, I should have remitted it, and asked the advance onlyunder the idea that it should be the same as ready money to you on yourarrival. I must again, therefore, beseech you to let me know its amount. 

I see with infinite grief a contest arising between yourself andanother, who have been very dear to each other, and equally so to me. Isincerely pray that these dispositions may not be affected between you;with me I confidently trust they will not. For independently of thedictates of public duty, which prescribes neutrality to me, my sincerefriendship for you both will insure its sacred observance. I suffer noone to converse with me on the subject. I already perceive my old friendClinton estranging himself from me. No doubt lies are carried to him, as they will be to the other two candidates, under forms, which, howeverfalse he can scarcely question. Yet I have been equally careful as tohim also, never to say a word on his subject. The object of the contestis a fair and honorable one, equally open to you all; and I have nodoubt the personal conduct of all will be so chaste, as to offer noground of dissatisfaction with each other. But your friends will not beas delicate. I know too well from experience the progress of politicalcontroversy, and the exacerbation of spirit into which it degenerates, not to fear for the continuance of your mutual esteem. One piquingthing said, draws on another, that a third, and always with increasingacrimony, until all restraint is thrown off, and it becomes difficultfor yourselves to keep clear of the toils in which your friends willendeavor to interlace you, and to avoid the participation in theirpassions which they will endeavor to produce. A candid recollection ofwhat you know of each other will be the true corrective. With respectto myself, I hope they will spare me. My longings for retirement areso strong, that I with difficulty encounter the daily drudgeries of myduty. But my wish for retirement itself is not stronger than that ofcarrying into it the affections of all my friends. I have ever viewedMr. Madison and yourself as two principal pillars of my happiness. Were either to be withdrawn, I should consider it as among the greatestcalamities which could assail my future peace of mind. I have greatconfidence that the candor and high understanding of both will guardme against this misfortune, the bare possibility of which has so farweighed on my mind, that I could not be easy without unburthening it. 

Accept my respectful salutations for yourself and Mrs. Monroe, and beassured of my constant and sincere friendship. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER LXV. --TO COLONEL MONROE, March 10, 1808

TO COLONEL MONROE. 

Washington, March 10, 1808. 

Dear Sir, *****

From your letter of the 27th ultimo, I perceive that painful impressionshave been made on your mind during your late mission, of which I hadnever entertained a suspicion. I must, therefore, examine the grounds, because explanations between reasonable men can never but do good. 1. You consider the mission of Mr. Pinckney as an associate, to have beenin some way injurious to you. Were I to take that measure on myself, I might say in its justification, that it has been the regular andhabitual practice of the United States to do this, under every formin which their government has existed. I need not recapitulate themultiplied instances, because you will readily recollect them. I went asan adjunct to Dr. Franklin and Mr. Adams, yourself as an adjunct firstto Mr. Livingston, and then to Mr. Pinckney, and I really believethere has scarcely been a great occasion which has not produced anextraordinary mission. Still, however, it is well known, that I wasstrongly opposed to it in the case of which you complain. A committee ofthe Senate called on me with two resolutions of that body on the subjectof impressment and spoliations by Great Britain, and requesting thatI would demand satisfaction. After delivering the resolutions, thecommittee entered into free conversation, and observed, that althoughthe Senate could not, in form, recommend any extraordinary mission, yet that as individuals, there was but one sentiment among them on themeasure, and they pressed it. I was so much averse to it, and gave themso hard an answer, that they felt it, and spoke of it. But it did notend here. The members of the other House took up the subject, and setupon me individually, and these the best friends to you, as well asmyself, and represented the responsibility which a failure to obtainredress would throw on us both, pursuing a conduct in opposition to theopinion of nearly every member of the legislature. I found it necessary, at length, to yield my own opinion, to the general sense of the nationalcouncil, and it really seemed to produce a jubilee among them; not fromany want of confidence in you, but from a belief in the effect which anextraordinary mission would have on the British mind, by demonstratingthe degree of importance which this country attached to the rights whichwe considered as infracted. 

2. You complain of the manner in which the treaty was received. But whatwas that manner? I cannot suppose you to have given a moment's creditto the stuff which was crowded in all sorts of forms into the publicpapers, or to the thousand speeches they put into my mouth, not a wordof which I had ever uttered. I was not insensible at the time ofthe views to mischief, with which these lies were fabricated. But myconfidence was firm, that neither yourself nor the British government, equally outraged by them, would believe me capable of making the editorsof newspapers the confidants of my speeches or opinions. The factwas this. The treaty was communicated to us by Mr. Erskine on the dayCongress was to rise. Two of the Senators inquired of me in the evening, whether it was my purpose to detain them on account of the treaty. Myanswer was, 'that it was not: that the treaty containing no provisionagainst the impressment of our seamen, and being accompanied by akind of protestation of the British ministers, which would leave thatgovernment free to consider it as a treaty or no treaty, accordingto their own convenience, I should not give them the trouble ofdeliberating on it. ' This was substantially, and almost verbally, whatI said whenever spoken to about it, and I never failed when the occasionwould admit of it, to justify yourself and Mr. Pinckney, by expressingmy conviction, that it was all that could be obtained from the Britishgovernment; that you had told their commissioners that your governmentcould not be pledged to ratify, because it was contrary to theirinstructions; of course, that it should be considered but as a projet;and in this light I stated it publicly in my message to Congress on theopening of the session. Not a single article of the treaty was ever madeknown beyond the members of the administration, nor would an article ofit be known at this day, but for its publication in the newspapers, as communicated by somebody from beyond the water, as we have alwaysunderstood. But as to myself, I can solemnly protest, as the most sacredof truths, that I never, one instant, lost sight of your reputation andfavorable standing with your country, and never omitted to justify yourfailure to attain our wish, as one which was probably unattainable. Reviewing, therefore, this whole subject, I cannot doubt you will becomesensible, that your impressions have been without just ground. I cannot, indeed, judge what falsehoods may have been written or told you; andthat, under such forms as to command belief. But you will soon find, my dear Sir, that so inveterate is the rancor of party spirit among us, that nothing ought to be credited but what we hear with our own ears. Ifyou are less on your guard than we are here, at this moment, the designsof the mischief-makers will not fail to be accomplished, and brethrenand friends will be made strangers and enemies to each other, withoutever having said or thought a thing amiss of each other. I presume thatthe most insidious falsehoods are daily carried to you, as they arebrought to me, to engage us in the passions of our informers, and statedso positively and plausibly as to make even doubt a rudeness to thenarrator; who, imposed on himself, has no other than the friendly viewof putting us on our guard. My answer is, invariably, that my knowledgeof your character is better testimony to me of a negative, than anyaffirmative which my informant did not hear from yourself with his ownears. In fact, when you shall have been a little longer among us, youwill find that little is to be believed which interests the prevailingpassions, and happens beyond the limits of our own senses. Let us notthen, my dear friend, embark our happiness and our affections on theocean of slander, of falsehood, and of malice, on which our credulousfriends are floating. If you have been made to believe that I ever did, said, or thought a thing unfriendly to your fame and feelings, you do meinjury as causeless as it is afflicting to me. In the present contest inwhich you are concerned, I feel no passion, I take no part, I express nosentiment. Whichever of my friends is called to the supreme cares of thenation, I know that they will be wisely and faithfully administered, andas far as my individual conduct can influence, they shall be cordiallysupported, For myself I have nothing further to ask of the world, than to preservein retirement so much of their esteem as I may have fairly earned, andto be permitted to pass in tranquillity, in the bosom of my family andfriends, the days which yet remain for me. Having reached the harbormyself, I shall view with anxiety (but certainly not with a wish to bein their place) those who are still buffeting the storm, uncertainof their fate. Your voyage has so far been favorable, and that itmay continue with entire prosperity, is the sincere prayer of thatfriendship which I have ever borne you, and of which I now assure you, with the tender of my high respect and affectionate salutations. 

Th: Jefferson, LETTER LXVI. --TO RICHARD M. JOHNSON, March 10, 1808

TO RICHARD M. JOHNSON. 

Washington, March 10, 1808. 

Sir, I am sure you can too justly estimate my occupations, to need an apologyfor this tardy acknowledgment of your favor of February the 27th. Icannot but be deeply sensible of the good opinion you are pleased toexpress of my conduct in the administration of our government. Thisapprobation of my fellow-citizens is the richest reward I can receive. Iam conscious of having always intended to do what was best for them: andnever, for a single moment, to have listened to any personal interestof my own. It has been a source of great pain to me, to have met withso many among our opponents, who had not the liberality to distinguishbetween political and social opposition; who transferred at once tothe person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions. I suppose, indeed, that in public life, a man whose political principles have anydecided character, and who has energy enough to give them effect, mustalways expect to encounter political hostility from those of adverseprinciples. But I came to the government under circumstances calculatedto generate peculiar acrimony. I found all its offices in the possessionof a political sect, who wished to transform it ultimately into theshape of their darling model, the English government; and in the meantime, to familiarize the public mind to the change, by administering iton English principles, and in English forms. The elective interpositionof the people had blown all their designs, and they found themselves andtheir fortresses of power and profit put in a moment into the hands ofother trustees. Lamentations and invective were all that remained tothem. This last was naturally directed against the agent selected toexecute the multiplied reformations, which their heresies had renderednecessary. I became of course the butt of every thing which reason, ridicule, malice, and falsehood could supply. They have concentrated alltheir hatred on me, till they have really persuaded themselves, that Iam the sole source of all their imaginary evils. I hope, therefore, thatmy retirement will abate some of their disaffection to the government oftheir country, and that my successor will enter on a calmer sea thanI did. He will at least find the vessel of state in the hands of hisfriends, and not of his foes. Federalism is dead, without even the hopeof a day of resurrection. The quondam leaders, indeed, retain theirrancor and principles; but their followers are amalgamated with usin sentiment, if not in name. If our fellow-citizens, now solidlyrepublican, will sacrifice favoritism towards men for the preservationof principle, we may hope that no divisions will again endanger adegeneracy in our government. 

*****

I pray you to accept my salutations, and assurances of great esteem andrespect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER LXVII. --TO LEVI LINCOLN, March 23, 1808

TO LEVI LINCOLN. 

Washington, March 23, 1808. 

Dear Sir, Your letter on the subject of Mr. Lee came safely to hand. You knowour principles render federalists in office safe, if they do not employtheir influence in opposing the government, but only give their own voteaccording to their conscience. And this principle we act on as well withthose put in office by others, as by ourselves. 

We have received from your presses a very malevolent and incendiarydenunciation of the administration, bottomed on absolute falsehood frombeginning to end. The author would merit exemplary punishment for soflagitious a libel, were not the torment of his own abominable temperpunishment sufficient for even as base a crime as this. The terminationof Mr. Rose's mission, _re infectâ_, put it in my power to communicateto Congress yesterday, every thing respecting our relations with Englandand France, which will effectually put down Mr. Pickering, and hisworthy coadjutor Quincy. Their tempers are so much alike, and reallytheir persons, as to induce a supposition that they are related. Theembargo appears to be approved, even by the federalists of every quarterexcept yours. The alternative was between that and war, and, in fact, it is the last card we have to play, short of war. But if peace doesnot take place in Europe, and if France and England will not consentto withdraw the operation of their decrees and orders from us, whenCongress shall meet in December, they will have to consider at whatpoint of time the embargo, continued, becomes a greater evil than war. Iam inclined to believe, we shall have this summer and autumn to preparefor the defence of our sea-port towns, and hope that in that time theworks of defence will be completed, which have been provided for by thelegislature. I think Congress will rise within three weeks. I salute youwith great affection and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER LXVIII. --TO CHARLES PINCKNEY, March 30, 1808

TO CHARLES PINCKNEY. 

Washington, March 30, 1808. 

Dear Sir, Your letter of the 8th was received on the 25th, and I proceed to stateto you my views of the present state and prospect of foreign affairs, under the confidence that you will use them for your own government andopinions only, and by no means let them get out as from me. With Francewe are in no immediate danger of war. Her future views it is impossibleto estimate. The immediate danger we are in of a rupture with England, is postponed for this year. This is effected by the embargo, as thequestion was simply between that and war. That may go on a certain time, perhaps through the year, without the loss of their property to ourcitizens, but only its remaining unemployed on their hands. A time wouldcome, however, when war would be preferable to a continuance of theembargo. Of this Congress may have to decide at their next meeting. Inthe mean time, we have good information, that a negotiation for peacebetween France and England is commencing through the medium of Austria. The way for it has been smoothed by a determination expressed by France(through the Moniteur, which is their government paper), that herselfand her allies will demand from Great Britain no renunciation of hermaritime principles; nor will they renounce theirs. Nothing shall besaid about them in the treaty, and both sides will be left in the nextwar to act on their own. No doubt the meaning of this is, that allthe Continental powers of Europe will form themselves into an armedneutrality, to enforce their own principles. Should peace be made, weshall have safely rode out the storm in peace and prosperity. If we haveany thing to fear, it will be after that. Nothing should be spared fromthis moment in putting our militia into the best condition possible, and procuring arms. I hope, that this summer, we shall get our wholesea-ports put into that state of defence, which Congress has thoughtproportioned to our circumstances and situation; that is to say, put_hors d'insulte_ from a maritime attack, by a moderate squadron. Ifarmies are combined with their fleets, then no resource can be provided, but to meet them in the field. We propose to raise seven regiments onlyfor the present year, depending always on our militia for the operationsof the first year of war. On any other plan, we should be obliged alwaysto keep a large standing army. Congress will adjourn in about threeweeks. I hope Captain McComb is going on well with your defensive works. We shall be able by mid-summer, to give you a sufficient number ofgun-boats to protect Charleston from any vessels which can cross thebar; but the militia of the place must be depended on to fill up thecomplement of men necessary for action in the moment of an attack, as weshall man them, in ordinary, but with their navigating crew of eight orten good seamen. I salute you with great esteem and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER LXIX. --TO DOCTOR LEIB, June 23, 1808

TO DOCTOR LEIB. 

Washington, June 23, 1808. 

Sir, I have duly received your favor covering a copy of the talk to theTammany society, for which I thank you, and particularly for thefavorable sentiments expressed towards myself. Certainly, nothing willso much sweeten the tranquillity and comfort of retirement, as theknowledge that I carry with me the good will and approbation of myrepublican fellow-citizens, and especially of the individuals in unisonwith whom I have so long acted. With respect to the federalists, Ibelieve we think alike; for when speaking of them, we never mean toinclude a worthy portion of our fellow-citizens, who consider themselvesas in duty bound to support the constituted authorities of every branch, and to reserve their opposition to the period of election. These havingacquired the appellation of federalists, while a federal administrationwas in place, have not cared about throwing off their name, but, adhering to their principle, are the supporters of the present orderof things. The other branch of the federalists, those who are so inprinciple as well as in name, disapprove of the republican principlesand features of our constitution, and would, I believe, welcome anypublic calamity (war with England excepted) which might lessen theconfidence of our country in those principles and forms. I havegenerally considered them rather as subjects for a madhouse. But theyare now playing a game of the most mischievous tendency, without perhapsbeing themselves aware of it. They are endeavoring to convince England, that we suffer more by the embargo than they do, and that, if they willbut hold out a while, we must abandon it. It is true, the time will comewhen we must abandon it. But if this is before the repeal of the ordersof council, we must abandon it only for a state of war. The day is notdistant, when that will be preferable to a longer continuance of theembargo. But we can never remove that, and let our vessels go out and betaken under these orders, without making reprisal. Yet this is the verystate of things which these federal monarchists are endeavoring to bringabout; and in this it is but too possible they may succeed. But thefact is, that if we have war with England, it will be solely produced bytheir manoeuvres. I think that in two or three months we shall know whatwill be the issue. I salute you with esteem and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER LXX. --TO ROBERT L. LIVINGSTON, October 15, 1808

TO ROBERT L. LIVINGSTON. 

Washington, October 15, 1808. 

Sir, Your letter of September the 22nd waited here for my return, and it isnot till now that I have been able to acknowledge it. The explanationof his principles, given you by the French Emperor, in conversation, is correct as far as it goes. He does not wish us to go to war withEngland, knowing we have no ships to carry on that war. To submit to payto England the tribute on our commerce which she demands by her ordersof council, would be to aid her in the war against him, and would givehim just ground to declare war with us. He concludes, therefore, as every rational man must, that the embargo, the only remainingalternative, was a wise measure. These are acknowledged principles, andshould circumstances arise, which may offer advantage to our country inmaking them public, we shall avail ourselves of them. But as it is notusual nor agreeable to governments to bring their conversations beforethe public, I think it would be well to consider this on your part asconfidential, leaving to the government to retain or make it public, as the general good may require. Had the Emperor gone further, and saidthat he condemned our vessels going voluntarily into his ports in breachof his municipal laws, we might have admitted it rigorously legal, though not friendly. But his condemnation of vessels taken on the highseas by his privateers, and carried involuntarily into his ports, isjustifiable by no law, is piracy, and this is the wrong we complain ofagainst him. 

Supposing that you may be still at Clermont, from whence your letter isdated, I avail myself of this circumstance to request your presenting myfriendly respects to Chancellor Livingston. 

I salute you with esteem and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER LXXI. --TO DOCTOR JAMES BROWN, October 27, 1808

TO DOCTOR JAMES BROWN. 

Washington, October 27, 1808. 

Dear Sir, You will wonder that your letter of June the 3rd should not beacknowledged till this date. I never received it till September the12th, and coming soon after to this place, the accumulation of businessI found here has prevented my taking it up till now. That you everparticipated in any plan for a division of the Union, I never for onemoment believed. I knew your Americanism too well. But as the enterpriseagainst Mexico was of a very different character, I had supposed what Iheard on that subject to be possible. You disavow it; that is enough forme, and I for ever dismiss the idea. I wish it were possible to extendmy belief of innocence to a very different description of men in NewOrleans; but I think there is sufficient evidence of there being there aset of foreign adventurers, and native malcontents, who would concurin any enterprise to separate that country from this. I did wish tosee these people get what they deserved; and under the maxim of the lawitself, that _inter arma silent leges_, that in an encampment expectingdaily attack from a powerful enemy, self-preservation is paramount toall law, I expected that instead of invoking the forms of the law tocover traitors, all good citizens would have concurred in securing them. Should we have ever gained our Revolution, if we had bound our hands bymanacles of the law, not only in the beginning, but in any part of therevolutionary conflict? There are extreme cases where the laws becomeinadequate even to their own preservation, and where the universalresource is a dictator, or martial law. Was New Orleans in thatsituation? Although we knew here that the force destined against it wassuppressed on the Ohio, yet we supposed this unknown at New Orleans atthe time that Burr's accomplices were calling in the aid of the law toenable them to perpetrate its suppression, and that it was reasonable, according to the state of information there, to act on the expectationof a daily attack. Of this you are the best judge. 

Burr is in London, and is giving out to his friends that that governmentoffers him two millions of dollars the moment he can raise an ensign ofrebellion as big as an handkerchief. Some of his partisans will believethis, because they wish it. But those who know him best will not believeit the more because he says it. For myself, even in his most flatteringperiods of the conspiracy, I never entertained one moment's fear. Mylong and intimate knowledge of my countrymen satisfied and satisfies me, that, let there ever be occasion to display the banners of the law, and the world will see how few and pitiful are those who shall arraythemselves in opposition. I as little fear foreign invasion. I haveindeed thought it a duty to be prepared to meet even the most powerful, that of a Bonaparte, for instance, by the only means competent, that ofa classification of the militia, and placing the junior classes at thepublic disposal: but the lesson he receives in Spain extirpates allapprehensions from my mind. If, in a peninsula, the neck of which isadjacent to him, and at his command, where he can march any army withoutthe possibility of interception or obstruction from any foreign power, he finds it necessary to begin with an army of three hundred thousandmen, to subdue a nation of five millions, brutalized by ignorance, andenervated by long peace, and should find constant reinforcements ofthousands after thousands necessary to effect at last a conquest asdoubtful as deprecated, what numbers would be necessary against eightmillions of free Americans, spread over such an extent of countryas would wear him down by mere marching, by want of food, autumnaldiseases, &c. ? How would they be brought, and how reinforced, across anocean of three thousand miles, in possession of a bitter enemy, whosepeace, like the repose of a dog, is never more than momentary? And forwhat? For nothing but hard blows. If the Orleanese Creoles would butcontemplate these truths, they would cling to the American Union, souland body, as their first affection, and we should be as safe there aswe are every where else. I have no doubt of their attachment to us inpreference of the English. 

I salute you with sincere friendship and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER LXXII. --TO LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR LINCOLN, November 13, 1808

TO LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR LINCOLN. 

Washington, November 13, 1808. 

Dear Sir, I enclose you a petition from Nantucket, and refer it for your decision. Our opinion here is, that that place has been so deeply concerned insmuggling, that if it wants, it is because it has illegally sent awaywhat it ought to have retained for its own consumption. Be so good as tobear in mind that I have asked the favor of you to see that your Stateencounters no real want, while, at the same time, where applications aremade merely to cover fraud, no facilities towards that be furnished. Ipresume there can be no want in Massachusetts, as yet, as I am informedthat Governor Sullivan's permits are openly bought and sold here andin Alexandria, and at other markets. The Congressional campaign is justopening: three alternatives alone are to be chosen from. 1. Embargo. 2. War. 3. Submission and tribute. And, wonderful to tell, the last willnot want advocates. The real question, however, will lie between the twofirst, on which there is considerable division. As yet the first seemsmost to prevail; but opinions are by no means yet settled down. Perhapsthe advocates of the second may, to a formal declaration of war, prefergeneral letters of mark and reprisal, because, on a repeal of theiredicts by the belligerent, a revocation of the letters of mark restorespeace without the delay, difficulties, and ceremonies of a treaty. Onthis occasion, I think it fair to leave to those who are to act on them, the decisions they prefer, being to be myself but a spectator. I shouldnot feel justified in directing measures which those who are to executethem would disapprove. Our situation is truly difficult. We have beenpressed by the belligerents to the very wall, and all further retreat isimpracticable. I salute you with sincere friendship. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER LXXIII. --TO THOMAS JEFFERSON RANDOLPH, November 24, 1808

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON RANDOLPH. 

Washington, November 24, 1808. 

My Dear Jefferson, Your situation, thrown at such a distance from us and alone, cannot butgive us all great anxieties for you. As much has been secured for you, by your particular position and the acquaintance to which you have beenrecommended, as could be done towards shielding you from the dangerswhich surround you. But thrown on a wide world, among entire strangers, without a friend or guardian to advise, so young, too, and with solittle experience of mankind, your dangers are great, and still yoursafety must rest on yourself. A determination never to do what iswrong, prudence, and good humor, will go far towards securing to you theestimation of the world. When I recollect that at fourteen years of age, the whole care and direction of myself was thrown on myself entirely, without a relation or friend qualified to advise or guide me, andrecollect the various sorts of bad company with which I associated fromtime to time, I am astonished I did not turn off with some of them, andbecome as worthless to society as they were. I had the good fortune tobecome acquainted very early with some characters of very high standing, and to feel the incessant wish that I could ever become what they were. Under temptations and difficulties, I would ask myself what would Dr. Small, Mr. Wythe, Peyton Randolph do in this situation? What coursein it will insure me their approbation? I am certain that this modeof deciding on my conduct, tended more to its correctness than anyreasoning powers I possessed. Knowing the even and dignified line theypursued, I could never doubt for a moment which of two courses wouldbe in character for them. Whereas, seeking the same object througha process of moral reasoning, and with the jaundiced eye of youth, Ishould often have erred. From the circumstances of my position, Iwas often thrown into the society of horse-racers, card-players, fox-hunters, scientific and professional men, and of dignified men; andmany a time have I asked myself, in the enthusiastic moment of thedeath of a fox, the victory of a favorite horse, the issue of a questioneloquently argued at the bar, or in the great council of the nation, well, which of these kinds of reputation should I prefer? That of ahorse-jockey? a fox-hunter? an orator? or the honest advocate of mycountry's rights? Be assured, my dear Jefferson, that these littlereturns into ourselves, this self-catechizing habit, is not trifling, nor useless, but leads to the prudent selection and steady pursuit ofwhat is right. 

I have mentioned good humor as one of the preservatives of our peace andtranquillity. It is among the most effectual, and its effect is so wellimitated and aided, artificially, by politeness, that this also becomesan acquisition of first-rate value. In truth, politeness is artificialgood humor, it covers the natural want of it, and ends by renderinghabitual a substitute nearly equivalent to the real virtue. It is thepractice of sacrificing to those whom we meet in society, all the littleconveniences and preferences which will gratify them, and deprive us ofnothing worth a moment's consideration; it is the giving a pleasing andflattering turn to our expressions, which will conciliate others, andmake them pleased with us as well as themselves. How cheap a price forthe good will of another! When this is in return for a rude thing saidby another, it brings him to his senses, it mortifies and correctshim in the most salutary way, and places him at the feet of your goodnature, in the eyes of the company. But in stating prudential rules forour government in society I must not omit the important one of neverentering into dispute or argument with another. I never yet saw aninstance of one of two disputants convincing the other by argument. Ihave seen many, of their getting warm, becoming rude, and shooting oneanother. Conviction is the effect of our own dispassionate reasoning, either in solitude, or weighing within ourselves, dispassionately, whatwe hear from others, standing uncommitted in argument ourselves. It wasone of the rules, which, above all others, made Doctor Franklin the mostamiable of men in society, 'never to contradict any body. ' If he wasurged to announce an opinion, he did it rather by asking questions, asif for information, or by suggesting doubts. When I hear another expressan opinion which is not mine, I say to myself, he has a right to hisopinion, as I to mine; why should I question it? His error does me noinjury, and shall I become a Don Quixote, to bring all men by force ofargument to one opinion? If a fact be misstated, it is probable he isgratified by a belief of it, and I have no right to deprive him of thegratification. If he wants information, he will ask it, and then I willgive it in measured terms; but if he still believes his own story, andshows a desire to dispute the fact with me, I hear him, and say nothing. It is his affair, not mine, if he prefers error. There are two classesof disputants most frequently to be met with among us. The first is ofyoung students, just entered the threshold of science, with a first viewof its outlines, not yet filled up with the details and modificationswhich a further progress would bring to their knowledge. The otherconsists of the ill-tempered and rude men in society, who have taken upa passion for politics. (Good humor and politeness never introduceinto mixed society a question on which they foresee there will be adifference of opinion. ) From both of those classes of disputants, mydear Jefferson, keep aloof, as you would from the infected subjects ofyellow fever or pestilence. Consider yourself, when with them, as amongthe patients of Bedlam, needing medical more than moral counsel. Bea listener only, keep within yourself, and endeavor to establish withyourself the habit of silence, especially on politics. In the feveredstate of our country, no good can ever result from any attempt to setone of these fiery zealots to rights, either in fact or principle. Theyare determined as to the facts they will believe, and the opinions onwhich they will act. Get by them, therefore, as you would by an angrybull: it is not for a man of sense to dispute the road with such ananimal. You will be more exposed than others to have these animalsshaking their horns at you, because of the relation in which you standwith me. Full of political venom, and willing to see me and to hate meas a chief in the antagonist party, your presence will be to them whatthe vomit-grass is to the sick dog, a nostrum for producing ejaculation. Look upon them exactly with that eye, and pity them as objects to whomyou can administer only occasional ease. My character is not withintheir power. It is in the hands of my fellow-citizens at large, and willbe consigned to honor or infamy by the verdict of the republican mass ofour country, according to what themselves will have seen, not whattheir enemies and mine shall have said. Never, therefore, consider thesepuppies in politics as requiring any notice from you, and always show, that you are not afraid to leave my character to the umpirage ofpublic opinion. Look steadily to the pursuits which have carried youto Philadelphia, be very select in the society you attach yourselfto, avoid taverns, drinkers, smokers, idlers, and dissipated personsgenerally; for it is with such that broils and contentions arise; andyou will find your path more easy and tranquil. The limits of my paperwarn me that it is time for me to close with my affectionate adieu. 

Th: Jefferson. 

P. S. Present me affectionately to Mr. Ogilvie, and in doing the same toMr. Peale, tell him I am writing with his polygraph, and shall send himmine the first moment I have leisure enough to pack it. T. J. 

LETTER LXXIV. --TO DOCTOR EUSTIS, January 14, 1809

TO DOCTOR EUSTIS. 

Washington, January 14, 1809. 

Sir, I have the pleasure to acknowledge the receipt of your letter ofDecember the 24th, and of the resolutions of the republican citizensof Boston, of the 19th of that month. These are worthy of the ancientcharacter of the sons of Massachusetts, and of the spirit of concordwith her sister States, which, and which alone, carried us successfullythrough the revolutionary war, and finally placed us under that nationalgovernment, which constitutes the safety of every part, by uniting forits protection the powers of the whole. The moment for exerting theseunited powers, to repel the injuries of the belligerents of Europe, seems likely to be pressed upon us. They have interdicted our commercewith nearly the whole world. They have declared it shall be carried onwith such places, in such articles, and in such measure only, as theyshall dictate; thus prostrating all the principles of right, whichhave hitherto protected it. After exhausting the cup of forbearanceand conciliation to its dregs, we found it necessary, on behalf of thatcommerce, to take time to call it home into a state of safety, to putthe towns and harbors which carry it on into a condition of defence, andto make further preparation for enforcing the redress of its wrongs, andrestoring it to its rightful freedom. This required a certain measure oftime, which, although not admitting specific limitation, must, from itsavowed objects, have been obvious to all: and the progress actually madetowards the accomplishment of these objects, proves it now to be nearits term. 

While thus endeavoring to secure, and preparing to vindicate thatcommerce, the absurd opinion has been propagated, that this temporaryand necessary arrangement was to be a permanent system, and was intendedfor its destruction. The sentiments expressed in the paper you were sokind as to enclose me, show that those who have concurred in them, havejudged with more candor the intentions of their government, andare sufficiently aware of the tendency of the excitements andmisrepresentations which have been practised on this occasion. And such, I am persuaded, will be the disposition of the citizens of Massachusettsat large, whenever truth can reach them. Associated with her sisterStates in a common government, the fundamental principle of which is, that the will of the majority is to prevail, sensible, that in thepresent difficulty, that will has been governed by no local interestsor jealousies, that to save permanent rights, temporary sacrificeswere necessary, that these have fallen as impartially on all, as in asituation so peculiar they could be made to do, she will see, in theexisting measures, a legitimate and honest exercise of the will andwisdom of the whole. And her citizens, faithful to themselves andtheir associates, will not, to avoid a transient pressure, yield to theseductions of enemies to their independence, foreign or domestic, andtake a course equally subversive of their well-being, as of that oftheir brethren. 

The approbation expressed by the republican citizens of the town ofBoston, of the course pursued by the national government, is trulyconsoling to its members: and, encouraged by the declaration of thecontinuance of their confidence, and by the assurance of their support, they will continue to pursue the line of their high duties accordingto the best of their understandings, and with undeviating regard tothe good of the whole. Permit me to avail myself of this occasion oftendering you personally the assurances of my great esteem and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER LXXV. --TO COLONEL MONROE, January 28, 1809

TO COLONEL MONROE. 

Washington, January 28, 1809. 

Dear Sir, Your favor of the 18th was received in due time, and the answer has beendelayed as well by a pressure of business, as by the expectation of yourabsence from Richmond. 

The idea of sending a special mission to France or England is notentertained at all here. After so little attention to us from theformer, and so insulting an answer from Canning, such a mark of respectas an extraordinary mission, would be a degradation against which allminds revolt here. The idea was hazarded in the House of Representativesa few days ago, by a member, and an approbation expressed by another, but rejected indignantly by every other person who spoke, and verygenerally in conversation by all others: and I am satisfied such aproposition would get no vote in the Senate. The course the legislaturemeans to pursue, may be inferred from the act now passed for a meetingin May, and a proposition before them for repealing the embargo in June, and then resuming and maintaining by force our right of navigation. There will be considerable opposition to this last proposition, notonly from the federalists, old and new, who oppose every thing, but fromsound members of the majority. Yet it is believed it will obtain a goodmajority, and that it is the only proposition which can be devisedthat could obtain a majority of any kind. Final propositions, will, therefore, be soon despatched to both the belligerents through theresident ministers, so that their answers will be received before themeeting in May, and will decide what is to be done. This last trial forpeace is not thought desperate. If, as is expected, Bonaparte shouldbe successful in Spain, however every virtuous and liberal sentimentrevolts at it, it may induce both powers to be more accommodatingwith us. England will see here the only asylum for her commerceand manufactures, worth more to her than her orders of council. AndBonaparte, having Spain at his feet, will look immediately to theSpanish colonies, and think our neutrality cheaply purchased by a repealof the illegal parts of his decrees, with perhaps the Floridas throwninto the bargain. Should a change in the aspect of affairs in Europeproduce this disposition in both powers, our peace and prosperity maybe revived and long continue. Otherwise, we must again take the tentedfield, as we did in 1776 under more inauspicious circumstances. 

There never has been a situation of the world before, in which suchendeavors as we have made would not have secured our peace. It isprobable there never will be such another. If we go to war now, I fearwe may renounce for ever the hope of seeing an end of our national debt. If we can keep at peace eight years longer, our income, liberated fromdebt, will be adequate to any war, without new taxes or loans, and ourposition and increasing strength will put us _hors d'insulte_ from anynation. I am now so near the moment of retiring, that I take no part inaffairs beyond the expression of an opinion. I think it fair, thatmy successor should now originate those measures of which he will becharged with the execution and responsibility, and that it is my duty toclothe them with the forms of authority. Five weeks more will relieve mefrom a drudgery to which I am no longer equal, and restore me to a sceneof tranquillity, amidst my family and friends, more congenial to myage and natural inclinations. In that situation, it will always be apleasure to me to see you, and to repeat to you the assurances of myconstant friendship and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER LXXVI. --TO THOMAS MANN RANDOLPH, February 7, 1809

TO THOMAS MANN RANDOLPH. 

Washington, February 7, 1809. 

Dear Sir, I thought Congress had taken their ground firmly for continuingtheir embargo till June, and then war. But a sudden and unaccountablerevolution of opinion took place the last week, chiefly among the NewEngland and New York members, and in a kind of panic, they voted the 4thof March for removing the embargo, and by such a majority as gaveall reason to believe, they would not agree either to war ornon-intercourse. This, too, was after we had become satisfied, thatthe Essex Junto had found their expectation desperate, of inducing thepeople there to either separation or forcible opposition. The majorityof Congress, however, has now rallied to the removing the embargo on the4th of March, non-intercourse with France and Great Britain, trade everywhere else, and continuing war preparations. The further details are notyet settled, but I believe it is perfectly certain that the embargowill be taken off the 4th of March. Present my warmest affections to mydearest Martha, and the young ones, and accept the assurances of them toyourself. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER LXXVII. --TO JOHN HOLLINS, February 19, 1809

TO JOHN HOLLINS. 

Washington, February 19, 1809. 

Dear Sir, A little transaction of mine, as innocent an one as I ever entered into, and where an improper construction was never less expected, is makingsome noise, I observe, in your city. I beg leave to explain it to you, because I mean to ask your agency in it. The last year, the AgriculturalSociety of Paris, of which I am a member, having had a plough presentedto them, which, on trial with a graduated instrument, did equal workwith half the force of their best ploughs, they thought it would be abenefit to mankind to communicate it. They accordingly sent one to me, with a view to its being made known here, and they sent one to the Dukeof Bedford also, who is one of their members, to be made use of forEngland, although the two nations were then at war. By the Mentor, nowgoing to France, I have given permission to two individuals in Delawareand New York, to import two parcels of Merino sheep from France, whichthey have procured there, and to some gentlemen in Boston, to import avery valuable machine which spins cotton, wool, and flax equally. Thelast spring, the Society informed me they were cultivating the cotton ofthe Levant and other parts of the Mediterranean, and wished to try alsothat of our southern States. I immediately got a friend to have twotierces of seed forwarded to me. They were consigned to Messrs. Fallsand Brown of Baltimore, and notice of it being given me, I immediatelywrote to them to re-ship them to New York, to be sent by the Mentor. Their first object was to make a show of my letter, as something verycriminal, and to carry the subject into the newspapers. I had, on a likerequest, some time ago (but before the embargo), from the President ofthe Board of Agriculture of London, of which I am also a member, to sendthem some of the genuine May wheat of Virginia, forwarded to them two orthree barrels of it. General Washington, in his time, received from thesame Society the seed of the perennial succory, which Arthur Young hadcarried over from France to England, and I have since received from amember of it the seed of the famous turnip of Sweden, now so well knownhere. I mention these things, to show the nature of the correspondencewhich is carried on between societies instituted for the benevolentpurpose of communicating to all parts of the world whatever useful isdiscovered in any one of them. These societies are always in peace, however their nations may be at war. Like the republic of letters, they form a great fraternity spreading over the whole earth, and theircorrespondence is never interrupted by any civilized nation. Vaccinationhas been a late and remarkable instance of the liberal diffusion of ablessing newly discovered. It is really painful, it is mortifying, to beobliged to note these things, which are known to every one who knows anything, and felt with approbation by every one who has any feeling. Butwe have a faction to whose hostile passions the torture even of rightinto wrong is a delicious gratification. Their malice I have longlearned to disregard, their censure to deem praise. But I observe, that some republicans are not satisfied (even while we are receivingliberally from others) that this small return should be made. They willthink more justly at another day: but, in the mean time, I wish to avoidoffence. My prayer to you, therefore, is, that you will be so good, under the enclosed order, as to receive these two tierces of seed fromFalls and Brown, and pay them their disbursements for freight, &c. WhichI will immediately remit you on knowing the amount. Of the seed, whenreceived, be so good as to make manure for your garden. When rotted witha due mixture of stable manure or earth, it is the best in the world. I rely on your friendship to excuse this trouble, it being necessary Ishould not commit myself again to persons of whose honor, or the want ofit, I know nothing. 

Accept the assurances of my constant esteem and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER LXXVIII. --TO M. DUPONT DE NEMOURS, March 2, 1809

TO M. DUPONT DE NEMOURS. 

Washington, March 2, 1809. 

Dear Sir, My last to you was of May the 2nd; since which I have received yours ofMay the 25th, June the 1st, July the 23rd, 24th, and September the 5th, and distributed the two pamphlets according to your desire. They areread with the delight which every thing from your pen gives. 

After using every effort which could prevent or delay our beingentangled in the war of Europe, that seems now our only resource. Theedicts of the two belligerents, forbidding us to be seen on the ocean, we met by an embargo. This gave us time to call home our seamen, ships, and property, to levy men and put our sea-ports into a certain stateof defence. We have now taken off the embargo, except as to Franceand England and their territories, because fifty millions of exportsannually sacrificed, are the treble of what war would cost us; besides, that by war we should take something, and lose less than at present. Butto give you a true description of the state of things here, I mustrefer you to Mr. Coles, the bearer of this, my secretary, a most worthy, intelligent, and well-informed young man, whom I recommend to yournotice, and conversation on our affairs. His discretion and fidelitymay be relied on. I expect he will find you with Spain at your feet, but England still afloat, and a barrier to the Spanish colonies. But allthese concerns I am now leaving to be settled by my friend Mr. Madison. Within a few days I retire to my family, my books, and farms; and havinggained the harbor myself, I shall look on my friends still buffetingthe storm, with anxiety indeed, but not with envy. Never did a prisoner, released from his chains, feel such relief as I shall on shaking offthe shackles of power. Nature intended me for the tranquil pursuits ofscience, by rendering them my supreme delight. But the enormities of thetimes in which I have lived, have forced me to take a part in resistingthem, and to commit myself on the boisterous ocean of politicalpassions. I thank God for the opportunity of retiring from them withoutcensure, and carrying with me the most consoling proofs of publicapprobation. I leave every thing in the hands of men so able to takecare of them, that if we are destined to meet misfortunes, it willbe because no human wisdom could avert them. Should you return to theUnited States, perhaps your curiosity may lead you to visit the hermitof Monticello. He will receive you with affection and delight; hailingyou in the mean time with his affectionate salutations, and assurancesof constant esteem and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

P. S. If you return to us, bring a couple of pair of true-bredshepherd's dogs. You will add a valuable possession to a country nowbeginning to pay great attention to the raising sheep. 

T. J. 

LETTER LXXIX. --TO THE PRESIDENT, March 17, 1809

TO THE PRESIDENT. 

Monticello, March 17, 1809. 

Dear Sir, On opening my letters from France, in the moment of my departure fromWashington, I found from their signatures that they were from literarycharacters, except one from Mr. Short, which mentioned in the outsetthat it was private, and that his public communications were in theletter to the Secretary of State, which I sent you. I find, however, onreading his letter to me (which I did not do till I got home) a passageof some length, proper to be communicated to you, and which I havetherefore extracted. 

I had a very fatiguing journey, having found the roads excessively bad, although I have seen them worse. The last three days I found it betterto be on horseback, and travelled eight hours through as disagreeablea snow storm as I was ever in. Feeling no inconvenience from theexpedition but fatigue, I have more confidence in my _vis vitæ_ than Ihad before entertained. The spring is remarkably backward. No oatssown, not much tobacco seed, and little done in the gardens. Wheat hassuffered considerably. No vegetation visible yet but the red maple, weeping-willow, and lilac. Flour is said to be at eight dollars atRichmond, and all produce is hurrying down. 

I feel great anxiety for the occurrences of the ensuing four or fivemonths. If peace can be preserved, I hope and trust you will havea smooth administration. I know no government which would be soembarrassing in war as ours. This would proceed very much from thelying and licentious character of our papers; but much, also, from thewonderful credulity of the members of Congress in the floating lies ofthe day. And in this no experience seems to correct them. I have neverseen a Congress during the last eight years, a great majority of whichI would not implicitly have relied on in any question, could their mindshave been purged of all errors of fact. The evil, too, increases greatlywith the protraction of the session, and I apprehend, in case of war, their session would have a tendency to become permanent. It is much, therefore, to be desired that war may be avoided, if circumstances willadmit. Nor in the present maniac state of Europe, should I estimatethe point of honor by the ordinary scale. I believe we shall, on thecontrary, have credit with the world, for having made the avoidanceof being engaged in the present unexampled war, our first object. War, however, may become a less losing business than unresisted depredation. With every wish that events may be propitious to your administration, Isalute you with sincere affection and every sympathy of the heart. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER LXXX. --TO THE INHABITANTS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, April 3, 1809

TO THE INHABITANTS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, IN VIRGINIA, Returning to the scenes of my birth and early life, to the societyof those with whom I was raised, and who have been ever dear to me, Ireceive, fellow-citizens and neighbors, with inexpressible pleasure, the cordial welcome you are so good as to give me. Long absent on dutieswhich the history of a wonderful era made incumbent on those called tothem, the pomp, the turmoil, the bustle, and splendor of office, havedrawn but deeper sighs for the tranquil and irresponsible occupations ofprivate life, for the enjoyment of an affectionate intercourse withyou, my neighbors and friends, and the endearments of family love, whichnature has given us all, as the sweetener of every hour. For these Igladly lay down the distressing burthen of power, and seek, with myfellow-citizens, repose and safety under the watchful cares, the labors, and perplexities of younger and abler minds. The anxieties you expressto administer to my happiness, do, of themselves, confer that happiness;and the measure will be complete, if my endeavors to fulfil my duties inthe several public stations to which I have been called, have obtainedfor me the approbation of my country. The part which I have acted on thetheatre of public life, has been before them; and to their sentence Isubmit it: but the testimony of my native county, of the individuals whohave known me in private life, to my conduct in its various duties andrelations, is the more grateful, as proceeding from eye-witnesses andobservers, from triers of the vicinage. Of you, then, my neighbors, Imay ask, in the face of the world, 'Whose ox have I taken, or whom haveI defrauded? Whom have I oppressed, or of whose hand have I receiveda bribe to blind mine eyes therewith?' On your verdict I rest withconscious security. Your wishes for my happiness are received withjust sensibility, and I offer sincere prayers for your own welfare andprosperity. 

Th: Jefferson. 

April 3, 1809. 

LETTER LXXXI. --TO WILSON C. NICHOLAS, June 13, 1809

TO WILSON C. NICHOLAS. 

Monticello, June 13, 1809. 

Dear Sir, I did not know till Mr. Patterson called on us, a few days ago, that youhad passed on to Washington. I had recently observed in the debates ofCongress, a matter introduced, on which I wished to give explanationsmore fully in conversation, which I will now do by abridgment inwriting. Mr. Randolph has proposed an inquiry into certain prosecutionsat common law in Connecticut, for libels on the government, and not onlyhimself, but others have stated them with such affected caution, andsuch hints at the same time, as to leave on every mind the impressionthat they had been instituted either by my direction, or with myacquiescence, at least. This has not been denied by my friends, becauseprobably the fact is unknown to them. I shall state it for theirsatisfaction, and leave it to be disposed of as they think best. 

I had observed in a newspaper (some years ago, I do not recollect thetime exactly), some dark hints of a prosecution in Connecticut, but soobscurely hinted, that I paid little attention to it. Some considerabletime after, it was again mentioned, so that I understood that someprosecution was going on in the federal court there, for calumniesuttered from the pulpit against me by a clergyman. I immediately wroteto Mr. Granger, who, I think, was in Connecticut at the time, statingthat I had laid it down as a law to myself, to take no notice of thethousand calumnies issued against me, but to trust my character to myown conduct, and the good sense and candor of my fellow-citizens; thatI had found no reason to be dissatisfied with that course, and Iwas unwilling it should be broke through by others as to any matterconcerning me; and I therefore requested him to desire the districtattorney to dismiss the prosecution. Some time after this, 1 heard ofsubpoenas being served on General Lee, David M. Randolph, and others, aswitnesses to attend the trial. I then, for the first time, conjecturedthe subject of the libel. I immediately wrote to Mr. Granger, torequire an immediate dismission of the prosecution. The answer of Mr. Huntington, the district attorney, was, that these subpoenas had beenissued by the defendant without his knowledge, that it had been hisintention to dismiss all the prosecutions at the first meeting of thecourt, and to accompany it with an avowal of his opinion, that theycould not be maintained, because the federal court had no jurisdictionover libels. This was accordingly done. I did not till then know thatthere were other prosecutions of the same nature, nor do I now know whatwere their subjects. But all went off together; and I afterwards saw, inthe hands of Mr. Granger, a letter written by the clergyman, disavowingany personal ill will towards me, and solemnly declaring he had neveruttered the words charged. I think Mr. Granger either showed me, or saidthere were affidavits of at least half a dozen respectable men who werepresent at the sermon, and swore no such expressions were uttered, andas many equally respectable who swore the contrary. But the clergymanexpressed his gratification at the dismission of the prosecution. Iwrite all this from memory, and after too long an interval of time to becertain of the exactness of all the details; but I am sure there is novariation material, and Mr. Granger, correcting small lapses ofmemory, can confirm every thing substantial. Certain it is, that theprosecutions had been instituted, and had made considerable progress, without my knowledge; that they were disapproved by me as soon as known, and directed to be discontinued. The attorney did it on the same groundon which I had acted myself in the cases of Duane, Callender, andothers; to wit, that the sedition law was unconstitutional and null, and that my obligation to execute what was law, involved that of notsuffering rights secured by valid laws, to be prostrated by what was nolaw. I always understood that these prosecutions had been invited, ifnot instituted, by Judge Edwards, and the marshal, being republican, had summoned a grand jury partly or wholly republican: but that Mr. Huntington declared from the beginning against the jurisdiction of thecourt, and had determined to enter _nolle-prosequis_ before he receivedmy directions. 

I trouble you with another subject. The law making my letters post free, goes to those to me only, not those from me. The bill had got to itspassage before this was observed (and first I believe by Mr. Dana), and the house under too much pressure of business near the close of thesession to bring in another bill. As the privilege of freedom was givento the letters from as well as to both my predecessors, I supposeno reason exists for making a distinction. And in so extensive acorrespondence as I am subject to, and still considerably on publicmatters, it would be a sensible convenience to myself, as well as thosewho have occasion to receive letters from me. It happens, too, as I wastold at the time (for I have never looked into it myself), that it wasdone by two distinct acts on both the former occasions. Mr. Eppes, Ithink, mentioned this to me. I know from the Post Master General, thatMr. Adams franks all his letters. I state this matter to you as being myrepresentative, which must apologize for the trouble of it. We have beenseasonable since you left us. Yesterday evening and this morning we havehad refreshing showers, which will close and confirm the business ofplanting. Affectionately yours, Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER LXXXII. --TO THE PRESIDENT, August 17, 1809

TO THE PRESIDENT. 

Monticello, August 17, 1809. 

Dear Sir, *****

I never doubted the chicanery of the Anglomen, on whatsoever measuresyou should take in consequence of the disavowal of Erskine; yet I amsatisfied that both the proclamations have been sound. The first hasbeen sanctioned by universal approbation; and although it was notliterally the case foreseen by the legislature, yet it was a properextension of their provision to a case similar, though not the same. It proved to the whole world our desire of accommodation, and must havesatisfied every candid federalist on that head. It was not only properon the well-grounded confidence that the arrangement would be honestlyexecuted, but ought to have taken place even had the perfidy of Englandbeen foreseen. Their dirty gain is richly remunerated to us by ourplacing them so shamefully in the wrong, and by the union it mustproduce among ourselves. The last proclamation admits of quibbles, ofwhich advantage will doubtless be endeavored to be taken, by those towhom gain is their god, and their country nothing. But it is soundlydefensible. The British minister assured us, that the orders of councilwould be revoked before the 10th of June. The executive, trusting inthat assurance, declared by proclamation that the revocation was to takeplace, and that on that event the law was to be suspended. But the eventdid not take place, and the consequence, of course, could not follow. This view is derived from the former non-intercourse law only, havingnever read the latter one. I had doubted whether Congress must not becalled; but that arose from another doubt, whether their second law hadnot changed the ground, so as to require their agency to give operationto the law. Should Bonaparte have the wisdom to correct his injusticetowards us, I consider war with England as inevitable. Our ships willgo to France and its dependencies, and they will take them. This willbe war on their part, and leaves no alternative but reprisal. I have nodoubt you will think it safe to act on this hypothesis, and with energy. The moment that open war shall be apprehended from them, we should takepossession of Baton Rouge. If we do not, they will, and New Orleansbecomes irrecoverable, and the western country blockaded during the war. It would be justifiable towards Spain on this ground, and equally so onthat of title to West Florida, and reprisal extended to East Florida. Whatever turn our present difficulty may take, I look upon all cordialconciliation with England as desperate during the life of the presentKing. I hope and doubt not that Erskine will justify himself. Myconfidence is founded in a belief of his integrity, and in the ------of Canning. I consider the present as the most shameless ministry whichever disgraced England. Copenhagen will immortalize their infamy. Ingeneral their administrations are so changeable, and they are obligedto descend to such tricks to keep themselves in place, that nothing likehonor or morality can ever be counted on in transactions with them. Isalute you with all possible affection. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER LXXXIII. --TO DOCTOR BARTON, September 21, 1809

TO DOCTOR BARTON. 

Monticello, September 21, 1809. 

Dear Sir, I received last night your favor of the 14th, and would with allpossible pleasure have communicated to you any part or the whole of theIndian vocabularies which I had collected, but an irreparable misfortunehas deprived me of them. I have now been thirty years availing myself ofevery possible opportunity of procuring Indian vocabularies to the sameset of words: my opportunities were probably better than will ever occuragain to any person having the same desire. I had collected about fifty, and had digested most of them in collateral columns, and meant to haveprinted them the last year of my stay in Washington. But not having yetdigested Captain Lewis's collection, nor having leisure then to do it, I put it off till I should return home. The whole, as well digest asoriginals, were packed in a trunk of stationery, and sent round by waterwith about thirty other packages of my effects, from Washington, andwhile ascending James river, this package, on account of its weight andpresumed precious contents, was singled out and stolen. The thief, beingdisappointed on opening it, threw into the river all its contents, ofwhich he thought he could make no use. Among these were the whole of thevocabularies. Some leaves floated ashore, and were found in the mud;but these were very few, and so defaced by the mud and water, that nogeneral use can ever be made of them. On the receipt of your letter Iturned to them, and was very happy to find, that the only morsel ofan original vocabulary among them, was Captain Lewis's of the Panilanguage, of which you say you have not one word. I therefore enclose itto you as it is, and a little fragment of some other, which I see is inhis hand-writing, but no indication remains on it of what language itis. It is a specimen of the condition of the little which was recovered. I am the more concerned at this accident, as of the two hundred andfifty words of my vocabularies, and the one hundred and thirty words ofthe great Russian vocabularies of the languages of the other quarters ofthe globe, seventy-three were common to both, and would have furnishedmaterials for a comparison, from which something might have resulted. Although I believe no general use can ever be made of the wrecks of myloss, yet I will ask the return of the Pani vocabulary when you are donewith it. Perhaps I may make another attempt to collect, although I amtoo old to expect to make much progress in it. 

I learn, with pleasure, your acquisition of the pamphlet on theastronomy of the ancient Mexicans. If it be ancient and genuine, ormodern and rational, it will be of real value. It is one of the mostinteresting countries of our hemisphere, and merits every attention. 

I am thankful for your kind offer of sending the original Spanish for myperusal. But I think it a pity to trust it to the accidents of the post, and whenever you publish the translation, I shall be satisfied to readthat which shall be given by your translator, who is, I am sure, agreater adept in the language than I am. 

Accept the assurances of my great esteem and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER LXXXIV. --TO DON VALENTINE DE FORONDA, October 4, 1809

TO DON VALENTINE DE FORONDA. 

Monticello, October 4, 1809. 

Dear Sir, Your favor of August the 26th came to hand in the succeeding month, andhave now to thank you for the pamphlet it contained. I have read it withpleasure, and find the constitution proposed would probably be as freeas is consistent with hereditary institutions. It has one featurewhich I like much; that which provides that when the three co-ordinatebranches differ in their construction of the constitution, the opinionof two branches shall overrule the third. Our constitution has notsufficiently solved this difficulty. 

Among the multitude of characters with which public office leads us toofficial intercourse, we cannot fail to observe many, whose personalworth marks them as objects of particular esteem, whom we would wishto select for our society in private life. I avail myself gladly of thepresent occasion, of assuring you that I was peculiarly impressed withyour merit and talents, and that I have ever entertained for them aparticular respect. To those whose views are single and direct, it is agreat comfort to have to do business with frank and honorable minds. And here give me leave to make an avowal, for which, in my presentretirement, there can be no motive but a regard for truth. Your predecessor, soured on a question of etiquette against theadministration of this country, wished to impute wrong to them in alltheir actions, even where he did not believe it himself. In this spirit, he wished it to be believed that we were in unjustifiable co-operationin Miranda's expedition. I solemnly, and on my personal truth and honor, declare to you, that this was entirely without foundation, and thatthere was neither co-operation nor connivance on our part. He informedus he was about to attempt the liberation of his native country frombondage, and intimated a hope of our aid, or connivance at least. He wasat once informed, that, although we had great cause of complaint againstSpain, and even of war, yet whenever we should think proper to act asher enemy, it should be openly and above board, and that our hostilityshould never be exercised by such petty means. We had no suspicion thathe expected to engage men here, but merely to purchase military stores. Against this there was no law, nor consequently any authority for us tointerpose obstacles. On the other hand, we deemed it improper tobetray his voluntary communication to the agents of Spain. Although hismeasures were many days in preparation at New York, we never had theleast intimation or suspicion of his engaging men in his enterprise, until he was gone; and I presume the secrecy of his proceedings keptthem equally unknown to the Marquis Yrujo at Philadelphia, andthe Spanish Consul at New York, since neither of them gave us anyinformation of the enlistment of men, until it was too late for anymeasures taken at Washington to prevent their departure. The officerin the Customs, who participated in this transaction with Miranda, we immediately removed, and should have had him and others furtherpunished, had it not been for the protection given them by privatecitizens at New York, in opposition to the government, who, by theirimpudent falsehoods and calumnies, were able to overbear the minds ofthe jurors. Be assured, Sir, that no motive could induce me, at thistime, to make this declaration so gratuitously, were it not founded insacred truth: and I will add further, that I never did, or countenanced, in public life, a single act inconsistent with the strictest good faith;having never believed there was one code of morality for a public, andanother for a private man. 

I receive, with great pleasure, the testimonies of personal esteem whichbreathe through your letter; and I pray you to accept those equallysincere with which I now salute you. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER LXXXV. --TO ALBERT GALLATIN, October 11, 1809

TO ALBERT GALLATIN. 

Monticello, October 11, 1809. 

Dear Sir, I do not know whether the request of Monsieur Moussier, explained in theenclosed letter, is grantable or not. But my partialities in favor ofwhatever may promote either the useful or liberal arts, induce meto place it under your consideration, to do in it whatever is right, neither more nor less. I would then ask you to favor me with threelines, in such form as I may forward him by way of answer. 

I have reflected much and painfully on the change of dispositionswhich has taken place among the members of the cabinet, since the newarrangement, as you stated to me in the moment of our separation. Itwould be, indeed, a great public calamity, were it to fix you in thepurpose which you seemed to think possible. I consider the fortunes ofour republic as depending, in an eminent degree, on the extinguishmentof the public debt before we engage in any war: because, that done, weshall have revenue enough to improve our country in peace, and defend itin war, without recurring either to new taxes or loans. But if the debtshould once more be swelled to a formidable size, its entire dischargewill be despaired of, and we shall be committed to the English career ofdebt, corruption, and rottenness, closing with revolution. The dischargeof the debt, therefore, is vital to the destinies of our government, andit hangs on Mr. Madison and yourself alone. We shall never see anotherPresident and Secretary of the Treasury making all other objectssubordinate to this. Were either of you to be lost to the public, thatgreat hope is lost. I had always cherished the idea that you would fixon that object the measure of your fame, and of the gratitude which ourcountry will owe you. Nor can I yield up this prospect to the secondaryconsiderations which assail your tranquillity. For sure I am, they nevercan produce any other serious effect. Your value is too justly estimatedby our fellow-citizens at large, as well as their functionaries, toadmit any remissness in their support of you. My opinion always was, that none of us ever occupied stronger ground in the esteem of Congressthan yourself, and I am satisfied there is no one who does not feelyour aid to be still as important for the future, as it has been for thepast. You have nothing, therefore, to apprehend in the dispositions ofCongress, and still less of the President, who, above all men, is themost interested and affectionately disposed to support you. I hope, then, you will abandon entirely the idea you expressed to me, and thatyou will consider the eight years to come as essential to your politicalcareer. I should certainly consider any earlier day of your retirement, as the most inauspicious day our new government has ever seen. Inaddition to the common interest in this question, I feel particularlyfor myself the considerations of gratitude which I personally owe youfor your valuable aid during my administration of the public affairs, a just sense of the large portion of the public approbation which wasearned by your labors, and belongs to you, and the sincere friendshipand attachment which grew out of our joint exertions to promote thecommon good; and of which I pray you now to accept the most cordial andrespectful assurances. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER LXXXVI. --TO CÆSAR A. RODNEY, February 10, 1810

TO CÆSAR A. RODNEY. 

Monticello, February 10, 1810. 

My Dear Sir, I have to thank you for your favor of the 31st ultimo, which is just nowreceived. It has been peculiarly unfortunate for us, personally, thatthe portion in the history of mankind, at which we were called to take ashare in the direction of their affairs, was such an one as history hasnever before presented. At any other period, the even-handed justicewe have observed towards all nations, the efforts we have made to merittheir esteem by every act which candor or liberality could exercise, would have preserved our peace, and secured the unqualified confidenceof all other nations in our faith and probity. But the hurricane whichis now blasting the world, physical and moral, has prostrated all themounds of reason as well as right. All those calculations which, at anyother period, would have been deemed honorable, of the existence of amoral sense in man, individually or associated, of the connectionwhich the laws of nature have established between his duties and hisinterests, of a regard for honest fame and the esteem of our follow-men, have been a matter of reproach on us, as evidences of imbecility. As ifit could be a folly for an honest man to suppose that others could behonest also, when it is their interest to be so. And when is this stateof things to end? The death of Bonaparte would, to be sure, remove thefirst and chiefest apostle of the desolation of men and morals, andmight withdraw the scourge of the land. But what is to restore orderand safety on the ocean? The death of George III? Not at all. He is onlystupid; and his ministers, however weak and profligate in morals, areephemeral. But his nation is permanent, and it is that which is thetyrant of the ocean. The principle that force is right, is becomethe principle of the nation itself. They would not permit an honestminister, were accident to bring such an one into power, to relax theirsystem of lawless piracy. These were the difficulties when I was withyou. I know they are not lessened, and I pity you. 

It is a blessing, however, that our people are reasonable; that they arekept so well informed of the state of things as to judge for themselves, to see the true sources of their difficulties, and to maintaintheir confidence undiminished in the wisdom and integrity of theirfunctionaries. _Macte virtute_ therefore. Continue to go straightforward, pursuing always that which is right, as the only clue which canlead us out of the labyrinth. Let nothing be spared of either reason orpassion, to preserve the public confidence entire, as the only rockof our safety. In times of peace the people look most to theirrepresentatives; but in war, to the executive solely. It is visible thattheir confidence is even now veering in that direction; that they arelooking to the executive to give the proper direction to their affairs, with a confidence as auspicious as it is well founded. 

I avail myself of this, the first occasion of writing to you, to expressall the depth of my affection for you; the sense I entertain of yourfaithful co-operation in my late labors, and the debt I owe forthe valuable aids I received from you. Though separated from myfellow-laborers in place and pursuit, my affections are with you all, and I offer daily prayers that ye love one another, as I love you. Godbless you. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER LXXXVII. *--TO SAMUEL KERCHEVAL, February 19, 1810

TO SAMUEL KERCHEVAL. 

Monticello, February 19, 1810. 

 [* This letter is endorsed, 'not sent. ']

Sir, Yours of the 7th instant has been duly received, with the pamphletenclosed, for which I return you my thanks. Nothing can be more exactlyand seriously true than what is there stated; that but a short timeelapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed tobe his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslavingmankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State; thatthe purest system of morals ever before preached to man, has beenadulterated and sophisticated by artificial constructions, into a merecontrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves; that rational mennot being able to swallow their impious heresies, in order to forcethem down their throats, they raise the hue and cry of infidelity, whilethemselves are the greatest obstacles to the advancement of the realdoctrines of Jesus, and do in fact constitute the real Anti-Christ. 

You expect that your book will have some effect on the prejudiceswhich the society of Friends entertain against the present and lateadministrations. In this I think you will be disappointed. The Friendsare men, formed with the same passions, and swayed by the same naturalprinciples and prejudices as others. In cases where the passions areneutral, men will display their respect for the religious professions oftheir sect. But where their passions are enlisted, these professionsare no obstacle. You observe very truly, that both the late and presentadministration conducted the government on principles professed by theFriends. Our efforts to preserve peace, our measures as to the Indians, as to slavery, as to religious freedom, were all in consonance withtheir professions. Yet I never expected we should get a vote from them, and in this I was neither deceived nor disappointed. There is no riddlein this, to those who do not suffer themselves to be duped by theprofessions of religious sectaries. The theory of American Quakerism isa very obvious one. The mother society is in England. Its members areEnglish by birth and residence, devoted to their own country, as goodcitizens ought to be. The Quakers of these States are colonies orfiliations from the mother society, to whom that society sends itsyearly lessons. On these the filiated societies model their opinions, their conduct, their passions, and attachments. A Quaker is, essentiallyan Englishman, in whatever part of the earth he is born or lives. Theoutrages of Great Britain on our navigation and commerce have kept us inperpetual bickerings with her. The Quakers here have taken side againsttheir own government; not on their profession of peace, for they sawthat peace was our object also; but from devotion to the views of themother society. In 1797 and 8, when an administration sought war withFrance, the Quakers were the most clamorous for war. Their principle ofpeace, as a secondary one, yielded to the primary one of adherence tothe Friends in England, and what was patriotism in the original becametreason in the copy. On that occasion, they obliged their good oldleader, Mr. Pemberton, to erase his name from a petition to Congress, against war, which had been delivered to a Representative ofPennsylvania, a member of the late and present administration. Heaccordingly permitted the old gentleman to erase his name. You mustnot, therefore, expect that your book will have any more effect on thesociety of Friends here, than on the English merchants settled amongus. I apply this to the Friends in general, not universally. I knowindividuals among them as good patriots as we have. 

I thank you for the kind wishes and sentiments towards myself, expressedin your letter, and sincerely wish to yourself the blessings of healthand happiness. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER LXXXVIII. --TO GENERAL KOSCIUSKO, February 26, 1810

TO GENERAL KOSCIUSKO. 

Monticello, February 26, 1810. 

My Dear General and Friend, I have rarely written to you; never but by safe conveyances; andavoiding every thing political, lest coming from one in the station Ithen held, it might be imputed injuriously to our country, or perhapseven excite jealousy of you. Hence my letters were necessarily dry. Retired now from public concerns, totally unconnected with them, andavoiding all curiosity about what is done or intended, what I say isfrom myself only, the workings of my own mind, imputable to nobody else. 

The anxieties which I know you have felt, on seeing exposed to thejustlings of a warring world, a country to which, in early life, youdevoted your sword and services when oppressed by foreign dominion, wereworthy of your philanthropy and disinterested attachment to the freedomand happiness of man. Although we have not made all the provisions whichmight be necessary for a war in the field of Europe, yet we have notbeen inattentive to such as would be necessary here. From the momentthat the affair of the Chesapeake rendered the prospect of war imminent, every faculty was exerted to be prepared for it, and I think I mayventure to solace you with the assurance, that we are, in a good degree, prepared. Military stores for many campaigns are on hand, all thenecessary articles (sulphur excepted), and the art of preparing themamong ourselves, abundantly; arms in our magazines for more men thanwill ever be required in the field, and forty thousand new stand yearlyadded, of our own fabrication, superior to any we have ever seen fromEurope; heavy artillery much beyond our need; an increasing stock offield-pieces, several founderies casting one every other day each; amilitary school of about fifty students, which has been in operation adozen years; and the manufacture of men constantly going on, and addingforty thousand young soldiers to our force every year that the war isdeferred: at all our sea-port towns of the least consequence we haveerected works of defence, and assigned them gunboats, carrying one ortwo heavy pieces, either eighteen, twenty-four, or thirty-two pounders, sufficient in the smallest harbors to repel the predatory attacks ofprivateers or single armed ships, and proportioned in the larger harborsto such more serious attacks as they may probably be exposed to. Allthese were nearly completed, and their gunboats in readiness, whenI retired from the government. The works of New York and New Orleansalone, being on a much larger scale, are not yet completed. The formerwill be finished this summer, mounting four hundred and thirty-eightguns, and, with the aid of from fifty to one hundred gunboats, willbe adequate to the resistance of any fleet which will ever be trustedacross the Atlantic. The works for New Orleans are less advanced. Theseare our preparations. They are very different from what you will be toldby newspapers, and travellers, even Americans. But it is not to themthe government communicates the public condition. Ask one of them ifhe knows the exact state of any particular harbor, and you will findprobably that he does not know even that of the one he comes from. Youwill ask, perhaps, where are the proofs of these preparations forone who cannot go and see them. I answer, in the acts of Congress, authorizing such preparations, and in your knowledge of me, that, ifauthorized, they would be executed. 

Two measures have not been adopted which I pressed on Congressrepeatedly at their meetings. The one, to settle the whole ungrantedterritory of Orleans, by donations of land to able bodied young men, tobe engaged and carried there at the public expense, who would constitutea force always ready on the spot to defend New Orleans. The other was, to class the militia according to the years of their birth, and make allthose from twenty to twenty-five liable to be trained and called intoservice at a moment's warning. This would have given us a force of threehundred thousand young men, prepared, by proper training, for service inany part of the United States; while those who had passed through thatperiod would remain at home, liable to be used in their own or adjacentStates. These two measures would have completed what I deemed necessaryfor the entire security of our country. They would have given me, onmy retirement from the government of the nation, the consolatoryreflection, that having found, when I was called to it, not a singlesea-port town in a condition to repel a levy of contribution by a singleprivateer or pirate, I had left every harbor so prepared by worksand gun-boats, as to be in a reasonable state of security against anyprobable attack; the territory of Orleans acquired, and planted with aninternal force sufficient for its protection; and the whole territory ofthe United States organized by such a classification of its male force, as would give it the benefit of all its young population for activeservice, and that of a middle and advanced age for stationary defence. But these measures will, I hope, be completed by my successor, who, to the purest principles of republican patriotism, adds a wisdom andforesight second to no man on earth. 

So much as to my country. Now a word as to myself. I am retired toMonticello, where, in the bosom of my family, and surrounded by mybooks, I enjoy a repose to which I have been long a stranger. Mymornings are devoted to correspondence. From breakfast to dinner, I amin my shops, my garden, or on horseback among my farms; from dinner todark, I give to society and recreation with my neighbors and friends;and from candle-light to early bed-time, I read. My health is perfect;and my strength considerably reinforced by the activity of the courseI pursue; perhaps it is as great as usually falls to the lot of nearsixty-seven years of age. I talk of ploughs and harrows, seeding andharvesting, with my neighbors, and of politics too, if they choose, with as little reserve as the rest of my fellow-citizens, and feel, atlength, the blessing of being free to say and do what I please, withoutbeing responsible for it to any mortal. A part of my occupation, andby no means the least pleasing, is the direction of the studies of suchyoung men as ask it. They place themselves in the neighboring village, and have the use of my library and counsel, and make a part of mysociety. In advising the course of their reading, I endeavor to keeptheir attention fixed on the main objects of all science, the freedomand happiness of man. So that coming to bear a share in the councilsand government of their country, they will keep ever in view the soleobjects of all legitimate government. 

*****

Instead of the unalloyed happiness of retiring unembarrassed andindependent, to the enjoyment of my estate, which is ample for mylimited views, I have to pass such a length of time in a thraldom ofmind never before known to me. Except, for this, my happiness would havebeen perfect. That yours may never know disturbance, and that you mayenjoy as many years of life, health, and ease as yourself shall wish, isthe sincere prayer of your constant and affectionate friend. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER LXXXIX. --TO DOCTOR JONES, March 5, 1810

TO DOCTOR JONES. 

Monticello, March 5, 1810. 

Dear Sir, I received duly your favor of the 19th ultimo, and I salute you withall antient and recent recollections of friendship. I have learned, with real sorrow, that circumstances have risen among our executivecounsellors, which have rendered foes those who once were friends. To themselves it will be a source of infinite pain and vexation, andtherefore chiefly I lament it, for I have a sincere esteem for bothparties. To the President it will be really inconvenient: but to thenation I do not know that it can do serious injury, unless we were tobelieve the newspapers, which pretend that Mr. Gallatin will go out. That indeed would be a day of mourning for the United States: but I hopethat the position of both gentlemen may be made so easy as to give nocause for either to withdraw. The ordinary business of every day is doneby consultation between the President and the Head of the departmentalone to which it belongs. For measures of importance or difficulty, aconsultation is held with the Heads of departments, either assembled, orby taking their opinions separately in conversation or in writing. Thelatter is most strictly in the spirit of the constitution. Because thePresident, on weighing the advice of all, is left free to make up anopinion for himself. In this way they are not brought together, and itis not necessarily known to any what opinion the others have given. Thiswas General Washington's practice for the first two or three years ofhis administration, till the affairs of France and England threatenedto embroil us, and rendered consideration and discussion desirable. Inthese discussions, Hamilton and myself were daily pitted in the cabinetlike two cocks. We were then but four in number, and, according to themajority, which of course was three to one, the President decided. The pain was for Hamilton and myself, but the public experienced noinconvenience. I practised this last method, because the harmony was socordial among us all, that we never failed, by a contribution of mutualviews of the subject, to form an opinion acceptable to the whole. Ithink there never was one instance to the contrary, in any case ofconsequence. Yet this does, in fact, transform the executive into adirectory, and I hold the other method to be more constitutional. It isbetter calculated, too, to prevent collision and irritation, and to cureit, or at least suppress its effects when it has already taken place. It is the obvious and sufficient remedy in the present case, and willdoubtless be resorted to. 

Our difficulties are indeed great, if we consider ourselves alone. Butwhen viewed in comparison with those of Europe, they are the joys ofParadise. In the eternal revolution of ages, the destinies have placedour portion of existence amidst such scenes of tumult and outrage, as noother period, within our knowledge, had presented. Every government butone on the continent of Europe, demolished, a conqueror roaming overthe earth with havoc and destruction, a pirate spreading misery and ruinover the face of the ocean. Indeed, my friend, ours is a bed of roses. And the system of government which shall keep us afloat amidst thiswreck of the world, will be immortalized in history. We have, to besure, our petty squabbles and heart-burnings, and we have something ofthe blue devils at times, as to these raw heads and bloody bones who areeating up other nations. But happily for us, the Mammoth cannot swim, nor the Leviathan move on dry land: and if we will keep out of theirway, they cannot get at us. If, indeed, we choose to place ourselveswithin the scope of their tether, a gripe of the paw, or flounce of thetail, may be our fortune. Our business certainly was to be still. Buta part of our nation chose to declare against this, in such a way as tocontrol the wisdom of the government. I yielded with others, to avoida greater evil. But from that moment, I have seen no system which couldkeep us entirely aloof from these agents of destruction. If there beany, I am certain that you, my friends, now charged with the care of usall, will see and pursue it. I give myself, therefore, no trouble withthinking or puzzling about it. Being confident in my watchmen, I sleepsoundly. God bless you all, and send you a safe deliverance. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XC. --TO GOVERNOR LANGDON, March 5, 1810

TO GOVERNOR LANGDON. 

Monticello, March 5, 1810. 

Your letter, my dear friend, of the 18th ultimo, comes like therefreshing dews of the evening on a thirsty soil. It recalls antient aswell as recent recollections, very dear to my heart. For five and thirtyyears we have walked together through a land of tribulations. Yet thesehave passed away, and so I trust will those of the present day. Thetoryism with which we struggled in '77, differed but in name from thefederalism of '99, with which we struggled also; and the Anglicism, of1808, against which we are now struggling, is but the same thing still, in another form. It is a longing for a King, and an English King, ratherthan any other. This is the true source of their sorrows and wailings. 

The fear that Bonaparte will come over to us and conquer us also, istoo chimerical to be genuine. Supposing him to have finished Spain andPortugal, he has yet England and Russia to subdue. The maxim of war wasnever sounder than in this case, not to leave an enemy in the rear;and especially where an insurrectionary flame is known to be under theembers, merely smothered, and ready to burst at every point. These twosubdued (and surely the Anglomen will not think the conquest of Englandalone a short work), ancient Greece and Macedonia, the cradle ofAlexander, his prototype, and Constantinople, the seat of empire for theworld, would glitter more in his eye than our bleak mountains and ruggedforests. Egypt, too, and the golden apples of Mauritania, have for morethan half a century fixed the longing eyes of France; and with Syria, you know, he has an old affront to wipe out. Then come 'Pontus andGalatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, ' the fine countries on theEuphrates and Tigris, the Oxus and Indus, and all beyond the Hyphasis, which bounded the glories of his Macedonian rival; with the invitationsof his new British subjects on the banks of the Ganges, whom, afterreceiving under his protection the mother country, he cannot refuse tovisit. When all this is done and settled, and nothing of the old worldremains unsubdued, he may turn to the new one. But will he attack usfirst, from whom he will get but hard knocks, and no money? Or willhe first lay hold of the gold and silver of Mexico and Peru, andthe diamonds of Brazil? A republican Emperor, from his affection torepublics, independent of motives of expediency, must grant to ours theCyclops' boon of being the last devoured. While all this is doing, weare to suppose the chapter of accidents read out, and that nothing canhappen to cut short or disturb his enterprises. 

But the Anglomen, it seems, have found out a much safer dependence, thanall these chances of death or disappointment. That is, that we shouldfirst let England plunder us, as she has been doing for years, for fearBonaparte should do it; and then ally ourselves with her, and enter intothe war. A conqueror, whose career England could not arrest when aidedby Russia, Austria, Prussia, Sweden, Spain, and Portugal, she is nowto destroy, with all these on his side, by the aid of the United Statesalone. This, indeed, is making us a mighty people. And what is to beour security, that when embarked for her in the war, she will not make aseparate peace, and leave us in the lurch? Her good faith! The faithof a nation of merchants! The _Punica fides_ of modern Carthage! Of thefriend and protectress of Copenhagen! Of the nation who never admitted achapter of morality into her political code! And is now boldly avowing, that whatever power can make hers, is hers of right. Money, and notmorality, is the principle of commerce and commercial nations. But, in addition to this, the nature of the English government forbids, ofitself, reliance on her engagements; and it is well known she has beenthe least faithful to her alliances of any nation of Europe, sincethe period of her history wherein she has been distinguished for hercommerce and corruption, that is to say, under the houses of Stuart andBrunswick. To Portugal alone she has steadily adhered, because, by herMethuin treaty, she had made it a colony, and one of the most valuableto her. It may be asked, what, in the nature of her government, unfitsEngland for the observation of moral duties? In the first place, herKing is a cipher; his only function being to name the oligarchy which isto govern her. The parliament is, by corruption, the mere instrumentof the will of the administration. The real power and property in thegovernment is in the great aristocratical families of the nation. Thenest of office being too small for all of them to cuddle into at once, the contest is eternal, which shall crowd the other out. For thispurpose they are divided into two parties, the Ins and the Outs, so equal in weight, that a small matter turns the balance. To keepthemselves in, when they are in, every stratagem must be practised, every artifice used, which may flatter the pride, the passions, or powerof the nation. Justice, honor, faith, must yield to the necessity ofkeeping themselves in place. The question, whether a measure is moral, is never asked; but whether it will nourish the avarice of theirmerchants, or the piratical spirit of their navy, or produce any othereffect which may strengthen them in their places. As to engagements, however positive, entered into by the predecessors of the Ins, why, theywere their enemies; they did every thing which was wrong; and to reverseevery thing they did, must, therefore, be right. This is the truecharacter of the English government in practice, however differentits theory; and it presents the singular phenomenon of a nation, theindividuals of which are as faithful to their private engagements andduties, as honorable, as worthy, as those of any nation on earth, andwhose government is yet the most unprincipled at this day known. Inan absolute government there can be no such equiponderant parties. The despot is the government. His power, suppressing all opposition, maintains his ministers firm in their places. What he has contracted, therefore, through them, he has the power to observe with good faith;and he identifies his own honor and faith with that of his nation. 

When I observed, however, that the King of England was a cipher, I didnot mean to confine the observation to the mere individual now on thatthrone. The practice of Kings marrying only into the families of Kings, has been that of Europe for some centuries. Now, take any race ofanimals, confine them in idleness and inaction, whether in a sty, astable, or a state-room, pamper them with high diet, gratify all theirsexual appetites, immerse them in sensualities, nourish their passions, let every thing bend before them, and banish whatever might lead them tothink, and in a few generations they become all body, and no mind: andthis, too, by a law of nature, by that very law by which we are in theconstant practice of changing the characters and propensities of theanimals we raise for our own purposes. Such is the regimen in raisingKings, and in this way they have gone on for centuries. While in Europe, I often amused myself with contemplating the characters of the thenreigning sovereigns of Europe. Louis the XVI. Was a fool, of my ownknowledge, and in despite of the answers made for him at his trial. The King of Spain was a fool, and of Naples the same. They passed theirlives in hunting, and despatched two couriers a week, one thousandmiles, to let each other know what game they had killed the precedingdays. The King of Sardinia was a fool. All these were Bourbons. TheQueen of Portugal, a Braganza, was an idiot by nature. And so wasthe King of Denmark. Their sons, as regents, exercised the powers ofgovernment. The King of Prussia, successor to the great Frederick, wasa mere hog in body as well as in mind. Gustavus of Sweden, and Josephof Austria, were really crazy, and George of England you know was in astraight waistcoat. There remained, then, none but old Catherine, whohad been too lately picked up to have lost her common sense. In thisstate Bonaparte found Europe; and it was this state of its rulers whichlost it with scarce a struggle. These animals had become without mindand powerless; and so will every hereditary monarch be after a fewgenerations. Alexander, the grandson of Catherine, is as yet anexception. He is able to hold his own. But he is only of the thirdgeneration. His race is not yet worn out. And so endeth the book ofKings, from all of whom the Lord deliver us and have you, my friend, andall such good men and true, in his holy keeping. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XCI. --TO GENERAL DEARBORN, July 16, 1810

TO GENERAL DEARBORN. 

Monticello, July 16, 1810. 

Dear General and Friend, Your favor of May the 31st was duly received, and I join incongratulations with you on the resurrection of republican principlesin Massachusetts and New Hampshire, and the hope that the professors ofthese principles will not again easily be driven off their ground. Thefederalists, during their short-lived ascendancy, have, nevertheless, by forcing us from the embargo, inflicted a wound on our interests whichcan never be cured, and on our affections which will require time tocicatrize. I ascribe all this to one pseudo-republican, Story. He cameon (in place of Crowningshield, I believe) and staid only a few days;long enough, however, to get complete hold of Bacon, who giving in tohis representations, became panic-struck, and communicated his panic tohis colleagues, and they to a majority of the sound members of Congress. They believed in the alternative of repeal or civil war, and producedthe fatal measure of repeal. This is the immediate parent of all ourpresent evils, and has reduced us to a low standing in the eyes of theworld. I should think that even the federalists themselves must now bemade, by their feelings, sensible of their error. The wealth which theembargo brought home safely, has now been thrown back into the laps ofour enemies; and our navigation completely crushed, and by the unwiseand unpatriotic conduct of those engaged in it. Should the orders provegenuine, which are said to have been given against our fisheries, they, too, are gone: and if not true as yet, they will be true on the firstbreeze of success which England shall feel: for it has now been someyears, that I am perfectly satisfied her intentions have been to claimthe ocean as her conquest, and prohibit any vessel from navigating it, but on such a tribute as may enable her to keep up such a standing navyas will maintain her dominion over it. She has hauled in, or let herselfout, been bold or hesitating, according to occurrences, but has inno situation done any thing which might amount to an acknowledgedrelinquishment of her intentions. I have ever been anxious to avoida war with England, unless forced by a situation more losing than waritself. But I did believe we could coerce her to justice by peaceablemeans, and the embargo, evaded as it was, proved it would have coercedher, had it been honestly executed. The proof she exhibited on thatoccasion, that she can exercise such an influence in this country, as tocontrol the will of its government and three fourths of its people, and oblige the three fourths to submit to one fourth, is to me the mostmortifying circumstance which has occurred since the establishment ofour government. The only prospect I see of lessening that influence, is in her own conduct, and not from any thing in our power. Radicallyhostile to our navigation and commerce, and fearing its rivalry, shewill completely crush it, and force us to resort to agriculture, not aware that we shall resort to manufactures also, and render herconquests over our navigation and commerce useless, at least, if notinjurious to herself in the end, and perhaps salutary to us, as removingout of our way the chief causes and provocations to war. 

But these are views which concern the present and future generation, among neither of which I count myself. You may live to see the change inour pursuits, and chiefly in those of your own State, which England willeffect. I am not certain that the change on Massachusetts, by drivingher to agriculture, manufactures, and emigration, will lessen herhappiness. But once more to be done with politics. How does Mrs. Dearborn do? How do you both like your situation? Do you amuse yourselfwith a garden, a farm, or what? That your pursuits, whatever theybe, may make you both easy, healthy, and happy, is the prayer of yoursincere friend, Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XCII. --TO J. B. COLVIN, September 20, 1810

TO J. B. COLVIN. 

Monticello, September 20, 1810. 

Sir, Your favor of the 14th has been duly received, and I have to thank youfor the many obliging things respecting myself which are said in it. If I have left in the breasts of my fellow-citizens a sentiment ofsatisfaction with my conduct in the transaction of their business, itwill soften the pillow of my repose through the residue of life. 

The question you propose, whether circumstances do not sometimes occur, which make it a duty in officers of high trust, to assume authoritiesbeyond the law, is easy of solution in principle, but sometimesembarrassing in practice. A strict observance of the written laws, isdoubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen: but it is not thehighest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving ourcountry when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country bya scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property, and all those who are enjoying them withus; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means. When, in the battleof Germantown, General Washington's army was annoyed from Chew'shouse, he did not hesitate to plant his cannon against it, althoughthe property of a citizen. When he besieged Yorktown, he leveled thesuburbs, feeling that the laws of property must be postponed to thesafety of the nation. While the army was before York, the Governor ofVirginia took horses, carriages, provisions, and even men, by force, toenable that army to stay together till it could master the public enemy;and he was justified. A ship at sea in distress for provisions, meets another having abundance, yet refusing a supply; the law ofself-preservation authorizes the distressed to take a supply byforce. In all these cases, the unwritten laws of necessity, ofself-preservation, and of the public safety, control the written laws of_meum_ and _tuum_. Further to exemplify the principle, I will state anhypothetical case. Suppose it had been made known to the executive ofthe Union in the autumn of 1805, that we might have the Floridas fora reasonable sum, that that sum had not indeed been so appropriatedby law, but that Congress were to meet within three weeks, and mightappropriate it on the first or second day of their session. Ought he, for so great an advantage to his country, to have risked himself bytranscending the law and making the purchase? The public advantageoffered, in this supposed case, was indeed immense: but a reverencefor law, and the probability that the advantage might still be legallyaccomplished by a delay of only three weeks, were powerful reasonsagainst hazarding the act. But suppose it foreseen that a John Randolphwould find means to protract the proceeding on it by Congress, until theensuing spring, by which time new circumstances would change the mindof the other party. Ought the executive, in that case, and with thatforeknowledge, to have secured the good to his country, and to havetrusted to their justice for the transgression of the law? I think heought, and that the act would have been approved. After the affair ofthe Chesapeake, we thought war a very possible result. Our magazineswere illy provided with some necessary articles, nor had anyappropriations been made for their purchase. We ventured, however, toprovide them, and to place our country in safety; and stating the caseto Congress, they sanctioned the act. 

To proceed to the conspiracy of Burr, and particularly to GeneralWilkinson's situation in New Orleans. In judging this case, we are boundto consider the state of the information, correct and incorrect, whichhe then possessed. He expected Burr and his band from above, a Britishfleet from below, and he knew there was a formidable conspiracy withinthe city. Under these circumstances, was he justifiable, 1. In seizingnotorious conspirators? On this there can be but two opinions; one, ofthe guilty and their accomplices; the other, that of all honest men. 2. In sending them to the seat of government, when the written law gavethem a right to trial in the territory? The danger of their rescue, oftheir continuing their machinations, the tardiness and weakness ofthe law, apathy of the judges, active patronage of the whole tribe oflawyers, unknown disposition of the juries, an hourly expectation of theenemy, salvation of the city, and of the Union itself, which would havebeen convulsed to its centre, had that conspiracy succeeded; all theseconstituted a law of necessity and self-preservation, and rendered the_salus populi_ supreme over the written law. The officer who is calledto act on this superior ground, does indeed risk himself on the justiceof the controlling powers of the constitution, and his station makesit his duty to incur that risk. But those controlling powers, andhis fellow-citizens generally, are bound to judge according to thecircumstances under which he acted. They are not to transfer theinformation of this place or moment to the time and place of his action;but to put themselves into his situation. We knew here that there neverwas danger of a British fleet from below, and that Burr's band wascrushed before it reached the Mississippi. But General Wilkinson'sinformation was very different, and he could act on no other. 

From these examples and principles you may see what I think on thequestion proposed. They do not go to the case of persons charged withpetty duties, where consequences are trifling, and time allowed fora legal course, nor to authorize them to take such cases out of thewritten law. In these, the example of overleaping the law is ofgreater evil than a strict adherence to its imperfect provisions. It isincumbent on those only who accept of great charges, to risk themselveson great occasions, when the safety of the nation, or some of its veryhigh interests are at stake. 

An officer is bound to obey orders: yet he would be a bad one who shoulddo it in cases for which they were not intended, and which involved themost important consequences. The line of discrimination between casesmay be difficult; but the good officer is bound to draw it at hisown peril, and throw himself on the justice of his country, and therectitude of his motives. 

I have indulged freer views on this question, on your assurances thatthey are for your own eye only, and that they will not get into thehands of news-writers. I met their scurrilities without concern, whilein pursuit of the great interests with which I was charged. But in mypresent retirement, no duty forbids my wish for quiet. 

Accept the assurances of my esteem and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XCIII. --TO MR. LAW, January 15, 1811

TO MR. LAW. 

Monticello, January 15, 1811. 

Dear Sir, An absence from home of some length has prevented my sooneracknowledging the receipt of your letter, covering the printed pamphlet, which the same absence has as yet prevented me from taking up, but whichI know I shall read with great pleasure. Your favor of December the 22ndis also received. 

Mr. Wagner's malignity, like that of the rest of his tribe of brotherprinters, who deal out calumnies for federal readers, gives me no pain. When a printer cooks up a falsehood, it is as easy to put it into themouth of a Mr. Fox, as of a smaller man, and safer into that of a deadthan a living one. Your sincere attachment to this country, as well asto your native one, was never doubted by me; and in that persuasion, Ifelt myself free to express to you my genuine sentiments with respect toEngland. No man was more sensible than myself of the just value ofthe friendship of that country. There are between us so many of thosecircumstances which naturally produce and cement kind dispositions, thatif they could have forgiven our resistance to their usurpations, ourconnections might have been durable, and have insured duration to bothour governments. I wished, therefore, a cordial friendship with them, and I spared no occasion of manifesting this in our correspondence andintercourse with them; not disguising, however, my desire of friendshipwith their enemy also. During the administration of Mr. Addington, I thought I discovered some friendly symptoms on the part of thatgovernment; at least, we received some marks of respect from theadministration, and some of regret at the wrongs we were suffering fromtheir country. So, also, during the short interval of Mr. Fox's power. But every other administration since our Revolution has been equallywanton in their injuries and insults, and has manifested equal hatredand aversion. Instead, too, of cultivating the government itself, whoseprinciples are those of the great mass of the nation, they haveadopted the miserable policy of teazing and embarrassing it, by allyingthemselves with a faction here, not a tenth of the people, noisy andunprincipled, and which never can come into power while republicanism isthe spirit of the nation, and that must continue to be so, until sucha condensation of population shall have taken place as will requirecenturies. Whereas, the good will of the government itself would givethem, and immediately, every benefit which reason or justice wouldpermit it to give. With respect to myself, I saw great reason to believetheir ministers were weak enough to credit the newspaper trash about asupposed personal enmity in myself towards England. This wretched partyimputation was beneath the notice of wise men. England never did me apersonal injury, other than in open war, and for numerous individualsthere, I have great esteem and friendship. And I must have had amind far below the duties of my station, to have felt either nationalpartialities or antipathies in conducting the affairs confided to me. Myaffections were first for my own country, and then, generally, for allmankind; and nothing but minds placing themselves above the passions, inthe functionaries of this country, could have preserved us from thewar to which their provocations have been constantly urging us. Thewar interests in England include a numerous and wealthy part of theirpopulation; and their influence is deemed worth courting by ministerswishing to keep their places. Continually endangered by a powerfulopposition, they find it convenient to humor the popular passions at theexpense of the public good. The shipping interest, commercial interest, and their janizaries of the navy, all fattening on war, will not beneglected by ministers of ordinary minds. Their tenure of office is soinfirm that they dare not follow the dictates of wisdom, justice, and the well calculated interests of their country. This vice, in theEnglish constitution, renders a dependance on that government veryunsafe. The feelings of their King, too, fundamentally averse to us, have added another motive for unfriendliness in his ministers. Thisobstacle to friendship, however, seems likely to be soon removed; andI verily believe the successor will come in with fairer and wiserdispositions towards us; perhaps on that event their conduct may bechanged. But what England is to become on the crush of her internalstructure, now seeming to be begun, I cannot foresee. Her moniedinterest, created by her paper system, and now constituting a baselessmass of wealth equal to that of the owners of the soil, must disappearwith that system, and the medium for paying great taxes thus failing, her navy must be without support. That it shall be supported bypermitting her to claim dominion of the ocean, and to levy tributeon every flag traversing that, as lately attempted and not yetrelinquished, every nation must contest, even _ad internecionem_. Andyet, that, retiring from this enormity, she should continue able totake a fair share in the necessary equilibrium, of power on that element, would be the desire of every nation. 

I feel happy in withdrawing my mind from these anxieties, and resigningmyself, for the remnant of life, to the care and guardianship of others. Good wishes are all an old man has to offer to his country or friends. Mine attend yourself, with sincere assurances of esteem and respect, which, however, I should be better pleased to tender you in person, should your rambles ever lead you into the vicinage of Monticello. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XCIV. --TO DOCTOR BENJAMIN RUSH, January 16, 1811

TO DOCTOR BENJAMIN RUSH. 

Monticello, January 16, 1811. 

Dear Sir, I had been considering for some days, whether it was not time by aletter, to bring myself to your recollection, when I receivedyour welcome favor of the 2nd instant. I had before heard of theheart-rending calamity you mention, and had sincerely sympathized withyour afflictions. But I had not made it the subject of a letter, becauseI knew that condolences were but renewals of grief. Yet I thought, andstill think, this is one of the cases wherein we should 'not sorrow, even as others who have no hope. '

*****

You ask if I have read Hartley? I have not. 'My present course of lifeadmits less reading than I wish. From breakfast, or noon at latest, to dinner, I am mostly on horseback, attending to my farms or otherconcerns, which I find healthful to my body, mind, and affairs; and thefew hours I can pass in my cabinet, are devoured by correspondences;not those with my intimate friends, with whom I delight to interchangesentiments, but with others, who, writing to me on concerns of theirown in which I have had an agency, or from motives of mere respect andapprobation, are entitled to be answered with respect and a return ofgood will. My hope is that this obstacle to the delights of retirementwill wear away with the oblivion which follows that, and that I may atlength be indulged in those studious pursuits, from which nothing butrevolutionary duties would ever have called me. 

I shall receive your proposed publication, and read it with the pleasurewhich every thing gives me from your pen. Although much of a sceptic inthe practice of medicine, I read with pleasure its ingenious theories. 

I receive with sensibility your observations on the discontinuance offriendly correspondence between Mr. Adams and myself, and the concernyou take in its restoration. This discontinuance has not proceeded fromme, nor from the want of sincere desire, and of effort on my part, torenew our intercourse. You know the perfect coincidence of principle andof action, in the early part of the Revolution, which produced a highdegree of mutual respect and esteem between Mr. Adams and myself. Certainly no man was ever truer than he was, in that day, to thoseprinciples of rational republicanism, which, after the necessity ofthrowing off our monarchy, dictated all our efforts in the establishmentof a new government. And although he swerved, afterwards, towards theprinciples of the English constitution, our friendship did not abate onthat account. While he was Vice-President, and I Secretary of State, I received a letter from President Washington, then at Mount Vernon, desiring me to call together the Heads of departments, and to invite Mr. Adams to join us (which, by the bye, was the only instance of that beingdone) in order to determine on some measure which required despatch; andhe desired me to act on it, as decided, without again recurring to him. I invited them to dine with me, and after dinner, sitting at our wine, having settled our question, other conversation came on, in which acollision of opinion arose between Mr. Adams and Colonel Hamilton, on the merits of the British Constitution, Mr. Adams giving it as hisopinion, that, if some of its defects and abuses were corrected, itwould be the most perfect constitution of government ever devised byman. Hamilton, on the contrary, asserted, that with its existing vices, it was the most perfect model of government that could be formed;and that the correction of its vices would render it an impracticablegovernment. And this you may be assured was the real line of differencebetween the political principles of these two gentlemen. Anotherincident took place on the same occasion, which will further delineateHamilton's political principles. The room being hung around with acollection of the portraits of remarkable men, among them were those ofBacon, Newton, and Locke. Hamilton asked me who they were. I toldhim they were my trinity of the three greatest men the world had everproduced, naming them. He paused for some time: 'The greatest man, 'said he, 'that ever lived, was Julius Caesar. ' Mr. Adams was honest asa politician, as well as a man; Hamilton honest as a man, but, as apolitician, believing in the necessity of either force or corruption togovern men. 

You remember the machinery which the federalists played off, aboutthat time, to beat down the friends to the real principles of ourconstitution, to silence by terror every expression in their favor, tobring us into war with France and alliance with England, and finally tohomologize our constitution with that of England. Mr. Adams, you know, was overwhelmed with feverish addresses, dictated by the fear, and oftenby the pen of the _bloody buoy_, and was seduced by them into some openindications of his new principles of government, and in fact, was soelated as to mix with his kindness a little superciliousness towardsme. Even Mrs. Adams, with all her good sense and prudence, was sensiblyflushed. And you recollect the short suspension of our intercourse, andthe circumstance which gave rise to it, which you were so good as tobring to an early explanation, and have set to rights, to the cordialsatisfaction of us all. The nation at length passed condemnation on thepolitical principles of the federalists, by refusing to continue Mr. Adams in the Presidency. On the day on which we learned in Philadelphiathe vote of the city of New York, which it was well known would decidethe vote of the State, and that, again, the vote of the Union, I calledon Mr. Adams on some official business. He was very sensibly affected, and accosted me with these words. 'Well, I understand that you are tobeat me in this contest, and I will only say that I will be as faithfula subject as any you will have. ' 'Mr. Adams, ' said I, 'this is nopersonal contest between you and me. Two systems of principles on thesubject of government divide our fellow-citizens into two parties. Withone of these you concur, and I with the other. As we have been longer onthe public stage than most of those now living, our names happen to bemore generally known. One of these parties, therefore, has put your nameat its head, the other mine. Were we both to die to-day, to-morrow twoother names would be in the place of ours, without any change in themotion of the machine. Its motion is from its principle, not from youor myself. ''I believe you are right, ' said he, 'that we are but passiveinstruments, and should not suffer this matter to affect our personaldispositions. ' But he did not long retain this just view of thesubject. I have always believed that the thousand calumnies whichthe federalists, in bitterness of heart, and mortification at theirejection, daily invented against me, were carried to him by their busyintriguers, and made some impression. When the election between Burr andmyself was kept in suspense by the federalists, and they were meditatingto place the President of the Senate at the head of the government, Icalled on Mr. Adams with a view to have this desperate measure preventedby his negative. He grew warm in an instant, and said with a vehemencehe had not used towards me before, 'Sir, the event of the election iswithin your own power. You have only to say you will do justice tothe public creditors, maintain the navy, and not disturb those holdingoffices, and the government will instantly be put into your hands. Weknow it is the wish of the people it should be so. ''Mr. Adams, ' said I, 'I know not what part of my conduct, in either public or private life, can have authorized a doubt of my fidelity to the public engagements. I say, however, I will not come into the government by capitulation. Iwill not enter on it, but in perfect freedom to follow the dictatesof my own judgment. ' I had before given the same answer to the sameintimation from Gouverneur Morris. 'Then, ' said he, 'things must taketheir course. ' I turned the conversation to something else, and soontook my leave. It was the first time in our lives we had ever partedwith any thing like dissatisfaction. And then followed those scenes ofmidnight appointment, which have been condemned by all men. The last dayof his political power, the last hours, and even beyond the midnight, were employed in filling all offices and especially permanent ones, withthe bitterest federalists, and providing for me the alternative, eitherto execute the government by my enemies, whose study it would beto thwart and defeat all my measures, or to incur the odium of suchnumerous removals from office, as might bear me down. A little time andreflection effaced in my mind this temporary dissatisfaction withMr. Adams, and restored me to that just estimate of his virtues andpassions, which a long acquaintance had enabled me to fix. And my firstwish became that of making his retirement easy by any means in my power;for it was understood he was not rich. I suggested to some republicanmembers of the delegation from his State, the giving him, eitherdirectly or indirectly, an office, the most lucrative in that State, and then offered to be resigned, if they thought he would not deem itaffrontive. They were of opinion he would take great offence at theoffer; and, moreover, that the body of republicans would consider sucha step in the outset, as auguring very ill of the course I meant topursue. I dropped the idea, therefore, but did not cease to wish forsome opportunity of renewing our friendly understanding. 

Two or three years after, having had the misfortune to lose a daughter, between whom and Mrs. Adams there had been a considerable attachment, she made it the occasion of writing me a letter, in which, with thetenderest expressions of concern at this event, she carefully avoided asingle one of friendship towards myself, and even concluded it withthe wishes 'of her who once took pleasure in subscribing herself yourfriend, Abigail Adams. ' Unpromising as was the complexion of thisletter, I determined to make an effort towards removing the clouds frombetween us. This brought on a correspondence which I now enclose foryour perusal, after which be so good as to return it to me, as I havenever communicated it to any mortal breathing, before. I send it to you, to convince you I have not been wanting either in the desire, or theendeavor to remove this misunderstanding. Indeed, I thought it highlydisgraceful to us both, as indicating minds not sufficiently elevated toprevent a public competition from affecting our personal friendship. Isoon found from the correspondence that conciliation was desperate, and yielding to an intimation in her last letter, I ceased from furtherexplanation. I have the same good opinion of Mr. Adams which I ever had. I know him to be an honest man, an able one with his pen, and he was apowerful advocate on the floor of Congress. He has been alienated fromme, by belief in the lying suggestions contrived for electioneeringpurposes, that I perhaps mixed in the activity and intrigues of theoccasion. My most intimate friends can testify that I was perfectlypassive. They would sometimes, indeed, tell me what was going on; butno man ever heard me take part in such conversations; and none evermisrepresented Mr. Adams in my presence without my asserting his justcharacter. With very confidential persons I have doubtless disapprovedof the principles and practices of his administration. This wasunavoidable. But never with those with whom it could do him any injury. Decency would have required this conduct from me, if disposition hadnot: and I am satisfied Mr. Adams's conduct was equally honorabletowards me. But I think it part of his character to suspect foul playin those of whom he is jealous, and not easily to relinquish hissuspicions. 

I have gone, my dear friend, into these details, that you might knowevery thing which had passed between us, might be fully possessed ofthe state of facts and dispositions, and judge for yourself whether theyadmit a revival of that friendly intercourse for which you are so kindlysolicitous. I shall certainly not be wanting in any thing on my partwhich may second your efforts; which will be the easier with me, inasmuch as I do not entertain a sentiment of Mr. Adams, the expressionof which could give him reasonable offence. And I submit the whole toyourself, with the assurance, that whatever be the issue, my friendshipand respect for yourself will remain unaltered and unalterable. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XCV. --TO M. DESTUTT TRACY, January 26, 1811

TO M. DESTUTT TRACY. 

Monticello, January 26, 1811. 

Sir, The length of time your favor of June the 12th, 1809, was on its wayto me, and my absence from home the greater part of the autumn, delayedvery much the pleasure which awaited me of reading the packet whichaccompanied it. I cannot express to you the satisfaction which Ireceived from its perusal. I had, with the world, deemed Montesquieu'sa work of much merit; but saw in it, with every thinking man, so much ofparadox, of false principle, and misapplied fact, as to render its valueequivocal on the whole. Williams and others had nibbled only atits errors. A radical correction of them, therefore, was a greatdesideratum. This want is now supplied, and with a depth of thought, precision; of idea, of language, and of logic, which will forceconviction into every mind. I declare to you, Sir, in the spirit oftruth and sincerity, that I consider it the most precious gift thepresent age has received. But what would it have been, had the author, or would the author, take up the whole scheme of Montesquieu's work, andfollowing the correct analysis he has here developed, fill up all itsparts according to his sound views of them. Montesquieu's celebritywould be but a small portion of that which would immortalize the author. And with whom? With the rational and high-minded spirits of the presentand all future ages. With those whose approbation is both incitementand reward to virtue and ambition. Is then the hope desperate? To whatobject can the occupation of his future life be devoted so usefully tothe world, so splendidly to himself? But I must leave to others who havehigher claims on his attention, to press these considerations. 

My situation, far in the interior of the country, was not favorable tothe object of getting this work translated and printed. Philadelphia isthe least distant of the great towns of our States, where there existsany enterprise in this way; and it was not till the spring followingthe receipt of your letter, that I obtained an arrangement for itsexecution. The translation is just now completed. The sheets came to meby post, from time to time, for revisal; but not being accompanied bythe original, I could not judge of verbal accuracies. I think, however, it is substantially correct, without being an adequate representationof the excellences of the original; as indeed no translation can be. Ifound it impossible to give it the appearance of an original compositionin our language. I therefore think it best to divert inquiries after theauthor towards a quarter where he will not be found; and with this view, propose to prefix the prefatory epistle now enclosed. As soon as a copyof the work can be had, I will send it to you by duplicate. The secretof the author will be faithfully preserved during his and my jointlives; and those into whose hands my papers will fall at my death willbe equally worthy of confidence. When the death of the author, or hisliving consent shall permit the world to know their benefactor, bothhis and my papers will furnish the evidence. In the mean time, the manyimportant truths the works so solidly establishes, will, I hope, make itthe political rudiment of the young, and manual of our older citizens. 

One of its doctrines, indeed, the preference of a plural over a singularexecutive, will probably not be assented to here. When our presentgovernment was first established, we had many doubts on this question, and many leanings towards a supreme executive council. It happened thatat that time the experiment of such an one was commenced in France, while the single executive was under trial here. We watched the motionsand effects of these two rival plans, with an interest and anxietyproportioned to the importance of a. Choice between them. The experimentin France failed after a short course, and not from any circumstancepeculiar to the times or nation, but from those internal jealousies anddissensions in the Directory, which will ever arise among men equal inpower, without a principal to decide and control their differences. Wehad tried a similar experiment in 1784, by establishing a committee ofthe States, composed of a member from every State, then thirteen, toexercise the executive functions during the recess of Congress. Theyfell immediately into schisms and dissensions, which became at length soinveterate as to render all co-operation among them impracticable:they dissolved themselves, abandoning the helm of government, and itcontinued without a head, until Congress met the ensuing winter. Thiswas then imputed to the temper of two or three individuals; but the wiseascribed it to the nature of man. The failure of the French Directory, and from the same cause, seems to have authorized a belief that the formof a plurality, however promising in theory, is impracticable with menconstituted with the ordinary passions. While the tranquil and steadytenor of our single executive, during a course of twenty-two years ofthe most tempestuous times the history of the world has ever presented, gives a rational hope that this important problem is at length solved. Aided by the counsels of a cabinet of Heads of departments, originallyfour, but now five, with whom the President consults, either singly orall together, he has the benefit of their wisdom and information, bringstheir views to one centre, and produces an unity of action anddirection in all the branches of the government. The excellence of thisconstruction of the executive power has already manifested itself hereunder very opposite circumstances. During the administration of ourfirst President, his cabinet of four members was equally divided, by asmarked an opposition of principle, as monarchism and republicanism couldbring into conflict. Had that cabinet been a directory, like positiveand negative quantities in Algebra, the opposing wills would havebalanced each other, and produced a state of absolute inaction. But thePresident heard with calmness the opinions and reasons of each, decidedthe course to be pursued, and kept the government steadily in it, unaffected by the agitation. The public knew well the dissensions of thecabinet, but never had an uneasy thought on their account; because theyknew also they had provided a regulating power, which would keep themachine in steady movement. I speak with an intimate knowledge of thesescenes, _quorum pars fui_; as I may of others of a character entirelyopposite. The third administration, which was of eight years, presentedan example of harmony in a cabinet of six persons, to which perhapshistory has furnished no parallel. There never arose, during the wholetime, an instance of an unpleasant thought or word between the members. We sometimes met under differences of opinion, but scarcely ever failed, by conversing and reasoning, so to modify each other's ideas, as toproduce an unanimous result. Yet, able and amiable as these memberswere, I am not certain this would have been the case, had each possessedequal and independent powers. Ill defined limits of their respectivedepartments, jealousies, trifling at first, but nourished andstrengthened by repetition of occasions, intrigues without doors ofdesigning persons to build an importance to themselves on the divisionsof others, might, from small beginnings, have produced perseveringoppositions. But the power of decision in the President left no objectfor internal dissension, and external intrigue was stifled in embryo bythe knowledge which incendiaries possessed, that no divisions theycould foment would change the course of the executive power. I am notconscious that my participations in executive authority have producedany bias in favor of the single executive; because the parts I haveacted have been in the subordinate, as well as superior stations, andbecause, if I know myself, what I have felt, and what I have wished, Iknow that I have never been so well pleased, as when I could shift powerfrom my own, on the shoulders of others; nor have I ever been able toconceive how any rational being could propose happiness to himself fromthe exercise of power over others. 

I am still, however, sensible of the solidity of your principle, that, to insure the safety of the public liberty, its depository should besubject to be changed with the greatest ease possible, and withoutsuspending or disturbing for a moment the movements of the machine ofgovernment. You apprehend that a single executive, with, eminence oftalent, and destitution of principle, equal to the object, might, byusurpation, render his powers hereditary. Yet I think history furnishesas many examples of a single usurper arising out of a government by aplurality, as of temporary trusts of power in a single hand renderedpermanent by usurpation. I do not believe, therefore, that this dangeris lessened in the hands of a plural executive. Perhaps it is greatlyincreased, by the state of inefficiency to which they are liable fromfeuds and divisions among themselves. The conservative body you proposemight be so constituted, as, while it would be an admirable sedative ina variety of smaller cases, might also be a valuable sentinel and checkon the liberticide views of an ambitious individual. I am friendly tothis idea. But the true barriers of our liberty in this country are ourState governments: and the wisest conservative power ever contrived byman, is that of which our Revolution and present government found uspossessed. Seventeen distinct States, amalgamated into one as to theirforeign concerns, but single and independent as to their internaladministration, regularly organized with a legislature and governorresting on the choice of the people, and enlightened by a free press, can never be so fascinated by the arts of one man, as to submitvoluntarily to his usurpation. Nor can they be constrained to it by anyforce he can possess. While that may paralyze the single State in whichit happens to be encamped, sixteen others, spread over a country oftwo thousand miles diameter, rise up on every side, ready organized fordeliberation by a constitutional legislature, and for action by theirgovernor, constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it, able to bear arms; and that militia, too, regularly formed into regiments and battalions, into infantry, cavalry, and artillery, trained under officers general and subordinate, legally appointed, always in readiness, and to whom they are alreadyin habits of obedience. The republican government of France was lostwithout a struggle, because the party of '_un et indivisible_' hadprevailed: no provincial organizations existed to which the peoplemight rally under authority of the laws, the seats of the directory werevirtually vacant, and a small force sufficed to turn the legislature outof their chamber and to salute its leader chief of the nation. Butwith us, sixteen out of seventeen States rising in mass, under regularorganization and legal commanders, united in object and action by theirCongress, or, if that be in duresse, by a special convention, presentsuch obstacles to an usurper as for ever to stifle ambition in the firstconception of that object. 

Dangers of another kind might more reasonably be apprehended from thisperfect and distinct organization, civil and military, of the States; towit, that certain States, from local and occasional discontents, mightattempt to secede from the Union. This is certainly possible; and wouldbe befriended by this regular organization. But it is not probable thatlocal discontents can spread to such an extent, as to be able to facethe sound parts of so extensive an union: and if ever they could reachthe majority, they would then become the regular government, acquire theascendancy in Congress, and be able to redress their own grievances bylaws peaceably and constitutionally passed. And even the States in whichlocal discontents might engender a commencement of fermentation, wouldbe paralyzed and self-checked by that very division into parties intowhich we have fallen, into which all States must fall wherein men are atliberty to think, speak, and act freely, according to the diversitiesof their individual conformations, and which are, perhaps, essentialto preserve the purity of the government, by the censorship which theseparties habitually exercise over each other. 

You will read, I am sure, with indulgence, the explanations of thegrounds on which I have ventured to form an opinion differing fromyours. They prove my respect for your judgment, and diffidence of myown, which have forbidden me to retain, without examination, an opinionquestioned by you. Permit me now to render my portion of the generaldebt of gratitude, by acknowledgments in advance for the singularbenefaction which is the subject of this letter, to tender my wishesfor the continuance of a life so usefully employed, and to add theassurances of my perfect esteem and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XCVI. --TO COLONEL MONROE, May 5, 1811

TO COLONEL MONROE. 

Monticello, May 5, 1811. 

Dear Sir, Your favor on your departure from Richmond came to hand in due time. Although I may not have been among the first, I am certainly with thesincerest, who congratulate you on your re-entrance into the nationalcouncils. Your value there has never been unduly estimated by thosewhom personal feelings did not misguide. The late misunderstandings atWashington have been a subject of real concern to me. I know thatthe dissolutions of personal friendships are among the most painfuloccurrences in human life. I have sincere esteem for all who have beenaffected by them, having passed with them eight years of great harmonyand affection. These incidents are rendered more distressing in ourcountry than elsewhere, because our printers ravin on the agonies oftheir victims, as wolves do on the blood of the lamb. But the printersand the public are very different personages. The former may lead thelatter a little out of their track, while the deviation is insensible:but the moment they usurp their direction and that of their government, they will be reduced to their true places. The two last Congresses havebeen the theme of the most licentious reprobation for printers thirstingafter war, some against France, and some against England. But the peoplewish for peace with both. They feel no incumbency on them to becomethe reformers of the other hemisphere, and to inculcate, with fire andsword, a return to moral order. When, indeed, peace shall become morelosing than war, they may owe to their interest, what these Quixottesare clamoring for on false estimates of honor. The public are unmoved bythese clamors, as the re-election of their legislators shows, and theyare firm to their executive on the subject of the more recent clamors. 

We are suffering here both in the gathered and the growing crop. Thelowness of the river, and great quantity of produce brought to Miltonthis year, render it almost impossible to get our crops to market. This is the case of mine as well as yours: and the Hessian fly appearsalarmingly in our growing crop. Every thing is in distress for the wantof rain. 

Present me respectfully to Mrs. Monroe, and accept yourself assurancesof my constant and affectionate esteem. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XCVII. --TO GENERAL DEARBORN, August 14, 1811

TO GENERAL DEARBORN. 

Poplar Forest, August 14, 1811. 

Dear General and Friend, *****

I am happy to learn that your own health is good, and I hope it willlong continue so. The friends we left behind us have fallen out by theway. I sincerely lament it, because I sincerely esteem them all, andbecause it multiplies schisms where harmony is safety. As far as I havebeen able to judge, however, it has made no sensible impression againstthe government. Those who were murmuring before are a little louder now;but the mass of our citizens is firm and unshaken. It furnishes, as anincident, another proof that they are perfectly equal to the purposes ofself-government, and that we have nothing to fear for its stability. Thespirit, indeed, which manifests itself among the tories of your quarter, although I believe there is a majority there sufficient to keep it downin peaceable times, leaves me not without some disquietude. Should thedetermination of England, now formally expressed, to take possession ofthe ocean, and to suffer no commerce on it but through her ports, forcea war upon us, I foresee a possibility of a separate treaty betweenher and your Essex men, on the principles of neutrality and commerce. Pickering here, and his nephew Williams there, can easily negotiatethis. Such a lure to the quietists in our ranks with you, might recruittheirs to a majority. Yet, excluded as they would be from intercoursewith the rest of the Union and of Europe, I scarcely see the gain theywould propose to themselves, even for the moment. The defection wouldcertainly disconcert the other States, but it could not ultimatelyendanger their safety. They are adequate, in all points, to a defensivewar. However, I hope your majority, with the aid it is entitled to, willsave us from this trial, to which I think it possible we are advancing. The death of George may come to our relief; but I fear the dominionof the sea is the insanity of the nation itself also. Perhaps, if somestroke of fortune were to rid us at the same time from the Mammoth ofthe land as well as the Leviathan of the ocean, the people of Englandmight lose their fears, and recover their sober senses again. Tell myold friend, Governor Gerry, that I gave him glory for the rasping withwhich he rubbed down his herd of traitors. Let them have justiceand protection against personal violence, but no favor. Powers andpre-eminences conferred on them are daggers put into the hands ofassassins, to be plunged into our own bosoms in the moment the thrustcan go home to the heart. Moderation can never reclaim them. They deemit timidity, and despise without fearing the tameness from which itflows. Backed by England, they never lose the hope that their day is tocome, when the terrorism of their earlier power is to be merged in themore gratifying system, of deportation and the guillotine. Being now_hors de combat_ myself, I resign to others these cares. A long attackof rheumatism has greatly enfeebled me, and warns me, that they will notvery long be within my ken. But you may have to meet the trial, and inthe focus of its fury. God send you a safe deliverance, a happy issueout of all afflictions, personal and public, with long life, longhealth, and friends as sincerely attached, as yours affectionately, Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XCVIII. --TO DOCTOR BENJAMIN RUSH

TO DOCTOR BENJAMIN RUSH. 

Poplar Forest, December 5, 1811. 

Dear Sir, While at Monticello I am so much engrossed by business or society, thatI can only write on matters of strong urgency. Here I have leisure, asI have every where the disposition, to think of my friends. I recur, therefore, to the subject of your kind letters relating to Mr. Adamsand myself, which a late occurrence has again presented to me. Icommunicated to you the correspondence which had parted Mrs. Adams andmyself, in proof that I could not give friendship in exchange for suchsentiments as she had recently taken up towards myself, and avowed andmaintained in her letters to me. Nothing but a total renunciation ofthese could admit a reconciliation, and that could be cordial only inproportion as the return to ancient opinions was believed sincere. Inthese jaundiced sentiments of hers I had associated Mr. Adams, knowingthe weight which her opinions had with him, and notwithstanding shedeclared in her letters that they were not communicated to him. A lateincident has satisfied me that I wronged him as well as her in notyielding entire confidence to this assurance on her part. Two of the Mr. ------, my neighbors and friends, took a tour to the northward duringthe last summer. In Boston they fell into company with Mr. Adams, and byhis invitation passed a day with him at Braintree. He spoke out tothem every thing which came uppermost, and as it occurred to his mind, without any reserve, and seemed most disposed to dwell on those thingswhich happened during his own administration. He spoke of his masters, as he called his Heads of departments, as acting above his control, andoften against his opinions. Among many other topics, he adverted tothe unprincipled licentiousness of the press against myself, adding, 'Ialways loved Jefferson, and still love him. '

This is enough for me. I only needed this knowledge to revive towardshim all the affections of the most cordial moments of our lives. Changing a single word only in Dr. Franklin's character of him, Iknew him to be always an honest man, often a great one, but sometimesincorrect and precipitate in his judgments: and it is known to those whohave ever heard me speak of Mr. Adams, that I have ever done him justicemyself, and defended him when assailed by others, with the singleexception as to his political opinions. But with a man possessing somany other estimable qualities, why should we be dissocialized by meredifferences of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, or anything else. His opinions are as honestly formed as my own. Our differentviews of the same subject are the result of a difference in ourorganization and experience. I never withdrew from the society of anyman on this account, although many have done it from me; much lessshould I do it from one with whom I had gone through, with hand andheart, so many trying scenes. I wish, therefore, but for an appositeoccasion to express to Mr. Adams my unchanged affections for him. Thereis an awkwardness which hangs over the resuming a correspondence solong discontinued, unless something could arise which should call for aletter. Time and chance may perhaps generate such an occasion, of whichI shall not be wanting in promptitude to avail myself. From this fusionof mutual affections, Mrs. Adams is of course separated. It will only benecessary that I never name her. In your letters to Mr. Adams, you can, perhaps, suggest my continued cordiality towards him, and knowing this, should an occasion of writing first present itself to him, he willperhaps avail himself of it, as I certainly will, should it first occurto me. No ground for jealousy now existing, he will certainly give fairplay to the natural warmth of his heart. Perhaps I may open the wayin some letter to my old friend Gerry, who I know is in habits of thegreatest intimacy with him. 

I have thus, my friend, laid open my heart to you, because you were sokind as to take an interest in healing again revolutionary affections, which have ceased in expression only, but not in their existence. Godever bless you, and preserve you in life and health. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER XCIX. --TO JOHN ADAMS, January 21, 1812

TO JOHN ADAMS. 

Monticello, January 21, 1812. 

Dear Sir, I thank you beforehand (for they are not yet arrived) for the specimensof homespun you have been so kind as to forward me by post. I doubt nottheir excellence, knowing how far you are advanced in these thingsin your quarter. Here we do little in the fine way, but in coarseand middling goods a great deal. Every family in the country is amanufactory within itself, and is very generally able to make withinitself all the stouter and middling stuffs for its own clothing andhousehold use. We consider a sheep for every person in the family assufficient to clothe it, in addition to the cotton, hemp, and flax, which we raise ourselves. For fine stuff we shall depend on yournorthern manufactories. Of these, that is to say, of companyestablishments, we have none. We use little machinery. The spinningjenny, and loom with the flying shuttle, can be managed in a family; butnothing more complicated. The economy and thriftiness resulting fromour household manufactures are such that they will never again be laidaside; and nothing more salutary for us has ever happened than theBritish obstructions to our demands for their manufactures. Restore freeintercourse when they will, their commerce with us will have totallychanged its form, and the articles we shall in future want from themwill not exceed their own consumption of our produce. 

A letter from you calls up recollections very dear to my mind. Itcarries me back to the times when, beset with difficulties and dangers, we were fellow-laborers in the same cause, struggling for what is mostvaluable to man, his right of self-government. Laboring always at thesame oar, with some wave ever ahead threatening to overwhelm us, and yetpassing harmless under our bark, we knew not how, we rode through thestorm with heart and hand, and made a happy port. Still we did notexpect to be without rubs and difficulties; and we have had them. Firstthe detention of the western posts: then the coalition of Pilnitz, outlawing our commerce with France, and the British enforcement of theoutlawry. In your day, French depredations: in mine, English, and theBerlin and Milan decrees: now, the English orders of council, andthe piracies they authorize. When these shall be over, it will be theimpressment of our seamen, or something else: and so we have gone on, and so we shall go on, puzzled and prospering beyond example inthe history of man. And I do believe we shall continue to growl, tomultiply, and prosper, until we exhibit an association, powerful, wise, and happy, beyond what has yet been seen by men. As for France andEngland, with all their pre-eminence in science, the one is a den ofrobbers, and the other of pirates. And if science produces no betterfruits than tyranny, murder, rapine, and destitution of nationalmorality, I would rather wish our country to be ignorant, honest, and estimable, as our neighboring savages are. But whither is senilegarrulity leading me? Into politics, of which I have taken final leave. I think little of them, and say less. I have given up newspapers inexchange for Tacitus and Thucydides, for Newton and Euclid, and Ifind myself much the happier. Sometimes, indeed, I look back to formeroccurrences, in remembrance of our old friends and fellow-laborers, who have fallen before us. Of the signers of the Declaration ofIndependence, I see now living not more than half a dozen on your sideof the Potomac, and on this side, myself alone. You and I havebeen wonderfully spared, and myself with remarkable health, and aconsiderable activity of body and mind. I am on horseback three or fourhours of every day; visit three or four times a year a possession I haveninety miles distant, performing the winter journey on horseback. I walklittle, however, a single mile being too much for me; and I live in themidst of my grandchildren, one of whom has lately promoted me to be agreat-grandfather. I have heard with pleasure that you also retain goodhealth, and a greater power of exercise in walking than I do. But Iwould rather have heard this from yourself, and that, writing a letterlike mine, full of egotisms, and of details of your health, your habits, occupations, and enjoyments, I should have the pleasure of knowing, thatin the race of life, you do not keep, in its physical decline, thesame distance ahead of me, which you have done in political honors andachievements. No circumstances have lessened the interest I feel inthese particulars respecting yourself; none have suspended for onemoment my sincere esteem for you, and I now salute you with unchangedaffection and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER C. --TO JOHN ADAMS, April 20, 1812

TO JOHN ADAMS. 

Monticello, April 20, 1812. 

Dear Sir, I have it now in my power to send you a piece of homespun in return forthat I received from you. Not of the fine texture, or delicate characterof yours, or, to drop our metaphor, not filled as that was with thatdisplay of imagination which constitutes excellence in Belles Lettres, but a mere sober, dry, and formal piece of logic. _Ornari res ipsanegat_. Yet you may have enough left of your old taste for law reading, to cast an eye over some of the questions it discusses. At any rate, accept it as the offering of esteem and friendship. 

You wish to know something of the Richmond and Wabash prophets. OfNimrod Hews I never before heard. Christopher Macpherson I have knownfor twenty years. He is a man of color, brought up as a book-keeper by amerchant, his master, and afterwards enfranchised. He had understandingenough to post up his leger from his journal, but not enough to bearup against hypochrondriac affections, and the gloomy forebodings theyinspire. He became crazy, foggy, his head always in the clouds, andrhapsodizing what neither himself nor any one else could understand. I think he told me he had visited you personally while you were in theadministration, and wrote you letters, which you have probably forgottenin the mass of the correspondences of that crazy class, of whosecomplaints, and terrors, and mysticisms, the several Presidents havebeen the regular depositories. Macpherson was too honest to be molestedby any body, and too inoffensive to be a subject for the mad-house;although, I believe, we are told in the old book, that 'every man thatis mad, and maketh himself a prophet, thou shouldst put him in prisonand in the stocks. '

The Wabash prophet is a very different character, more rogue than fool, if to be a rogue is not the greatest of all follies. He arose to noticewhile I was in the administration, and became, of course, a propersubject of inquiry for me. The inquiry was made with diligence. Hisdeclared object was the reformation of his red brethren, and theirreturn to their pristine manner of living. He pretended to be inconstant communication with the Great Spirit; that he was instructed byhim to make known to the Indians that they were created by him distinctfrom the whites, of different natures, for different purposes, andplaced under different circumstances, adapted to their nature anddestinies; that they must return from all the ways of the whites to thehabits and opinions of their forefathers; they must not eat the fleshof hogs, of bullocks, of sheep, &c. The deer and buffalo having beencreated for their food; they must not make bread of wheat, but of Indiancorn; they must not wear linen nor woollen, but dress like their fathersin the skins and furs of animals; they must not drink ardent spirits:and I do not remember whether he extended his inhibitions to the gun andgunpowder, in favor of the bow and arrow. I concluded from all this thathe was a visionary, enveloped in the clouds of their antiquities, andvainly endeavoring to lead back his brethren to the fancied beatitudesof their golden age. I thought there was little danger of his makingmany proselytes from the habits and comforts they had learned from thewhites, to the hardships and privations of savagism, and no great harmif he did. We let him go on, therefore, unmolested. But his followersincreased till the English thought him worth corruption, and found himcorruptible. I suppose his views were then changed; but his proceedingsin consequence of them were after I left the administration, and are, therefore, unknown to me; nor have I ever been informed what were theparticular acts on his part, which produced, an actual commencementof hostilities on ours. I have no doubt, however, that his subsequentproceedings are but a chapter apart, like that of Henry and LordLiverpool, in the book of the Kings of England. 

Of this mission of Henry, your son had got wind in the time of theembargo, and communicated it to me. But he had learned nothing of theparticular agent, although, of his workings, the information he hadobtained appears now to have been correct. He stated a particular whichHenry has not distinctly brought forward, which was, that the easternStates were not to be required to make a formal act of separation fromthe Union, and to take a part in the war against it; a measure deemedmuch too strong for their people: but to declare themselves in a stateof neutrality, in consideration of which they were to have peace andfree commerce, the lure most likely to insure popular acquiescence. Having no indications of Henry as the intermediate in this negotiationof the Essex junto, suspicions fell on Pickering, and his nephewWilliams in London. If he was wronged in this, the ground of thesuspicion is to be found in his known practices and avowed opinions, as that of his accomplices in the sameness of sentiment and of languagewith Henry, and subsequently by the fluttering of the wounded pigeons. 

This letter, with what it encloses, has given you enough, I presume, oflaw and the prophets. I will only add to it, therefore, the homage of myrespects to Mrs. Adams, and to yourself the assurances of affectionateesteem and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CI. --TO JAMES MAURY, April 25, 1812

TO JAMES MAURY. 

Monticello, April 25, 1812. 

My Dear and Ancient Friend and Classmate, Often has my heart smote me for delaying acknowledgments to you, receiving, as I do, such frequent proofs of your kind recollection inthe transmission of papers to me. But instead of acting on the good oldmaxim of not putting off to to-morrow what we can do to-day, we are tooapt to reverse it, and not to do today what we can put off to to-morrow. But this duty can be no longer put off. To-day we are at peace;to-morrow war. The curtain of separation is drawing between us, andprobably will not be withdrawn till one, if not both of us, will be atrest with our fathers. Let me now, then, while I may, renew to you thedeclarations of my warm attachment, which in no period of life has everbeen weakened, and seems to become stronger as the remaining objects ofour youthful affections are fewer. 

Our two countries are to be at war, but not you and I. And why shouldour two countries be at war, when by peace we can be so much more usefulto one another? Surely the world will acquit our government of havingsought it. Never before has there been an instance of a nation's bearingso much as we have borne. Two items alone in our catalogue of wrongswill for ever acquit us of being the aggressors; the impressment of ourseamen, and the excluding us from the ocean. The first foundations ofthe social compact would be broken up, were we definitively to refuse toits members the protection of their persons and property, while in theirlawful pursuits. I think the war will not be short, because the objectof England, long obvious, is to claim the ocean as her domain, and toexact transit duties from every vessel traversing it. This is the sum ofher orders of council, which were only a step in this bold experiment, never meant to be retracted if it could be permanently maintained. Andthis object must continue her in war with all the world. To this Isee no termination, until her exaggerated efforts, so much beyond hernatural strength and resources, shall have exhausted her to bankruptcy. The approach of this crisis is, I think, visible in the departure of herprecious metals, and depreciation of her paper medium. We, who have gonethrough that operation, know its symptoms, its course, and consequences. In England they will be more serious than elsewhere, because half thewealth of her people is now in that medium, the private revenue of hermoney-holders, or rather of her paper-holders, being, I believe, greaterthan that of her land-holders. Such a proportion of property, imaginaryand baseless as it is, cannot be reduced to vapor, but with greatexplosion. She will rise out of its ruins, however, because her lands, her houses, her arts, will remain, and the greater part of her men. Andthese will give her again that place among nations which is proportionedto her natural means, and which we all wish her to hold. We believe thatthe just standing of all nations is the health and security of all. Weconsider the overwhelming power of England on the ocean, and of Franceon the land, as destructive of the prosperity and happiness of theworld, and wish both to be reduced only to the necessity of observingmoral duties. We believe no more in Bonaparte's fighting merely for theliberty of the seas, than in Great Britain's fighting for the libertiesof mankind. The object of both is the same, to draw to themselves thepower, the wealth, and the resources of other nations. We resist theenterprises of England first, because they first come vitally home tous. And our feelings repel the logic of bearing the lash of George theIII. For fear of that of Bonaparte at some future day. When the wrongsof France shall reach us with equal effect, we shall resist themalso. But one at a time is enough: and having offered a choice to thechampions, England first takes up the gauntlet. 

The English newspapers suppose me the personal enemy of their nation. Iam not so. I am an enemy to its injuries, as I am to those of France. IfI could permit myself to have national partialities, and if the conductof England would have permitted them to be directed towards her, they would have been so. I thought that, in the administration of Mr. Addington, I discovered some dispositions towards justice, and evenfriendship and respect for us, and began to pave the way for cherishingthese dispositions, and improving them into ties of mutual good will. But we had then a federal minister there, whose dispositions to believehimself, and to inspire others with a belief, in our sincerity, hissubsequent conduct has brought into doubt; and poor Merry, the Englishminister here, had learned nothing of diplomacy but its suspicions, without head enough to distinguish when they were misplaced. Mr. Addington and Mr. Fox passed away too soon to avail the two countriesof their dispositions. Had I been personally hostile to England, and biassed in favor of either the character or views of her greatantagonist, the affair of the Chesapeake put war into my hand. I hadonly to open it, and let havoc loose. But if ever I was gratifiedwith the possession of power, and of the confidence of those who hadentrusted me with it, it was on that occasion, when I was enabled touse both for the prevention of war, towards which the torrent of passionhere was directed almost irresistibly, and when not another person inthe United States, less supported by authority and favor, could haveresisted it. And now that a definitive adherence to her impressments andorders of council renders war no longer avoidable, my earnest prayer is, that our government may enter into no compact of common cause with theother belligerent, but keep us free to make a separate peace, wheneverEngland will separately give us peace, and future security. But LordLiverpool is our witness, that this can never be but by her removal fromour neighborhood. 

I have thus, for a moment, taken a range into the field of politics, to possess you with the view we take of things here. But in the sceneswhich are to ensue, I am to be but a spectator. I have withdrawn myselffrom all political intermeddlings, to indulge the evening of my lifewith what have been the passions of every portion of it, books, science, my farms, my family, and friends. 

To these every hour of the day is now devoted. I retain a good activityof mind, not quite as much of body, but uninterrupted health. Still thehand of age is upon me. All my old friends are nearly gone. Of those inmy neighborhood, Mr. Divers and Mr. Lindsay alone remain. If you couldmake it a _partie quarrée_, it would be a comfort indeed. We wouldbeguile our lingering hours with talking over our youthful exploits, ourhunts on Peter's Mountain, with a long train of _et cetera_ in addition, and feel, by recollection at least, a momentary flash of youth. Reviewing the course of a long and sufficiently successful life, I findin no portion of it happier moments than those were. I think the oldhulk in which you are, is near her wreck, and that like a prudent rat, you should escape in time. However, here, there, and every where, inpeace or in war, you will have my sincere affections, and prayers foryour life, health, and happiness. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CII. --TO THE PRESIDENT, May 30, 1812

TO THE PRESIDENT. 

Monticello, May 30, 1812. 

Dear Sir, Another communication is enclosed, and the letter of the applicant isthe only information I have of his qualifications. I barely remembersuch a person as the secretary of Mr. Adams, and messenger to the Senatewhile I was of that body. It enlarges the sphere of choice by addingto it a strong federalist. The triangular war must be the idea of theAnglomen and malcontents; in other words, the federalists and quids. Yetit would reconcile neither. It would only change the topic of abusewith the former, and not cure the mental disease of the latter. Itwould prevent our eastern capitalists and seamen from employment inprivateering, take away the only chance of conciliating them, and keepthem at home, idle, to swell the discontents; it would completely disarmus of the most powerful weapon we can employ against Great Britain, byshutting every port to our prizes, and yet would not add a singlevessel to their number; it would shut every market to our agriculturalproductions, and engender impatience and discontent with that classwhich, in fact, composes the nation; it would insulate us in generalnegotiations for peace, making all the parties our opposers, and veryindifferent about peace with us, if they have it with the rest of theworld; and would exhibit a solecism worthy of Don Quixotte only, thatof a choice to fight two enemies at a time, rather than to take themby succession. And the only motive for all this is a sublimatedimpartiality, at which the world will laugh, and our own people willturn upon us in mass as soon as it is explained to them, as it will beby the very persons who are now laying that snare. These are the hastyviews of one who rarely thinks on these subjects. Your own willbe better, and I pray to them every success, and to yourself everyfelicity. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CIII. --TO ELBRIDGE GERRY, June 11, 1812

TO ELBRIDGE GERRY. 

Monticello, June 11, 1812. 

Dear Sir, It has given me great pleasure to receive a letter from you. It seems asif, our ancient friends dying off, the whole mass of the affectionsof the heart survives undiminished to the few who remain. I think ouracquaintance commenced in 1764, both then just of age. We happened totake lodgings in the same house in New York. Our next meeting was inthe Congress of 1775, and at various times afterwards in the exercise ofthat and other public functions, until your mission to Europe. Since wehave ceased to meet, we have still thought and acted together, '_et idemvelle, atque idem nolle, ea demum amicitia est_. ' Of this harmony ofprinciple, the papers you enclosed me are proof sufficient. I do notcondole with you on your release from your government. The vote of youropponents is the most honorable mark by which the soundness of yourconduct could be stamped. I claim the same honorable testimonial. Therewas but a single act of my whole administration of which that partyapproved. That was the proclamation on the attack of the Chesapeake. And when I found they approved of it, I confess I began strongly toapprehend I had done wrong, and to exclaim with the Psalmist, 'Lord, what have I done, that the wicked should praise me!'

What, then, does this English faction with you mean? Their newspaperssay rebellion, and that they will not remain united with us unless wewill permit them to govern the majority. If this be their purpose, theiranti-republican spirit, it ought to be met at once. But a governmentlike ours should be slow in believing this, should put forth its wholemight when necessary to suppress it, and promptly return to the paths ofreconciliation. The extent of our country secures it, I hope, from thevindictive passions of the petty incorporations of Greece. I rathersuspect that the principal office of the other seventeen States will beto moderate and restrain the local excitement of our friends with you, when they (with the aid of their brethren of the other States, if theyneed it) shall have brought the rebellious to their feet. They count onBritish aid. But what can that avail them by land? They would separatefrom their friends, who alone furnish employment for their navigation, to unite with their only rival for that employment. When interdictedthe harbors of their quondam brethren, they will go, I suppose, to aska share in the carrying-trade of their rivals, and a dispensation withtheir navigation act. They think they will be happier in an associationunder the rulers of Ireland, the East and West Indies, than in anindependent government, where they are obliged to put up with theirproportional share only in the direction of its affairs. But I trustthat such perverseness will not be that of the honest and well meaningmass of the federalists of Massachusetts; and that when the questionsof separation and rebellion shall be nakedly proposed to them, the Goresand the Pickerings will find their levees crowded with silk-stockinggentry, but no yeomanry; an army of officers without soldiers. I hope, then, all will still end well: the Anglomen will consent to make peacewith their bread and butter, and you and I shall sink to rest, withouthaving been actors or spectators in another civil war. 

How many children have you? You beat me, I expect, in that count; but Iyou in that of our grand-children. We have not timed these things welltogether, or we might have begun a re-alliance between Massachusettsand the Old Dominion, faithful companions in the war of Independence, peculiarly tallied in interests, by each wanting exactly what the otherhas to spare; and estranged to each other, in latter times, only by thepractices of a third nation, the common enemy of both. Let us live onlyto see this re-union, and I will say with old Simeon, 'Lord, nowlettest thou thy servant depart in peace, for mine eyes have seen thysalvation. ' In that peace may you long remain, my friend, and departonly in the fulness of years, all passed in health and prosperity. Godbless you. 

Th: Jefferson. 

P. S. June 13. I did not condole with you on the reprobation of youropponents, because it proved your orthodoxy. Yesterday's post broughtme the resolution of the republicans of Congress, to propose you asVice-President. On this I sincerely congratulate you. It is a stamp ofdouble proof. It is a notification to the factionaries that their nay isthe yea of truth, and its best test. We shall be almost within strikingdistance of each other. Who knows but you may fill up some short recessof Congress with a visit to Monticello, where a numerous family willhail you with a hearty country welcome. T. J. 

LETTER CIV. --TO JUDGE TYLER, June 17, 1812

TO JUDGE TYLER. 

Monticello, June 17, 1812. 

Dear Sir, *****

On the other subject of your letter, the application of the common lawto our present situation, I deride with you the ordinary doctrine, that we brought with us from England the common law rights. This narrownotion was a favorite in the first moment of rallying to our rightsagainst Great Britain. But it was that of men who felt their rightsbefore they had thought of their explanation. The truth is, that webrought with us the rights of men; of expatriated men. On our arrivalhere, the question would at once arise, by what law will we governourselves? The resolution seems to have been, by that system with whichwe are familiar, to be altered by ourselves occasionally, and adapted toour new situation. The proofs of this resolution are to be found inthe form of the oaths of the judges, 1 Hening's Stat. 169, 187; of theGovernor, ib. 504; in the act for a provisional government, ib. 372; inthe preamble to the laws of 1661-2; the uniform current of opinions anddecisions; and in the general recognition of all our statutes framedon that basis. But the state of the English law at the date ofour emigration, constituted the system adopted here. We may doubt, therefore, the propriety of quoting in our courts English authoritiessubsequent to that adoption; still more, the admission of authoritiesposterior to the Declaration of Independence, or rather to the accessionof that King, whose reign, _ab initio_, was that very tissue of wrongswhich rendered the Declaration at length necessary. The reason for ithad inception at least as far back as the commencement of his reign. This relation to the beginning of his reign, would add the advantage ofgetting us rid of all Mansfield's innovations, or civilizations of thecommon law. For however I admit the superiority of the civil, over thecommon law code, as a system of perfect justice, yet an incorporation ofthe two would be like Nebuchadnezzar's image of metals and clay, a thingwithout cohesion of parts. The only natural improvement of the commonlaw, is through its homogeneous ally, the chancery, in which newprinciples are to be examined, concocted, and digested. But when, by repeated decisions and modifications, they are rendered pure andcertain, they should be transferred by statute to the courts of commonlaw, and placed within the pale of juries. The exclusion from the courtsof the malign influence of all authorities after the _Georgium sidus_became ascendant, would uncanonize Blackstone, whose book, although themost elegant and best digested of our law catalogue, has been pervertedmore than all others to the degeneracy of legal science. A student findsthere a smattering of every thing, and his indolence easily persuadeshim, that if he understands that book, he is master of the whole bodyof the law. The distinction between these and those who have drawn theirstores from the deep and rich mines of Coke's Littleton, seemswell understood even by the unlettered common people, who apply theappellation of Blackstone-lawyers to these ephemeral insects of the law. 

Whether we should undertake to reduce the common law, our own, andso much of the English statutes as we have adopted, to a text, is aquestion of transcendant difficulty. It was discussed at the firstmeeting of the committee of the revised code, in 1776, and decidedin the negative, by the opinions of Wythe, Mason, and myself, againstPendleton and Thomas Lee. Pendleton proposed to take Blackstone for thattext, only purging him of what was inapplicable, or unsuitable to us. Inthat case, the meaning of every word of Blackstone would have becomea source of litigation, until it had been settled by repeated legaldecisions. And to come at that meaning, we should have had produced, onall occasions, that very pile of authorities from which it would be saidhe drew his conclusion, and which, of course, would explain it, andthe terms in which it is couched. Thus we should have retained the samechaos of law-lore from which we wished to be emancipated, added to theevils of the uncertainty which a new text and new phrases would havegenerated. An example of this may be found in the old statutes, andcommentaries on them, in Coke's second institute; but more remarkably, in the institute of Justinian, and the vast masses, explanatory orsupplementary of that, which fill the libraries of the civilians. Wewere deterred from the attempt by these considerations, added to which, the bustle of the times did not permit leisure for such an undertaking. 

Your request of my opinion on this subject has given you the trouble ofthese observations. If your firmer mind in encountering difficulties, would have added your vote to the minority of the committee, you wouldhave had on your side one of the greatest men of our age, and, like him, have detracted nothing from the sentiments of esteem and respect which Ibore to him, and tender with sincerity the assurance of to yourself. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CV. --TO COLONEL WILLIAM DUANE, October 1, 1812

TO COLONEL WILLIAM DUANE. 

Monticello, October 1, 1812. 

Dear Sir, Your favor of September the 20th has been duly received, and I cannotbut be gratified by the assurance it expresses, that my aid in thecouncils of our government would increase the public confidence in them;because it admits an inference that they have approved of the coursepursued, when I heretofore bore a part in those councils. I profess, too, so much of the Roman principle, as to deem it honorable for thegeneral of yesterday to act as a corporal to-day, if his services can beuseful to his country; holding that to be false pride, which postponesthe public good to any private or personal considerations. But I ampast service. The hand of age is upon me. The decay of bodily facultiesapprizes me that those of the mind cannot be unimpaired, had I not stillbetter proofs. Every year counts by increased debility, and departingfaculties keep the score. The last year it was the sight, this it is thehearing, the next something else will be going, until all is gone. Of all this I was sensible before I left Washington, and probably myfellow-laborers saw it before I did. The decay of memory was obvious:it is now become distressing. But the mind, too, is weakened. When Iwas young, mathematics was the passion of my life. The same passion hasreturned upon me, but with unequal powers. Processes which I then readoff with the facility of common discourse, now cost me labor, and time, and slow investigation. When I offered this, therefore, as one of thereasons deciding my retirement from office, it was offered in sincerityand a consciousness of its truth. And I think it a great blessing thatI retain understanding enough to be sensible how much of it I have lost, and to avoid exposing myself as a spectacle for the pity of my friends;that I have surmounted the difficult point of knowing when to retire. Asa compensation for faculties departed, nature gives me good health, anda perfect resignation to the laws of decay which she has prescribed toall the forms and combinations of matter. 

The detestable treason of Hull has, indeed, excited a deep anxietyin all breasts. The depression was in the first moment gloomy andportentous. But it has been succeeded by a revived animation, and adetermination to meet the occurrence with increased efforts; and I haveso much confidence in the vigorous minds and bodies of our countrymen, as to be fearless as to the final issue. The treachery of Hull, likethat of Arnold, cannot be matter of blame on our government. Hischaracter, as an officer of skill and bravery, was established on thetrials of the last war, and no previous act of his life had led to doubthis fidelity. Whether the Head of the war department is equal to hischarge, I am not qualified to decide. I knew him only as a pleasant, gentlemanly man in society; and the indecision of his character ratheradded to the amenity of his conversation. But when translated fromthe colloquial circle to the great stage of national concerns, and thedirection of the extensive operations of war, whether he has been ableto seize at one glance the long line of defenceless border presented byour enemy, the masses of strength which we hold on different points ofit, the facility this gave us of attacking him, on the same day, onall his points, from the extremity of the lakes to the neighborhoodof Quebec, and the perfect indifference with which this last place, impregnable as it is, might be left in the hands of the enemy to fallof itself; whether, I say, he could see and prepare vigorously forall this, or merely wrapped himself in the cloak of cold defence, Iam uninformed. I clearly think with you on the competence of Monroeto embrace great views of action. The decision of his character, hisenterprise, firmness, industry, and unceasing vigilance, would, Ibelieve, secure, as I am sure they would merit, the public confidence, and give us all the success which our means can accomplish. If ouroperations have suffered or languished from any want of energy in thepresent head which directs them, I have so much confidence in the wisdomand conscientious integrity of Mr. Madison, as to be satisfied, that, however torturing to his feelings, he will fulfil his duty to the publicand to his own reputation, by making the necessary change. Perhaps hemay be preparing it while we are talking about it: for of all thesethings I am uninformed. I fear that Hull's surrender has been more thanthe mere loss of a year to us. Besides bringing on us the whole mass ofsavage nations, whom fear and not affection had kept in quiet, there isdanger that in giving time to an enemy who can send reinforcements ofregulars faster than we can raise them, they may strengthen Canada andHalifax beyond the assailment of our lax and divided powers. Perhaps, however, the patriotic efforts from Kentucky and Ohio, by recallingthe British force to its upper posts, may yet give time to Dearborn tostrike a blow below. Effectual possession of the river from Montreal tothe Chaudiere, which is practicable, would give us the upper countryat our leisure, and close for ever the scenes of the tomahawk andscalping-knife. 

But these things are for others to plan and achieve. The only succorfrom the old, must lie in their prayers. These I offer up with sinceredevotion; and in my concern for the great public, I do not overlook myfriends, but supplicate for them, as I do for yourself, a long course offreedom, happiness, and prosperity. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CVI. --TO MR. MELISH, January 13, 1813

TO MR. MELISH. 

Monticello, January 13, 1813. 

Dear Sir, I received duly your favor of December the 15th, and with it the copiesof your map and travels, for which be pleased to accept my thanks. Thebook I have read with extreme satisfaction and information. As to thewestern States, particularly, it has greatly edified me; for of theactual condition of that interesting portion of our country, I had notan adequate idea. I feel myself now as familiar with it as with thecondition of the maritime States. I had no conception that manufactureshad made such progress there, and particularly of the number of cardingand spinning machines dispersed through the whole country. We arebut beginning here to have them in our private families. Smallspinning-jennies of from half a dozen to twenty spindles, will soon, however, make their way into the humblest cottages, as well as therichest houses; and nothing is more certain, than that the coarse andmiddling clothing for our families, will for ever hereafter continue tobe made within ourselves. I have hitherto myself depended entirely onforeign manufactures: but I have now thirty-five spindles a going, ahand carding-machine, and looms with the flying shuttle, for the supplyof my own farms, which will never be relinquished in my time. Thecontinuance of the war will fix the habit generally, and out of theevils of impressment and of the orders of council, a great blessingfor us will grow. I have not formerly been an advocate for greatmanufactories. I doubted whether our labor, employed in agriculture, and aided by the spontaneous energies of the earth, would not procureus more than we could make ourselves of other necessaries. But otherconsiderations entering into the question, have settled my doubts. 

The candor with which you have viewed the manners and condition of ourcitizens, is so unlike the narrow prejudices of the French and Englishtravellers preceding you, who, considering each the manners and habitsof their own people as the only orthodox, have viewed every thingdiffering from that test as boorish and barbarous, that your work willbe read here extensively, and operate great good. 

Amidst this mass of approbation which is given to every other part ofthe work, there is a single sentiment which I cannot help wishing tobring to what I think the correct one; and, on a point so interesting, I value your opinion too highly not to ambition its concurrence withmy own. Stating in volume first, page sixty-third, the principle ofdifference between the two great political parties here, you concludeit to be, 'whether the controlling power shall be vested in this or thatset of men. ' That each party endeavors to get into the administration ofthe government, and to exclude the other from power, is true, and maybe stated as a motive of action: but this is only secondary; the primarymotive being a real and radical difference of political principle. Isincerely wish our differences were but personally who should governand that the principles of our constitution were those of both parties. Unfortunately, it is otherwise; and the question of preference betweenmonarchy and republicanism, which has so long divided mankind elsewhere, threatens a permanent division here. 

Among that section of our citizens called federalists, there are threeshades of opinion. Distinguishing between the leaders and people whocompose it, the leaders consider the English constitution as a model ofperfection, some, with a correction of its vices, others, with all itscorruptions and abuses. This last was Alexander Hamilton's opinion, which others, as well as myself, have often heard him declare, and thata correction of what are called its vices, would render the Englishan impracticable government. . This government they wished to haveestablished here, and only accepted and held fast, at first, to thepresent constitution, as a stepping-stone to the final establishment oftheir favorite model. This party has therefore always clung to England, as their prototype, and great auxiliary in promoting and effecting thischange. A weighty minority, however, of these leaders, considering thevoluntary conversion of our government into a monarchy as too distant, if not desperate, wish to break off from our Union its eastern fragment, as being, in truth, the hot-bed of American monarchism, with a view to acommencement of their favorite government, from whence the other Statesmay gangrene by degrees, and the whole be thus brought finally to thedesired point. For Massachusetts, the prime mover in this enterprise, isthe last State in the Union to mean a final separation, as being of allthe most dependant on the others. Not raising bread for the sustenanceher own inhabitants, not having a stick of timber for the constructionof vessels, her principal occupation, nor an article to export in them, where would she be, excluded from the ports of the other States, andthrown into dependance on England, her direct and natural, but nowinsidious, rival? At the head of this minority is what is called theEssex Junto of Massachusetts. But the majority of these leaders do notaim at separation. In this they adhere to the known principle ofGeneral Hamilton, never, under any views, to break the Union. Anglomany, monarchy, and separation, then, are the principles of the Essexfederalists; Anglomany and monarchy, those of the Hamiltonians, and Anglomany alone, that of the portion among the people who callthemselves federalists. These last are as good republicans as thebrethren whom they oppose, and differ from them only in the devotionto England and hatred of France, which they have imbibed from theirleaders. The moment that these leaders should avowedly propose aseparation of the Union, or the establishment of regal government, theirpopular adherents would quit them to a man, and join the republicanstandard; and the partisans of this change, even in Massachusetts, wouldthus find themselves an army of officers without a soldier. 

The party called republican is steadily for the support of the presentconstitution. They obtained, at its commencement, all the amendments toit they desired. These reconciled them to it perfectly, and if they haveany ulterior view, it is only, perhaps, to popularize it further, by shortening the Senatorial term, and devising a process for theresponsibility of judges, more practicable than that of impeachment. They esteem the people of England and France equally, and equally detestthe governing powers of both. 

This I verily believe, after an intimacy of forty years with the publiccouncils and characters, is a true statement of the grounds on whichthey are at present divided, and that it is not merely an ambition forpower. An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power overhis fellow-citizens. And considering as the only offices of power thoseconferred by the people directly, that is to say, the executive andlegislative functions of the General and State governments, the commonrefusal of these, and multiplied resignations, are proofs sufficientthat power is not alluring to pure minds, and is not, with them, theprimary principle of contest. This is my belief of it; it is thaton which I have acted; and had it been a mere contest who shouldbe permitted to administer the government according to its genuinerepublican principles, there has never been a moment of my life, inwhich I should not have relinquished for it the enjoyments of my family, my farm, my friends, and books. 

You expected to discover the difference of our party principles inGeneral Washington's Valedictory, and my Inaugural Address. Not at all. General Washington did not harbor one principle of federalism. He wasneither an Angloman, a monarchist, nor a separatist. He sincerely wishedthe people to have as much self-government as they were competent toexercise themselves. The only point in which he and I ever differedin opinion, was, that I had more confidence than he had in the naturalintegrity and discretion of the people, and in the safety and extent towhich they might trust themselves with a control over their government. He has asseverated to me a thousand times his determination that theexisting government should have a fair trial, and that in support ofit he would spend the last drop of his blood. He did this the morerepeatedly, because he knew General Hamilton's political bias, andmy apprehensions from it. It is a mere calumny, therefore, in themonarchists, to associate General Washington with their principles. But that may have happened in this case which has been often seen inordinary cases, that, by often repeating an untruth, men come tobelieve it themselves. It is a mere artifice in this party, to bolsterthemselves up on the revered name of that first of our worthies. IfI have dwelt longer on this subject than was necessary, it proves theestimation in which I hold your ultimate opinions, and my desire ofplacing the subject truly before them. In so doing, I am certain I riskno use of the communication which may draw me into contention before thepublic. Tranquillity is the _summum bonum_ of a _Septagénaire_. 

To return to the merits of your work; I consider it as so lively apicture of the real state of our country, that if I can possibly obtainopportunities of conveyance, I propose to send a copy to a friend inFrance, and another to one in Italy, who, I know, will translateand circulate it as an antidote to the misrepresentations of formertravellers. But whatever effect my profession of political faith mayhave on your general opinion, a part of my object will be obtained, ifit satisfies you as to the principles of my own action, and of the highrespect and consideration with which I tender you my salutations. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CVII. --TO MADAME LA BARONNE DE STAEL-HOLSTEIN, May 24, 1818

TO MADAME LA BARONNE DE STAEL-HOLSTEIN. 

United States of America, May 24, 1818. 

I received with great pleasure, my dear Madam and friend, your letterof November the 10th, from Stockholm, and am sincerely gratified by theoccasion it gives me of expressing to you the sentiments of high respectand esteem which I entertain for you. It recalls to my remembrance ahappy portion of my life, passed in your native city; then the seatof the most amiable and polished society of the world, and of whichyourself and your venerable father were such distinguished members. Butof what scenes has it since been the theatre, and with what havoc hasit overspread the earth! Robespierre met the fate, and his memorythe execration, he so justly merited. The rich were his victims, andperished by thousands. It is by millions that Bonaparte destroysthe poor, and he is eulogized and deified by the sycophants--even ofscience. These merit more than the mere oblivion to which they willbe consigned; and the day will come when a just posterity will give totheir hero the only pre-eminence he has earned, that of having been thegreatest of the destroyers of the human race. What year of his militarylife has not consigned a million of human beings to death, to poverty, and wretchedness? What field in Europe may not raise a monument of themurders, the burnings, the desolations, the famines, and miseries, ithas witnessed from him! And all this to acquire a reputation, whichCartouche attained with less injury to mankind, of being fearless of Godor man. 

To complete and universalize the desolation of the globe, it has beenthe will of Providence to raise up, at the same time, a tyrant asunprincipled and as overwhelming, for the ocean. Not in the poor maniacGeorge, but in his government and nation. Bonaparte will die, and histyrannies with him. But a nation never dies. The English government andits piratical principles and practices, have no fixed term of duration. Europe feels, and is writhing under the scorpion whips of Bonaparte. Weare assailed by those of England. The one continent thus placed underthe gripe of England, and the other of Bonaparte, each has to grapplewith the enemy immediately pressing on itself. We must extinguish thefire kindled in our own house, and leave to our friends beyond the waterthat which is consuming theirs. It was not till England had taken onethousand of our ships, and impressed into her service more than sixthousand of our citizens; till she had declared, by the proclamation ofher Prince Regent, that she would not repeal her aggressive orders as tous, until Bonaparte should have repealed his as to all nations; till herminister, in formal conference with ours, declared, that no propositionfor protecting our seamen from being impressed, under color of takingtheir own, was practicable or admissible; that, the door to justice andto all amicable arrangement being closed, and negotiation become bothdesperate and dishonorable, we concluded that the war she had been foryears waging against us, might as well become a war on both sides. Shetakes fewer vessels from us since the declaration of war than before, because they venture more cautiously; and we now make full reprisalswhere before we made none. England is, in principle, the enemy of allmaritime nations, as Bonaparte is of the continental; and I place inthe same line of insult to the human understanding, the pretensionof conquering the ocean, to establish continental rights, as that ofconquering the continent, to restore maritime rights. No, my dear Madam;the object of England is the permanent dominion of the ocean, and themonopoly of the trade of the world. To secure this, she must keep alarger fleet than her own resources will maintain. The resources ofother nations, then, must be impressed to supply the deficiency of herown. This is sufficiently developed and evidenced by her successivestrides towards the usurpation of the sea. Mark them, from her first warafter William Pitt, the little, came into her administration. She firstforbade to neutrals all trade with her enemies in time of war, whichthey had not in time of peace. This deprived them of their trade fromport to port of the same nation. Then she forbade them to trade fromthe port of one nation to that of any other at war with her, although aright fully exercised in time of peace. Next, instead of taking vesselsonly entering a blockaded port, she took them over the whole ocean, ifdestined to that port, although ignorant of the blockade, and withoutintention to violate it. Then she took them returning from that port, as if infected by previous infraction of blockade. Then came her paperblockades, by which she might shut up the whole world without sendinga ship to sea, except to take all those sailing on it, as they must, ofcourse, be bound to some port. And these were followed by her orders ofcouncil, forbidding every nation to go to the port of any other, withoutcoming first to some port of Great Britain, there paying a tribute toher, regulated by the cargo, and taking from her a license to proceed tothe port of destination; which operation the vessel was to repeat withthe return cargo on its way home. According to these orders, we couldnot send a vessel from St. Mary's to St. Augustine, distant six hour'ssail, on our own coast, without crossing the Atlantic four times, twicewith the outward cargo, and twice with the inward. She found thistoo daring and outrageous for a single step, retracted as to certainarticles of commerce, but left it in force as to others which constituteimportant branches of our exports. And finally, that her views may nolonger rest on inference, in a recent debate, her minister declared inopen parliament, that the object of the present war is a monopoly ofcommerce. 

In some of these atrocities, France kept pace with her fully inspeculative wrong, which her impotence only shortened in practicalexecution. This was called retaliation by both; each charging the otherwith the initiation of the outrage. As if two combatants might retaliateon an innocent bystander, the blows they received from each other. Tomake war on both would have been ridiculous. In order, therefore, tosingle out an enemy, we offered to both, that if either would revokeits hostile decrees, and the other should refuse, we would interdict allintercourse whatever with that other; which would be war of course, asbeing an avowed departure from neutrality. France accepted the offer, and revoked her decrees as to us. England not only refused, but declaredby a solemn proclamation of her Prince Regent, that she would not revokeher orders even as to us, until those of France should be annulled as tothe whole world. We thereon declared war, and with abundant additionalcause. 

In the mean time, an examination before parliament of the ruinouseffects of these orders on her own manufacturers, exposing them to thenation and to the world, their Prince issued a palinodial proclamation, suspending the orders on certain conditions, but claiming to renew themat pleasure, as a matter of right. Even this might have prevented thewar, if done and known here before its declaration. But the sword beingonce drawn, the expense of arming incurred, and hostilities in fullcourse, it would have been unwise to discontinue them, until effectualprovision should be agreed to by England, for protecting our citizens onthe high seas from impressment by her naval commanders, through, error, voluntary or involuntary; the fact being notorious, that these officers, entering our ships at sea under pretext of searching for their seamen, (which they have no right to do by the law or usage of nations, whichthey neither do, nor ever did, as to any other nation but ours, andwhich no nation ever before pretended to do in any case), enteringour ships, I say, under pretext of searching for and taking out theirseamen, they took ours, native as well as naturalized, knowing them tobe ours, merely because they wanted them; insomuch, that no Americancould safely cross the ocean, or venture to pass by sea from one toanother of our own ports. It is not long since they impressed at sea twonephews of General Washington, returning from Europe, and put them, as common seamen, under the ordinary discipline of their ships of war. There are certainly other wrongs to be settled between England and us;but of a minor character, and such as a proper spirit of conciliation onboth sides would not permit to continue them at war. The sword, however, can never again be sheathed, until the personal safety of an Americanon the ocean, among the most important and most vital of the rights wepossess, is completely provided for. 

As soon as we heard of her partial repeal of her orders of council, weoffered instantly to suspend hostilities by an armistice, if she wouldsuspend her impressments, and meet us in arrangements for securing ourcitizens against them. She refused to do it, because impracticable byany arrangement, as she pretends; but, in truth, because a body of sixtyto eighty thousand of the finest seamen in the world, which we possess, is too great a resource for manning her exaggerated navy, to berelinquished, as long as she can keep it open. Peace is in her hand, whenever she will renounce the practice of aggression on the persons ofour citizens. If she thinks it worth eternal war, eternal war wemust have. She alleges that the sameness of language, of manners, ofappearance, renders it impossible to distinguish us from her subjects. But because we speak English, and look like them, are we to be punished?Are free and independent men to be submitted to their bondage?

England has misrepresented to all Europe this ground of the war. Shehas called it a new pretension, set up since the repeal of her ordersof council. She knows there has never been a moment of suspension of ourreclamations against it, from General Washington's time inclusive, tothe present day: and that it is distinctly stated in our declaration ofwar, as one of its principal causes. She has pretended we have enteredinto the war, to establish the principle of 'free bottoms, free goods, 'or to protect her seamen against her own right over them. We contend forneither of these. She pretends we are partial to France; that we haveobserved a fraudulent and unfaithful neutrality between her and herenemy. She knows this to be false, and that if there has been anyinequality in our proceedings towards the belligerents, it has been inher favor. Her ministers are in possession of full proofs of this. Our accepting at once, and sincerely, the mediation of the virtuousAlexander, their greatest friend, and the most aggravated enemy ofBonaparte, sufficiently proves whether we have partialities on the sideof her enemy. I sincerely pray that this mediation may produce a justpeace. It will prove that the immortal character, which has firststopped by war the career of the destroyer of mankind, is the friend ofpeace, of justice, of human happiness, and the patron of unoffendingand injured nations. He is too honest and impartial to countenancepropositions of peace derogatory to the freedom of the seas. 

Shall I apologize to you, my dear Madam, for this long political letter?But yours justifies the subject, and my feelings must plead for theunreserved expression of them; and they have been the less reserved, as being from a private citizen, retired from all connection withthe government of his country, and whose ideas, expressed withoutcommunication with any one, are neither known, nor imputable to them. 

The dangers of the sea are now so great, and the possibilities ofinterception by sea and land such, that I shall subscribe no name tothis letter. You will know from whom it comes, by its reference to thedate of time and place of yours, as well as by its subject in answer tothat. This omission must not lessen in your view the assurances of mygreat esteem, of my sincere sympathies for the share which you bear inthe afflictions of your country, and the deprivations to which a lawlesswill has subjected you. In return, you enjoy the dignified satisfactionof having met them, rather than be yoked, with the abject, to his car;and that, in withdrawing from oppression, you have followed the virtuousexample of a father, whose name will ever be dear to your country andto mankind. With my prayers that you may be restored to it, that you maysee it re-established in that temperate portion of liberty which doesnot infer either anarchy or licentiousness, in that high degree ofprosperity which would be the consequence of such a government, inthat, in short, which the constitution of 1789 would have insured it, ifwisdom could have stayed at that point the fervid but imprudent zeal ofmen, who did not know the character of their own countrymen, and thatyou may long live in health and happiness under it, and leave to theworld a well educated and virtuous representative and descendant ofyour honored father, is the ardent prayer of the sincere and respectfulfriend who writes this letter. 

LETTER CVIII. --TO JOHN ADAMS, May 27, 1813

TO JOHN ADAMS. 

Monticello, May 27, 1813. 

Another of our friends of seventy-six is gone, my Dear Sir, another ofthe co-signers of the Independence of our country. And a better man thanRush could not have left us, more benevolent, more learned, of finergenius, or more honest. We too must go; and that ere long. I believewe are under half a dozen at present; I mean the signers of theDeclaration. Yourself, Gerry, Carroll, and myself, are all I know to beliving. I am the only one south of the Potomac. Is Robert Treat Paine, or Floyd living? It is long since I heard of them, and yet I do notrecollect to have heard of their deaths. 

Moreton's deduction of the origin of our Indians from the fugitiveTrojans, stated in your letter of January the 26th, and his mannerof accounting for the sprinkling of their Latin with Greeks is reallyamusing. Adair makes them talk Hebrew. Reinold Foster derives them fromthe soldiers sent by Kouli Khan to conquer Japan. Brerewood, from theTartars, as well as our bears, wolves, foxes, &c. Which, he says, 'mustof necessity fetch their beginning from Noah's ark, which rested afterthe deluge, in Asia, seeing they could not proceed by the courseof nature, as the imperfect sort of living creatures do, fromputrefaction. ' Bernard Romans is of opinion that God created an originalman and woman in this part of the globe. Doctor Barton thinks they arenot specifically different from the Persians; but, taking afterwards abroader range, he thinks, 'that in all the vast countries of America, there is but one language, nay, that it may be proven, or renderedhighly probable, that all the languages of the earth bear some affinitytogether. ' This reduces it to a question of definition, in which everyone is free to use his own: to wit, What constitutes identity, ordifference in two things, in the common acceptation of sameness? Alllanguages may be called the same, as being all made up of the sameprimitive sounds, expressed by the letters of the different alphabets. But, in this sense, all things on earth are the same, as consisting ofmatter. This gives up the useful distribution into genera and species, which we form, arbitrarily indeed, for the relief of our imperfectmemories. To aid the question, from whence our Indian tribes descended, some have gone into their religion, their morals, their manners, customs, habits, and physical forms. By such helps it may be learnedlyproved, that our trees and plants of every kind are descended fromthose of Europe; because, like them, they have no locomotion, theydraw nourishment from the earth, they clothe themselves with leavesin spring, of which they divest themselves in autumn for the sleep ofwinter, he. Our animals too must be descended from those of Europe, because our wolves eat lambs, our deer are gregarious, our ants hoard, &c. But when, for convenience, we distribute languages, according tocommon understanding, into classes originally different, as we chooseto consider them, as the Hebrew, the Greek, the Celtic, the Gothic; andthese again into genera, or families, as the Icelandic, German, Swedish, Danish, English; and these last into species, or dialects, as English, Scotch, Irish, we then ascribe other meanings to the terms, 'same' and'different. ' In some one of these senses, Barton, and Adair, and Foster, and Brerewood, and Moreton, may be right, every one according to hisown definition of what constitutes 'identity. ' Romans, indeed, takes ahigher stand, and supposes a separate creation. On the same unscripturalground, he had but to mount one step higher, to suppose no creation atall, but that all things have existed without beginning in time, asthey now exist, and may for ever exist, producing and reproducing in acircle, without end. This would very summarily dispose of Mr. Moreton'slearning, and show that the question of Indian origin, like many others, pushed to a certain height, must receive the same answer, 'Ignoro. ' Youask if the usage of hunting in circles has ever been known among any ofour tribes of Indians? It has been practised by them all; and is to thisday, by those still remote from the settlements of the whites. But theirnumbers not enabling them, like Genghis Khan's seven hundred thousand, to form themselves into circles of one hundred miles diameter, they maketheir circle by firing the leaves fallen on the ground, which graduallyforcing the animals to a centre, they there slaughter them with arrows, darts, and other missiles. This is called fire-hunting, and has beenpractised in this State within my time, by the white inhabitants. Thisis the most probable cause of the origin and extension of the vastprairies in the western country, where the grass having been ofextraordinary luxuriance, has made a conflagration sufficient to killeven the old as well as the young timber. 

I sincerely congratulate you on the successes of our little navy; whichmust be more gratifying to you than to most men, as having been theearly and constant advocate of wooden walls. If I have differed withyou on this ground, it was not on the principle, but the time; supposingthat we cannot build or maintain a navy, which will not immediately fallinto the same gulph which has swallowed not only the minor navies, buteven those of the great second-rate powers of the sea. Whenever thesecan be resuscitated, and brought so near to a balance with England thatwe can turn the scale, then is my epoch for aiming at a navy. Inthe mean time, one competent to keep the Barbary States in order isnecessary; these being the only smaller powers disposed to quarrelwith us. But I respect too much the weighty opinions of others to beunyielding on this point, and acquiesce with the prayer, '_quodfelix faustumque sit_'; adding ever a sincere one for your health andhappiness. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CIX. --TO JOHN ADAMS, June 15, 1813

TO JOHN ADAMS. 

Monticello, June 15, 1813. 

Dear Sir, I wrote you a letter on the 27th of May, which probably would reach youabout the 3rd instant, and on the 9th I received yours of the 29th ofMay. Of Lindsay's Memoirs I had never before heard, and scarcely indeedof himself. It could not, therefore, but be unexpected, that two lettersof mine should have any thing to do with his life. The name of hiseditor was new to me, and certainly presents itself for the first timeunder unfavorable circumstances. Religion, I suppose, is the scope ofhis book; and that a writer on that subject should usher himself to theworld in the very act of the grossest abuse of confidence, by publishingprivate letters which passed between two friends, with no views to theirever being made public, is an instance of inconsistency as well as ofinfidelity, of which I would rather be the victim than the author. 

By your kind quotation of the dates of my two letters, I have beenenabled to turn to them. They had completely vanished from my memory. The last is on the subject of religion, and by its publication willgratify the priesthood with new occasion of repeating their comminationsagainst me. They wish it to be believed, that he can have no religionwho advocates its freedom. This was not the doctrine of Priestley; and Ihonored him for the example of liberality he set to his order. Thefirst letter is political. It recalls to our recollection the gloomytransactions of the times, the doctrines they witnessed, and thesensibilities they excited. It was a confidential communication ofreflections on these from one friend to another, deposited in his bosom, and never meant to trouble the public mind. Whether the character ofthe times is justly portrayed or not, posterity will decide. But on onefeature of them, they can never decide, the sensations excited in freeyet firm minds by the terrorism of the day. None can conceive who didnot witness them, and they were felt by one party only. This letterexhibits their side of the medal. The federalists, no doubt, havepresented the other, in their private correspondences, as well as openaction. If these correspondences should ever be laid open to the publiceye, they will probably be found not models of comity towards theiradversaries. The readers of my letter should be cautioned not to confineits view to this country alone. England and its alarmists were equallyunder consideration. Still less must they consider it as lookingpersonally towards you. You happen, indeed, to be quoted, because youhappened to express more pithily than had been done by themselves, oneof the mottos of the party. This was in your answer to the address ofthe young men of Philadelphia. [See Selection of Patriotic Addresses, page 198. ] One of the questions, you know, on which our parties tookdifferent sides, was on the improvability of the human mind, in science, in ethics, in government, &c. Those who advocated reformation ofinstitutions, _pari passu_ with the progress of science, maintained thatno definite limits could be assigned to that progress. The enemies ofreform, on the other hand, denied improvement, and advocated steadyadherence to the principles, practices, and institutions of our fathers, which they represented as the consummation of wisdom, and acme ofexcellence, beyond which the human mind could never advance. Although inthe passage of your answer alluded to, you expressly disclaim the wishto influence the freedom of inquiry, you predict that that will producenothing more worthy of transmission to posterity than the principles, institutions, and systems of education received from their ancestors. I do not consider this as your deliberate opinion. You possess yourselftoo much science, not to see how much is still ahead of you, unexplainedand unexplored. Your own consciousness must place you as far beforeour ancestors, as in the rear of our posterity. I consider it as anexpression lent to the prejudices of your friends; and although Ihappened to cite it from you, the whole letter shows I had them onlyin view. In truth, my dear Sir, we were far from considering you asthe author of all the measures we blamed. They were placed under theprotection of your name, but we were satisfied they wanted much of yourapprobation. We ascribed them to their real authors, the Pickerings, theWolcotts, the Tracys, the Sedgwicks, _et id genus omne_, with whom wesupposed you in a state of _duresse_. I well remember a conversationwith you in the morning of the day on which you nominated to the Senatea substitute for Pickering, in which you expressed a just impatienceunder 'the legacy of Secretaries which General Washington had left you, 'and whom you seemed, therefore, to consider as under public protection. Many other incidents showed how differently you would have acted withless impassioned advisers; and subsequent events have proved that yourminds were not together. You would do me great injustice, therefore, bytaking to yourself what was intended for men who were then your secret, as they are now your open enemies. Should you write on the subject, asyou propose, I am sure we shall see you place yourself farther from themthan from us. 

As to myself, I shall take no part in any discussions. I leave others tojudge of what I have done, and to give me exactly that place which theyshall think I have occupied. Marshall has written libels on one side;others, I suppose, will be written on the other side; and the world willsift both, and separate the truth as well as they can. I should see withreluctance the passions of that day rekindled in this, while so many ofthe actors are living, and all are too near the scene not to participatein sympathies with them. About facts you and I cannot differ; becausetruth is our mutual guide. And if any opinions you may express shouldbe different from mine, I shall receive them with the liberality andindulgence which I ask for my own, and still cherish with warmth thesentiments of affectionate respect of which I can with so much truthtender you the assurance. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CX. --TO JOHN W. EPPES, June 24, 1813

TO JOHN W. EPPES. 

Monticello, June 24, 1813. 

Dear Sir, This letter will be on politics only. For although I do not often permitmyself to think on that subject, it sometimes obtrudes itself, andsuggests ideas which I am tempted to pursue. Some of these, relating tothe business of finance, I will hazard to you, as being at the head ofthat committee, but intended for yourself individually, or such as youtrust, but certainly not for a mixed committee. 

It is a wise rule, and should be fundamental in a government disposedto cherish its credit, and at the same time to restrain the use of itwithin the limits of its faculties, 'never to borrow a dollar withoutlaying a tax in the same instant for paying the interest annually, andthe principal within a given term; and to consider that tax as pledgedto the creditors on the public faith. ' On such a pledge as this, sacredly observed, a government may always command, on a reasonableinterest, all the lendable money of their citizens, while thenecessity of an equivalent tax is a salutary warning to them andtheir constituents against oppressions, bankruptcy, and its inevitableconsequence, revolution. But the term of redemption must be moderate, and, at any rate, within the limits of their rightful powers. But whatlimits, it will be asked, does this prescribe to their powers? What isto hinder them from creating a perpetual debt? The laws of nature, Ianswer. The earth belongs to the living, not to the dead. The will andthe power of man expire with his life, by nature's law. Some societiesgive it an artificial continuance, for the encouragement of industry;some refuse it, as our aboriginal neighbors, whom we call barbarians. The generations of men may be considered as bodies or corporations. Each generation has the usufruct of the earth during the period of itscontinuance. When it ceases to exist, the usufruct passes on to thesucceeding generation, free and unincumbered, and so on, successively, from one generation to another for ever. We may consider each generationas a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bindthemselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more thanthe inhabitants of another country. Or the case may be likened to theordinary one of a tenant for life, who may hypothecate the land for hisdebts, during the continuance of his usufruct; but at his death, thereversioner (who is also for life only) receives it exonerated fromall burthen. The period of a generation, or the term of its life, isdetermined by the laws of mortality, which, varying a little only indifferent climates, offer a general average, to be found by observation. I turn, for instance, to Buffon's tables, of twenty-three thousand ninehundred and ninety-four deaths, and the ages at which they happened, andI find that of the numbers of all ages living at one moment, half willbe dead in twenty-four years and eight months. Bat (leaving out minors, who have not the power of self-government) of the adults (of twenty-oneyears of age) living at one moment, a majority of whom act for thesociety, one half will be dead in eighteen years and eight months. Atnineteen years then from the date of a contract, the majority of thecontractors are dead, and their contract with them. Let this generaltheory be applied to a particular case. Suppose the annual births ofthe State of New York to be twenty-three thousand nine hundred andninety-four: the whole number of its inhabitants, according to Buffon, will be six hundred and seventeen thousand seven hundred and three, ofall ages. Of these there would constantly be two hundred and sixty-ninethousand two hundred and eighty-six minors, and three hundred andforty-eight thousand four hundred and seventeen adults, of which last, one hundred and seventy-four thousand two hundred and nine will be amajority. Suppose that majority, on the first day of the year 1794, hadborrowed a sum of money equal to the fee simple value of the State, andto have consumed it in eating, drinking, and making merry in their day;or, if you please, in quarrelling and fighting with their unoffendingneighbors. Within eighteen years and eight months, one half of the adultcitizens were dead. Till then, being the majority, they might rightfullylevy the interest of their debt annually on themselves and theirfellow-revellers, or fellow-champions. But at that period, say at thismoment, a new majority have come into place, in their own right, andnot under the rights, the conditions, or laws of their predecessors. Arethey bound to acknowledge the debt, to consider the preceding generationas having had a right to eat up the whole soil of their country inthe course of a life, to alienate it from them (for it would be analienation to the creditors), and would they think themselves eitherlegally or morally bound to give up their country, and emigrate toanother for subsistence? Every one will say no: that the soil is thegift of God to the living, as much as it had been to the deceasedgeneration; and that the laws of nature impose no obligation on them topay this debt. And although, like some other natural rights, this hasnot yet entered into any declaration of rights, it is no less a law, andought to be acted on by honest governments. It is, at the same time, a salutary curb on the spirit of war and indebtment, which, since themodern theory of the perpetuation of debt, has drenched the earth withblood, and crushed its inhabitants under burthens ever accumulating. Had this principle been declared in the British bill of rights, Englandwould have been placed under the happy disability of waging eternal war, and of contracting her thousand millions of public debt. In seeking, then, for an ultimate term for the redemption of our debts, let us rallyto this principle, and provide for their payment within the term ofnineteen years, at the farthest. Our government has not, as yet, begunto act on the rule, of loans and taxation going hand in hand. Had anyloan taken place in my time, I should have strongly urged a redeemingtax. For the loan which has been made since the last session ofCongress, we should now set the example of appropriating some particulartax, sufficient to pay the interest annually, and the principal withina fixed term, less than nineteen years. And I hope yourself and yourcommittee will render the immortal service of introducing this practice. Not that it is expected that Congress should formally declare such aprinciple. They wisely enough avoid deciding on abstract questions. Butthey may be induced to keep themselves within its limits. 

I am sorry to see our loans begin at so exorbitant an interest. And yet, even at that, you will soon be at the bottom of the loan-bag. We are anagricultural nation. Such an one employs its sparings in the purchase orimprovement of land or stocks. The lendable money among them is chieflythat of orphans and wards in the hands of executors and guardians, andthat which the farmer lays by till he has enough for the purchase inview. In such a nation there is one and one only resource for loans, sufficient to carry them through the expense of a war; and that willalways be sufficient, and in the power of an honest government, punctualin the preservation of its faith. The fund I mean, is the mass ofcirculating coin. Every one knows, that, although not literally, it isnearly true, that every paper dollar emitted banishes a silver one fromthe circulation. A nation, therefore, making its purchases and paymentswith bills fitted for circulation, thrusts an equal sum of coin outof circulation. This is equivalent to borrowing that sum, and yet thevendor, receiving payment in a medium as effectual as coin for hispurchases or payments, has no claim to interest. And so the nation maycontinue to issue its bills as far as its wants require, and the limitsof the circulation will admit. Those limits are understood to extendwith us, at present, to two hundred millions of dollars, a greater sumthan would be necessary for any war. But this, the only resourcewhich the government could command with certainty, the States haveunfortunately fooled away, nay corruptly alienated to swindlers andshavers, under the cover of private banks. Say, too, as an additionalevil, that the disposable funds of individuals, to this great amount, have thus been withdrawn from improvement and useful enterprise, andemployed in the useless, usurious, and demoralizing practices of bankdirectors and their accomplices. In the war of 1755, our State availeditself of this fund by issuing a paper money, bottomed on a specific taxfor its redemption, and, to insure its credit, bearing an interest offive per cent. Within a very short time, not a bill of this emission wasto be found in circulation. It was locked up in the chests of executors, guardians, widows, farmers, &tc. We then issued bills, bottomed on aredeeming tax, but bearing no interest. These were readily received, andnever depreciated a single farthing. In the revolutionary war, the oldCongress and the States issued bills without interest, and withouttax. They occupied the channels of circulation very freely, tillthose channels were overflowed by an excess beyond all the calls ofcirculation. But although we have so improvidently suffered the field ofcirculating medium to be filched from us by private individuals, yet Ithink we may recover it in part, and even in the whole, if the Stateswill co-operate with us. If treasury bills are emitted on a taxappropriated for their redemption in fifteen years, and (to insurepreference in the first moments of competition) bearing an interest ofsix per cent. , there is no one who would not take them in preferenceto the bank-paper now afloat, on a principle of patriotism as well asinterest: and they would be withdrawn from circulation into privatehoards to a considerable amount. Their credit once established, othersmight be emitted, bottomed also on a tax, but not bearing interest: andif ever their credit faltered, open public loans, on which these billsalone should be received as specie. These, operating as a sinking fund, would reduce the quantity in circulation, so as to maintain that in anequilibrium with specie. It is not easy to estimate the obstacles which, in the beginning, we should encounter in ousting the banks from theirpossession of the circulation: but a steady and judicious alternation ofemissions and loans, would reduce them in time. But while this is goingon, another measure should be pressed, to recover ultimately our rightto the circulation. The States should be applied to, to transferthe right of issuing circulating paper to Congress exclusively, _inperpetuum_, if possible, but during the war at least, with a saving ofcharter rights. I believe that every State west and south of Connecticutriver, except Delaware, would immediately do it; and the others wouldfollow in time. 

Congress would, of course, begin by obliging unchartered banks to windup their affairs within a short time, and the others as their chartersexpired, forbidding the subsequent circulation of their paper. This theywould supply with their own, bottomed, every emission, on an adequatetax, and bearing or not bearing interest, as the state of the publicpulse should indicate. Even in the non-complying States, these billswould make their way, and supplant the unfunded paper of their banks, by their solidity, by the universality of their currency, and by theirreceivability for customs and taxes. It would be in their power, too, tocurtail those banks to the amount of their actual specie, by gatheringup their paper, and running it constantly on them. The national papermight thus take place even in the non-complying States. In this way, Iam not without a hope, that this great, this sole resource for loansin an agricultural country, might yet be recovered for the use of thenation during war: and, if obtained in perpetuum, it would always besufficient to carry us through any war; provided, that, in the intervalbetween war and war, all the outstanding paper should be called in, coin be permitted to flow in again, and to hold the field of circulationuntil another war should require its yielding place again to thenational medium. 

But it will be asked, are we to have no banks? Are merchants andothers to be deprived of the resource of short accommodations, foundso convenient? I answer, let us have banks: but let them be such as arealone to be found in any country on earth, except Great Britain. Thereis not a bank of discount on the continent of Europe (at least there wasnot one when I was there), which offers any thing but cash in exchangefor discounted bills. No one has a natural right to the trade of amoney-lender, but he who has the money to lend. Let those then among us, who have a monied capital, and who prefer employing it in loans ratherthan otherwise, set up banks, and give cash or national bills for thenotes they discount. Perhaps, to encourage them, a larger interest thanis legal in the other cases might be allowed them, on the condition oftheir lending for short periods only. It is from Great Britain we copythe idea of giving paper in exchange for discounted bills: and while wehave derived from that country some good principles of government andlegislation, we unfortunately run into the most servile imitation of allher practices, ruinous as they prove to her, and with the gulph yawningbefore us into which those very practices are precipitating her. Theunlimited emission of bank-paper has banished all her specie, and isnow, by a depreciation acknowledged by her own statesmen, carrying herrapidly to bankruptcy, as it did France, as it did us, and will do usagain, and every country permitting paper to be circulated, other thanthat by public authority, rigorously limited to the just measure forcirculation. Private fortunes, in the present state of our circulation, are at the mercy of those self-created money-lenders, and are prostratedby the floods of nominal money with which their avarice deluges us. He who lent his money to the public or to an individual, before theinstitution of the United States bank, twenty years ago, when wheat waswell sold at a dollar the bushel, and receives now his nominal sum whenit sells at two dollars, is cheated of half his fortune: and by whom? Bythe banks, which, since that, have thrown into circulation ten dollarsof their nominal money where there was one at that time. 

Reflect, if you please, on these ideas, and use them or not as theyappear to merit. They comfort me in the belief, that they point out aresource ample enough, without overwhelming war-taxes, for the expenseof the war, and possibly still recoverable; and that they hold up toall future time a resource within ourselves, ever at the command ofgovernment, and competent to any wars into which we may be forced. Noris it a slight object to equalize taxes through peace and war. 

*****

Ever affectionately yours. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CXI. --TO JOHN ADAMS, June 21, 1813

TO JOHN ADAMS. 

Monticello, June 21, 1813. 

[Illustration: page201]

And I too, my dear Sir, like the wood-cutter of Ida, should doubt whereto begin, were I to enter the forest of opinions, discussions, and contentions which have occurred in our day. I should say withTheocritus, [Illustration: page201a]

But I shall not do it. The _summum bonum_ with me is now trulyepicurean, ease of body and tranquillity of mind; and to these I wishto consign my remaining days. Men have differed in opinion, and beendivided into parties by these opinions, from the first origin ofsocieties; and in all governments, where they have been permitted freelyto think and to speak. The same political parties which now agitate theUnited States, have existed through all time. Whether the power of thepeople, or that of the

[Illustration: page202]

should prevail, were questions which kept the States of Greece and Romein eternal convulsions; as they now schismatize every people whose mindsand mouths are not shut up by the gag of a despot. And in fact, theterms of whig and tory belong to natural, as well as to civilhistory. They denote the temper and constitution of mind of differentindividuals. To come to our own country, and to the times when you andI became first acquainted: we well remember the violent parties whichagitated the old Congress, and their bitter contests. There you andI were together, and the Jays, and the Dickinsons, and otheranti-independents were arrayed against us. They cherished the monarchyof England, and we the rights of our countrymen. When our presentgovernment was in the mew, passing from Confederation to Union, howbitter was the schism between the Feds and Antis. Here you and I weretogether again. For although, for a moment, separated by the Atlanticfrom the scene of action, I favored the opinion that nine States shouldconfirm the constitution, in order to secure it, and the others holdoff, until certain amendments, deemed favorable to freedom, shouldbe made. I rallied in the first instant to the wiser proposition ofMassachusetts, that all should confirm, and then all instruct theirdelegates to urge those amendments. The amendments were made, andall were reconciled to the government. But as soon as it was put intomotion, the line of division was again drawn. We broke into two parties, each wishing to give the government a different direction; the oneto strengthen the most popular branch, the other the more permanentbranches, and to extend their permanence. Here you and I separated forthe first time: and as we had been longer than most others on the publictheatre, and our names therefore were more familiar to our countrymen, the party which considered you as thinking with them, placed yourname at their head; the other, for the same reason, selected mine. Butneither decency nor inclination permitted us to become the advocatesof ourselves, or to take part personally in the violent contests whichfollowed. We suffered ourselves, as you so well expressed it, to bepassive subjects of public discussion. And these discussions, whetherrelating to men, measures, or opinions, were conducted by the partieswith an animosity, a bitterness, and an indecency, which had never beenexceeded. All the resources of reason and of wrath were exhaustedby each party in support of its own, and to prostrate the adversaryopinions; one was upbraided with receiving the anti-federalists, theother the old tories and refugees, into their bosom. Of this acrimony, the public papers of the day exhibit ample testimony, in the debatesof Congress, of State legislatures, of stump-orators, in addresses, answers, and newspaper essays; and to these, without question, may beadded the private correspondences of individuals; and the less guardedin these, because not meant for the public eye, not restrained by therespect due to that, but poured forth from the overflowings of the heartinto the bosom of a friend, as a momentary easement of our feelings. In this way and in answers to addresses, you and I could indulgeourselves. We have probably done it, sometimes with warmth, often withprejudice, but always, as we believed, adhering to truth. I have notexamined my letters of that day. I have no stomach to revive the memoryof its feelings. But one of these letters, it seems, has got before thepublic, by accident and infidelity, by the death of one friend to whomit was written, and of his friend to whom it had been communicated, and by the malice and treachery of a third person, of whom I had neverbefore heard, merely to make mischief, and in the same Satanic spirit, in which the same enemy had intercepted and published, in 1776, yourletter animadverting on Dickinson's character. How it happened that Iquoted you in my letter to Doctor Priestley, and for whom, and not foryourself, the strictures were meant, has been explained to you in myletter of the 15th, which had been committed to the post eight daysbefore I received yours of the 10th, 11th, and 14th. That gave you thereference which these asked to the particular answer alluded to in theone to Priestley. The renewal of these old discussions, my friend, wouldbe equally useless and irksome. To the volumes then written on thesesubjects, human ingenuity can add nothing new, and the rather, as lapseof time has obliterated many of the facts. And shall you and I, my DearSir, at our age, like Priam of old, gird on the

[Illustration: page203]

Shall we, at our age, become the athletes of party, and exhibitourselves, as gladiators, in the arena of the newspapers? Nothing in theuniverse could induce me to it. My mind has been long fixed to bow tothe judgment of the world, who will judge by my acts, and will nevertake counsel from me as to what that judgment shall be. If your objectsand opinions have been misunderstood, if the measures and principles ofothers have been wrongfully imputed to you, as I believe they have been, that you should leave an explanation of them, would be an set of justiceto yourself. I will add, that it has been hoped that you would leave suchexplanations as would place every saddle on its right horse, and replaceon the shoulders of others the burdens they shifted to yours. 

But all this, my friend, is offered merely for your consideration andjudgment, without presuming to anticipate what you alone are qualifiedto decide for yourself. I mean to express my own purpose only, and thereflections which have led to it. To me, then, it appears, that therehave been differences of opinion and party differences, from thefirst establishment of governments to the present day, and on the samequestion which now divides our own country: that these will continuethrough all future time: that every one takes his side in favor ofthe many, or of the few, according to his constitution, and thecircumstances in which he is placed: that opinions, which are equallyhonest on both sides, should not affect personal esteem or socialintercourse: that as we judge between the Claudii and the Gracchi, theWentworths and the Hampdens of past ages, so, of those among us whosenames may happen to be remembered for a while, the next generationswill judge, favorably or unfavorably, according to the complexion ofindividual minds, and the side they shall themselves have taken: thatnothing new can be added by you or me to what has been said by others, and will be said in every age in support of the conflicting opinions ongovernment: and that wisdom and duty dictate an humble resignation tothe verdict of our future peers. I doing this myself, I shall certainlynot suffer moot questions to affect the sentiments of sincere friendshipand respect, consecrated to you by so long a course of time, and ofwhich I now repeat sincere assurances, Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CXII. --TO JOHN ADAMS, August 22, 1813

TO JOHN ADAMS. 

Monticello, August 22, 1813. 

Dear Sir, Since my letter of June the 27th, I am in your debt for many; all ofwhich I have read with infinite delight. They open a wide field forreflection, and offer subjects enough to occupy the mind and the penindefinitely. I must follow the good example you have set; and whenI have not time to take up every subject, take up a single one. Yourapprobation of my outline to Dr. Priestley is a great gratification tome; and I very much suspect that if thinking men would have the courageto think for themselves, and to speak what they think, it would be foundthey do not differ in religious opinions, as much as is supposed. Iremember to have heard Dr. Priestley say, that if all England wouldcandidly examine themselves, and confess, they would find thatUnitarianism was really the religion of all: and I observe a bill is nowdepending in parliament for the relief of Anti-Trinitarians. It is toolate in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in thePlatonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet thatthe one is not three, and the three are not one: to divide mankind by asingle letter into

[Illustration: page205]

But this constitutes the craft, the power, and the profit of thepriests. Sweep away their gossamer fabrics of factitious religion, andthey would catch no more flies. We should all then, like the Quakers, live without an order of priests, moralize for ourselves, follow theoracle of conscience, and say nothing about what no man can understand, nor therefore believe; for I suppose belief to be the assent of the mindto an intelligible proposition. 

It is with great pleasure I can inform you, that Priestley finished thecomparative view of the doctrines of the philosophers of antiquity, andof Jesus, before his death; and that it was printed soon after. And withstill greater pleasure, that I can have a copy of his work forwardedfrom Philadelphia, by a correspondent there, and presented for youracceptance, by the same mail which carries you this, or very soon after. The branch of the work which the title announces, is executed withlearning and candor, as was every thing Priestley wrote: but perhaps alittle hastily; for he felt himself pressed by the hand of death. TheAbbe Batteux had, in fact, laid the foundation of this part in his'Causes Premieres'; with which he has given us the originals of Ocellusand Timzeus, who first committed the doctrines of Pythagoras to writing:and Enfield, to whom the Doctor refers, had done it more copiously. Buthe has omitted the important branch, which, in your letter of August the9th, you say you have never seen executed, a comparison of the moralityof the Old Testament with that of the New. And yet, no two things wereever more unlike. I ought not to have asked him to give it. He darednot. He would have been eaten alive by his intolerant brethren, theCannibal priests. And yet, this was really the most interesting branchof the work. 

Very soon after my letter to Doctor Priestley, the subject being stillin my mind, I had leisure, during an abstraction from business for a dayor two, while on the road, to think a little more on it, and to sketchmore fully than I had done to him, a syllabus of the matter which Ithought should enter into the work. I wrote it to Doctor Rush; and thereended all my labor on the subject; himself and Doctor Priestley beingthe only depositories of my secret. The fate of my letter to Priestley, after his death, was a warning to me on that of Doctor Rush; and at myrequest, his family were so kind as to quiet me by returning my originalletter and syllabus. By this you will be sensible how much interest Itake in keeping myself clear of religious disputes before the public;and especially of seeing my syllabus disembowelled by the Aruspices ofthe modern Paganism. Yet I enclose it to you with entire confidence, free to be perused by yourself and Mrs. Adams, but by no one else; andto be returned to me. 

You are right in supposing, in one of yours, that I had not read much ofPriestley's Predestination, his no-soul system, or his controversy withHorsley. But I have read his Corruptions of Christianity, and EarlyOpinions of Jesus, over and over again; and I rest on them, andon Middleton's writings, especially his letters from Rome, and toWaterland, as the basis of my own faith. These writings have never beenanswered, nor can be answered by quoting historical proofs, as they havedone. For these facts, therefore, I cling to their learning, so muchsuperior to my own. 

I now fly off in a tangent to another subject. Marshall, in the firstvolume of his history, chapter 3, p. 180, ascribes the petition to theKing, of 1774, (1 Journ. Cong. 67) to the pen of Richard Henry Lee. Ithink myself certain, it was not written by him, as well from what Irecollect to have heard, as from the internal evidence of style. Hewas loose, vague, frothy, rhetorical. He was a poorer writer than hisbrother Arthur; and Arthur's standing may be seen in his Monitor'sLetters, to insure the sale of which, they took the precaution oftacking to them a new edition of the Farmer's Letters; like Mezentius, who '_mortua jungebat corpora vivis_. ' You were of the committee, andcan tell me who wrote this petition; and who wrote the Address to theInhabitants of the Colonies, ib. 45. Of the papers of July 1775, Irecollect well that Mr. Dickinson drew the petition to the King, ib. 149; I think Robert R. Livingston drew the Address to the Inhabitants ofGreat Britain, ib. 152. Am I right in this? And who drew the Address tothe People of Ireland, ib. 180? On these questions, I ask of your memoryto help mine. Ever and affectionately yours, Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CXIII. --TO JOHN W. EPPES, November 6, 1813

TO JOHN W. EPPES. 

Monticello, November 6, 1813. 

Dear Sir, I had not expected to have troubled you again on the subject of finance;but since the date of my last, I have received from Mr. Law a lettercovering a memorial on that subject, which, from its tenor, I conjecturemust have been before Congress at their two last sessions. This papercontains two propositions; the one for issuing treasury notes, bearinginterest, and to be circulated as money; the other for the establishmentof a national bank. The first was considered in my former letter; andthe second shall be the subject of the present. 

The scheme is for Congress to establish a national bank, suppose ofthirty millions capital, of which they shall contribute ten millions innew six per cent, stock, the States ten millions, and individuals tenmillions, one half of the two last contributions to be of similar stock, for which the parties are to give cash to Congress: the whole, however, to be under the exclusive management of the individual subscribers, whoare to name all the directors; neither Congress nor the States havingany power of interference in its administration. Discounts are to beat five per cent. , but the profits are expected to be seven per cent. Congress then will be paying six per cent, on twenty millions, andreceiving seven per cent, on ten millions, being its third of theinstitution: so that on the ten millions cash which they receive fromthe States and individuals, they will, in fact, have to pay but fiveper cent, interest. This is the bait. The charter is proposed to be forforty or fifty years, and if any future augmentations should take place, the individual proprietors are to have the privilege of being the solesubscribers for that. Congress are further allowed to issue to theamount of three millions of notes, bearing interest, which they are toreceive back in payment for lands at a premium of five or ten percent. , or as subscriptions for canals, roads, and bridges, in whichundertakings they are, of course, to be engaged. This is a summaryof the scheme, as I understand it: but it is very possible I maynot understand it in all its parts, these schemes being always madeUnintelligible for the gulls who are to enter into them. The advantagesand disadvantages shall be noted promiscuously as they occur; leavingout the speculation of canals, &c. Which, being an episode only in thescheme, may be omitted, to disentangle it as much as we can. 

1. Congress are to receive five millions from the States (if they willenter into this partnership, which few probably will), and five millionsfrom the individual subscribers, in exchange for ten millions of six percent, stock, one per cent, of which, however, they will make on theirten millions of stock remaining in bank, and so reduce it, in effect, toa loan of ten millions at five per cent, interest. This is good: but

2. They authorize this bank to throw into circulation ninety millionsof dollars, (three times the capital), which increases our circulatingmedium fifty per cent. , depreciates proportionably the present valueof the dollar, and raises the price of all future purchases in the sameproportion. 

3. This loan of ten millions at five per cent. , is to be once for all, only. Neither the terms of the scheme, nor their own prudence could everpermit them to add to the circulation in the same, or any other way, forthe supplies of the succeeding years of the war. These succeeding yearsthen are to be left unprovided for, and the means of doing it in a greatmeasure precluded. 

4. The individual subscribers, on paying their own five millions of cashto Congress, become the depositories of ten millions of stock belongingto Congress, five millions belonging to the States, and five millions tothemselves, say twenty millions, with which, as no one has a right everto see their books, or to ask a question, they may choose their timefor running away, after adding to their booty the proceeds of as much oftheir own notes as they shall be able to throw into circulation. 

5. The subscribers may be one, two, or three, or more individuals, (manysingle individuals being able to pay in the five millions, ) whereuponthis bank oligarchy or monarchy enters the field with ninety millionsof dollars, to direct and control the politics of the nation; and of theinfluence of these institutions on our politics, and into what scale itwill be thrown, we have had abundant experience. Indeed, England herselfmay be the real, while her friend and trustee here shall be the nominaland sole subscriber. 

6. This state of things is to be fastened on us, without the power ofrelief, for forty or fifty years. That is to say, the eight millionsof people now existing, for the sake of receiving one dollar andtwenty-five cents apiece at five per cent, interest, are to subject thefifty millions of people who are to succeed them within that term, tothe payment of forty-five millions of dollars, principal and interest, which will be payable in the course of the fifty years. 

7. But the great and national advantage is to be the relief of thepresent scarcity of money, which is produced and proved by, 1. The additional industry created to supply a variety of articles forthe troops, ammunition, he. 

2. By the cash sent to the frontiers, and the vacuum occasioned in thetrading towns by that. 

3. By the late loans. 

4. By the necessity of recurring to shavers with good paper, which theexisting banks are not able to take up; and

5. By the numerous applications for bank charters, showing that anincrease of circulating medium is wanting. 

Let us examine these causes and proofs of the want of an increase ofmedium, one by one. 

1. The additional industry created to supply a variety of articles fortroops, ammunition, &c. Now I had always supposed that war produceda diminution of industry, by the number of hands it withdraws fromindustrious pursuits, for employment in arms &c. Which are totallyunproductive. And if it calls for new industry in the articles ofammunition and other military supplies, the hands are borrowed fromother branches on which the demand is slackened by the war; so that itis but a shifting of these hands from one pursuit to another. 

2. The cash sent to the frontiers occasions a vacuum in the tradingtowns, which requires a new supply. Let us examine what are the callsfor money to the frontiers. Not for clothing, tents, ammunition, arms, which are all bought in the trading towns. Not for provisions; foralthough these are bought partly in the intermediate country, bank-billsare more acceptable there than even in the trading towns. The pay ofthe army calls for some cash; but not a great deal, as bank-notes are asacceptable with the military men, perhaps more so; and what cash is sentmust find its way back again, in exchange for the wants of the upperfrom the lower country. For we are not to suppose that cash staysaccumulating there for ever. 

3. This scarcity has been occasioned by the late loans. But does thegovernment borrow money to keep it in their coffers? Is it not instantlyrestored to circulation by payment for its necessary supplies? And arewe to restore a vacuum of twenty millions of dollars by an emission ofninety millions?

4. The want of medium is proved by the recurrence of individuals withgood paper to brokers at exorbitant interest; and

5. By the numerous applications to the State governments for additionalbanks; New York wanting eighteen millions, Pennsylvania ten millions, &c. But say more correctly, the speculators and spendthrifts of New Yorkand Pennsylvania, but never consider them as being the States of NewYork and Pennsylvania. These two items shall be considered together. 

It is a litigated question, whether the circulation of paper, ratherthan of specie, is a good or an evil. In the opinion of England andof English writers it is a good; in that of all other nations it is anevil; and excepting England and her copyist, the United States, there isnot a nation existing, I believe, which tolerates a paper circulation. The experiment is going on, however, desperately in England, prettyboldly with us, and at the end of the chapter, we shall see whichopinion experience approves: for I believe it to be one of those caseswhere mercantile clamor will bear down reason, until it is corrected byruin. In the mean time, however, let us reason on this new call for anational bank. 

After the solemn decision of Congress against the renewal of the charterof the bank of the United States, and the grounds of that decision (thewant of constitutional power), I had imagined that question at rest, andthat no more applications would be made to them for the incorporationof banks. The opposition on that ground to its first establishment, thesmall majority by which it was overborne, and the means practisedfor obtaining it, cannot be already forgotten. The law having passed, however, by a majority, its opponents, true to the sacred principleof submission to a majority, suffered the law to flow through its termwithout obstruction. During this, the nation had time to considerthe constitutional question, and when the renewal was proposed, theycondemned it, not by their representatives in Congress only, but byexpress instructions from different organs of their will. Here thenwe might stop, and consider the memorial as answered. But, settingauthority apart, we will examine whether the legislature ought to complywith it, even if they had the power. 

Proceeding to reason on this subject, some principles must be premisedas forming its basis. The adequate price of a thing depends on thecapital and labor necessary to produce it. (In the term capital, I meanto include science, because capital as well as labor has been employedto acquire it. ) Two things requiring the same capital and labor shouldbe of the same price. If a gallon of wine requires for its productionthe same capital and labor with a bushel of wheat, they should beexpressed by the same price, derived from the application of a commonmeasure to them. The comparative prices of things being thus to beestimated, and expressed by a common measure, we may proceed to observe, that were a country so insulated as to have no commercial intercoursewith any other, to confine the interchange of all its wants and supplieswithin itself, the amount of circulating medium, as a common measurefor adjusting these exchanges, would be quite immaterial. If theircirculation, for instance, were of a million of dollars, and the annualproduce of their industry equivalent to ten millions of bushels ofwheat, the price of a bushel of wheat might be one dollar. If, then, bya progressive coinage, their medium should be doubled, the price of abushel of wheat might become progressively two dollars, and without, inconvenience. Whatever be the proportion of the circulating medium tothe value of the annual produce of industry, it may be considered as therepresentative of that industry. In the first case, a bushel of wheatwill be represented by one dollar; in the second, by two dollars. Thisis well explained by Hume, and seems admitted by Adam Smith, (B. 2. C. 2. 436, 441, 490. ) But where a nation is in a full course of interchangeof wants and supplies with all others, the proportion of its mediumto its produce is no longer indifferent, (lb. 441. ) To trade on equalterms, the common measure of values should be as nearly as possible ona par with that of its corresponding nations, whose medium is in asound state; that is to say, not in an accidental state of excess ordeficiency. Now, one of the great advantages of specie as a medium is, that being of universal value, it will keep itself at a general level, flowing out from where it is too high into parts where it is lower. Whereas, if the medium be of local value only, as paper-money, if toolittle, indeed, gold and silver will flow in to supply the deficiency;but if too much, it accumulates, banishes the gold and silver not lockedup in vaults and hoards, and depreciates itself; that is to say, itsproportion to the annual produce of industry being raised, more of itis required to represent any particular article of produce than inthe other countries. This is agreed by Smith (B. 2. C. 2. 437. ), theprincipal advocate for a paper circulation; but advocating it on thesole condition that it be strictly regulated. He admits, nevertheless, that 'the commerce and industry of a country cannot be so secure whensuspended on the Daedalian wings of paper-money, as on the solid groundof gold and silver; and that in time of war the insecurity is greatlyincreased, and great confusion possible where the circulation is for thegreater part in paper. '(B. 2. C. 2. 484. ) But in a country where loansare uncertain, and a specie circulation the only sure resource for them, the preference of that circulation assumes a far different degree ofimportance, as is explained in my former letters. 

The only advantage which Smith proposes by substituting paper in theroom of gold and silver money (B. 2. C. 2. 434. ), is, 'to replace anexpensive instrument with one much less costly, and sometimes equallyconvenient'; that is to say, (page 437, ) to allow the gold and silverto be sent abroad and converted into foreign goods, ' and to substitutepaper as being a cheaper measure. But this makes no addition to thestock or capital of the nation. The coin sent out was worth as much, while in the country, as the goods imported and taking its place. Itis only, then, a change of form in a part of the national capital, fromthat of gold and silver to other goods. He admits, too, that while apart of the goods received in exchange for the coin exported, may bematerials, tools, and provisions for the employment of an additionalindustry, a part also may be taken back in foreign wines, silks, &c. To be consumed by idle people who produce nothing; and so far thesubstitution promotes prodigality, increases expense and consumption, without increasing production. So far also, then, it lessens the capitalof the nation. What may be the amount which the conversion of the partexchanged for productive goods, may add to the former productive mass, it is not easy to ascertain, because, as he says, (page 441, ) 'It isimpossible to determine what is the proportion which the circulatingmoney of any country bears to the whole value of the annual produce. Ithas been computed by different authors, from a fifth* to a thirtieth ofthat value. '

 * The real cash or money necessary to carry on the circulation and barter of a State, is nearly one third part of all the annual rents of the proprietors of the said State; that is, one ninth of the whole produce of the land. Sir William Petty supposes one tenth part of the value of the whole produce sufficient. Postlethwayt, _voce_, Cash. 

In the United States it must be less than in any other part of thecommercial world; because the great mass of their inhabitants beingin responsible circumstances, the great mass of their exchanges in thecountry is effected on credit, in their merchant's ledger, who suppliesall their wants through the year, and at the end of it receives theproduce of their farms, or other articles of their industry. It is afact, that a farmer, with a revenue of ten thousand dollars a year, mayobtain all his supplies from his merchant, and liquidate them at the endof the year, by the sale of his produce to him, without the interventionof a single dollar of cash. This, then, is merely barter, and in thisway of barter a great portion of the annual produce of the United Statesis exchanged without the intermediation of cash. We might safely, then, state our medium at the minimum of one thirtieth. But what isone thirtieth of the value of the annual produce of the industry of theUnited States? Or what is the whole value of the annual produce of theUnited States? An able writer and competent judge of the subject, in1799, on as good grounds as probably could be taken, estimated it, onthe then population of four and a half millions of inhabitants, tobe thirty-seven and a half millions sterling, or one hundred andsixty-eight and three fourths millions of dollars. See Cooper'sPolitical Arithmetic, page 47. According to the same estimate, for ourpresent population it will be three hundred millions of dollars, onethirtieth of which, Smith's minimum, would be ten millions, andone fifth, his maximum, would be sixty millions for the quantum ofcirculation. But suppose, that, instead of our needing the leastcirculating medium of any nation, from the circumstance beforementioned, we should place ourselves in the middle term of thecalculation, to wit, at thirty-five millions. One fifth of this, atthe least, Smith thinks should be retained in specie, which would leavetwenty-eight millions of specie to be exported in exchange for othercommodities; and if fifteen millions of that should be returned inproductive goods, and not in articles of prodigality, that would be theamount of capital which this operation would add to the existing mass. But to what mass? Not that of the three hundred millions, which is onlyits gross annual produce; but to that capital of which the three hundredmillions are but the annual produce. But this being gross, we may inferfrom it the value of the capital by considering that the rent of landsis generally fixed at one third of the gross produce, and is deemed itsnett profit, and twenty times that its fee simple value. The profits onlanded capital may, with accuracy enough for our purpose, be supposedon a par with those of other capital. This would give us then forthe United States, a capital of two thousand millions, all in activeemployment, and exclusive of unimproved lands lying in a great degreedormant. Of this, fifteen millions would be the hundred and thirty-thirdpart. And it is for this petty addition to the capital of the nation, this minimum of one dollar, added to one hundred and thirty-three and athird, or three fourths per cent. , that we are to give up our gold andsilver medium, its intrinsic solidity, its universal value, and itssaving powers in time of war, and to substitute for it paper, with allits train of evils, moral, political, and physical, which I will notpretend to enumerate. 

There is another authority to which we may appeal for the properquantity of circulating medium for the United States. The old Congress, when we were estimated at about two millions of people, on a long andable discussion, June the 22nd, 1775, decided the sufficient quantity tobe two millions of dollars, which sum they then emitted. * According tothis, it should be eight millions, now that we are eight millions ofpeople. This differs little from Smith's minimum of ten millions, andstrengthens our respect for that estimate. 

 * Within five months after this they were compelled, by the necessities of the war, to abandon the idea of emitting only an adequate circulation, and to make those necessities the sole measure of their emissions. 

There is, indeed, a convenience in paper; its easy transmission from oneplace to another. But this may be mainly supplied by bills of exchange, so as to prevent any great displacement of actual coin. Two placestrading together balance their dealings, for the most part, by theirmutual supplies, and the debtor individuals of either may, instead ofcash, remit the bills of those who are creditors in the same dealings;or may obtain them through some third place with which both havedealings. The cases would be rare where such bills could not beobtained, either directly or circuitously, and too unimportant to thenation to overweigh the train of evils flowing from paper circulation. 

From eight to thirty-five millions then being our proper circulation, and two hundred millions the actual one, the memorial proposes to issueninety millions more, because, it says, a great scarcity of money isproved by the numerous applications for banks; to wit, New York foreighteen millions, Pennsylvania ten millions, &c. The answer to thisshall be quoted, from Adam Smith (B. 2, c. 2, page 462), where speakingof the complaints of the traders against the Scotch bankers, who hadalready gone too far in their issues of paper, he says, 'Those tradersand other undertakers having got so much assistance from banks, wishedto get still more. The banks, they seem to have thought, could extendtheir credits to whatever sum might be wanted, without incurring anyother expense besides that of a few reams of paper. They complainedof the contracted views and dastardly spirit of the directors of thosebanks, which did not, they said, extend their credits in proportion tothe extension of the trade of the country; meaning, no doubt, by theextension of that trade, the extension of their own projects beyond whatthey could carry on, either with their own capital, or with what theyhad credit to borrow of private people in the usual way of bond ormortgage. The banks, they seem to have thought, were in honor bound tosupply the deficiency, and to provide them with all the capitalwhich they wanted to trade with. ' And again (page 470): 'When bankersdiscovered that certain projectors were trading, not with any capitalof their own, but with that which they advanced them, they endeavoredto withdraw gradually, making every day greater and greater difficultiesabout discounting. These difficulties alarmed and enraged in the highestdegree those projectors. Their own distress, of which this prudent andnecessary reserve of the banks was no doubt the immediate occasion, theycalled the distress of the country; and this distress of the country, they said, was altogether owing to the ignorance, pusillanimity, and badconduct of the banks, which did not give a sufficiently liberal aid tothe spirited undertakings of those who exerted themselves in order tobeautify, improve, and enrich the country. It was the duty of the banks, they seemed to think, to lend for as long a time, and to as great anextent, as they might wish to borrow. ' It is, probably, the good paperof these projectors, which, the memorial says, the banks being unable todiscount, goes into the hands of brokers, who (knowing the risk of thisgood paper) discount it at a much higher rate than legal interest, tothe great distress of the enterprising adventurers, who had rather trytrade on borrowed capital, than go to the plough or other laboriouscalling. Smith again says, (page 478, ) 'That the industry of Scotlandlanguished for want of money to employ it, was the opinion of the famousMr. Law. By establishing a bank of a particular kind, which he seems tohave imagined might issue paper to the amount of the whole value of allthe lands in the country, he proposed to remedy this want of money. Itwas afterwards adopted, with some variations, by the Duke of Orleans, atthat time Regent of France. The idea of the possibility of multiplyingpaper to almost any extent, was the real foundation of what is calledthe Mississippi scheme, the most extravagant project both of banking andstockjobbing, that perhaps the world ever saw. The principles uponwhich it was founded are explained by Mr. Law himself, in a discourseconcerning money and trade, which he published in Scotland when he firstproposed his project. The splendid but visionary ideas which are setforth in that and some other works upon the same principles, stillcontinue to make an impression upon many people, and have perhaps, in part, contributed to that excess of banking which has of late beencomplained of both in Scotland and in other places. ' The Mississippischeme, it is well known, ended in France in the bankruptcy of thepublic treasury, the crush of thousands and thousands of privatefortunes, and scenes of desolation and distress equal to those of aninvading army, burning and laying waste all before it. 

At the time we were funding our national debt, we heard much about 'apublic debt being a public blessing'; that the stock representing it wasa creation of active capital for the aliment of commerce, manufactures, and agriculture. This paradox was well adapted to the minds of believersin dreams, and the gulls of that size entered _bonâ fide_ into it. Butthe art and mystery of banks is a wonderful improvement on that. Itis established on the principle, that 'private debts are a publicblessing;' that the evidences of those private debts, called bank-notes, become active capital, and aliment the whole commerce, manufactures, and agriculture of the United States. Here are a set of people, forinstance, who have bestowed on us the great blessing of running in ourdebt about two hundred millions of dollars, without our knowing who theyare, where they are, or what property they have to pay this debt whencalled on; nay, who have made us so sensible of the blessings ofletting them run in our debt, that we have exempted them by law from therepayment of these debts beyond a given proportion, (generally estimatedat one third. ) And to fill up the measure of blessing, instead ofpaying, they receive an interest on what they owe from those to whomthey owe; for all the notes, or evidences of what they owe, which wesee in circulation, have been lent to somebody on an interest which islevied again on us through the medium of commerce. And they are so readystill to deal out their liberalities to us, that they are now willing tolet themselves run in our debt ninety millions more, on our paying themthe same premium of six or eight per cent, interest, and on the samelegal exemption from the repayment of more than thirty millions of thedebt, when it shall be called for. But let us look at this principlein its original form, and its copy will then be equally understood. 'A public debt is a public blessing. ' That our debt was juggled fromforty-three up to eighty millions, and funded at that amount, accordingto this opinion, was a great public blessing, because the evidences ofit could be vested in commerce, and thus converted into active capital, and then the more the debt was made to be, the more active capital wascreated. That is to say, the creditors could now employ in commerce themoney due them from the public, and make from it an annual profit offive per cent. , or four millions of dollars. But observe, that thepublic were at the same time paying on it an interest of exactly thesame amount of four millions of dollars. Where then is the gain toeither party, which makes it a public blessing? There is no change inthe state of things, but of persons only. A has a debt due to him fromthe public, of which he holds their certificate as evidence, and onwhich he is receiving an annual interest. He wishes, however, to havethe money itself, and to go into business with it. B has an equal sum ofmoney in business, but wishes now to retire, and live on the interest. He therefore gives it to A, in exchange for A's certificates of publicstock. Now, then, A has the money to employ in business, which B soemployed before. B has the money on interest to live on, which A livedon before: and the public pays the interest to B, which they paid toA before. Here is no new creation of capital, no additional moneyemployed, nor even a change in the employment of a single dollar. The only change is of place between A and B, in which we discover nocreation of capital, nor public blessing. Suppose, again, the public toowe nothing. Then A not having lent his money to the public, would bein possession of it himself, and would go into business without theprevious operation of selling stock. Here again, the same quantity ofcapital is employed as in the former case, though no public debt exists. In neither case is there any creation of active capital, nor otherdifference than that there is a public debt in the first case, and nonein the last; and we may safely ask which of the two situations is mosttruly a public blessing? If, then, a public debt be no public blessing, we may pronounce _a fortiori_, that a private one cannot be so. If thedebt which the banking companies owe be a blessing to any body, it is tothemselves alone, who are realizing a solid interest of eight or tenper cent, on it. As to the public, these companies have banished all ourgold and silver medium, which, before their institution, we had withoutinterest, which never could have perished in our hands, and would havebeen our salvation now in the hour of war; instead of which, they havegiven us two hundred millions of froth and bubble, on which we are topay them heavy interest, until it shall vanish into air, as Morris'snotes did. We are warranted, then, in affirming that this parody on theprinciple of 'a public debt being a public blessing, ' and its mutationinto the blessing of private instead of public debts, is as ridiculousas the original principle itself. In both cases, the truth is, thatcapital may be produced by industry, and accumulated by economy: butjugglers only will propose to create it by legerdemain tricks withpaper. I have called the actual circulation of bank paper in the UnitedStates, two hundred millions of dollars. I do not recollect where I haveseen this estimate; but I retain the impression that I thought it justat the time. It may be tested, however, by a list of the banks now inthe United States, and the amount of their capital. I have no means ofrecurring to such a list for the present day: but I turn to two lists inmy possession for the years of 1803 and 1804. 

In 1803, there were thirty-four banks, whose capital was $28, 902, 000

In 1804, there were sixty-six, consequently thirty-two additional ones. Their capital is not stated, but at the average of the others (excludingthe highest, that of the United States, which was of ten millions)they would be of six hundred thousand dollars each, andadd. . . . . . . . . 19, 200, 000

Making a total of. . . . . . . . $48, 102, 000

or say, of fifty millions in round numbers. Now every one knows theimmense multiplication of these institutions since 1804. If they haveonly doubled, their capital will be of one hundred millions, and iftrebled, as I think probable, it will be of one hundred and fiftymillions, on which they are at liberty to circulate treble the amount. I should sooner, therefore, believe two hundred millions to be far belowthan above the actual circulation. In England, by a late parliamentarydocument, (see Virginia Argus of October the 18th, 1813, and otherpublic papers of about that date) it appears that six years ago, thebank of England had twelve millions of pounds sterling in circulation, which had increased to forty-two millions in 1812, or to one hundred andeighty-nine millions of dollars. What proportion all the other banks mayadd to this, I do not know: if we were allowed to suppose they equalit, this would give a circulation of three hundred and seventy-eightmillions, or the double of ours on a double population. But that nationis essentially commercial, ours essentially agricultural, and needing, therefore, less circulating medium, because the produce of thehusbandman comes but once a year, and is then partly consumed at home, partly exchanged by barter. The dollar, which was of four shillings andsix pence sterling, was, by the same document, stated to be then sixshillings and nine pence, a depreciation of exactly fifty per cent. Theaverage price of wheat on the continent of Europe, at the commencementof its present war with England, was about a French crown, of onehundred and ten cents, the bushel. With us it was one hundred cents, andconsequently we could send it there in competition with their own. That ordinary price has now doubled with us, and more than doubled inEngland; and although a part of this augmentation may proceed from thewar demand, yet from the extraordinary nominal rise in the prices ofland and labor here, both of which have nearly doubled in that period, and are still rising with every new bank, it is evident that werea general peace to take place to-morrow, and time allowed for there-establishment of commerce, justice, and order, we could not affordto raise wheat for much less than two dollars, while the continent ofEurope, having no paper circulation, and that of its specie not beingaugmented, would raise it at their former price of one hundred and tencents. It follows, then, that with our redundancy of paper, we cannot, after peace, send a bushel of wheat to Europe, unless extraordinarycircumstances double its price in particular places, and that then theexporting countries of Europe could undersell us. It is said our paperis as good as silver, because we may have silver for it at the bankwhere it issues. This is not true. One, two, or three persons might haveit: but a general application would soon exhaust their vaults, and leavea ruinous proportion of their paper in its intrinsic worthless form. It is a fallacious pretence, for another reason. The inhabitants of thebanking cities might obtain cash for their paper, as far as the cash ofthe vaults would hold out; but distance puts it out of the power of thecountry to do this. A farmer having a note of a Boston or Charlestonbank, distant hundreds of miles, has no means of calling for the cash. And while these calls are impracticable for the country, the banks haveno fear of their being made from the towns; because their inhabitantsare mostly on their books, and there on sufferance only and during goodbehavior. 

In this state of things, we are called on to add ninety millions moreto the circulation. Proceeding in this career, it is infallible, that wemust end where the revolutionary paper ended. Two hundred millions wasthe whole amount of all the emissions of the old Congress, at whichpoint their bills ceased to circulate. We are now at that sum; but withtreble the population, and of course a longer tether. Our depreciationis, as yet, but at about two for one. Owing to the support its creditreceives from the small reservoirs of specie in the vaults of the banks, it is impossible to say at what point their notes will stop. Nothingis necessary to effect it but a general alarm; and that may takeplace whenever the public shall begin to reflect on, and perceive, theimpossibility that the banks should repay this sum. At present, cautionis inspired no farther than to keep prudent men from selling propertyon long payments. Let us suppose the panic to arise at three hundredmillions, a point to which every session of the legislatures hastensus by long strides. Nobody dreams that they would have three hundredmillions of specie to satisfy the holders of their notes. Were they evento stop now, no one supposes they have two hundred millions in cash, oreven the sixty-six and two-thirds millions, to which amount alone thelaw obliges them to repay. One hundred and thirty-three and one-thirdmillions of loss, then, is thrown on the public by law; and as to thesixty-six and two-thirds, which they are legally bound to pay, and oughtto have in their vaults, every one knows there is no such amount of cashin the United States, and what would be the course with what they reallyhave there? Their notes are refused. Cash is called for. The inhabitantsof the banking towns will get what is in the vaults, until a few banksdeclare their insolvency; when, the general crush becoming evident, theothers will withdraw even the cash they have, declare their bankruptcyat once, and leave an empty house and empty coffers for the holders oftheir notes. In this scramble of creditors, the country gets nothing, the towns but little. What are they to do? Bring suits? A million ofcreditors bring a million of suits against John Nokes and Robert Styles, wheresoever to be found? All nonsense. The loss is total. And a sum isthus swindled from our citizens, of seven times the amount of the realdebt, and four times that of the factitious one of the United States, at the close of the war. All this they will justly charge on theirlegislatures; but this will be poor satisfaction for the two or threehundred millions they will have lost. It is time, then, for the publicfunctionaries to look to this. Perhaps it may not be too late. Perhaps, by giving time to the banks, they may call in and pay off their paperby degrees. But no remedy is ever to be expected while it rests withthe State legislatures. Personal motives can be excited through so manyavenues to their will, that, in their hands, it will continue to go onfrom bad to worse, until the catastrophe overwhelms us. I stillbelieve, however, that on proper representations of the subject, a greatproportion of these legislatures would cede to Congress their power ofestablishing banks, saving the charter rights already granted. And thisshould be asked, not by way of amendment to the constitution, becauseuntil three fourths should consent, nothing could be done; but acceptedfrom them one by one, singly, as their consent might be obtained. Anysingle State, even if no other should come into the measure, would findits interest in arresting foreign bank-paper immediately, and its ownby degrees. Specie would flow in on them as paper disappeared. Theirown banks would call in and pay off their notes gradually, and theirconstituents would thus be saved from the general wreck. Should thegreater part of the States concede, as is expected, their power overbanks to Congress, besides insuring their own safety, the paper ofthe non-conceding States might be so checked and circumscribed, byprohibiting its receipt in any of the conceding States, and even in thenon-conceding as to duties, taxes, judgments, or other demands of theUnited States, or of the citizens of other States, that it wouldsoon die of itself, and the medium of gold and silver be universallyrestored. This is what ought to be done. But it will not be done. _Carthago non delebitur_. The overbearing clamor of merchants, speculators, and projectors, will drive us before them with our eyesopen, until, as in France, under the Mississippi bubble, our citizenswill be overtaken by the crash of this baseless fabric, withoutother satisfaction than that of execrations on the heads of thosefunctionaries, who, from ignorance, pusillanimity, or corruption, havebetrayed the fruits of their industry into the hands of projectors andswindlers. 

When I speak comparatively of the paper emissions of the old Congressand the present banks, let it not be imagined that I cover them underthe same mantle. The object of the former was a holy one; for if everthere was a holy war, it was that which saved our liberties and gave usindependence. The object of the latter, is to enrich swindlers at theexpense of the honest and industrious part of the nation. 

The sum of what has been said is, that pretermitting the constitutionalquestion on the authority of Congress, and considering this applicationon the grounds of reason alone, it would be best that our medium shouldbe so proportioned to our produce, as to be on a par with that of thecountries with which we trade, and whose medium is in a sound state:that specie is the most perfect medium, because it will preserve its ownlevel; because, having intrinsic and universal value, it can never diein our hands, and it is the surest resource of reliance in time ofwar: that the trifling economy of paper, as a cheaper medium, or itsconvenience for transmission, weighs nothing in opposition to theadvantages of the precious metals: that it is liable to be abused, hasbeen, is, and for ever will be abused, in every country in which it ispermitted; that it is already at a term of abuse in these States, whichhas never been reached by any other nation, France excepted, whosedreadful catastrophe should be a warning against the instrument whichproduced it: that we are already at ten or twenty times the due quantityof medium; insomuch, that no man knows what his property is now worth, because it is bloating while he is calculating; and still less whatit will be worth when the medium shall be relieved from its presentdropsical state: and that it is a palpable falsehood to say we can havespecie for our paper whenever demanded. Instead, then, of yielding tothe cries of scarcity of medium set up by speculators, projectors, andcommercial gamblers, no endeavors should be spared to begin the work ofreducing it by such gradual means as may give time to private fortunesto preserve their poise, and settle down with the subsiding medium; andthat, for this purpose, the States should be urged to concede to theGeneral Government, with a saving of chartered rights, the exclusivepower of establishing banks of discount for paper. 

To the existence of banks of discount for cash, as on the continent ofEurope, there can be no objection, because there can be no danger ofabuse, and they are a convenience both to merchants and individuals. I think they should even be encouraged, by allowing them a larger thanlegal, interest on short discounts, and tapering thence, in proportionas the term of discount is lengthened, down to legal interest on thoseof a year or more. Even banks of deposite, where cash should be lodged, and a paper acknowledgment taken out as its representative, entitledto a return of the cash on demand, would be convenient for remittances, travelling persons, he. But, liable as its cash would be to be pilferedand robbed, and its paper to be fraudulently re-issued, or issuedwithout deposite, it would require skilful and strict regulation. Thiswould differ from the bank of Amsterdam, in the circumstance that thecash could be re-demanded on returning the note. 

When I commenced this letter to you, my dear Sir, on Mr. Law's memorial, I expected a short one would have answered that. But as I advanced, thesubject branched itself before me into so many collateral questions, that even the rapid views I have taken of each have swelled the volumeof my letter beyond my expectations, and, I fear, beyond your patience. Yet on a revisal of it, I find no part which has not so much bearing onthe subject as to be worth merely the time of perusal. I leave itthen as it is; and will add only the assurances of my constant andaffectionate esteem and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CXIV. --TO JOHN ADAMS, October 13, 1813

TO JOHN ADAMS. 

Monticello, October 13, 1813. 

Dear Sir, Since mine of August the 22nd, I have received your favors of August the16th, September the 2nd, 14th, 15th, and, and Mrs. Adams's, of Septemberthe 20th. I now send you, according to your request, a copy of thesyllabus. To fill up this skeleton with arteries, with veins, withnerves, muscles, and flesh, is really beyond my time and information. Whoever could undertake it, would find great aid in Enfield's judiciousabridgment of Brucker's History of Philosophy, in which he has reducedfive or six quarto volumes, of one thousand pages each of Latin closelyprinted, to two moderate octavos of English open type. 

To compare the morals of the Old, with those of the New Testament, wouldrequire an attentive study of the former, a search through all its booksfor its precepts, and through all its history for its practices, and theprinciples they prove. As commentaries, too, on these, the philosophy ofthe Hebrews must be inquired into, their Mishna, their Gemara, Cabbala, Jezirah, Sonar, Cosri, and their Talmud, must be examined andunderstood, in order to do them full justice. Brucker, it would seem, has gone deeply into these repositories of their ethics, and Enfield hisepitomizer, concludes in these words. 'Ethics were so little understoodamong the Jews, that, in their whole compilation called the Talmud, there is only one treatise on moral subjects. Their books of moralschiefly consisted in a minute enumeration of duties. From the law ofMoses were deduced six hundred and thirteen precepts, which were dividedinto two classes, affirmative and negative, two hundred and forty-eightin the former, and three hundred and sixty-five in the latter. It mayserve to give the reader some idea of the low state of moral philosophyamong the Jews in the middle age, to add, that of the two hundredand forty-eight affirmative precepts, only three were considered asobligatory upon women; and that, in order to obtain salvation, it wasjudged sufficient to fulfil any one single law in the hour of death;the observance of the rest being deemed necessary, only to increase thefelicity of the future life. What a wretched depravity of sentimentand manners must have prevailed, before such corrupt maxims could haveobtained credit! It is impossible to collect from these writings aconsistent series of moral doctrine. (Enfield, B. 4. Chap. 3. ) Itwas the reformation of this wretched depravity of morals which Jesusundertook. In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we shouldhave to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have beenmuffled by priests who have travestied them into various forms, asinstruments of riches and power to themselves. We must dismiss thePlatonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, theEclectics, the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their Logos and Demiurgos, Æons, and Daemons, male and female, with along train of &c. &c. &c. Or, shall I say at once, of nonsense. We mustreduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, thevery words only of Jesus, paring off the amphiboligisms into whichthey have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what hadfallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understoodthemselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime andbenevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I haveperformed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse outof the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds, in a dunghill. Theresult is an octavo of forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticateddoctrines, such as were professed and acted on by the unletteredApostles, the Apostolic Fathers, and the Christians, of the firstcentury. Their Platonizing successors, indeed, in after times, in orderto legitimate the corruptions which they had incorporated into thedoctrines of Jesus, found it necessary to disavow the primitiveChristians, who had taken their principles from the mouth of Jesushimself, of his Apostles, and the Fathers cotemporary with them. Theyexcommunicated their followers as heretics, branding them with theopprobrious name of Ebionites and Beggars. For a comparison of theGrecian philosophy with that of Jesus, materials might be largely drawnfrom the same source. Enfield gives a history and detailed account ofthe opinions and principles of the different sects. These relate tothe Gods, their natures, grades, places, and powers; the demi-Gods andDemons, and their agency with man; the universe, its structure, extent, and duration; the origin of things from the elements of fire, water, air, and earth; the human soul, its essence and derivation; the _summumbonum_, and _finis bonorum_; with a thousand idle dreams and fancies onthese and other subjects, the knowledge of which is withheld from man;leaving but a short chapter for his moral duties, and the principalsection of that given to what he owes himself, to precepts forrendering him impassible, and unassailable by the evils of life, and forpreserving his mind in a state of constant serenity. 

Such a canvass is too broad for the age of seventy, and especially ofone whose chief occupations have been in the practical business of life. We must leave, therefore, to others, younger and more learned thanwe are, to prepare this euthanasia for Platonic Christianity, and itsrestoration to the primitive simplicity of its founder. I think you givea just outline of the theism of the three religions, when you say thatthe principle of the Hebrew was the fear, of the Gentile the honor, andof the Christian the love of God. 

An expression in your letter of September the 14th, that 'the humanunderstanding is a revelation from its maker, ' gives the best solutionthat I believe can be given of the question, 'What did Socrates mean byhis Daemon?' He was too wise to believe, and too honest to pretend, thathe had real and familiar converse with a superior and invisible being. He probably considered the suggestions of his conscience, or reason, as revelations, or inspirations from the Supreme mind, bestowed, onimportant occasions, by a special superintending providence. 

I acknowledge all the merit of the hymn of Cleanthes to Jupiter, whichyou ascribe to it. It is as highly sublime as a chaste and correctimagination can permit itself to go. Yet in the contemplation of a beingso superlative, the hyperbolic flights of the Psalmist may often befollowed with approbation, even with rapture; and I have no hesitationin giving him the palm over all the hymnists of every language, and ofevery time. Turn to the 148th psalm in Brady and Tate's version. Havesuch conceptions been ever before expressed? Their version of the 15thpsalm is more to be esteemed for its pithiness than its poetry. EvenSternhold, the leaden Sternhold, kindles, in a single instance, with thesublimity of his original, and expresses the majesty of God descendingon the earth, in terms not unworthy of the subject. 

[Illustration: page225]

The Latin versions of this passage by Buchanan and by Johnston, are butmediocres. But the Greek of Duport is worthy of quotation. 

The best collection of these psalms is that of the Octagonian dissentersof Liverpool, in their printed form of prayer; but they are not alwaysthe best versions. Indeed, bad is the best of the English versions; nota ray of poetical genius having ever been employed on them. And how muchdepends on this, may be seen by comparing Brady and Tate's 15th psalmwith Blacklock's _Justum et tenacem propositi virum_ of Horace, quotedin Hume's History, Car. 2. Ch. 66. A translation of David in this style, or in that of Pompei's Cleanthes, might give us some idea of the meritof the original. The character, too, of the poetry of these hymns issingular to us; written in monostichs, each divided into stropheand antistrophe, the sentiment of the first member responded withamplification or antithesis in the second. 

On the subject of the Postscript of yours of August the 16th and of Mrs. Adams's letter, I am silent. I know the depth of the affliction it hascaused, and can sympathize with it the more sensibly, inasmuch as thereis no degree of affliction, produced by the loss of those dear to us, which experience has not taught me to estimate. I have ever found timeand silence the only medicine, and these but assuage, they never cansuppress, the deep-drawn sigh which recollection for ever bringsup, until recollection and life are extinguished together. Everaffectionately yours. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CXV. --TO JOHN ADAMS, October 28, 1813

TO JOHN ADAMS. 

Monticello, October 28, 1813. 

Dear Sir, According to the reservation between us, of taking up one of thesubjects of our correspondence at a time, I turn to your letters ofAugust the 16th and September the 2nd. 

The passage you quote from Theognis, I think has an ethical rather thana political object. The whole piece is a moral exhortation, [Illustration: page226]

and this passage particularly seems to be a reproof to man, who, while with his domestic animals he is curious to improve the race, byemploying always the finest male, pays no attention to the improvementof his own race, but intermarries with the vicious, the ugly, or theold, for considerations of wealth or ambition. It is in conformity withthe principle adopted afterwards by the Pythagoreans, and expressed byOcellus in another form;

[Illustration: page226a

which, as literally as intelligibility will admit, may be thustranslated; 'Concerning the interprocreation of men, how, and of whom itshall be, in a perfect manner, and according to the laws of modesty andsanctity, conjointly, this is what I think right. First, to lay it downthat we do not commix for the sake of pleasure, but of the procreationof children. For the powers, the organs, and desires for coition havenot been given by God to man for the sake of pleasure, but for theprocreation of the race. For as it were incongruous for a mortal bornto partake of divine life, the immortality of the race being taken away, God fulfilled the purpose by making the generations uninterruptedand continuous. This, therefore, we are especially to lay down as aprinciple, that coition is not for the sake of pleasure. ' But nature, not trusting to this moral and abstract motive, seems to have providedmore securely for the perpetuation of the species, by making it theeffect of the _oestrum_ implanted in the constitution of both sexes. And not only has the commerce of love been indulged on this unhallowedimpulse, but made subservient also to wealth and ambition by marriages, without regard to the beauty, the healthiness, the understanding, orvirtue of the subject from which we are to breed. The selecting the bestmale for a Haram of well chosen females, also, which Theognis seemsto recommend from the example of our sheep and asses, would doubtlessimprove the human, as it does the brute animal, and produce a race ofveritable

[Illustration: page227]. 

For experience proves, that the moral and physical qualities of man, whether good or evil, are transmissible in a certain degree from fatherto son. But I suspect that the equal rights of men will rise up againstthis privileged Solomon and his Haram, and oblige us to continueacquiescence under the

[Illustration: page227a], which Theognis complains of, and to content ourselves with theaccidental _aristoi_ produced by the fortuitous concourse of breeders. For I agree with you, that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. Formerly, bodily powersgave place among the _aristoi_. But since the invention of gunpowderhas armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, politeness, and otheraccomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground of distinction. There is also an artificial aristocracy, founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to thefirst class. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most preciousgift of nature, for the instruction, the trusts, and government ofsociety. And, indeed, it would have been inconsistent in creation tohave formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtueand wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not evensay, that that form of government is the best, which provides the mosteffectually for a pure selection of these natural _aristoi_ into theoffices of government? The artificial aristocracy is a mischievousingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent itsascendancy. On the question, what is the best provision, you and Idiffer; but we differ as rational friends, using the free exercise ofour own reason, and mutually indulging its errors. You think it bestto put the pseudo-aristoi into a separate chamber of legislation, wherethey may be hindered from doing mischief by their co-ordinate branches, and where, also, they may be a protection to wealth against the Agrarianand plundering enterprises of the majority of the people. I think thatto give them power in order to prevent them from doing mischief, isarming them for it, and increasing instead of remedying the evil. Forif the co-ordinate branches can arrest their action, so may they that ofthe co-ordinates. Mischief may be done negatively as well as positively. Of this, a cabal in the Senate of the United States has furnished manyproofs. Nor do I believe them necessary to protect the wealthy;because enough of these will find their way into every branch of thelegislation, to protect themselves. From fifteen to twenty legislaturesof our own, in action for thirty years past, have proved that no fearsof an equalization of property are to be apprehended from them. I thinkthe best remedy is exactly that provided by all our constitutions, toleave to the citizens the free election and separation of the _aristoi_from the _pseudo-aristoi_, of the wheat from the chaff. In general, they will elect the really good and wise. In some instances, wealth maycorrupt, and birth blind them; but not in sufficient degree to endangerthe society. 

It is probable that our difference of opinion may, in some measure, beproduced by a difference of character in those among whom we live. Fromwhat I have seen of Massachusetts and Connecticut myself, and stillmore from what I have heard, and the character given of the former byyourself, (Vol. I, page 111, ) who know them so much better, there seemsto be in those two States a traditionary reverence for certain families, which has rendered the offices of government nearly hereditary in thosefamilies. I presume that from an early period of your history, membersof these families happening to possess virtue and talents, have honestlyexercised them for the good of the people, and by their services haveendeared their names to them. In coupling Connecticut with you, I meanit politically only, not morally. For having made the Bible the commonlaw of their land, they seem to have modeled their morality on the storyof Jacob and Laban. But although this hereditary succession to officewith you may, in some degree, be founded in real family merit, yet in amuch higher degree, it has proceeded from your strict alliance of Churchand State. These families are canonized in the eyes of the people on thecommon principle, 'You tickle me, and I will tickle you. ' In Virginia, we have nothing of this. Our clergy, before the revolution, having beensecured against rivalship by fixed salaries, did not give themselves thetrouble of acquiring influence over the people. Of wealth, there weregreat accumulations in particular families, handed down from generationto generation, under the English law of entails. But the only objectof ambition for the wealthy was a seat in the King's Council. All theircourt then was paid to the crown and its creatures; and they Philipizedin all collisions between the King and the people. Hence they wereunpopular; and that unpopularity continues attached to their names. ARandolph, a Carter, or a Burwell must have great personal superiorityover a common competitor, to be elected by the people, even at thisday. At the first session of our legislature after the Declaration ofIndependence, we passed a law abolishing entails. And this was followedby one abolishing the privilege of primogeniture, and dividing thelands of intestates equally among all their children, or otherrepresentatives. These laws, drawn by myself, laid the axe to the rootof pseudo-aristocracy. And had another which I prepared been adopted bythe legislature, our work would have been complete. It was a bill forthe more general diffusion of learning. This proposed to divide everycounty into wards of five or six miles square, like your townships; toestablish in each ward a free school for reading, writing, and commonarithmetic; to provide for the annual selection of the best subjectsfrom these schools, who might receive, at the public expense, a higherdegree of education at a district school; and from these districtschools to select a certain number of the most promising subjects, tobe completed at an University, where all the useful sciences shouldbe taught. Worth and genius would thus have been sought out from everycondition of life, and completely prepared by education for defeatingthe competition of wealth and birth for public trusts. My propositionhad, for a further object, to impart to these wards those portions ofself-government for which they are best qualified, by confiding to themthe care of their poor, their roads, police, elections, the nominationof jurors, administration of justice in small cases, elementaryexercises of militia; in short, to have made them little republics, witha warden at the head of each, for all those concerns which, being undertheir eye, they would better manage than the larger republics of thecounty or State. A general call of ward-meetings by their wardens on thesame day through the State, would at any time produce the genuine senseof the people on any required point, and would enable the State to actin mass, as your people have so often done, and with so much effect, bytheir town-meetings. The law for religious freedom, which made a part ofthis system, having put down the aristocracy of the clergy, and restoredto the citizen the freedom of the mind, and those of entails anddescents nurturing an equality of condition among them, this oneducation would have raised the mass of the people to the high groundof moral respectability necessary to their own safety, and to orderlygovernment; and would have completed the great object of qualifying themto select the veritable aristoi, for the trusts of government, to theexclusion of the pseudalists: and the same Theognis, who has furnishedthe epigraphs of your two letters, assures us that

[Illustration: page229]

Although this law has not yet been acted on but in a small andinefficient degree, it is still considered as before the legislature, with other bills of the revised code, not yet taken up, and I have greathope that some patriotic spirit will, at a favorable moment, call it up, and make it the key-stone of the arch of our government. 

With respect to aristocracy, we should further consider, that before theestablishment of the American States, nothing was known to historybut the man of the old world, crowded within limits either small orovercharged, and steeped in the vices which that situation generates. Agovernment adapted to such men would be one thing; but a very differentone, that for the man of these States. Here every one may have land tolabor for himself, if he chooses; or, preferring the exercise of anyother industry, may exact for it such compensation as not only to afforda comfortable subsistence, but wherewith to provide for a cessationfrom labor in old age. Every one, by his property or by his satisfactorysituation, is interested in the support of law and order. And such menmay safely and advantageously reserve to themselves a wholesome controlover their public affairs, and a degree of freedom, which, in the handsof the canaille of the cities of Europe, would be instantly pervertedto the demolition and destruction of every thing public and private. Thehistory of the last twenty-five years of France, and of the last fortyyears in America, nay, of its last two hundred years, proves the truthof both parts of this observation. 

But even in Europe a change has sensibly taken place in the mind of man. Science had liberated the ideas of those who read and reflect, andthe American example had kindled feelings of right in the people. Aninsurrection has consequently begun, of science, talents, and courage, against rank and birth, which have fallen into contempt. It has failedin its first effort, because the mobs of the cities, the instrument usedfor its accomplishment, debased by ignorance, poverty, and vice, couldnot be restrained to rational action. But the world will recover fromthe panic of this first catastrophe. Science is progressive, and talentsand enterprise on the alert. Resort may be had to the people ofthe country, a more governable power from their principles andsubordination; and rank and birth and tinsel-aristocracy will finallyshrink into insignificance, even there. This, however, we have no rightto meddle with. It suffices for us, if the moral and physical conditionof our own citizens qualifies them to select the able and good for thedirection of their government, with a recurrence of elections at suchshort periods as will enable them to displace an unfaithful servant, before the mischief he meditates may be irremediable, I have thusstated my opinion on a point on which we differ, not with a view tocontroversy, for we are both too old to change opinions which are theresult of a long life of inquiry and reflection; but on the suggestionof a former letter of yours, that we ought not to die before we haveexplained ourselves to each other. We acted in perfect harmony, through a long and perilous contest for our liberty and independence. A constitution has been acquired, which, though neither of us thinksperfect, yet both consider as competent to render our fellow-citizensthe happiest and the securest on whom the sun has ever shone. If we donot think exactly alike as to its imperfections, it matters little toour country, which, after devoting to it long lives of disinterestedlabor we have delivered over to our successors in life, who will be ableto take care of it and of themselves. 

Of the pamphlet on aristocracy which has been sent to you, or who may beits author, I have heard nothing but through your letter. If the personyou suspect, it may be known from the quaint, mystical, and hyperbolicalideas, involved in affected, newfangled, and pedantic terms, which stamphis writings. Whatever it be, I hope your quiet is not to be affected atthis day by the rudeness or intemperance of scribblers; but that you maycontinue in tranquillity to live and to rejoice in the prosperity ofour country, until it shall be your own wish to take your seat among the_aristoi_ who have gone before you. 

Ever and affectionately yours. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CXVI. --TO THOMAS LIEPER, January 1, 1814

TO THOMAS LIEPER. 

Monticello, January 1, 1814. 

Dear Sir, I had hoped, when I retired from the business of the world, that Ishould have been permitted to pass the evening of life in tranquillity, undisturbed by the peltings and passions of which the public papersare the vehicles. I see, however, that I have been dragged into thenewspapers by the infidelity of one with whom I was formerly intimate, but who has abandoned the American principles out of which that intimacygrew, and become the bigoted partisan of England, and malcontent of hisown government. In a letter which he wrote me, he earnestly besought meto avail our country of the good understanding which subsisted betweenthe executive and myself, by recommending an offer of such terms toour enemy as might produce a peace, towards which he was confident thatenemy was disposed. In my answer, I stated the aggressions, the insults, and injuries which England had been heaping on us for years, our longforbearance in the hope she might be led by time and reflection to asounder view of her own interests, and of their connection with justiceto us, the repeated propositions for accommodation made by us, andrejected by her, and at length her Prince Regent's solemn proclamationto the world, that he would never repeal the orders in council as tous, until France should have revoked her illegal decrees as to allthe world, and her minister's declaration to ours, that no admissibleprecaution against the impressment of our seamen could be proposed: thatthe unavoidable declaration of war which followed these was accompaniedby advances for peace, on terms which no American could dispense with, made through various channels, and unnoticed and unanswered throughany: but that if he could suggest any other conditions which we oughtto accept, and which had not been repeatedly offered and rejected, I wasready to be the channel of their conveyance to the government: and, toshow him that neither that attachment to Bonaparte nor French influence, which they allege eternally without believing it, themselves, affectedmy mind, I threw in the two little sentences, of the printed extractenclosed in your friendly favor of the 9th ultimo, and exactly these twolittle sentences, from a letter of two or three pages, he has thoughtproper to publish, naked, alone, and with my name, although other partsof the letter would have shown that I wished such limits only to thesuccesses of Bonaparte, as should not prevent his completely closingEurope against British manufactures and commerce; and thereby reducingher to just terms of peace with us. 

Thus am I situated. I receive letters from all quarters, some from knownfriends, some from those who write like friends, on various subjects. What am I to do? Am I to button myself up in Jesuitical reserve, rudelydeclining any answer, or answering in terms so unmeaning, as onlyto prove my distrust? Must I withdraw myself from all interchange ofsentiment with the world? I cannot do this. It is at war with my habitsand temper. I cannot act as if all men were unfaithful, because some areso; nor believe that all will betray me, because some do. I had ratherbe the victim of occasional infidelities, than relinquish my generalconfidence in the honesty of man. 

So far as to the breach of confidence which has brought me into thenewspapers, with a view to embroil me with my friends, by a supposedseparation in opinion and principle from them. But it is impossiblethere can be any difference of opinion among us on the two propositionscontained in these two little sentences, when explained, as they wereexplained in the context from which they were insulated. That Bonaparteis an unprincipled tyrant, who is deluging the continent of Europe withblood, there is not a human being, not even the wife of his bosom, whodoes not see: nor can there, I think, be a doubt as to the line we oughtto wish drawn between his successes and those of Alexander. Surely noneof us wish to see Bonaparte conquer Russia, and lay thus at his feet thewhole continent of Europe. This done, England would be but a breakfast:and although I am free from the visionary fears which the votaries ofEngland have affected to entertain, because I believe he cannot effectthe conquest of Europe; yet put all Europe into his hands, and he mightspare such a force, to be sent in British ships, as I would as lievenot have to encounter, when I see how much trouble a handful of Britishsoldiers in Canada has given us. No. It cannot be our interest that allEurope should be reduced to a single monarchy. The true line ofinterest for us is, that Bonaparte should be able to effect the completeexclusion of England from the whole continent of Europe, in order, asthe same letter said, 'by this peaceable engine of constraint, to makeher renounce her views of dominion over the ocean, of permitting noother nation to navigate it but with her license, and on tribute to her, and her aggressions on the persons of our citizens who may choose toexercise their right of passing over that element. ' And this would beeffected by Bonaparte's succeeding so far as to close the Baltic againsther. This success I wished him the last year, this I wish him thisyear; but were he again advanced to Moscow, I should again wish himsuch disasters as would prevent his reaching Petersburg. And were theconsequences even to be the longer continuance of our war, I wouldrather meet them, than see the whole force of Europe wielded by a singlehand. 

I have gone into this explanation, my friend, because I know you willnot carry my letter to the newspapers, and because I am willingto entrust to your discretion the explaining me to our honestfellow-laborers, and the bringing them to pause and reflect, if any ofthem have not sufficiently reflected on the extent of the success weought to wish to Bonaparte, with a view to our own interests only; andeven were we not men, to whom nothing human should be indifferent. Butis our particular interest to make us insensible to all sentiments ofmorality? Is it then become criminal, the moral wish that the torrentsof blood this man is shedding in Europe, the sufferings of so many humanbeings, good as ourselves, on whose necks he is trampling, the burningsof ancient cities, devastations of great countries, the destruction oflaw and order, and demoralization of the world, should be arrested, evenif it should place our peace a little further distant? No. You andI cannot differ in wishing that Russia, and Sweden, and Denmark, andGermany, and Spain, and Portugal, and Italy, and even England, mayretain their independence. And if we differ in our opinions about Towersand his four beasts and ten kingdoms, we differ as friends, indulgingmutual errors, and doing justice to mutual sincerity and honesty. Inthis spirit of sincere confidence and affection, I pray God to bless youhere and hereafter. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CXVII. --TO DOCTOR WALTER JONES, January 2, 1814

TO DOCTOR WALTER JONES. 

Monticello, January 2, 1814. 

Dear Sir, Your favor of November the 25th reached this place December the 21st, having been near a month on the way. How this could happen I know not, as we have two mails a week both from Fredericksburg and Richmond. Itfound me just returned from a long journey and absence, during whichso much business had accumulated, commanding the first attentions, thatanother week has been added to the delay. 

I deplore, with you, the putrid state into which our newspapers havepassed, and the malignity, the vulgarity, and mendacious spirit of thosewho write for them; and I enclose you a recent sample, the production ofa New England judge, as a proof of the abyss of degradation into whichwe are fallen. These ordures are rapidly depraving the public taste, andlessening its relish for sound food. As vehicles of information, anda curb on our functionaries, they have rendered themselves useless, byforfeiting all title to belief. That this has, in a great degree, beenproduced by the violence and malignity of party spirit, I agree withyou; and I have read with great pleasure the paper you enclosed me onthat subject, which I now return. It is at the same time a perfect modelof the style of discussion which candor and decency should observe, of the tone which renders difference of opinion even amiable, and asuccinct, correct, and dispassionate history of the origin and progressof party among us. It might be incorporated, as it stands, and withoutchanging a word, into the history of the present epoch, and would giveto posterity a fairer view of the times than they will probably derivefrom other sources. In reading it, with great satisfaction, there wasbut a single passage where I wished a little more developement of a verysound and catholic idea; a single intercalation to rest it solidly ontrue bottom. It is near the end of the first page, where you make astatement of genuine republican maxims; saying, 'that the people oughtto possess as much political power as can possibly consist with theorder and security of society. ' Instead of this, I would say, 'thatthe people, being the only safe depository of power, should exercise inperson every function which their qualifications enable them to exerciseconsistently with the order and security of society; that we now findthem equal to the election of those who shall be invested withtheir executive and legislative powers, and to act themselves in thejudiciary, as judges in questions of fact; that the range of theirpowers ought to be enlarged, ' &c. This gives both the reason andexemplification of the maxim you express, 'that they ought to possess asmuch political power, ' &c. I see nothing to correct either in your factsor principles. 

You say that in taking General Washington on your shoulders, to bear himharmless through the federal coalition, you encounter a perilous topic. I do not think so. You have given the genuine history of the course ofhis mind through the trying scenes in which it was engaged, and of theseductions by which it was deceived, but not depraved. I think I knewGeneral Washington intimately and thoroughly; and were I called on todelineate his character, it should be in terms like these. 

His mind was great and powerful, without being of the very first order;his penetration strong, though not so acute as that of a Newton, Bacon, or Locke; and as far as he saw, no judgment was ever sounder. It wasslow in operation, being little aided by invention or imagination, butsure in conclusion. Hence the common remark of his officers, ofthe advantage he derived from councils of war, where, hearing allsuggestions, he selected whatever was best; and certainly no Generalever planned his battles more judiciously. But if deranged during thecourse of the action, if any member of his plan was dislocated by suddencircumstances, he was slow in a re-adjustment. The consequence was, thathe often failed in the field, and rarely against an enemy in station, asat Boston and York. He was incapable of fear, meeting personal dangerswith the calmest unconcern. Perhaps the strongest feature in hischaracter was prudence, never acting until every circumstance, everyconsideration, was maturely weighed; refraining if he saw a doubt, but, when once decided, going through with his purpose, whatever obstaclesopposed. His integrity was most pure, his justice the most inflexible Ihave ever known, no motives of interest or consanguinity, of friendshipor hatred, being able to bias his decision. He was, indeed, in everysense of the words, a wise, a good, and a great man. His temper wasnaturally irritable and high-toned; but reflection and resolution hadobtained a firm and habitual ascendancy over it. If ever, however, itbroke its bonds, he was most tremendous in his wrath. In his expenses hewas honorable, but exact; liberal in contributions to whatever promisedutility; but frowning and unyielding on all visionary projects, and allunworthy calls on his charity. His heart was not warm in its affections;but he exactly calculated every man's value, and gave him a solid esteemproportioned to it. His person, you know, was fine, his stature exactlywhat one would wish, his deportment easy, erect, and noble; the besthorseman of his age, and the most, graceful figure that could be seenon horseback. Although in the circle of his friends, where he mightbe unreserved with safety, he took a free share in conversation, his colloquial talents were not above mediocrity, possessing neithercopiousness of ideas, nor fluency of words. In public, when called onfor a sudden opinion, he was unready, short, and embarrassed. Yet hewrote readily, rather diffusely, in an easy and correct style. Thishe had acquired by conversation with the world, for his educationwas merely reading, writing, and common arithmetic, to which he addedsurveying at a later day. His time was employed in action chiefly, reading little, and that only in agriculture and English history. Hiscorrespondence became necessarily extensive, and, with journalizinghis agricultural proceedings, occupied most of his leisure hours withindoors. On the whole, his character was, in its mass, perfect, in nothingbad, in few points indifferent; and it may truly be said, that never didnature and fortune combine more perfectly to make a man great, and toplace him in the same constellation with whatever worthies have meritedfrom man an everlasting remembrance. For his was the singular destinyand merit, of leading the armies of his country successfully through anarduous war, for the establishment of its independence; of conductingits councils through the birth of a government, new in its forms andprinciples, until it had settled down into a quiet and orderly train;and of scrupulously obeying the laws through the whole of his career, civil and military, of which the history of the world furnishes no otherexample. How, then, can it be perilous for you to take such a man onyour shoulders? I am satisfied the great body of republicans think ofhim as I do. We were, indeed, dissatisfied with him on his ratificationof the British treaty. But this was short-lived. We knew his honesty, the wiles with which he was encompassed, and that age had already begunto relax the firmness of his purposes; and I am convinced he is moredeeply seated in the love and gratitude of the republicans, than in thePharisaical homage of the federal monarchists. For he was no monarchistfrom preference of his judgment. The soundness of that gave him correctviews of the rights of man, and his severe justice devoted him to them. He has often declared to me that he considered our new constitution asan experiment on the practicability of republican government, and withwhat dose of liberty man could be trusted for his own good; that he wasdetermined the experiment should have a fair trial, and would losethe last drop of his blood in support of it. And these declarations herepeated to me the oftener and the more pointedly, because he knew mysuspicions of Colonel Hamilton's views, and probably had heard fromhim the same declarations which I had, to wit, 'that the Britishconstitution, with its unequal representation, corruption, and otherexisting abuses, was the most perfect government which had ever beenestablished on earth, and that a reformation of these abuses would makeit an impracticable government. ' I do believe that General Washingtonhad not a firm confidence in the durability of our government. He wasnaturally distrustful of men, and inclined to gloomy apprehensions:and I was ever persuaded that a belief that we must at length end insomething like a British constitution, had some weight in his adoptionof the ceremonies of levees, birthdays, pompous meetings with Congress, and other forms of the same character, calculated to prepare usgradually for a change which he believed possible, and to let it come onwith as little shock as might be to the public mind. 

These are my opinions of General Washington, which I would vouch at thejudgment-seat of God, having been formed on an acquaintance of thirtyyears. I served with him in the Virginia legislature from 1769 to theRevolutionary war, and again, a short time in Congress, until he left usto take command of the army. During the war and after it we correspondedOccasionally, and in the four years of my continuance in the officeof Secretary of State, our intercourse was daily, confidential, andcordial. After I retired from that office, great and malignant painswere taken by our federal monarchists, and not entirely withouteffect, to make him view me as a theorist, holding French principles ofgovernment, which would lead infallibly to licentiousness and anarchy. And to this he listened the more easily, from my known disapprobationof the British treaty. I never saw him afterwards, or these malignantinsinuations should have been dissipated before his just judgment, asmists before the sun. I felt on his death, with my countrymen, that'verily a great man hath fallen this day in Israel. '

More time and recollection would enable me to add many other traits ofhis character; but why add them to you, who knew him well? And I cannotjustify to myself a longer detention of your paper. 

_Vale, proprieque tuum me esse tibi persuadeas_. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CXVIII. --TO JOSEPH C. CABELL, January 31, 1814

TO JOSEPH C. CABELL. 

Monticello, January 31, 1814. 

Dear Sir, Your favor of the 23d is received. Say had come to hand safely. But Iregretted having asked the return of him; for I did not find in him onenew idea on the subject I had been contemplating; nothing more than asuccinct, judicious digest of the tedious pages of Smith. 

You ask my opinion on the question, whether the States can add anyqualifications to those which the constitution has prescribed for theirmembers of Congress? It is a question I had never before reflected on;yet had taken up an off-hand opinion, agreeing with your first, that they could not: that to add new qualifications to those of theconstitution, would be as much an alteration, as to detract from them. And so I think the House of Representatives of Congress decided in somecase; I believe that of a member from Baltimore. But your letter havinginduced me to look into the constitution, and to consider the questiona little, I am again in your predicament, of doubting the correctness ofmy first opinion. Had the constitution been silent, nobody can doubt butthat the right to prescribe all the qualifications and disqualificationsof those they would send to represent them, would have belonged to theState. So also the constitution might have prescribed the whole, andexcluded all others. It seems to have preferred the middle way. It hasexercised the power in part, by declaring some disqualifications, towit, those of not being twenty-five years of age, of not having been acitizen seven years, and of not being an inhabitant of the State at thetime of election. But it does not declare, itself, that the member shallnot be a lunatic, a pauper, a convict of treason, of murder, of felony, or other infamous crime, or a non-resident of his district; nor doesit prohibit to the State the power of declaring these, or any otherdisqualifications which its particular circumstances may call for: andthese may be different in different States. Of course, then, by thetenth amendment, the power is reserved to the State. If, wherever theconstitution assumes a single power out of many which belong to the samesubject, we should consider it as assuming the whole, it would vestthe General Government with a mass of powers never contemplated. On thecontrary, the assumption of particular powers seems an exclusion of allnot assumed. This reasoning appears to me to be sound; but, on so recenta change of view, caution requires us not to be too confident, and thatwe admit this to be one of the doubtful questions on which honest menmay differ with the purest motives; and the more readily, as we find wehave differed from ourselves on it. 

I have always thought, that where the line of demarcation betweenthe powers of the General and State governments was doubtfully orindistinctly drawn, it would be prudent and praiseworthy in bothparties, never to approach it but under the most urgent necessity. Is the necessity now urgent, to declare that no non-resident of hisdistrict shall be eligible as a member of Congress? It seems to me that, in practice, the partialities of the people are a sufficient securityagainst such an election; and that if, in any instance, they shouldever choose a non-resident, it must be in one of such eminent merit andqualifications, as would make it a good, rather than an evil; and that, in any event, the examples will be so rare, as never to amount to aserious evil. If the case then be neither clear nor urgent, would it notbe better to let it lie undisturbed? Perhaps its decision may neverbe called for. But if it be indispensable to establish thisdisqualification now, would it not look better to declare such others, at the same time, as may be proper? I frankly confide to yourself theseopinions, or rather no-opinions, of mine; but would not wish to havethem go any farther. I want to be quiet: and although some circumstancesnow and then excite me to notice them, I feel safe, and happier inleaving events to those whose turn it is to take care of them; and, ingeneral, to let it be understood, that I meddle little or not at allwith public affairs. There are two subjects, indeed, which I shall claima right to further as long as I breathe, the public education and thesubdivision of the counties into wards. I consider the continuance ofrepublican government as absolutely hanging on these two hooks. Of thefirst, you will, I am sure, be an advocate, as having alreadyreflected on it, and of the last, when you shall have reflected. Everaffectionately yours. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CXIX. --TO JOHN ADAMS, July 5, 1814

TO JOHN ADAMS. 

Monticello, July 5, 1814

Dear Sir, Since mine of January the 24th, yours of March the 14th has beenreceived. It was not acknowledged in the short one of May the 18th, byMr. Rives, the only object of that having been to enable one of our mostpromising young men to have the advantage of making his bow to you. Ilearned with great regret the serious illness mentioned in your letter;and I hope Mr. Rives will be able to tell me you are entirely restored. But our machines have now been running seventy or eighty years, and wemust expect that, worn as they are, here a pivot, there a wheel, nowa pinion, next a spring, will be giving way; and however we may tinkerthem up for a while, all will at length surcease motion. Our watches, with works of brass and steel, wear out within that period. Shall youand I last to see the course the seven-fold wonders of the times willtake? The Attila of the age dethroned, the ruthless destroyer often millions of the human race, whose thirst for blood appearedunquenchable, the great oppressor of the rights and liberties ofthe world, shut up within the circuit of a little island of theMediterranean, and dwindled to the condition of an humble and degradedpensioner on the bounty of those he has most injured. How miserably, howmeanly, has he closed his inflated career! What a sample of the bathoswill his history present! He should have perished on the swords of hisenemies, under the walls of Paris. 

[Illustration: page240]

But Bonaparte was a lion in the field only. In civil life, acold-blooded, calculating, unprincipled usurper, without a virtue; nostatesman, knowing nothing of commerce, political economy, or civilgovernment, and supplying ignorance by bold presumption. I had supposedhim a great man until his entrance into the Assembly _des Cinq Cens_, eighteenth _Brumaire_ (an 8. ) From that date, however, I set him down asa great scoundrel only. To the wonders of his rise and fall, we may addthat of a Czar of Muscovy, dictating, in Paris, laws and limits to allthe successors of the Caesars, and holding even the balance in which thefortunes of this new world are suspended. I own, that while I rejoice, for the good of mankind, in the deliverance of Europe from the havocwhich would have never ceased while Bonaparte should have lived inpower, I see with anxiety the tyrant of the ocean remaining in vigor, and even participating in the merit of crushing his brother tyrant. While the world is thus turned upside down, on which side of it arewe? All the strong reasons, indeed, place us on the side of peace; theinterests of the continent, their friendly dispositions, and even theinterests of England. Her passions alone are opposed to it. Peace wouldseem now to be an easy work, the causes of the war being removed. Herorders of council will no doubt be taken care of by the allied powers, and, war ceasing, her impressment of our seamen ceases of course. But Ifear there is foundation for the design intimated in the publicpapers, of demanding a cession of our right in the fisheries. What willMassachusetts say to this? I mean her majority, which must be consideredas speaking through the organs it has appointed itself, as the index ofits will. She chose to sacrifice the liberty of our sea-faring citizens, in which we were all interested, and with them her obligations to theco-States, rather than war with England. Will she now sacrifice thefisheries to the same partialities? This question is interesting to heralone; for to the middle, the southern, and western States, they areof no direct concern; of no more than the culture of tobacco, rice, andcotton to Massachusetts. I am really at a loss to conjecture what ourrefractory sister will say on this occasion. I know what, as a citizenof the Union, I would say to her. 'Take this question ad referendum. Itconcerns you alone. If you would rather, give up the fisheries than warwith England, we give them up. If you had rather fight for them, we willdefend your interests to the last drop of our blood, choosing rather toset a good example than follow a bad one. ' And I hope she will determineto fight for them. With this, however, you and I shall have nothingto do; ours being truly the case wherein '_Non tali auxilio, necdefensoribus istis, tempus eget_. ' Quitting this subject, therefore, Iwill turn over another leaf. 

I am just returned from one of my long absences, having been at myother home for five weeks past. Having more leisure there than here forreading, I amused myself with reading seriously Plato's Republic. Iam wrong, however, in calling it amusement, for it was the heaviesttask-work I ever went through. I had occasionally before taken up someof his other works, but scarcely ever had patience to go through awhole dialogue. While wading through the whimsies, the puerilities, andunintelligible jargon of this work, I laid it down often to ask myself, how it could have been that the world should have so long consented togive reputation to such nonsense as this. How the soi-disant Christianworld, indeed, should have done it, is a piece of historical curiosity. But how could the Roman good sense do it? And particularly, how couldCicero bestow such eulogies on Plato? Although Cicero did not wieldthe dense logic of Demosthenes, yet he was able, learned, laborious, practised in the business of the world and honest. He could not be thedupe of mere style, of which he was himself the first master in theworld. With the moderns, I think, it is rather a matter of fashion andauthority. Education is chiefly in the hands of persons who, from theirprofession, have an interest in the reputation and the dreams of Plato. They give the tone while at school, and few in their after years haveoccasion to revise their college opinions. But fashion and authorityapart, and bringing Plato to the test of reason, take from him, hissophisms, futilities, and incomprehensibilities, and what remains? Intruth, he is one of the race of genuine sophists, who has escaped theoblivion of his brethren, first, by the elegance of his diction, butchiefly by the adoption and incorporation of his whimsies into the bodyof artificial Christianity. His foggy mind is for ever presenting thesemblances of objects which, half seen through a mist, can be definedneither in form nor dimension. Yet this, which should have consignedhim to early oblivion, really procured him immortality of fame andreverence. The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christlevelled to every understanding, and too plain to need explanation, sawin the mysticisms of Plato materials with which they might build upan artificial system, which might, from its indistinctness, admiteverlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduceit to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed fromthe lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; butthousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted onthem: and for this obvious reason, that nonsense can never be explained. Their purposes, however, are answered. Plato is canonized: and it isnow deemed as impious to question his merits as those of an Apostle ofJesus. He is peculiarly appealed to as an advocate of the immortalityof the soul; and yet I will venture to say, that were there no betterarguments than his in proof of it, not a man in the world would believeit. It is fortunate for us, that Platonic republicanism has not obtainedthe same favor as Platonic Christianity; or we should now have been allliving, men, women, and children, pell-mell together, like the beastsof the field or forest. Yet 'Plato is a great philosopher, ' said LaFontaine. But, says Fontenelle, 'Do you find his ideas very clear. ' 'Oh, no! he is of an obscurity impenetrable. ' 'Do you not find him fullof contradictions?' 'Certainly, ' replied La Fontaine, 'he is but asophist. ' Yet immediately after, he exclaims again, 'Oh, Plato was agreat philosopher. ' Socrates had reason, indeed, to complain of themisrepresentations of Plato; for, in truth, his dialogues are libels onSocrates. 

But why am I dosing you with these antediluvian topics? Because Iam glad to have some one to whom they are familiar, and who will notreceive them as if dropped from the moon. Our post-revolutionary youthare born under happier stars than you and I were. They acquire alllearning in their mother's womb, and bring it into the world ready made. The information of books is no longer necessary; and all knowledge whichis not innate is in contempt, or neglect at least. Every folly mustrun its round; and so, I suppose, must that of self-learning andself-sufficiency; of rejecting the knowledge acquired in past ages, andstarting on the new ground of intuition. When sobered by experience, I hope our successors will turn their attention to the advantages ofeducation. I mean of education on the broad scale, and not that of thepetty academies, as they call themselves, which are starting up in everyneighborhood, and where one or two men, possessing Latin, and sometimesGreek, a knowledge of the globes, and the first six books of Euclid, imagine and communicate this as the sum of science. They commit theirpupils to the theatre of the world, with just taste enough of learningto be alienated from industrious pursuits, and not enough to do servicein the ranks of science. We have some exceptions, indeed. I presentedone to you lately, and we have some others. But the terms I use aregeneral truths. I hope the necessity will, at length, be seen ofestablishing institutions here, as in Europe, where every branch ofscience, useful at this day, may be taught in its highest degree. Haveyou ever turned your thoughts to the plan of such an institution? Imean to a specification of the particular sciences of real use inhuman affairs, and how they might be so grouped as to require so manyprofessors only, as might bring them within the views of a just butenlightened economy? I should be happy in a communication of your ideason this problem, either loose or digested. But to avoid my being runaway with by another subject, and adding to the length and ennui ofthe present letter, I will here present to Mrs. Adams and yourself, theassurance of my constant and sincere friendship and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CXX. --TO COLONEL MONROE, January 1, 1815

TO COLONEL MONROE. 

Monticello, January 1, 1815. 

Dear Sir, Your letters of November the 30th and December the 21st have beenreceived with great pleasure. A truth now and then projecting into theocean of newspaper lies, serves like headlands to correct our course. Indeed, my scepticism as to every thing I see in a newspaper, makes meindifferent whether I ever see one. The embarrassments at Washington, inAugust last, I expected would be great in any state of things; but theyproved greater than expected. I never doubted that the plans of thePresident were wise and sufficient. Their failure we all impute, 1. To the insubordinate temper of Armstrong: and, 2. To the indecision ofWinder. However, it ends well. It mortifies ourselves, and so may check, perhaps, the silly boasting spirit of our newspapers, and it enlists thefeelings of the world on our side: and the advantage of public opinionis like that of the weather-gage in a naval action. In Europe, thetransient possession of our Capital can be no disgrace. Nearly everyCapital there was in possession of its enemy some often and long. Butdiabolical as they paint that enemy, he burnt neither public edificesnor private dwellings. It was reserved for England to show thatBonaparte, in atrocity, was an infant to their ministers and theirgenerals. They are taking his place in the eyes of Europe, and haveturned into our channel all its good will. This will be worth themillion of dollars the repairs of their conflagrations will cost us. I hope that to preserve this weather-gage of public opinion, and tocounteract the slanders and falsehoods disseminated by the Englishpapers, the government will make it a standing instruction totheir ministers at foreign courts, to keep Europe truly informed ofoccurrences here, by publishing in their papers the naked truth always, whether favorable or unfavorable. For they will believe the good, if wecandidly tell them the bad also. 

But you have two more serious causes of uneasiness; the want of men andmoney. For the former, nothing more wise or efficient could have beenimagined than what you proposed. It would have filled our ranks withregulars, and that, too, by throwing a just share of the burthen on thepurses of those whose persons are exempt either by age or office; and itwould have rendered our militia, like those of the Greeks and Romans, a nation of warriors. But the go-by seems to have been given to yourproposition, and longer sufferance is necessary to force us to what isbest. We seem equally incorrigible in our financial course. Although acentury of British experience has proved to what a wonderful extent thefunding on specific redeeming taxes enables a nation to anticipitatein war the resources of peace, and although the other nations of Europehave tried and trodden every path of force or folly in fruitless questof the same object, yet we still expect to find, in juggling tricks andbanking dreams, that money can be made out of nothing, and in sufficientquantity to meet the expenses of a heavy war by sea and land. It issaid, indeed, that money cannot be borrowed from our merchants as fromthose of England. But it can be borrowed from our people. They will giveyou all the necessaries of war they produce, if, instead of the bankrupttrash they now are obliged to receive for want of any other, you willgive them a paper-promise funded on a specific pledge, and of a size forcommon circulation. But you say the merchants will not take this paper. What the people take the merchants must take, or sell nothing. All thesedoubts and fears prove only the extent of the dominion which thebanking institutions have obtained over the minds of our citizens, andespecially of those inhabiting cities or other banking places; and thisdominion must be broken, or it will break us. But here, as in the othercase, we must make up our mind to suffer yet longer before we canget right. The misfortune is, that in the mean time, we shall plungeourselves into inextinguishable debt, and entail on our posterity aninheritance of eternal taxes, which will bring our government and peopleinto the condition of those of England, a nation of pikes and gudgeons, the latter bred merely as food for the former. But, however these twodifficulties of men and money may be disposed of, it is fortunate thatneither of them will affect our war by sea. Privateers will find theirown men and money. Let nothing be spared to encourage them. They are thedagger which strikes at the heart of the enemy, their commerce. Frigatesand seventy-fours are a sacrifice we must make, heavy as it is, to theprejudices of a part of our citizens. They have, indeed, rendered agreat moral service, which has delighted me as much as any one in theUnited States. But they have had no physical effect sensible to theenemy; and now, while we must fortify them in our harbors, and keeparmies to defend them, our privateers are bearding and blockading theenemy in their own sea-ports. Encourage them to burn all their prizes, and let the public pay for them. They will cheat us enormously. Nomatter; they will make the merchants of England feel, and squeal, andcry out for peace. 

I much regretted your acceptance of the war department. Not that I knowa person who I think would better conduct it. But, conduct it ever sowisely, it will be a sacrifice of yourself. Were an angel from Heavento undertake that office, all our miscarriages would be ascribed tohim. Raw troops, no troops, insubordinate militia, want of arms, want ofmoney, want of provisions, all will be charged to want of management inyou. I speak from experience, when I was Governor of Virginia. Without aregular in the State, and scarcely a musket to put into the hands ofthe militia, invaded by two armies, Arnold's from the sea-board, andCornwallis's from the southward, --when we were driven from Richmond andCharlottesville, and every member of my council fled to their homes, itwas not the total destitution of means, but the mismanagement of them, which, in the querulous voice of the public, caused all our misfortunes. It ended, indeed, in the capture of the whole hostile force, but nottill means were brought us by General Washington's army, and the Frenchfleet and army. And although the legislature, who were personallyintimate with both the means and measures, acquitted me with justice andthanks, yet General Lee has put all those imputations among theromances of his historical novel, for the amusement of credulous anduninquisitive readers. Not that I have seen the least disposition tocensure you. On the contrary, your conduct on the attack of Washingtonhas met the praises of every one, and your plan for regulars andmilitia, their approbation. But no campaign is as yet opened. Nogenerals have yet an interest in shifting their own incompetence on you, no army agents, their rogueries. I sincerely pray you may never meetcensure where you will deserve most praise, and that your own happinessand prosperity may be the result of your patriotic services. 

Ever and affectionately yours. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CXXI. --TO THE MARQUIS DE LA FAYETTE, February 14, 1815

TO THE MARQUIS DE LA FAYETTE. 

Monticello, February 14, 1815. 

Mr Dear Friend, Your letter of August the 14th has been received and read, again andagain, with extraordinary pleasure. It is the first glimpse which hasbeen furnished me of the interior workings of the late unexpected butfortunate revolution of your country. The newspapers told us only thatthe great beast was fallen; but what part in this the patriots acted, and what the egoists, whether the former slept while the latter wereawake to their own interests only, the hireling scribblers of theEnglish press said little, and knew less. I see now the mortifyingalternative under which the patriot there is placed, of being eithersilent, or disgraced by an association in opposition with the remainsof Bonaparteism. A full measure of liberty is not now perhaps tobe expected by your nation; nor am I confident they are preparedto preserve it. More than a generation will be requisite, under theadministration of reasonable laws favoring the progress of knowledge inthe general mass of the people, and their habituation to an independentsecurity of person and property, before they will be capable ofestimating the value of freedom, and the necessity of a sacred adherenceto the principles on which it rests for preservation. Instead of thatliberty which takes root and growth in the progress of reason, ifrecovered by mere force or accident, it becomes, with an unpreparedpeople, a tyranny still, of the many, the few, or the one. Possibly youmay remember, at the date of the _jeu de paume_, how earnestly I urgedyourself and the patriots of my acquaintance to enter then into acompact with the King, securing freedom of religion, freedom of thepress, trial by jury, habeas corpus, and a national legislature, all ofwhich it was known he would then yield, to go home, and let these workon the amelioration of the condition of the people, until they shouldhave rendered them capable of more, when occasions would not fail toarise for communicating to them more. This was as much as I then thoughtthem able to bear, soberly and usefully for themselves. You thoughtotherwise, and that the dose might still be larger. And I found you wereright; for subsequent events proved they were equal to the constitutionof 1791. Unfortunately, some of the most honest and enlightened of ourpatriotic friends (but closet politicians merely, unpractised in theknowledge of man) thought more could still be obtained and borne. Theydid not weigh the hazards of a transition from one form of government toanother, the value of what they had already rescued from those hazards, and might hold in security if they pleased, nor the imprudence of givingup the certainty of such a degree of liberty, under a limited monarch, for the uncertainty of a little more under the form of a republic. Youdiffered from them. You were for stopping there, and for securing theconstitution which the National Assembly had obtained. Here, too, youwere right; and from this fatal error of the republicans, from theirseparation from yourself and the constitutionalists, in their councils, flowed all the subsequent sufferings and crimes of the French nation. The hazards of a second change fell upon them by the way. The foreignergained time to anarchize by gold the government he could not overthrowby arms, to crush in their own councils the genuine republicans, by thefraternal embraces of exaggerated and hired pretenders, and to turn themachine of Jacobinism from the change to the destruction of order: and, in the end, the limited monarchy they had secured was exchanged forthe unprincipled and bloody tyranny of Robespierre, and the equallyunprincipled and maniac tyranny of Bonaparte. You are now rid of him, and I sincerely wish you may continue so. But this may depend on thewisdom and moderation of the restored dynasty. It is for them now toread a lesson in the fatal errors of the republicans; to be contentedwith a certain portion of power, secured by formal compact with thenation, rather than, grasping at more, hazard all upon uncertainty, andrisk meeting the fate of their predecessor, or a renewal of their ownexile. We are just informed, too, of an example which merits, if true, their most profound contemplation. The gazettes say, that Ferdinand ofSpain is dethroned, and his father re-established on the basis of theirnew constitution. This order of magistrates must, therefore, see, thatalthough the attempts at reformation have not succeeded in their wholelength, and some secession from the ultimate point has taken place, yetthat men have by no means fallen back to their former passiveness; buton the contrary, that a sense of their rights, and a restlessness toobtain them, remain deeply impressed on every mind, and, if not quietedby reasonable relaxations of power, will break out like a volcano onthe first occasion, and overwhelm every thing again in its way. I alwaysthought the present King an honest and moderate man: and havingno issue, he is under a motive the less for yielding to personalconsiderations. I cannot, therefore, but hope, that the patriots in andout of your legislature, acting in phalanx, but temperately and wisely, pressing unremittingly the principles omitted in the late capitulationof the King, and watching the occasions which the course of events willcreate, may get those principles engrafted into it, and sanctioned bythe solemnity of a national act. 

With us the affairs of war have taken the more favorable turn whichwas to be expected. Our thirty years of peace had taken off, orsuperannuated, all our revolutionary officers of experience and grade;and our first draught in the lottery of untried characters had beenmost unfortunate. The delivery of the fort and army of Detroit, by thetraitor Hull; the disgrace at Queenstown, under Van Rensellaer; themassacre at Frenchtown, under Winchester; and surrender of Boerstlerin an open field to one third of his own numbers, were the inauspiciousbeginnings of the first year of our warfare. The second witnessed butthe single miscarriage occasioned by the disagreement of Wilkinson andHampton, mentioned in my letter to you of November the 30th, 1813; whileit gave us the capture of York by Dearborn and Pike; the capture of FortGeorge by Dearborn also; the capture of Proctor's army on the Thames byHarrison, Shelby, and Johnson; and that of the whole British fleeton Lake Erie by Perry. The third year has been a continued series ofvictories; to wit, of Brown and Scott at Chippeway; of the same atNiagara; of Gaines over Drummond at Fort Erie; that of Brown overDrummond at the same place; the capture of another fleet on LakeChamplain by M'Donough; the entire defeat of their army under Prevost, on the same day, by M'Comb, and recently their defeats at New Orleans byJackson, Coffee, and Carroll, with the loss of four thousand men out ofnine thousand and six hundred, with their two Generals, Packingham andGibbs killed, and a third, Keane, wounded, mortally, as is said. 

This series of successes has been tarnished only by the conflagrationsat Washington, a _coup de main_ differing from that at Richmond, whichyou remember, in the revolutionary war, in the circumstance only, thatwe had, in that case, but forty-eight hour's notice that an enemy hadarrived within our capes; whereas at Washington there was abundantprevious notice. The force designated by the President was the double ofwhat was necessary; but failed, as is the general opinion, throughthe insubordination of Armstrong, who would never believe the attackintended until it was actually made, and the sluggishness of Winderbefore the occasion, and his indecision during it. Still, in the end, the transaction has helped rather than hurt us, by arousing the generalindignation of our country, and by marking to the world of Europe theVandalism and brutal character of the English government. It has merelyserved to immortalize their infamy. And add further, that through thewhole period of the war, we have beaten them single-handed at sea, andso thoroughly established our superiority over them with equal force, that they retire from that kind of contest, and never suffer theirfrigates to cruise singly. The Endymion would never have engaged thefrigate President, but knowing herself backed by three frigates anda razee, who, though somewhat slower sailors, would get up before shecould be taken. The disclosure to the world of the fatal secret thatthey can be beaten at sea with an equal force, the evidence furnished bythe military operations of the last year that experience is rearing usofficers, who, when our means shall be fully under way, will plant ourstandard on the walls of Quebec and Halifax, their recent and signaldisaster at New Orleans, and the evaporation of their hopes from theHartford Convention, will probably raise a clamor in the British nation, which will force their ministry into peace. I say force them; because, willingly, they would never be at peace. The British ministers find ina state of war rather than of peace, by riding the various contractors, and receiving douceurs on the vast expenditures of the war supplies, that they recruit their broken fortunes, or make new ones, and thereforewill not make peace, as long as by any delusions they can keep thetemper of the nation up to the war point. They found some hopes onthe state of our finances. It is true, that the excess of our bankinginstitutions, and their present discredit, have shut us out from thebest source of credit we could ever command with certainty. But thefoundations of credit still remain to us, and need but skill, whichexperience will soon produce, to marshal them into an order which maycarry us through any length of war. But they have hoped more in theirHartford Convention. Their fears of republican France being now doneaway, they are directed to republican America, and they are playing thesame game for disorganization here, which they played in your country. The Marats, the Dantons, and Robespierres of Massachusetts are inthe same pay, under the same orders, and making the same efforts toanarchize us, that their prototypes in France did there. 

I do not say that all who met at Hartford were under the same motives ofmoney: nor were those of France. Some of them are Outs, and wish tobe Ins; some the mere dupes of the agitators, or of their own partypassions; while the Maratists alone are in the real secret: but theyhave very different materials to work on. The yeomanry of the UnitedStates are not the canaille of Paris. We might safely give them leave togo through the United States recruiting their ranks, and I am satisfiedthey could not raise one single regiment (gambling merchants andsilk-stocking clerks excepted), who would support them in any effort toseparate from the Union. The cement of this Union is in the heart-bloodof every American. I do not believe there is on earth a governmentestablished on so immovable a basis. Let them, in any State, even inMassachusetts itself, raise the standard of separation, and its citizenswill rise in mass, and do justice themselves on their own incendiaries. If they could have induced the government to some effort of suppression, or even to enter into discussion with them, it would have given themsome importance, have brought them into some notice. But they have notbeen able to make themselves even a subject of conversation, either ofpublic or private societies. A silent contempt has been the sole noticethey could excite; consoled, indeed, some of them, by the palpablefavors of Philip. Have then no fears for us, my friend. The groundsof these exist only in English newspapers, endited or endowed by theCastlereaghs or the Cannings, or some other such models of pure anduncorrupted virtue. Their military heroes, by land and sea, may sink ouroyster-boats, rob our hen-roosts, burn our negro-huts, and run off. Buta campaign or two more will relieve them from further trouble or expensein defending their American possessions. 

You once gave me a copy of the journal of your campaign in Virginia, in1781, which I must have lent to some one of the undertakers to writethe history of the revolutionary war, and forgot to reclaim. I concludethis, because it is no longer among my papers, which I have verydiligently searched for it, but in vain. An author of real abilityis now writing that part of the history of Virginia. He does it in myneighborhood, and I lay open to him all my papers. But I possess none, nor has he any, which can enable him to do justice to your faithful andable services in that campaign. If you could be so good as to send meanother copy, by the very first vessel bound to any port of the UnitedStates, it might be here in time; for although he expects to beginto print within a month or two, yet you know the delays of theseundertakings. At any rate, it might be got in as a supplement. The oldCount Rochambeau gave me also his memoire of the operations at York, which is gone the same way, and I have no means of applying to hisfamily for it. Perhaps you could render them as well as us, the serviceof procuring another copy. 

I learn, with real sorrow, the deaths of Monsieur and Madame de Tesse. They made an interesting part in the idle reveries in which I havesometimes indulged myself, of seeing all my friends of Paris oncemore, for a month or two; a thing impossible, which, however, I neverpermitted myself to despair of. The regrets, however, of seventy-threeat the loss of friends, may be the less, as the time is shorter withinwhich we are to meet again, according to the creed of our education. 

This letter will be handed you by Mr. Ticknor, a young gentleman ofBoston, of great erudition, indefatigable industry, and preparation fora life of distinction, in his own country. He passed a few days withme here, brought high recommendations from Mr. Adams and others, andappeared in every respect to merit them. He is well worthy of thoseattentions which you so kindly bestow on our countrymen, and for thosehe may receive I shall join him in acknowledging personal obligations. 

I salute you with assurances of my constant and affectionate friendshipand respect. 

Th; Jefferson. 

P. S. February 26. My letter had not yet been sealed, when I receivednews of our peace. I am glad of it, and especially that we closed ourwar with the eclat of the action at New Orleans. But I consider it as anarmistice only, because no security is provided against the impressmentof our seamen. While this is unsettled we are in hostility of mind withEngland, although actual deeds of arms may be suspended by a truce. Ifshe thinks the exercise of this outrage is worth eternal war, eternalwar it must be, or extermination of the one or the other party. Thefirst act of impressment she commits on an American, will be answeredby reprisal, or by a declaration of war here; and the interval must bemerely a state of preparation for it. In this we have much to do, in further fortifying our seaport towns, providing military stores, classing and disciplining our militia, arranging our financial, system, and above all, pushing our domestic manufactures, which have taken suchroot as never again can be shaken. Once more, God bless you. T. J. 

LETTER CXXII. *--TO MR. WENDOVER, March 13, 1815

TO MR. WENDOVER. 

Monticello, March 13, 1815. 

 [* This is endorsed;' not sent. ']

Sir, Your favor of January the 30th was received after long delay on theroad, and I have to thank you for the volume of Discourses which youhave been so kind as to send me. I have gone over them with greatsatisfaction, and concur with the able preacher in his estimate ofthe character of the belligerents in our late war, and lawfulness ofdefensive war. I consider the war, with him, as 'made on good advice, 'that is, for just causes, and its dispensation as providential, inasmuch, as it has exercised our patriotism and submission to order, has planted and invigorated among us arts of urgent necessity, hasmanifested the strong and the weak parts of our republican institutions, and the excellence of a representative democracy compared with themisrule of Kings, has rallied the opinions of mankind to the naturalrights of expatriation, and of a common property in the ocean, andraised us to that grade in the scale of nations which the bravery andliberality of our citizen soldiers, by land and by sea, the wisdom ofour institutions and their observance of justice, entitled us to in theeyes of the world. All this Mr. McLeod has well proved, and from thosesources of argument particularly which belong to his profession. On onequestion only I differ from him, and it is that which constitutes thesubject of his first discourse, the right of discussing public affairsin the pulpit. I add the last words, because I admit the right ingeneral conversation and in writing; in which last form it has beenexercised in the valuable book you have now favored me with. 

The mass of human concerns, moral and physical, is so vast, the field ofknowledge requisite for man to conduct them to the best advantage is soextensive, that no human being can acquire the whole himself, and muchless in that degree necessary for the instruction of others. It has ofnecessity, then, been distributed into different departments, eachof which, singly, may give occupation enough to the whole time andattention of a single individual. Thus we have teachers of Languages, teachers of Mathematics, of Natural Philosophy, of Chemistry, ofMedicine, of Law, of History, of Government, &c. Religion, too, is aseparate department, and happens to be the only one deemed requisitefor all men, however high or low. Collections of men associate together, under the name of congregations, and employ a religious teacher of theparticular sect of opinions of which they happen to be, and contributeto make up a stipend as a compensation for the trouble of deliveringthem, at such periods as they agree on, lessons in the religion theyprofess. If they want instruction in other sciences or arts, they applyto other instructers; and this is generally the business of early life. But I suppose there is not an instance of a single congregation whichhas employed their preacher for the mixt purpose of lecturing themfrom the pulpit, in Chemistry, in Medicine, in Law, in the science andprinciples of Government, or in any thing but Religion exclusively. Whenever, therefore, preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put them off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemicalaffinities, on the construction of government, or the characters orconduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, deprivingtheir audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, andgiving them, instead it, what they did not want, or if wanted, wouldrather seek from better sources in that particular art or science. Inchoosing our pastor we look to his religious qualifications, withoutinquiring into his physical or political dogmas, with which we mean tohave nothing to do. I am aware that arguments may be found, which maytwist a thread of politics into the cord of religious duties. So maythey for every other branch of human art or science. Thus, for example, it is a religious duty to obey the laws of our country: the teacher ofreligion, therefore, must instruct us in those laws, that we may knowhow to obey them. It is a religious duty to assist our sick neighbors:the preacher must, therefore, teach us medicine, that we may do itunderstandingly. It is a religious duty to preserve our own health: ourreligious teacher, then, must tell us what dishes are wholesome, andgive us recipes in cookery, that we may learn how to prepare them. Andso ingenuity, by generalizing more and more, may amalgamate all thebranches of science into any one of them, and the physician who ispaid to visit the sick, may give a sermon instead of medicine; andthe merchant to whom money is sent for a hat, may send a handkerchiefinstead of it. But not withstanding this possible confusion of allsciences into one, common sense draws lines between them sufficientlydistinct for the general purposes of life, and no one is at a loss tounderstand that a recipe in medicine or cookery, or a demonstration ingeometry, is not a lesson in religion. I do not deny that a congregationmay, if they please, agree with their preacher that he shall instructthem in Medicine also, or Law, or Politics. Then, lectures in these, from the pulpit, become not only a matter of right, but of duty also. But this must be with the consent of every individual; because theassociation being voluntary, the mere majority has no right to apply thecontributions of the minority to purposes unspecified in the agreementof the congregation. I agree, too, that on all other occasions thepreacher has the right, equally with every other citizen, to express hissentiments, in speaking or writing, on the subjects of Medicine, Law, Politics, he, his leisure time being his own, and his congregation notobliged to listen to his conversation, or to read his writings; and noone would have regretted more than myself, had any scruple as to thisright, withheld from us the valuable discourses which have led to theexpression of an opinion as to the true limits of the right. I feelmy portion of indebtment to the reverend author, for the distinguishedlearning, the logic, and the eloquence, with which he had proved thatreligion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principleson which our government has been founded and its rights asserted. 

These are my views of this question. They are in opposition to thoseof the highly respected and able preacher, and are therefore the moredoubtingly offered. Difference of opinion leads to inquiry, and inquiryto truth; and that, I am sure, is the ultimate and sincere object of usboth. We both value too much the freedom of opinion sanctioned by ourconstitution, not to cherish its exercise even where in opposition toourselves. 

Unaccustomed to reserve or mystery in the expression of my opinions, Ihave opened myself frankly on a question suggested by your letter andpresent. And although I have not the honor of your acquaintance, thismark of attention, and still more the sentiments of esteem so kindlyexpressed in your letter, are entitled to a confidence that observationsnot intended for the public will not be ushered to their notice, as hashappened to me sometimes. Tranquillity, at my age, is the balm of life. While I know I am safe in the honor and charity of a McLeod, I do notwish to be cast forth to the Marats, the Dantons, and the Robespierresof the priesthood: I mean the Parishes, the Osgoods, and the Gardinersof Massachusetts. 

I pray you to accept the assurances of my esteem and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CXXIII. --TO CÆSAR A. RODNEY, March 16, 1815

TO CÆSAR A. RODNEY. 

Monticello, March 16, 1815. 

My Dear Friend and Ancient Colleague, Your letter of February the 19th has been received with very sincerepleasure. It recalls to memory the sociability, the friendship, and theharmony of action which united personal happiness with public duties, during the portion of our lives in which we acted together. Indeed, the affectionate harmony of our cabinet is among the sweetest of myrecollections. I have just received a letter of friendship from GeneralDearborn. He writes me that he is now retiring from every species ofpublic occupation, to pass the remainder of life as a private citizen;and he promises me a visit in the course of the summer. As you hold outa hope of the same gratification, if chance or purpose could time yourvisits together, it would make a real jubilee. But come as you will, oras you can, it will always be joy enough to me. Only you must give me amonth's notice; because I go three or four times a year to a possessionninety miles southwestward, and am absent a month at a time, and themortification would be indelible of losing such a visit by a mistimedabsence. You will find me in habitual good health, great contentedness, enfeebled in body, impaired in memory, but without decay in myfriendships. 

Great, indeed, have been the revolutions in the world, since you and Ihave had any thing to do with it. To me they have been like the howlingsof the winter storm over the battlements, while warm in my bed. Theunprincipled tyrant of the land is fallen, his power reduced to itsoriginal nothingness, his person only not yet in the mad-house, whereit ought always to have been. His equally unprincipled competitor, thetyrant of the ocean, in the mad-house indeed, in person, but hispower still stalking over the deep. '_Quem deus vult perdere, priusdementat_. ' The madness is acknowledged; the perdition of courseimpending. Are we to be the instruments? A friendly, a just, and areasonable conduct on their part, might make us the main pillar of theirprosperity and existence. But their deep-rooted hatred to us seems tobe the means which Providence permits to lead them to their finalcatastrophe. '_Nullam enim in terris gentem esse, nullum infestiorempopulum, nomini Romano_, said the General who erased Capua from the listof powers. What nourishment and support would not England receive froman hundred millions of industrious descendants, whom some of her peoplenow born will live to see here. What their energies are, she has latelytried. And what has she not to fear from an hundred millions of suchmen, if she continues her maniac course of hatred and hostility to them. I hope in God she will change. There is not a nation on the globewith whom I have more earnestly wished a friendly intercourse on equalconditions. On no other would I hold out the hand of friendship toany. I know that their creatures represent me as personally an enemy toEngland. But fools only can believe this, or those who think me afool. I am an enemy to her insults and injuries. I am an enemy to theflagitious principles of her administration, and to those which governher conduct towards other nations. But would she give to morality someplace in her political code, and especially would she exercise decency, and at least neutral passions towards us, there is not, I repeat it, apeople on earth with whom I would sacrifice so much to be in friendship. They can do us, as enemies, more harm than any other nation; and inpeace and in war, they have more means of disturbing us internally. Their merchants established among us, the bonds by which our own arechained to their feet, and the banking combinations interwoven with thewhole, have shown the extent of their control, even during a war withher. They are the workers of all the embarrassments our finances haveexperienced during the war. Declaring themselves bankrupt, they havebeen able still to chain the government to a dependence on them; andhad the war continued, they would have reduced us to the inability tocommand a single dollar. They dared to proclaim that they would not paytheir own paper obligations, yet our government could not venture toavail themselves of this opportunity of sweeping their paper from thecirculation, and substituting their own notes bottomed on specific taxesfor redemption, which every one would have eagerly taken and trusted, rather than the baseless trash of bankrupt companies; our government, I say, have still been overawed from a contest with them, and haveeven countenanced and strengthened their influence, by proposing newestablishments, with authority to swindle yet greater sums from ourcitizens. This is the British influence to which I am an enemy, andwhich we must subject to our government, or it will subject us to thatof Britain. 

*****

Come and gratify, by seeing you once more, a friend, who assures youwith sincerity of his constant and affectionate attachment and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CXXIV. --TO GENERAL DEARBORN, March 17, 1815

TO GENERAL DEARBORN. 

Monticello, March 17, 1815. 

My Dear General, Friend, and Ancient Colleague, I have received your favor of February the 27th, with very greatpleasure, and sincerely reciprocate congratulations on the late events. Peace was indeed desirable; yet it would not have been as welcomewithout the successes of New Orleans. These last have establishedtruths too important not to be valued; that the people of Louisiana aresincerely attached to the Union; that their city can be defended; thatthe western States make its defence their peculiar concern; that themilitia are brave; that their deadly aim countervails the manoeuvringskill of their enemy; that we have officers of natural genius nowstarting forward from the mass; and that, putting together all ourconflicts, we can beat the British, by sea and by land, with equalnumbers. All this being now proved, I am glad of the pacification ofGhent, and shall still be more so, if, by a reasonable arrangementagainst impressment, they will make it truly a treaty of peace, and nota mere truce, as we must all consider it, until the principle of thewar is settled. Nor, among the incidents of the war, will we forget yourservices. After the disasters produced by the treason or the cowardice, or both, of Hull, and the follies of some others, your capture of Yorkand Fort George first turned the tide of success in our favor; and thesubsequent campaigns sufficiently wiped away the disgraces of thefirst. If it were justifiable to look to your own happiness only, yourresolution to retire from all public business could not but be approved. But you are too young to ask a discharge as yet, and the public counselstoo much needing the wisdom of our ablest citizens, to relinquish theirclaim on you. And surely none needs your aid more than your own State. Oh, Massachusetts! how have I lamented the degradation of your apostacy!Massachusetts, with whom I went with pride in 1776, whose vote wasmy vote on every public question, and whose principles were then thestandard of whatever was free or fearless. But then she was under thecounsels of the two Adamses; while Strong, her present leader, waspromoting petitions for submission to British power and Britishusurpation. While under her present counsels, she must be contented tobe nothing; as having a vote, indeed, to be counted, but not respected. But should the State once more buckle on her republican harness, weshall receive her again as a sister, and recollect her wanderings amongthe crimes only of the parricide party, which would have basely soldwhat their fathers so bravely won from the same enemy. Let us lookforward, then, to the act of repentance, which, by dismissing hervenal traitors, shall be the signal of return to the bosom and to theprinciples of her brethren; and if her late humiliation can just giveher modesty enough to suppose that her southern brethren are somewhat ona par with her in wisdom, in information, in patriotism, in bravery, and even in honesty, although not in psalm-singing, she will morejustly estimate her own relative momentum in the Union. With her ancientprinciples, she would really be great, if she did not think herself thewhole. I should be pleased to hear that you go into her councils, and assist in bringing her back to those principles, and to a sobersatisfaction with her proportionable share in the direction of ouraffairs. 

Be so good as to lay my homage at the feet of Mrs. Dearborn, and to beassured that I am ever and affectionately yours. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CXXV. --TO THE PRESIDENT, March 23, 1815

TO THE PRESIDENT. 

Monticello, March 23, 1815. 

Deak Sir, I duly received your favor of the 12th, and with it the pamphlet on thecauses and conduct of the war, which I now return. I have read itwith great pleasure, but with irresistible desire that it should bepublished. The reasons in favor of this are strong, and those against itare so easily gotten over, that there appears to me no balance betweenthem. 1. We need it in Europe. They have totally mistaken our character. Accustomed to rise at a feather themselves, and to be always fighting, they will see in our conduct, fairly stated, that acquiescence underwrong, to a certain degree, is wisdom, and not pusillanimity; andthat peace and happiness are preferable to that false honor, which, by eternal wars, keeps their people in eternal labor, want, andwretchedness. 2. It is necessary for the people of England, who havebeen deceived as to the causes and conduct of the war, and do notentertain a doubt, that it was entirely wanton and wicked on our part, and under the order of Bonaparte. By rectifying their ideas, it willtend to that conciliation which is absolutely necessary to the peace andprosperity of both nations. 3. It is necessary for our own people, who, although they have known the details as they went along, yet have beenso plied with false facts and false views by; the federalists, that someimpression has been left that all has not been right. It may be saidthat it will be thought unfriendly. But truths necessary for our owncharacter, must not be suppressed out of tenderness to its calumniators. Although written, generally, with great moderation, there may be somethings in the pamphlet which may perhaps irritate. The characterizingevery act, for example, by its appropriate epithet, is not necessary toshow its deformity to an intelligent reader. The naked narrativewill present it truly to his mind, and the more strongly, from itsmoderation, as he will perceive that no exaggeration is aimedat. Rubbing down these roughnesses (and they are neither many norprominent), and preserving the original date, might, I think, remove allthe offensiveness, and give more effect to the publication. Indeed, I think that a soothing postscript, addressed to the interests, the prospects, and the sober reason of both nations, would make itacceptable to both. The trifling, expense of reprinting it ought notto be considered a moment. Mr. Gallatin could have it translated intoFrench, and suffer it to get abroad in Europe without either avowal ordisavowal. But it would be useful to print some copies of an appendix, containing all the documents referred to, to be preserved in libraries, and to facilitate to the present and future writers of history, theacquisition of the materials which test the truths it contains. 

I sincerely congratulate you on the peace, and more especially on theeclat with which the war was closed. The affair of New Orleans wasfraught with useful lessons to ourselves, our enemies, and our friends, and will powerfully influence our future relations with the nations ofEurope. It will show them we mean to take no part in their wars, andcount no odds when engaged in our own. I presume, that, having sparedto the pride of England her formal acknowledgment of the atrocity ofimpressment in an article of the treaty, she will concur in a conventionfor relinquishing it. Without this, she must understand that the presentis but a truce, determinable on the first act of impressment of anAmerican citizen, committed by any officer of hers. Would it not bebetter that this convention should be a separate act, unconnected withany treaty of commerce, and made an indispensable preliminary to allother treaty? If blended with a treaty of commerce, she will make it theprice of injurious concessions. Indeed, we are infinitely better withoutsuch treaties with any nation. We cannot too distinctly detach ourselvesfrom the European system, which is essentially belligerent, nor toosedulously cultivate an American system, essentially pacific. But if wego into commercial treaties at all, they should be with all, at the sametime, with whom we have important commercial relations. France, Spain, Portugal, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Russia, all should proceed _paripassu_. Our ministers marching in phalanx on the same line, andintercommunicating freely, each will be supported by the weight of thewhole mass, and the facility with which the other nations will agree toequal terms of intercourse, will discountenance the selfish higglings ofEngland, or justify our rejection of them. Perhaps with all of themit would be best to have but the single article _gentis amicissimæ_, leaving every thing else to the usages and courtesies of civilizednations. But all these things will occur to yourself, with their counterconsiderations. 

Mr. Smith wrote to me on the transportation of the library, andparticularly, that it is submitted to your direction. He mentioned also, that Dougherty would be engaged to superintend it. No one will morecarefully and faithfully execute all those duties which would belong toa wagon-master. But it requires a character acquainted with books, toreceive the library. I am now employing as many hours of every day as mystrength will permit, in arranging the books, and putting every one inits place on the shelves, corresponding with its order in the catalogue, and shall have them numbered correspondently. This operation will employme a considerable time yet. Then I should wish a competent agent toattend, and, with the catalogue in his hand, see that every book is onthe shelves, and have their lids nailed on, one by one, as he proceeds. This would take such a person about two days; after which, Dougherty'sbusiness would be the mere mechanical removal, at convenience. I encloseyou a letter from Mr. Milligan, offering his service, which would notcost more than eight or ten days' reasonable compensation. This isnecessary for my safety, and your satisfaction, as a just caution forthe public. You know there are persons, both in and out of the publiccouncils, who will seize every occasion of imputation on either of us, the more difficult to be repelled in this case, in which a negativecould not be proved. If you approve of it, therefore, as soon as I amthrough the review, I will give notice to Mr. Milligan, or any otherperson whom you will name, to come on immediately. Indeed it would bewell worth while to add to his duty, that of covering the books with alittle paper (the good bindings at least), and filling the vacanciesof the presses with paper-parings, to be brought from Washington. Thiswould add little more to the time, as he could carry on both operationsat once. 

Accept the assurance of my constant and affectionate friendship andrespect, Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CXXVI. --TO JOHN ADAMS, June 10, 1815

TO JOHN ADAMS. 

Monticello, June 10, 1815. 

Dear Sir, It is long since we have exchanged a letter, and yet what volumes mighthave been written on the occurrences even of the last three months. Inthe first place, peace, God bless it! has returned, to put us allagain into a course of lawful and laudable pursuits: a new trial of theBourbons has proved to the world their incompetence to the functionsof the station they have occupied: and the recall of the usurper hasclothed him with the semblance of a legitimate autocrat. If adversityshould have taught him wisdom, of which I have little expectation, he may yet render some service to mankind, by teaching the ancientdynasties that they can be changed for misrule, and by wearing down themaritime power of England to limitable and safe dimensions. But it isnot possible he should love us; and of that our commerce had sufficientproofs during his power. Our military achievements, indeed, which heis capable of estimating, may in some degree moderate the effect of hisaversions; and he may perhaps fancy that we are to become the naturalenemies of England, as England herself has so steadily endeavored tomake us, and as some of our own over-zealous patriots would be willingto proclaim; and in this view, he may admit a cold toleration of someintercourse and commerce between the two nations. He has certainlyhad time to see the folly of turning the industry of France from thecultures for which nature has so highly endowed her, to those of sugar, cotton, tobacco, and others, which the same creative power has given toother climates: and, on the whole, if he can conquer the passions of histyrannical soul, if he has understanding enough to pursue from motivesof interest, what no moral motives lead him to, the tranquil happinessand prosperity of his country, rather than a ravenous thirst for humanblood, his return may become of more advantage than injury to us. And ifagain some great man could arise in England, who could see and correctthe follies of his nation in their conduct as to us, and by exercisingjustice and comity towards ours, bring both into a state of temperateand useful friendship, it is possible we might thus attain the place weought to occupy between these two nations, without being degraded to thecondition of mere partisans of either. 

A little time will now inform us, whether France, within its properlimits, is big enough for its ruler, on the one hand, and whether, onthe other, the allied powers are either wicked or foolish enough toattempt the forcing on the French, a ruler and government which theyrefuse; whether they will risk their own thrones to re-establish thatof the Bourbons. If this is attempted, and the European world againcommitted to war, will the jealousy of England at the commerce whichneutrality will give us, induce her again to add us to the number ofher enemies, rather than see us prosper in the pursuit of peace andindustry? And have our commercial citizens merited from their countryits encountering another war to protect their gambling enterprises?That the persons of our citizens shall be safe in freely traversing theocean, that the transportation of our own produce, in our own vessels, to the markets of our choice, and the return to us of the articles wewant for our own use, shall be unmolested, I hold to be fundamental, andthat the gauntlet must be for ever hurled at him who questions it. Butwhether we shall engage in every war of Europe, to protect the mereagency of our merchants and shipowners in carrying on the commerce ofother nations, even were those merchants and ship-owners to take theside of their country in the contest, instead of that of the enemy, is aquestion of deep and serious consideration, with which, however, you andI shall have nothing to do; so we will leave it to those whom it willconcern. 

I thank you for making known to me Mr. Ticknor and Mr. Gray. They arefine young men, indeed, and if Massachusetts can raise a few more such, it is probable she would be better counselled as to social rights andsocial duties. Mr. Ticknor is, particularly, the best bibliograph Ihave met with, and very kindly and opportunely offered me the means ofreprocuring some part of the literary treasures which I have cededto Congress, to replace the devastations of British Vandalism atWashington. I cannot live without books. But fewer will suffice, whereamusement, and not use, is the only future object. I am about sendinghim a catalogue, to which less than his critical knowledge of bookswould hardly be adequate. 

Present my high respects to Mrs. Adams, and accept yourself theassurances of my affectionate attachment. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CXXVII. --TO MR. LEIPER, June 12, 1815

TO MR. LEIPER. 

Monticello, June 12, 1815. 

Dear Sir, A journey soon after the receipt of your favor of April the 17th andan absence from home of some continuance, have prevented my earlieracknowledgment of it. In that came safely my letter of January the 2nd, 1814. In our principles of government we differ not at all; nor in thegeneral object and tenor of political measures. We concur in consideringthe government of England as totally without morality, insolent beyondbearing, inflated with vanity and ambition, aiming at the exclusivedominion of the sea, lost in corruption, of deep-rooted hatred towardsus, hostile to liberty wherever it endeavors to show its head, andthe eternal disturber of the peace of the world. In our estimate ofBonaparte, I suspect we differ. I view him as a political engine only, and a very wicked one; you, I believe, as both political and religious, and obeying, as an instrument, an unseen hand. I still deprecate hisbecoming sole lord of the continent of Europe, which he would have been, had he reached in triumph the gates of Petersburg. The establishment inour day of another Roman. Empire, spreading vassalage and depravity overthe face of the globe, is not, I hope, within the purposes of Heaven. Nor does the return of Bonaparte give me pleasure unmixed; I see in hisexpulsion of the Bourbons, a valuable lesson to the world, as showingthat its ancient dynasties may be changed for their misrule. Should theallied powers presume to dictate a ruler and government to France, andfollow the example he had set of parcelling and usurping to themselvestheir neighbor nations, I hope he will give them another lesson invindication of the rights of independence and self-government, whichhimself had heretofore so much abused, and that in this contest hewill wear down the maritime power of England to limitable and safedimensions. So far, good. It cannot be denied, on the other hand, thathis successful perversion of the force (committed to him for vindicatingthe rights and liberties of his country) to usurp its government, andto enchain it under an hereditary despotism, is of baneful effect inencouraging future usurpations, and deterring those under oppressionfrom rising to redress themselves. His restless spirit leaves no hope ofpeace to the world; and his hatred of us is only a little less than thathe bears to England, and England to us. Our form of government is odiousto him, as a standing contrast between republican and despotic rule; andas much from that hatred, as from ignorance in political economy, he hadexcluded intercourse between us and his people, by prohibiting the onlyarticles they wanted from us, that is, cotton and tobacco. Whether thewar we have had with England, the achievements of that war, and the hopethat we may become his instruments and partisans against that enemy, mayinduce him, in future, to tolerate our commercial intercourse with hispeople, is still to be seen. For my part, I wish that all nations mayrecover and retain their independence; that those which are overgrownmay not advance beyond safe measures of power, that a salutary balancemay be ever maintained among nations, and that our peace, commerce, andfriendship may be sought and cultivated by all. It is our business tomanufacture for ourselves whatever we can, to keep all markets open forwhat we can spare or want; and the less we have to do with the amitiesor enmities of Europe, the better. Not in our day, but at no distantone, we may shake a rod over the heads of all, which may make thestoutest of them tremble. But I hope our wisdom will grow with ourpower, and teach us that the less we use our power, the greater it willbe. 

The federal misrepresentation of my sentiments, which occasioned myformer letter to you, was gross enough; but that and all others areexceeded by the impudence and falsehood of the printed extract you sentme from Ralph's paper. That a continuance of the embargo for two monthslonger would have prevented our war; that the non-importation lawwhich succeeded it was a wise and powerful measure, I have constantlymaintained. My friendship for Mr. Madison, my confidence in his wisdomand virtue, and my approbation of all his measures, and especially ofhis taking up at length the gauntlet against England, is known to allwith whom I have ever conversed or corresponded on these measures. Theword federal, or its synonyme &c. , may therefore be written under everyword of Mr. Ralph's paragraph. I have ransacked my memory to recollectany incident which might have given countenance to any particle of it, but I find none. For if you will except the bringing into powerand importance those who were enemies to himself as well as to theprinciples of republican government, I do not recollect a single measureof the President which I have not approved. Of those under him, andof some very near him, there have been many acts of which we have alldisapproved, and he more than we. We have at times dissented from themeasures, and lamented the dilatoriness of Congress. I recollect aninstance the first winter of the war, when, from sloth of proceedings, an embargo was permitted to run through the winter, while the enemycould not cruise, nor consequently restrain the exportation of our wholeproduce, and was taken off in the spring, as soon as they could resumetheir stations. But this procrastination is unavoidable. How canexpedition be expected from a body which we have saddled with an hundredlawyers, whose trade is talking? But lies, to sow divisions amongus, are so stale an artifice of the federal prints, and are so wellunderstood, that they need neither contradiction nor explanation. As tomyself, my confidence in the wisdom and integrity of the administrationis so entire, that I scarcely notice what is passing, and have almostceased to read newspapers. Mine remain in our post-office a week or tendays, sometimes, unasked for. I find more amusement in studies to whichI was always more attached, and from which I was dragged by the eventsof the times in which I have happened to live. 

I rejoice exceedingly that our war with England was single-handed. Inthat of the Revolution, we had France, Spain, and Holland on our side, and the credit of its success was given to them. On the late occasion, unprepared and unexpecting war, we were compelled to declare it, and toreceive the attack of England, just issuing from a general war, fullyarmed, and freed from all other enemies, and have not only made hersick of it, but glad to prevent, by a peace, the capture of her adjacentpossessions, which one or two campaigns more would infallibly have madeours. She has found that we can do her more injury than any other enemyon earth, and henceforward will better estimate the value of our peace. But whether her government has power, in opposition to the aristocracyof her navy, to restrain their piracies within the limits of nationalrights, may well be doubted. I pray, therefore, for peace, as best forall the world, best for us, and best for me, who have already lived tosee three wars, and now pant for nothing more than to be permitted todepart in peace. That you also, who have longer to live, may continue toenjoy this blessing with health and prosperity, through as long a lifeas you desire, is the prayer of yours affectionately. 

Th: Jefferson. 

P. S. June the 14th. Before I had sent my letter to the post-office, Ireceived the new treaty of the allied powers, declaring that the Frenchnation shall not have Bonaparte, and shall have Louis XVIII for theirruler. They are all then as great rascals, as Bonaparte himself. Whilehe was in the wrong, I wished him exactly as much success as wouldanswer our purposes, and no more. Now that they are wrong and he inthe right, he shall have all my prayers for success, and that he maydethrone every man of them. 

LETTER CXXVIII. --TO JOHN ADAMS, August 10, 1815

TO JOHN ADAMS. 

Monticello, August 10, 1815. 

Dear Sir, The simultaneous movements in our correspondence have been remarkable onseveral occasions. It would seem as if the state of the air, or state ofthe times, or some other unknown cause, produced a sympathetic effect onour mutual recollections. I had sat down to answer your letters of Junethe 19th, 20th, and 22nds with pen, ink, and paper, before me, when Ireceived from our mail that of July the 30th. You ask information onthe subject of Camus. All I recollect of him is, that he was one of thedeputies sent to arrest Dumourier at the head of his army, who were, however, themselves arrested by Dumourier, and long detained asprisoners. I presume, therefore, he was a Jacobin. You will find hischaracter in the most excellent revolutionary history of Toulongeon. Ibelieve also, he may be the same person who has given us a translationof Aristotle's Natural History, from the Greek into French. Of hisreport to the National Institute on the subject of the Bollandists, yourletter gives me the first information. I had supposed them defunctwith the society of Jesuits, of which they were: and that their works, although above ground, were, from their bulk and insignificance, aseffectually entombed on their shelves, as if in the graves of theirauthors. Fifty-two volumes in folio, of the _acta sanctorum_, indog-Latin, would be a formidable enterprise to the most laboriousGerman. I expect, with you, they are the most enormous mass of lies, frauds, hypocrisy, and imposture, that ever was heaped together on thisglobe. By what chemical process M. Camus supposed that an extract oftruth could be obtained from such a farrago of falsehood, I must leaveto the chemists and moralists of the age to divine. 

On the subject of the history of the American Revolution you ask whoshall write it? Who can write it? And who will ever be able to write it?Nobody; except merely its external facts; all its councils, designs, anddiscussions having been conducted by Congress with closed doors, and nomember, as far as I know, having even made notes of them. These, whichare the life and soul of history, must for ever be unknown. Botta, asyou observe, has put his own speculations and reasonings into the mouthsof persons whom he names, but who, you and I know, never made suchspeeches. In this he has followed the example of the ancients, who madetheir great men deliver long speeches, all of them in the same style, and in that of the author himself. The work is nevertheless a good one, more judicious, more chaste, more classical, and more true, than theparty diatribe of Marshall. Its greatest fault is in having taken toomuch from him. I possessed the work, and often recurred to considerableportions of it, although I never read it through. But a very judiciousand well informed neighbor of mine went through it with great attention, and spoke very highly of it. I have said that no member of the oldCongress, as far as I knew, made notes of the discussions. I did notknew of the speeches you mention of Dickinson and Witherspoon But onthe questions of Independence, and on the two articles of Confederationrespecting taxes and voting, I took minutes of the heads of thearguments. On the first, I threw all into one mass, without ascribingto the speakers their respective arguments; pretty much in the manner ofHume's summary digests of the reasonings in parliament for and againsta measure. On the last, I stated the heads of arguments used by eachspeaker. But the whole of my notes on the question of Independence doesnot occupy more than five pages, such as of this letter: and on theother questions, two such sheets. They have never been communicated toany one. Do you know that there exists in manuscript the ablest workof this kind ever yet executed, of the debates of the constitutionalconvention of Philadelphia in 1788? The whole of every thing said anddone there was taken down by Mr. Madison, with a labor and exactnessbeyond comprehension. 

I presume that our correspondence has been observed at the post-offices, and thus has attracted notice. Would you believe, that a printer has hadthe effrontery to propose to me the letting him publish it? These peoplethink they have a right to every thing, however secret or sacred. I hadnot before heard of the Boston pamphlet with Priestley's Letters andmine. 

At length Bonaparte has got on the right side of a question. From thetime of his entering the legislative hall to his retreat to Elba, no manhas execrated him more than myself. I will not except even the membersof the Essex Junto; although for very different reasons; I, because hewas warring against the liberty of his own country, and independenceof others; they, because he was the enemy of England, the Pope, and theInquisition. But at length, and as far as we can judge, he seems to havebecome the choice of his nation. At least, he is defending the causeof his nation, and that of all mankind, the rights of every people toindependence and self-government. He and the allies have now changedsides. They are parcelling out among themselves Poland, Belgium, Saxony, Italy, dictating a ruler and government to France, and looking askanceat our republic, the splendid libel on their governments, and he isfighting for the principles of national independence, of which his wholelife hitherto has been a continued violation. He has promised a freegovernment to his own country, and to respect the rights of others; andalthough his former conduct inspires little confidence in his promises, yet we had better take the chance of his word for doing right, than thecertainty of the wrong which his adversaries are doing and avowing. Ifthey succeed, ours is only the boon of the Cyclops to Ulysses, of beingthe last devoured. 

Present me affectionately and respectfully to Mrs. Adams, and Heavengive you both as much more of life as you wish, and bless it with healthand happiness. 

Th: Jefferson. 

P. S. August the 11th. I had finished my letter yesterday, and thismorning receive the news of Bonaparte's second abdication. Verywell. For him personally, I have no feeling but reprobation. Therepresentatives of the nation have deposed him. They have taken theallies at their word, that they had no object in the war but hisremoval. The nation is now free to give itself a good government, eitherwith or without a Bourbon; and France unsubdued, will still be a bridleon the enterprises of the combined powers, and a bulwark to others. T. J. 

LETTER CXXIX. --TO DABNEY CARR, January 19, 1816

TO DABNEY CARR. 

Monticello, January 19, 1816. 

Dear Sir, At the date of your letter of December the 1st, I was in Bedford, andsince my return, so many letters, accumulated during my absence, havingbeen pressing for answers, that this is the first moment I have beenable to attend to the subject of yours. While Mr. Girardin was inthis neighborhood writing his continuation of Burke's History, I hadsuggested to him a proper notice of the establishment of the committeeof correspondence here in 1773, and of Mr. Carr, your father, whointroduced it. He has doubtless done this, and his work is now in thepress. My books, journals of the times, &c. Being all gone, I havenothing now but an impaired memory to resort to for the more particularstatement you wish. But I give it with the more confidence, as I findthat I remember old things better than new. The transaction took placein the session of Assembly of March 1773. Patrick Henry, Richard HenryLee, Frank Lee, your father, and myself, met by agreement, one evening, about the close of the session, at the Raleigh Tavern, to consult onthe measures which the circumstances of the times seemed to call for. We agreed, in result, that concert in the operations of the severalColonies was indispensable; and that to produce this, some channel ofcorrespondence between them must be opened: that, therefore, we wouldpropose to our House the appointment of a committee of correspondence, which should be authorized and instructed to write to the Speakers ofthe House of Representatives of the several Colonies, recommending theappointment of similar committees on their part, who, by a communicationof sentiment on the transactions threatening us all, might promotea harmony of action salutary to all. This was the substance, notpretending to remember words. We proposed the resolution, and yourfather was agreed on to make the motion. He did it the next day, Marchthe 12th, with great ability, reconciling all to it, not only bythe reasonings, but by the temper and moderation with which it wasdeveloped. It was adopted by a very general vote. Peyton Randolph, someof us who proposed it, and who else I do not remember, were appointedof the committee. We immediately despatched letters by expresses, tothe Speakers of all the other Assemblies. I remember that Mr. Carr andmyself, returning home together, and conversing on the subject by theway, concurred in the conclusion, that that measure must inevitablybeget the meeting of a Congress of Deputies from all the Colonies, forthe purpose of uniting all in the same principles and measures for themaintenance of our rights. My memory cannot deceive me, when I affirmthat we did it in consequence of no such proposition from any otherColony. No doubt, the resolution itself, and the journals of the day, will show that ours was original, and not merely responsive to one fromany other quarter. Yet, I am certain I remember also, that a similarproposition, and nearly cotemporary, was made by Massachusetts, andthat our northern messenger passed theirs on the road. This, too, may besettled by recurrence to the records of Massachusetts. The propositionwas generally acceded to by the other Colonies, and the first effect, as expected, was the meeting of a Congress at New York the ensuing year. The committee of correspondence appointed by Massachusetts, as quoted byyou from Marshall, under the date of 1770, must have been for a specialpurpose, and _functus officio_ before the date of 1773, or Massachusettsherself would not then have proposed another. Records should be examinedto settle this accurately. I well remember the pleasure expressed in thecountenance and conversation of the members generally, on this _début_of Mr. Carr, and the hopes they conceived as well from the talents asthe patriotism it manifested. But he died within two months after, andin him we lost a powerful fellow-laborer. His character was of a highorder. A spotless integrity, sound judgment, handsome imagination, enriched by education and reading, quick and clear in his conceptions, of correct and ready elocution, impressing every hearer with thesincerity of the heart from which it flowed. His firmness was inflexiblein whatever he thought was right: but when no moral principle stoodin the way, never had man more of the milk of human kindness, ofindulgence, of softness, of pleasantry in conversation and conduct. Thenumber of his friends, and the warmth of their affection, were proofs ofhis worth, and of their estimate of it. To give to those now living, an idea of the affliction produced by his death in the minds of all whoknew him, I liken it to that lately felt by themselves on the death ofhis eldest son, Peter Carr, so like him in all his endowments and moralqualities, and whose recollection can never recur without a deep-drawnsigh from the bosom of any one who knew him. You mention that I showedyou an inscription I had proposed for the tomb-stone of your father. DidI leave it in your hands to be copied? I ask the question, not that Ihave any such recollection, but that I find it no longer in the place ofits deposite, and think I never took it out but on that occasion. Everand affectionately yours. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CXXX. --TO JOHN ADAMS, April 8, 1816

TO JOHN ADAMS. 

Monticello, April 8, 1816. 

Dear Sir, I have to acknowledge your two favors of February the 16th and March the2nd, and to join sincerely in the sentiment of Mrs. Adams, and regretthat distance separates us so widely. An hour of conversation would beworth a volume of letters. But we must take things as they come. 

You ask, if I would agree to live my seventy or rather seventy-threeyears over again? To which I say, yea. I think with you that it isa good world on the whole; that it has been framed on a principle ofbenevolence, and more pleasure than pain dealt out to us. There are, indeed, (who might say nay) gloomy and hypochondriac minds, inhabitantsof diseased bodies, disgusted with the present, and despairing of thefuture; always counting that the worst will happen, because it mayhappen. To these I say, how much pain have cost us the evils which havenever happened! My temperament is sanguine. I steer my bark with Hope inthe head, leaving Fear astern. My hopes, indeed, sometimes fail; but notoftener than the forebodings of the gloomy. There are, I acknowledge, even in the happiest life, some terrible convulsions, heavy set-offsagainst the opposite page of the account. I have often wondered forwhat good end the sensations of grief could be intended. All ourother passions, within proper bounds, have an useful object. And theperfection of the moral character is, not in a stoical apathy, sohypocritically vaunted, and so untruly too, because impossible, but in ajust equilibrium of all the passions. I wish the pathologists then wouldtell us what is the use of grief in the economy, and of what good it isthe cause, proximate or remote. 

Did I know Baron Grimm while at Paris? Yes, most intimately. He was thepleasantest and most conversable member of the diplomatic corps while Iwas there; a man of good fancy, acuteness, irony, cunning, and egoism. No heart, not much of any science, yet enough of every one to speakits language: his forte was Belles-lettres, painting, and sculpture. In these he was the oracle of the society, and as such, was theEmpress Catharine's private correspondent and factor, in all things notdiplomatic. It was through him I got her permission for poor Ledyard togo to Kamschatka, and cross over thence to the western coast of America, in order to penetrate across our continent in the opposite directionto that afterwards adopted for Lewis and Clarke: which permission shewithdrew after he had got within two hundred miles of Kamschatka, hadhim seized, brought back, and set down in Poland. Although I never heardGrimm express the opinion directly, yet I always supposed him to beof the school of Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach; the first of whomcommitted his system of atheism to writing in '_Le Bon Sens_, ' and thelast in his '_Systeme de la Nature_? It was a numerous school inthe Catholic countries, while the infidelity of the Protestant tookgenerally the form of theism. The former always insisted that it wasa mere question of definition between them, the hypostasis of which onboth sides, was '_Nature_, ' or 'the _Universe_': that both agreed in theorder of the existing system, but the one supposed it from eternity, the other as having begun in time. And when the atheist descanted onthe unceasing motion and circulation of matter through the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms, never resting, never annihilated, always changing form, and under all forms gifted with the power ofreproduction; the theist pointing 'to the heavens above, and to theearth beneath, and to the waters under the earth, ' asked, if these didnot proclaim a first cause, possessing intelligence and power; powerin the production, and intelligence in the design, and constantpreservation of the system; urged the palpable existence of finalcauses; that the eye was made to see, and the ear to hear, and not thatwe see because we have eyes, and hear because we have ears; an answerobvious to the senses, as that of walking across the room, was tothe philosopher demonstrating the non-existence of motion. It was inD'Holbach's conventicles that Rousseau imagined all the machinationsagainst him were contrived and he left, in his Confessions, the mostbiting anecdotes of Grimm. These appeared after I left France; but Ihave heard that poor Grimm was so much afflicted by them, that he kepthis bed several weeks. I have never seen the Memoirs of Grimm. Theirvolume has kept them out of our market. 

I have been lately amusing myself with Levi's book, in answer to Dr. Priestley. It is a curious and tough work. His style is inelegant andincorrect, harsh and petulant to his adversary, and his reasoning flimsyenough. Some of his doctrines were new to me, particularly that of histwo resurrections: the first, a particular one of all the dead, in bodyas well as soul, who are to live over again, the Jews in a state ofperfect obedience to God, the other nations in a state of corporealpunishment for the sufferings they have inflicted on the Jews. And heexplains this resurrection of bodies to be only of the original stamenof Leibnitz, or the human _calus in semine masculino_, considering thatas a mathematical point, insusceptible of separation or division. Thesecond resurrection, a general one of souls and bodies, eternally toenjoy divine glory in the presence of the Supreme Being. He alleges thatthe Jews alone preserve the doctrine of the unity of God. Yet their Godwould be deemed a very indifferent man with us: and it was to correcttheir anamorphosis of the Deity, that Jesus preached, as well as toestablish the doctrine of a future state. However, Levi insists, thatthat was taught in the Old Testament, and even by Moses himself and theprophets. He agrees that an anointed prince was prophesied and promised:but denies that the character and history of Jesus had any analogy withthat of the person promised. He must be fearfully embarrassing to theHierophants of fabricated Christianity; because it is their own armor inwhich he clothes himself for the attack. For example, he takes passagesof scripture from their context (which would give them a very differentmeaning), strings them together, and makes them point towards whatobject he pleases; he interprets them figuratively, typically, analogically, hyperbolically; he calls in the aid of emendation, transposition, ellipsis, metonymy, and every other figure of rhetoric;the name of one man is taken for another, one place for another, daysand weeks for months and years; and finally he avails himself of all hisadvantage over his adversaries by his superior knowledge of the Hebrew, speaking in the very language of the divine communication, while theycan only fumble on with conflicting and disputed translations. Such isthis war of giants. And how can such pigmies as you and I decidebetween them? For myself, I confess, that my head is not formed _tantascomponere lites_. And as you began yours of March the 2nd, with adeclaration, that you were about to write me the most frivolous letter Ihad ever read, so I will close mine by saying, I have written you a fullmatch for it, and by adding my affectionate respects to Mrs. Adams, andthe assurance of my constant attachment and consideration for yourself. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CXXXI. --TO JOHN TAYLOR, May 28, 1816

TO JOHN TAYLOR. 

Monticello, May 28, 1816. 

Dear Sir, On my return from a long journey and considerable absence from home, I found here the copy of your 'Enquiry into the Principles of ourGovernment, ' which you had been so kind as to send me; and for which Ipray you to accept my thanks. The difficulties of getting new works inour situation, inland and without a single bookstore, are such as hadprevented my obtaining a copy before; and letters which had accumulatedduring my absence, and were calling for answers, have not yet permittedme to give to the whole a thorough reading: yet certain that you and Icould not think differently on the fundamentals of rightful government, I was impatient, and availed myself of the intervals of repose from thewriting-table, to obtain a cursory idea of the body of the work. 

I see in it much matter for profound reflection; much which shouldconfirm our adhesion, in practice, to the good principles of ourconstitution, and fix our attention on what is yet to be made good. Thesixth section on the good moral principles of our government, I foundso interesting and replete with sound principles, as to postpone myletter-writing to its thorough perusal and consideration. Besides muchother good matter, it settles unanswerably the right of instructingrepresentatives, and their duty to obey. The system of banking we haveboth equally and ever reprobated. I contemplate it as a blot left in allour constitutions, which, if not covered, will end in their destruction, which is already hit by the gamblers in corruption, and is sweepingaway in its progress the fortunes and morals of our citizens. Funding Iconsider as limited, rightfully, to a redemption of the debt within thelives of a majority of the generation contracting it; every generationcoming equally, by the laws of the Creator of the world, to the freepossession of the earth he made for their subsistence, unincumbered bytheir predecessors, who, like them, were but tenants for life. You havesuccessfully and completely pulverized Mr. Adams's system of orders, and his opening the mantle of republicanism to every government oflaws, whether consistent or not with natural right. Indeed, it must beacknowledged, that the term republic is of very vague applicationin every language. Witness the self-styled republics of Holland, Switzerland, Genoa, Venice, Poland. Were I to assign to this term aprecise and definite idea, I would say, that, purely and simply, it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly andpersonally, according to rules established by the majority: and thatevery other government is more or less republican, in proportion as ithas in its composition more or less of this ingredient of the directaction of the citizens. Such a government is evidently restrained tovery narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would bepracticable beyond the extent of a New England township. The firstshade from this pure element, which, like that of pure vital air, cannotsustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen by thecitizens either _pro hac vice_, or for such short terms as should rendersecure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This Ishould consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic, which ispracticable on a large scale of country or population. And we haveexamples of it in some of our State constitutions, which, if notpoisoned by priestcraft, would prove its excellence over all mixtureswith other elements; and, with only equal doses of poison, would stillbe the best. Other shades of republicanism may be found in otherforms of government, where the executive, judiciary, and legislativefunctions, and the different branches of the latter, are chosen by thepeople more or less directly, for longer terms of years, or for life, or made hereditary; or where there are mixtures of authorities, somedependent on, and others independent of the peopje. The further thedeparture from direct and constant control by the citizens, the less hasthe government of the ingredient of republicanism; evidently nonewhere the authorities are hereditary, as in France, Venice, &c. Orself-chosen, as in Holland; and little, where for life, in proportion asthe life continues in being after the act of election. 

The purest republican feature in the government of our own State, is theHouse of Representatives. The Senate is equally so the first year, lessthe second, and so on. The Executive still less, because not chosen bythe people directly. The Judiciary seriously anti-republican, becausefor life; and the national arm wielded, as you observe, by militaryleaders, irresponsible but to themselves. Add to this the viciousconstitution of our county courts (to whom the justice, the executiveadministration, the taxation, police, the military appointments of thecounty, and nearly all our daily concerns are confided), self-appointed, self-continued, holding their authorities for life, and with animpossibility of breaking in on the perpetual succession of any factiononce possessed of the bench. They are, in truth, the executive, thejudiciary, and the military of their respective counties, and the sumof the counties makes the State. And add, also, that one half of ourbrethren who fight and pay taxes, are excluded, like Helots, from therights of representation, as if society were instituted for the soil, and not for the men inhabiting it; or one half of these could dispose ofthe rights and the will of the other half, without their consent. 

 What constitutes a State? Not high-raised battlements, or lahor'd mound, Thick wall, or moated gate; Not cities proud, with spires and turrets crown'd; No: men, high-minded men; Men, who their duties know; But know their rights; and, knowing, dare maintain. These constitute a State. '

In the General Government, the House of Representatives is mainlyrepublican; the Senate scarcely so at all, as not elected by the peopledirectly, and so long secured even against those who do elect them; theExecutive more republican than the Senate, from its shorter term, itselection by the people, in practice (for they vote for A only on anassurance that he will vote for B), and because, in practice, also, a principle of rotation seems to be in a course of establishment; thejudiciary independent of the nation, their coercion by impeachment beingfound nugatory. 

If, then, the control of the people over the organs of their governmentbe the measure of its republicanism (and I confess I know no othermeasure), it must be agreed that our governments have much less ofrepublicanism than ought to have been expected; in other words, that thepeople have less regular control over their agents, than their rightsand their interest require. And this I ascribe, not to any want ofrepublican dispositions in those who formed these constitutions, but toa submission of true principle to European authorities, to speculatorson government, whose fears of the people have been inspired by thepopulace of their own great cities, and were unjustly entertainedagainst the independent, the happy, and therefore orderly citizens ofthe United States. Much I apprehend that the golden moment is pastfor reforming these heresies. The functionaries of public power rarelystrengthen in their dispositions to abridge it, and an unorganizedcall for timely amendment is not likely to prevail against an organizedopposition to it. We are always told that things are going on well; whychange them? '_Chi sta bene, non si muova_, ' says the Italian, 'Let himwho stands well, stand still. ' This is true; and I verily believe theywould go on well with us under an absolute monarch, while ourpresent character remains, of order, industry, and love of peace, andrestrained, as he would be, by the proper spirit of the people. But itis while it remains such, we should provide against the consequences ofits deterioration. And let us rest in the hope that it will yet be done, and spare ourselves the pain of evils which may never happen. 

On this view of the import of the term republic, instead of saying, ashas been said, 'that it may mean any thing or nothing, ' we may say withtruth and meaning, that governments are more or less republican, asthey have more or less of the element of popular election and control intheir composition: and believing, as I do, that the mass of the citizensis the safest depository of their own rights, and especially, that theevils flowing from the duperies of the people, are less injurious thanthose from the egoism of their agents, I am a friend to that compositionof government which has in it the most of this ingredient. And Isincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are moredangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending moneyto be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindlingfuturity on a large scale. 

I salute you with constant friendship and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CXXXII. --TO FRANCIS W. GILMER, June 7, 1816

TO FRANCIS W. GILMER. 

Monticello, June 7, 1816. 

Dear Sir, I received a few-days ago from Mr. Dupont the enclosed manuscript, withpermission to read it, and a request, when read, to forward it toyou, in expectation that you would translate it. It is well worthy ofpublication for the instruction of our citizens, being profound, sound, and short. Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the rightfullimits of their powers: that their true office is to declare and enforceonly our natural rights and duties, and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rightsof another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him:every man is under the natural duty of contributing to the necessitiesof the society; and this is all the laws should enforce on him: and, noman having a natural right to be the judge between himself and another, it is his natural duty to submit to the umpirage of an impartial third. When the laws have declared and enforced all this, they have fulfilledtheir functions, and the idea is quite unfounded, that on entering intosociety we give up any natural right. The trial of every law by oneof these texts, would lessen much the labors of our legislators, andlighten equally our municipal codes. There is a work of the firstorder of merit now in the press at Washington, by Destutt Tracy, on thesubject of political economy, which he brings into the compass of threehundred pages, octavo. In a preliminary discourse on the origin of theright of property, he coincides much with the principles of the presentmanuscript; but is more developed, more demonstrative. He promises afuture work on morals, in which I lament to see, that he will adopt theprinciples of Hobbes, or humiliation to human nature; that the sense ofjustice and injustice is not derived from our natural organization, but founded on convention only. I lament this the more, as he isunquestionably the ablest writer living, on abstract subjects. Assumingthe fact, that the earth has been created in time, and consequently thedogma of final causes, we yield, of course, to this short syllogism. Man was created for social intercourse; but social intercourse cannot bemaintained without a sense of justice; then man must have been createdwith a sense of justice. There is an error into which most of thespeculators on government have fallen, and which the well known stateof society of our Indians ought, before now, to have corrected. Intheir hypothesis of the origin of government, they suppose it to havecommenced in the patriarchal or monarchical form. Our Indians areevidently in that state of nature which has passed the association of asingle family; and not yet submitted to the authority of positive laws, or of any acknowledged magistrate. Every man, with them, is perfectlyfree to follow his own inclinations. But if, in doing this, he violatesthe rights of another, if the case be slight, he is punished by thedisesteem of his society, or, as we say, by public opinion; if serious, he is tomahawked as a dangerous enemy. Their leaders conduct them bythe influence of their character only; and they follow, or not, as theyplease, him of whose character for wisdom or war they have the highestopinion. Hence the origin of the parties among them adhering todifferent leaders, and governed by their advice, not by theircommand. The Cherokees, the only tribe I know to be contemplating theestablishment of regular laws, magistrates, and government, proposea government of representatives, elected from every town. But of allthings, they least think of subjecting themselves to the will of oneman. This, the only instance of actual fact within our knowledge, willbe then a beginning by republican, and not by patriarchal or monarchicalgovernment, as speculative writers have generally conjectured. 

We have to join in mutual congratulations on the appointment of ourfriend Correa, to be Minister or Envoy of Portugal, here. This, I hope, will give him to us, for life. Nor will it at all interfere withhis botanical rambles or journeys. The government of Portugal is sopeaceable and inoffensive, that it has never any altercations with itsfriends. If their minister abroad writes them once a quarter that all iswell, they desire no more. I learn (though not from Correa himself) thathe thinks of paying us a visit as soon as he is through his courseof lectures. Not to lose this happiness again by my absence, I haveinformed him I shall set out for Poplar Forest the 20th instant, andbe back the first week of July. I wish you and he could concertyour movements so as to meet here, and that you would make this yourheadquarters. It is a good central point from which to visit yourconnections; and you know our practice of placing our guests at theirease, by showing them we are so ourselves, and that we follow ournecessary vocations, instead of fatiguing them by hanging unremittinglyon their shoulders. 

I salute you with affectionate esteem and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CXXXIII. *--TO BENJAMIN AUSTIN, January 9, 1816

TO BENJAMIN AUSTIN. 

Monticello, January 9, 1816. 

 [* This letter was accidentally misplaced, and is now inserted out of its regular order. ]

Dear Sir, I acknowledge with pleasure your letter of the 9th of December last. 

Your opinions on the events which have taken place in France, areentirely just, so far as these events are yet developed. But wehave reason to suppose, that they have not reached their ultimatetermination. There is still an awful void between the present, and whatis to be the last chapter of that history; and I fear it is to be filledwith abominations, as frightful as those which have already disgracedit. That nation is too high-minded, has too much innate force, intelligence, and elasticity, to remain quiet under its presentcompression. Samson will arise in his strength, and probably will erelong burst asunder the cords and the webs of the Philistines. But whatare to be the scenes of havoc and horror, and how widely they may spreadbetween the brethren of one family, our ignorance of the interior feudsand antipathies of the country places beyond our view. Whatever may bethe convulsions, we cannot but indulge the pleasing hope, they willend in the permanent establishment of a representative government;a government in which the will of the people will be an effectiveingredient. This important element has taken root in the European mind, and will have its growth. Their rulers, sensible of this, are alreadyoffering this modification of their governments, under the plausiblepretence that it is a voluntary concession on their part. Had Bonaparteused his legitimate power honestly, for the establishment and supportof a free government, France would now have been in prosperity and rest, and her example operating for the benefit of mankind, every nation inEurope would eventually have founded a government over which the willof the people would have had a powerful control. His improper conduct, however, has checked the salutary progress of principle; but theobject is fixed in the eye of nations, and they will press to itsaccomplishment, and to the general amelioration of the condition ofman. What a germ have the freemen of the United States planted, andhow faithfully should they cherish the parent tree at home. Chagrin andmortification are the punishments our enemies receive. 

You tell me I am quoted by those who wish to continue our dependenceon England for manufactures. There was a time when I might have been soquoted with more candor. But within the thirty years which have sinceelapsed, how are circumstances changed! We were then in peace; ourindependent place among nations was acknowledged. A commerce whichoffered the raw material, in exchange for the same material afterreceiving the last touch of industry, was worthy of welcome to allnations. It was expected, that those especially to whom manufacturingindustry was important, would cherish the friendship of such customersby every favor, and particularly cultivate their peace by every actof justice and friendship. Under this prospect, the question seemedlegitimate, whether, with such an immensity of unimproved land, courting the hand of husbandry, the industry of agriculture, or that ofmanufactures, would add most to the national wealth. And the doubton the utility of the American manufactures was entertained on thisconsideration, chiefly, that to the labor of the husbandman a vastaddition is made by the spontaneous energies of the earth on which itis employed. For one grain of wheat committed to the earth, she renderstwenty, thirty, and even fifty fold; whereas to the labor of themanufacturer nothing is added. Pounds of flax, in his hands, on thecontrary, yield but penny weights of lace. This exchange, too, laboriousas it might seem, what a field did it promise for the occupation of theocean; what a nursery for that class of citizens who were to exerciseand maintain our equal rights on that element! This was the state ofthings in 1785, when the Notes on Virginia were first published; when, the ocean being open to all nations, and their common right in itacknowledged and exercised under regulations sanctioned by the assentand usage of all, it was thought that the doubt might claim someconsideration. 

But who, in 1785, could foresee the rapid depravity which was to renderthe close of that century a disgrace to the history of man? Who couldhave imagined that the two most distinguished in the rank of nations, for science and civilization, would have suddenly descended fromthat honorable eminence, and setting at defiance all those moral lawsestablished by the Author of Nature between nation and nation, asbetween man and man, would cover earth and sea with robberies andpiracies, merely because strong enough to do it with temporal impunity, and that under this disbandment of nations from social order, we shouldhave been despoiled of a thousand ships, and have thousands of ourcitizens reduced to Algerine slavery. Yet all this has taken place. TheBritish interdicted to our vessels all harbors of the globe, withouthaving first proceeded to some one of hers, there paid a tributeproportioned to the cargo, and obtained her license to proceed to theport of destination. The French declared them to be lawful prize if theyhad touched at the port, or been visited by a ship of the enemy nation. Thus were we completely excluded from the ocean. Compare this stateof things with that of '85, and say whether an opinion founded inthe circumstances of that day, can be fairly applied to those of thepresent. We have experienced, what we did not then believe, that thereexist both profligacy and power enough to exclude us from the field ofinterchange with other nations. That to be independent for the comfortsof life, we must fabricate them ourselves. We must now place themanufacturer by the side of the agriculturalist. The former questionis suppressed, or rather assumes a new form. The grand inquiry now is, Shall we make our own comforts, or go without them at the will of aforeign nation? He, therefore, who is now against domestic manufacture, must be for reducing us either to dependence on that foreign nation, or to be clothed in skins, and to live like wild beasts in densand caverns. I am not one of these. Experience has taught me thatmanufactures are now as necessary to our independence as to our comfort;and if those who quote me as of a different opinion, will keep pace withme in purchasing nothing foreign, where an equivalent of domestic fabriccan be obtained, without regard to difference of price, it will not beour fault if we do not soon have a supply at home equal to our demand, and wrest that weapon of distress from the hand which has so longwantonly wielded it. If it shall be proposed to go beyond our ownsupply, the question of '85 will then recur, Will our surplus labor bethen more beneficially employed, in the culture of the earth, or in thefabrications of art? We have time yet for consideration, before thatquestion will press upon us; and the axiom to be applied will dependon the circumstances which shall then exist. For in so complicated ascience as political economy, no one axiom can be laid down as wise andexpedient for all times and circumstances. Inattention to this is whathas called for this explanation, which reflection would have renderedunnecessary with the candid, while nothing will do it with those whouse the former opinion only as a stalking-horse to cover their disloyalpropensities to keep us in eternal vassalage to a foreign and unfriendlypeople. 

I salute you with assurances of great respect and esteem. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CXXXIV. --TO WILLIAM H. CRAWFORD, June 20, 1816

TO WILLIAM H. CRAWFORD. 

Monticello, June 20, 1816. 

Dear Sir, I am about to sin against all discretion, and knowingly, by adding tothe drudgery of your letter-reading, this acknowledgment of the receiptof your favor of May the 31st, with the papers it covered. I cannot, however, deny myself the gratification of expressing the satisfaction Ihave received, not only from the general statement of affairs at Paris, in yours of December the 12th, 1814, (as a matter of history which I hadnot before received, ) but most especially and superlatively, from theperusal of your letter of the 8th of the same month to Mr. Fisk, on thesubject of drawbacks. This most heterogeneous principle was transplantedinto ours from the British system, by a man whose mind was reallypowerful, but chained by native partialities to every thing English; whohad formed exaggerated ideas of the superior perfection of the Englishconstitution, the superior wisdom of their government, and sincerelybelieved it for the good of this country to make them their model inevery thing; without considering that what might be wise and good for anation essentially commercial, and entangled in complicated intercoursewith numerous and powerful neighbors, might not be so for oneessentially agricultural, and insulated by nature from the abusivegovernments of the old world. 

The exercise, by our own citizens, of so much commerce as may sufficeto exchange our superfluities for our wants, may be advantageous for thewhole. But it does not follow, that, with a territory so boundless, itis the interest of the whole to become a mere city of London, to carryon the business of one half the world at the expense of eternal war withthe other half. The agricultural capacities of our country constituteits distinguishing feature; and the adapting our policy and pursuits tothat, is more likely to make us a numerous and happy people, than themimicry of an Amsterdam, a Hamburgh, or a city of London. Every societyhas a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, andto say to all individuals, that, if they contemplate pursuits beyondthe limits of these principles, and involving dangers which the societychooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; thatwe want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, onsuch terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do personsinfected with disease. Such is the situation of our country. We havemost abundant resources of happiness within ourselves, which we mayenjoy in peace and safety, without permitting a few citizens, infectedwith the mania of rambling and gambling, to bring danger on the greatmass engaged in innocent and safe pursuits at home. In your letter toFisk, you have fairly stated the alternatives between which we are tochoose: 1. Licentious commerce and gambling speculations for a few, witheternal war for the many; or, 2. Restricted commerce, peace, and steadyoccupations for all. If any State in the Union will declare that itprefers separation with the first alternative, to a continuance in unionwithout it, I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate. ' I wouldrather the States should withdraw, which are for unlimited commerceand war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace andagriculture. I know that every nation in Europe would join in sincereamity with the latter, and hold the former at arm's length, byjealousies, prohibitions, restrictions, vexations, and war. No earthlyconsideration could induce my consent to contract such a debt as Englandhas by her wars for commerce, to reduce our citizens by taxes to suchwretchedness, as that laboring sixteen of the twenty-four hours, theyare still unable to afford themselves bread, or barely to earn as muchoatmeal or potatoes as will keep soul and body together. And all thisto feed the avidity of a few millionary merchants, and to keep upone thousand ships of war for the protection of their commercialspeculations. I returned from Europe after our government had got underway, and had adopted from the British code the law of drawbacks. I earlysaw its effects in the jealousies and vexations of Britain; and that, retaining it, we must become, like her, an essentially warring nation, and meet, in the end, the catastrophe impending over her. No one candoubt that this alone produced the orders of council, the depredationswhich preceded, and the war which followed them. Had we carried but ourown produce, and brought back but our own wants, no nation would havetroubled us. Our commercial dashers, then, have already cost us so manythousand lives, so many millions of dollars, more than their personsand all their commerce were worth. When war was declared, and especiallyafter Massachusetts, who had produced it, took side with the enemywaging it, I pressed on some confidential friends in Congress to availus of the happy opportunity of repealing the drawback; and I do rejoiceto find that you are in that sentiment. You are young, and may be in theway of bringing it into effect. Perhaps time, even yet, and change oftone (for there are symptoms of that in Massachusetts), may not haveobliterated altogether the sense of our late feelings and sufferings;may not have induced oblivion of the friends we have lost, thedepredations and conflagrations we have suffered, and the debts we haveincurred, and to have to labor for through the lives of the presentgeneration. The earlier the repeal is proposed, the more it will bebefriended by all these recollections and considerations. This is one ofthree great measures necessary to insure us permanent prosperity. Thispreserves our peace. A second should enable us to meet any war, byadopting the report of the war department, for placing the force ofthe nation at effectual command: and a third should insure resourcesof money by the suppression of all paper circulation during peace, andlicensing that of the nation alone during war. The metallic medium ofwhich we should be possessed at the commencement of a war, would bea sufficient fund for all the loans we should need through itscontinuance; and if the national bills issued, be bottomed (as isindispensable) on pledges of specific taxes for their redemptionwithin certain and moderate epochs, and be of proper denominations forcirculation, no interest on them would be necessary or just, becausethey would answer to every one the purposes of the metallic moneywithdrawn and replaced by them. But possibly these may be the dreams ofan old man, or that the occasions of realizing them may have passed awaywithout return. A government regulating itself by what is wise and justfor the many, uninfluenced by the local and selfish views of the fewwho direct their affairs, has not been seen, perhaps, on earth. Or if itexisted, for a moment, at the birth of ours, it would not be easy to fixthe term of its continuance. Still, I believe it does exist here in agreater degree than any where else; and for its growth and continuance, as well as for your personal health and happiness, I offer sincereprayers, with the homage of my respect and esteem. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CXXXV. --TO SAMUEL KERCHIVAL, July 12, 1816

TO SAMUEL KERCHIVAL. 

Monticello, July 12, 1816. 

Sir, I duly received your favor of June the 13th, with the copy of theletters on the calling a convention, on which you are pleased to askmy opinion. I have not been in the habit of mysterious reserve on anysubject, nor of buttoning up my opinions within my own doublet. Onthe contrary, while in public service especially, I thought the publicentitled to frankness, and intimately to know whom they employed. ButI am now retired: I resign myself, as a passenger, with confidence tothose at present at the helm, and ask but for rest, peace, and goodwill. The question you propose, on equal representation, has become aparty one, in which I wish to take no public share. Yet, if it be askedfor your own satisfaction only, and not to be quoted before the public, I have no motive to withhold it, and the less from you, as it coincideswith your own. At the birth of our republic, I committed that opinionto the world, in the draught of a constitution annexed to the Noteson Virginia, in which a provision was inserted for a representationpermanently equal. The infancy of the subject at that moment, and ourinexperience of self-government, occasioned gross departures in thatdraught from genuine republican canons. In truth, the abuses of monarchyhad so much filled all the space of political contemplation, that weimagined every thing republican which was not monarchy. We had not yetpenetrated to the mother principle, that 'governments are republicanonly in proportion as they embody the will of their people, and executeit. ' Hence, our first constitutions had really no leading principle inthem. But experience and reflection have but more and more confirmed mein the particular importance of the equal representation then proposed. On that point, then, I am entirely in sentiment with your letters; andonly lament that a copyright of your pamphlet prevents their appearancein the newspapers, where alone they would be generally read, and producegeneral effect. The present vacancy too, of other matter, would givethem place in every paper, and bring the question home to every man'sconscience. 

But inequality of representation in both Houses of our legislature, isnot the only republican heresy in this first essay of our revolutionarypatriots at forming a constitution. For let it be agreed that agovernment is republican in proportion as every member composing it hashis equal voice in the direction of its concerns, (not indeed in person, which would be impracticable beyond the limits of a city, or smalltownship, but) by representatives chosen by himself, and responsible tohim at short periods, and let us bring to the test of this canon everybranch of our constitution. 

In the legislature, the House of Representatives is chosen by less thanhalf the people, and not at all in proportion to those who do choose. The Senate are still more disproportionate, and for long terms ofirresponsibility. In the Executive, the Governor is entirely independentof the choice of the people, and of their control; his Council equallyso, and at best but a fifth wheel to a wagon. In the Judiciary, thejudges of the highest courts are dependent on none but themselves. In England, where judges were named and removable at the will of anhereditary executive, from which branch most misrule was feared, and hasflowed, it was a great point gained, by fixing them for life, to makethem independent of that executive. But in a government founded onthe public will, this principle operates in an opposite direction, and against that will. There, too, they were still removable on aconcurrence of the executive and legislative branches. But we have madethem independent of the nation itself. They are irremovable, but bytheir own body, for any depravities of conduct, and even by their ownbody for the imbecilities of dotage. The justices of the inferiorcourts are self-chosen, are for life, and perpetuate their own body insuccession for ever, so that a faction once possessing themselves ofthe bench of a county, can never be broken up, but hold their county inchains, for ever indissoluble. Yet these justices are the real executiveas well as judiciary, in all our minor and most ordinary concerns. Theytax us at will; fill the office of sheriff, the most important of allthe executive officers of the county; name nearly all our militaryleaders, which leaders, once named, are removable but by themselves. Thejuries, our judges of all fact, and of law when they choose it, arenot selected by the people, nor amenable to them. They are chosen by anofficer named by the court and executive. Chosen, did I say? Picked upby the sheriff from the loungings of the court-yard, after every thingrespectable has retired from it. Where then is our republicanism to befound? Not in our constitution certainly, but merely in the spirit ofour people. That would oblige even a despot to govern us republicanly. Owing to this spirit, and to nothing in the form of our constitution, all things have gone well. But this fact, so triumphantly misquoted bythe enemies of reformation, is not the fruit of our constitution, buthas prevailed in spite of it. Our functionaries have done well, becausegenerally honest men. If any were not so, they feared to show it. 

But it will be said, it is easier to find faults than to amend them. Ido not think their amendment so difficult as is pretended. Only lay downtrue principles, and adhere to them inflexibly. Do not be frightenedinto their surrender by the alarms of the timid, or the croakings ofwealth against the ascendancy of the people. If experience be calledfor, appeal to that of our fifteen or twenty governments for fortyyears, and show me where the people have done half the mischief in theseforty years, that a single despot would have done in a single year;or show half the riots and rebellions, the crimes and the punishments, which have taken place in any single nation, under Kingly government, during the same period. The true foundation of republican governmentis the equal right of every citizen, in his person and property, andin their management. Try by this, as a tally, every provision of ourconstitution, and see if it hangs directly on the will of the people. Reduce your legislature to a convenient number for full, but orderlydiscussion. Let every man who fights or pays, exercise his just andequal right in their election. Submit them to approbation or rejectionat short intervals. Let the executive be chosen in the same way, and forthe same term, by those whose agent he is to be; and leave no screen ofa council behind which to skulk from responsibility. It has been thoughtthat the people are not competent electors of judges learned in the law. But I do not know that this is true, and if doubtful, we should followprinciple. In this, as in many other elections, they would be guided byreputation, which would not err oftener, perhaps, than the present modeof appointment. In one State of the Union, at least, it has been longtried, and with the most satisfactory success. The judges of Connecticuthave been chosen by the people every six months, for nearly twocenturies, and I believe there has hardly ever been an instanceof change; so powerful is the curb of incessant responsibility. Ifprejudice, however, derived from a monarchical institution, is stillto prevail against the vital elective principle of our own, and if theexisting example among ourselves of periodical election of judges bythe people be still mistrusted, let us at least not adopt the evil, andreject the good, of the English precedent; let us retain a movabilityon the concurrence of the executive and legislative branches, andnomination by the executive alone. Nomination to office is an executivefunction. To give it to the legislature, as we do, is a violation ofthe principle of the separation of powers. It swerves the members fromcorrectness, by temptations to intrigue for office themselves, and toa corrupt barter of votes; and destroys responsibility by dividing itamong a multitude. By leaving nomination in its proper place, amongexecutive functions, the principle of the distribution of power ispreserved, and responsibility weighs with its heaviest force on a singlehead. 

The organization of our county administrations may be thought moredifficult. But follow principle, and the knot unties itself. Divide thecounties into wards of such size as that every citizen can attend whencalled on, and act in person. Ascribe to them the government of theirwards in all things relating to themselves exclusively. A justice, chosen by themselves, in each, a constable, a military company, apatrol, a school, the care of their own poor, their own portion of thepublic roads, the choice of one or more jurors to serve in some court, and the delivery, within their own wards, of their own votes forall elective officers of higher sphere, will relieve the countyadministration of nearly all its business, will have it better done, andby making every citizen an acting member of the government, and in theoffices nearest and most interesting to him, will attach him byhis strongest feelings to the independence of his country, and itsrepublican constitution. The justices thus chosen by every ward, wouldconstitute the county court, would do its judiciary business, directroads and bridges, levy county and poor rates, and administer all thematters of common interest to the whole county. These wards, calledtownships in New England, are the vital principle of their governments, and have proved themselves the wisest invention ever devised by thewit of man for the perfect exercise of self-government, and for itspreservation. We should thus marshal our government into, 1. The generalfederal republic, for all concerns foreign and federal; 2. That of theState, for what relates to our own citizens exclusively; 3. The countyrepublics, for the duties and concerns of the county; and, 4. The wardrepublics, for the small, and yet numerous and interesting concerns ofthe neighborhood: and in government, as well as in every other businessof life, it is by division and sub-division of duties alone, that allmatters, great and small, can be managed to perfection. And the wholeis cemented by giving to every citizen, personally, a part in theadministration of the public affairs. 

The sum of these amendments is, 1. General suffrage. 2. Equalrepresentation in the legislature. 3. An executive chosen by the people. 4. Judges elective or amovable. 5. Justices, jurors, and sheriffselective. 6. Ward divisions. And, 7. Periodical amendments of theconstitution. 

I have thrown out these, as loose heads of amendment, for considerationand correction: and their object is to secure self-government by therepublicanism of our constitution, as well as by the spirit of thepeople; and to nourish and perpetuate that spirit. I am not among thosewho fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence forcontinued freedom. And to preserve their independence, we must notlet our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our electionbetween economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run intosuch debts, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, inour necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, forour callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give theearnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and dailyexpenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, wemust live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time tothink, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad toobtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on thenecks of our fellow-sufferers. Our land-holders, too, like theirs, retaining indeed the title and stewardship of estates called theirs, but held really in trust for the treasury, must wander, like theirs, inforeign countries, and be contented with penury, obscurity, exile, andthe glory of the nation. This example reads to us the salutary lessonthat private fortunes are destroyed by public, as well as by privateextravagance. And this is the tendency of all human governments. Adeparture from principle in one instance, becomes a precedent for asecond; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the societyis reduced to be mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilitiesleft but for sinning and suffering. Then begins, indeed, the _bellumomnium in omnia_, which some philosophers observing to be so generalin this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusivestate of man. And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression. 

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deemthem, like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. Theyascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, andsuppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well: Ibelonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present;and forty years of experience in government is worth a century ofbook-reading: and this they would say themselves, were they to risefrom the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untriedchanges in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections hadbetter be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselvesto them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. ButI know, also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand withthe progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, moreenlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We mightas well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when aboy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of theirbarbarous ancestors. It is this preposterous idea which has latelydeluged Europe in blood. Their monarchs, instead of wisely yieldingto the gradual changes of circumstances, of favoring progressiveaccommodation to progressive improvement, have clung to old abuses, entrenched themselves behind steady habits, and obliged their subjectsto seek through blood and violence rash and ruinous innovations, which, had they been referred to the peaceful deliberations and collectedwisdom of the nation, would have been put into acceptable and salutaryforms. Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that onegeneration is not as capable as another of taking care of itself, and ofordering its own affairs. Let us, as our sister States have done, availourselves of our reason and experience, to correct the crude essays ofour first and unexperienced, although wise, virtuous, and well-meaningcouncils. And, lastly, let us provide in our constitution for itsrevision at stated periods. What these periods should be, nature herselfindicates. By the European tables of mortality, of the adults living atany one moment of time, a majority will be dead in about nineteen years. At the end of that period, then, a new majority is come into place; or, in other words, a new generation. Each generation is as independent ofthe one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has, then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of governmentit believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, toaccommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself, that receivedfrom its predecessors: and it is for the peace and good of mankind, that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years, should be provided by the constitution; so that it may be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end oftime, if any thing human can so long endure. It is now forty years sincethe constitution of Virginia was formed. The same tables inform us, that, within that period, two thirds of the adults then living are nowdead. Have then the remaining third, even if they had the wish, theright to hold in obedience to their will, and to laws heretofore madeby them, the other two thirds, who, with themselves, compose the presentmass of adults? If they have not, who has? The dead? But the dead haveno rights. They are nothing; and nothing cannot own something. Wherethere is no substance, there can be no accident. This corporeal globe, and every thing upon it, belong to its present corporeal inhabitants, during their generation. They alone have a right to direct what is theconcern of themselves alone, and to declare the law of that direction:and this declaration can only be made by their majority. That majority, then, has a right to depute representatives to a convention, and to makethe constitution what they think will be best for themselves. But howcollect their voice? This is the real difficulty. If invited by privateauthority to county or district meetings, these divisions are so large, that few will attend; and their voice will be imperfectly or falselypronounced. Here, then, would be one of the advantages of the warddivisions I have proposed. The mayor of every ward, on a question likethe present, would call his ward together, take the simple yea or nay ofits members, convey these to the county court, who would hand on thoseof all its wards to the proper general authority; and the voice ofthe whole people would be thus fairly, fully, and peaceably expressed, discussed, and decided by the common reason of the society. If thisavenue be shut to the call of sufferance, it will make itself heardthrough that of force, and we shall go on, as other nations are doing, in the endless circle of oppression, rebellion, reformation; andoppression, rebellion, reformation, again; and so on, for ever. 

These, Sir, are my opinions of the governments we see among men, and ofthe principles by which alone we may prevent our own from falling intothe same dreadful track. I have given them at greater length than yourletter called for. But I cannot say things by halves; and I confide themto your honor, so to use them as to preserve me from the gridiron of thepublic papers. If you shall approve and enforce them, as you have donethat of equal representation, they may do some good. If not, keep themto yourself as the effusions of withered age, and useless time. Ishall, with not the Less truth, assure you of my great respect andconsideration. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CXXXVI. --TO JOHN TAYLOR, July 21, 1816

TO JOHN TAYLOR. 

Monticello, July 21, 1816. 

Dear Sir, Yours of the 10th is received, and I have to acknowledge a copioussupply of the turnip-seed requested. Besides taking care myself, Ishall endeavor again to commit it to the depository of the neighborhood, generally found to be the best precaution against losing a good thing. I will add a word on the political part of our letters. I believe we donot differ on either of the points you suppose. On education certainlynot; of which the proofs are my bill for the diffusion of knowledge, proposed near forty years ago, and my uniform endeavors, to this day, to get our counties divided into wards, one of the principal objects ofwhich is, the establishment of a primary school in each. But educationnot being a branch of municipal government, but, like the other artsand sciences, an accident only, I did not place it, with election, as afundamental member in the structure of government. Nor, I believe, dowe differ as to the county courts. I acknowledge the value of thisinstitution; that it is in truth our principal executive and judiciary, and that it does much for little pecuniary reward. It is theirself-appointment I wish to correct; to find some means of breaking upa cabal, when such a one gets possession of the bench. When this takesplace, it becomes the most afflicting of tyrannies, because its powersare so various, and exercised on every thing most immediately aroundus. And how many instances have you and I known of these monopolies ofcounty administration! I knew a county in which a particular family (anumerous one) got possession of the bench, and for a whole generation. Never admitted a man on it who was not of its clan or connection. 1 knowa county now of one thousand and five hundred militia, of which sixtyare federalists. Its court is of thirty members, of whom twenty arefederalists, (every third man of the sect. ) There are large and populousdistricts in it without a justice, because without a federalistfor appointment: the militia are as disproportionably under federalofficers. And there is no authority on earth which can break up thisjunto, short of a general convention. The remaining one thousand fourhundred and forty, free, fighting, and paying citizens, are governedby men neither of their choice nor confidence, and without a hopeof relief. They are certainly excluded from the blessings of a freegovernment for life, and indefinitely, for aught the constitution hasprovided. This solecism may be called any thing but republican, andought undoubtedly to be corrected. I salute you with constant friendshipand respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CXXXVII. --TO SAMUEL KERCHIVAL, September 5, 1816

TO SAMUEL KERCHIVAL. 

Monticello, September 5, 1816. 

Sir, Your letter of August the 16th is just received. That which I wrote toyou under the address of H. Tompkinson, was intended for the authorof the pamphlet you were so kind as to send me, and therefore, in yourhands, found its true destination. But I must beseech you, Sir, not toadmit a possibility of its being published. Many good people will revoltfrom its doctrines, and my wish is to offend nobody; to leave to thosewho are to live under it, the settlement of their own constitution, andto pass in peace the remainder of my time. If those opinions are sound, they will occur to others, and will prevail by their own weight, without the aid of names. I am glad to see that the Staunton meeting hasrejected the idea of a limited convention. The article, however, nearestmy heart, is the division of the counties into wards. These will be pureand elementary republics, the sum of all which, taken together, composesthe State, and will make of the whole a true democracy as to thebusiness of the wards, which is that of nearest and daily concern. The affairs of the larger sections, of counties, of States, and ofthe Union, not admitting personal transaction by the people, will bedelegated to agents elected by themselves; and representation will thusbe substituted, where personal action becomes impracticable. Yet, even over these representative organs, should they become corrupt andperverted, the division into wards constituting the people, in theirwards, a regularly organized power, enables them by that organizationto crush, regularly and peaceably, the usurpations of their unfaithfulagents, and rescues them from the dreadful necessity of doing itinsurrectionally. In this way we shall be as republican as a largesociety can be; and secure the continuance of purity in our government, by the salutary, peaceable, and regular control of the people. No otherdepositories of power have ever yet been found, which did not end inconverting to their own profit the earnings of those committed to theircharge. George the III. , in execution of the trust confided to him, has, within his own day, loaded the inhabitants of Great Britain with debtsequal to the whole fee-simple value of their island, and under pretextof governing it, has alienated its whole soil to creditors who couldlend money to be lavished on priests, pensions, plunder, and perpetualwar. This would not have been so, had the people retained organizedmeans of acting on their agents. In this example, then, let us read alesson for ourselves, and not 'go, and do likewise. '

Since writing my letter of July the 12th, I have been told, that on thequestion of equal representation, our fellow-citizens in some sectionsof the State claim peremptorily a right of representation for theirslaves. Principle will, in this, as in most other cases, open the wayfor us to correct conclusion. Were our State a pure democracy, in whichall its inhabitants should meet together to transact all their business, there would yet be excluded from their deliberations, 1. Infants, untilarrived at years of discretion. 2. Women, who, to prevent depravationof morals, and ambiguity of issue, could not mix promiscuously in thepublic meetings of men. 3, Slaves, from whom the unfortunate state ofthings with us takes away the rights of will and of property. Those, then, who have no will, could be permitted to exercise none in thepopular assembly; and of course could delegate none to an agent in arepresentative assembly. The business, in the first case, would be doneby qualified citizens only; and, in the second, by the representativesof qualified citizens only. It is true, that in the generalconstitution, our State is allowed a larger representation on accountof its slaves. But every one knows, that that constitution was amatter of compromise; a capitulation between conflicting interestsand opinions. In truth, the condition of different descriptions ofinhabitants in any country is a matter of municipal arrangement, ofwhich no foreign country has a right to take notice. All its inhabitantsare men as to them. Thus, in the New England States, none have thepowers of citizens but those whom they call freemen; and none arefreemen Until admitted by a vote of the freemen of the town. Yet, in theGeneral Government, these non-freemen are counted in their quantum ofrepresentation and of taxation. So, slaves with us have no powers ascitizens; yet, in representation in the General Government, they countin the proportion of three to five; and so also in taxation. Whetherthis is equal, is not here the question. It is a capitulation ofdiscordant sentiments and circumstances, and is obligatory on thatground. But this view shows there is no inconsistency in claimingrepresentation for them from the other States, and refusing it withinour own. 

Accept the renewal of assurances of my respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CXXXVIII. --TO JOHN ADAMS, October 14, 1816

TO JOHN ADAMS, Monticello, October 14, 1816. 

Your letter, dear Sir, of May the 6th, had already well explained theuses of grief. That of September the 3rd, with equal truth, adducesinstances of its abuse; and when we put into the same scale theseabuses, with the afflictions of soul which even the uses of grief costus, we may consider its value in the economy of the human being, asequivocal at least. Those afflictions cloud too great a portion oflife, to find a counterpoise in any benefits derived from its uses. Forsetting aside its paroxyms on the occasions of special bereavements, allthe latter years of aged men are overshadowed with its gloom. Whither, for instance, can you and I look without seeing the graves of those wehave known? And whom can we call up, of our early companions, who hasnot left us to regret his loss? This, indeed, may be one of the salutaryeffects of grief; inasmuch as it prepares us to loose ourselves alsowithout repugnance. Doctor Freeman's instances of female levity cured bygrief, are certainly to the point, and constitute an item of credit inthe account we examine. I was much mortified by the loss of the Doctor'svisit, by my absence from home. To have shown how much I feel indebtedto you for making good people known to me, would have been one pleasure;and to have enjoyed that of his conversation, and the benefits ofhis information, so favorably reported by my family, would have beenanother. I returned home on the third day after his departure. The lossof such visits is among the sacrifices which my divided residence costsme. 

Your undertaking the twelve volumes of Dupuis, is a degree of heroismto which I could not have aspired even in my younger days. I have beencontented with the humble achievement of reading the analysis of hiswork by Destutt Tracy, in two hundred pages, octavo. I believe I shouldhave ventured on his own abridgment of the work, in one octavo volume, had it ever come to my hands; but the marrow of it in Tracy hassatisfied my appetite: and even in that, the preliminary discourse ofthe analyzer himself, and his conclusion, are worth more in my eye thanthe body of the work. For the object of that seems to be to smother allhistory under the mantle of allegory. If histories so unlike as thoseof Hercules and Jesus, can, by a fertile imagination and allegoricalinterpretations, be brought to the same tally, no line of distinctionremains between fact and fancy. As this pithy morsel will notoverburthen the mail in passing and repassing between Quincy andMonticello, I send it for your perusal. Perhaps it will satisfy you, asit has me; and may save you the labor of reading twenty-four times itsvolume. I have said to you that it was written by Tracy; and I had soentered it on the title-page, as I usually do on anonymous works whoseauthors are known to me. But Tracy requested me not to betray hisanonyme, for reasons which may not yet, perhaps, have ceased to weigh. Iam bound, then, to make the same reserve with you. Destutt-Tracy is, inmy judgment, the ablest writer living on intellectual subjects, or theoperations of the understanding. His three octavo volumes on Ideology, which constitute the foundation of what he has since written, I have notentirely read; because I am not fond of reading what is merely abstract, and unapplied immediately to some useful science. Bonaparte, with hisrepeated derisions of Ideologists (squinting at this author) has bythis time felt that true wisdom does not lie in mere practice withoutprinciple. The next work Tracy wrote was the Commentary on Montesquieu, never published in the original, because not safe; but translated andpublished in Philadelphia, yet without the author's name. He has sincepermitted his name to be mentioned. Although called a Commentary, it is, in truth, an elementary work on the principles of government, comprisedin about three hundred pages octavo. He has lately published a thirdwork on Political Economy, comprising the whole subject within aboutthe same compass; in which all its principles are demonstrated withthe severity of Euclid, and, like him, without ever using a superfluousword. I have procured this to be translated, and have been four yearsendeavoring to get it printed: but, as yet, without success. In the meantime, the author has published the original in France, which he thoughtunsafe while Bonaparte was in power. No printed copy, I believe, has yetreached this country. He has his fourth and last work now in the pressat Paris, closing, as he conceives, the circle of metaphysical sciences. This work, which is on Ethics, I have not seen, but suspect I shalldiffer from it in its foundation, although not in its deductions. Igather from his other works that he adopts the principle of Hobbes, that justice is founded in contract solely, and does not result from theconstitution of man. I believe, on the contrary, that it is instinct andinnate, that the moral sense is as much a part of our constitution asthat of feeling, seeing, or hearing; as a wise creator must have seen tobe necessary in an animal destined to live in society: that every humanmind feels pleasure in doing good to another: that the non-existence ofjustice is not to be inferred from the fact that the same act is deemedvirtuous and right in one society which is held vicious and wrongin another; because, as the circumstances and opinions of differentsocieties vary, so the acts which may do them right or wrong must varyalso; for virtue does not consist in the act we do, but in the end itis to effect. If it is to effect the happiness of him to whom itis directed, it is virtuous, while, in a society under differentcircumstances and opinions, the same act might produce pain, and wouldbe vicious. The essence of virtue is in doing good to others, while whatis good may be one thing in one society, and its contrary in another. Yet, however we may differ as to the foundation of morals (and asmany foundations have been assumed as there are writers on the subjectnearly), so correct a thinker as Tracy will give us a sound system ofmorals. And, indeed, it is remarkable, that so many writers, setting outfrom so many different premises, yet meet all in the same conclusions. This looks as if they were guided unconsciously, by the unerring-hand ofinstinct. 

Your history of the Jesuits, by what name of the author or otherdescription is it to be inquired for?

What do you think of the present situation of England? Is not this thegreat and fatal crush of their funding system, which, like death, hasbeen foreseen by all, but its hour, like that of death, hidden frommortal prescience? It appears to me that all the circumstances now existwhich render recovery desperate. The interest of the national debt isnow equal to such a portion of the profits of all the land and the laborof the island, as not to leave enough for the subsistence of thosewho labor. Hence the owners of the land abandon it and retire to othercountries, and the laborer has not enough of his earnings left to himto cover his back and to fill his belly. The local insurrections, nowalmost general, are of the hungry and the naked, who cannot be quietedbut by food and raiment. But where are the means of feeding and clothingthem? The landholder has nothing of his own to give; he is but thefiduciary of those who have lent him money; the lender is so taxed inhis meat, drink, and clothing, that he has but a bare subsistence left. The landholder, then, must give up his land, or the lender his debt, or they must compromise by giving up each one half. But will eitherconsent, peaceably, to such an abandonment of property? Or must it notbe settled by civil conflict? If peaceably compromised, will they agreeto risk another ruin under the same government unreformed? I think not;but I would rather know what you think; because you have lived withJohn Bull, and know better than I do the character of his herd. I saluteMrs. Adams and yourself with every sentiment of affectionate cordialityand respect;

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CXXXIX. --TO JOHN ADAMS, TO JOHN ADAMS

TO JOHN ADAMS. 

Monticello, January 11, 1817. 

Dear Sir, Forty-three volumes read in one year, and twelve of them quarto! DearSir, how I envy you! Half a dozen octavos in that space of time are asmuch as I am allowed. I can read by candlelight only, and stealing longhours from my rest: nor would that time be indulged to me, could I bythat light see to write. From sunrise to one or two o'clock, and oftenfrom dinner to dark, I am drudging at the writing-table. And all thisto answer letters into which neither interest nor inclination on my partenters; and often from persons whose names I have never before heard. Yet, writing civilly, it is hard to refuse them civil answers. This isthe burthen of my life, a very grievous one indeed, and one which I mustget rid of. Delaplaine lately requested me to give him a line on thesubject of his book; meaning, as I well knew, to publish it. This Iconstantly refuse; but in this instance yielded, that in saying aword for him, I might say two for myself. I expressed in it freelymy sufferings from this source; hoping it would have the effect of anindirect appeal to the discretion of those, strangers and others, who, in the most friendly dispositions, oppress me with their concerns, their pursuits, their projects, inventions, and speculations, political, moral, religious, mechanical, mathematical, historical, &c. &c. &c. I hope the appeal will bring me relief, and that I shall be left to, exercise and enjoy correspondence with the friends I love, and onsubjects which they, or my own inclinations, present. In that case, yourletters shall not be so long on my files unanswered, as sometimes theyhave been to my great mortification. 

To advert now to the subjects of those of December the 12th and 16th. Tracy's Commentaries on Montesquieu have never been published in theoriginal. Duane printed a translation from the original manuscript a fewyears ago. It sold, I believe, readily, and whether a copy can nowbe had, I doubt. If it can, you will receive it from my bookseller inPhiladelphia, to whom I now write for that purpose. Tracy comprehends, under the word 'Ideology' all the subjects which the French term_Morale_, as the correlative to _Physique_, His works on Logic, Government, Political Economy, and Morality, he considers as making upthe circle of ideological subjects, or of those which are within thescope of the understanding, and not of the senses. His Logic occupiesexactly the ground of Locke's work on the Understanding. The translationof that on Political Economy is now printing; but it is no translationof mine. I have only had the correction of it, which was, indeed, verylaborious. _Le premier jet_ having been by some one who understoodneither French nor English, it was impossible to make it more thanfaithful. But it is a valuable work. 

The result of your fifty or sixty years of religious reading in the fourwords, 'Be just and good, ' is that in which all our inquiries must end;as the riddles of all the priesthoods end in four more, '_Ubi panis, ibideus_. ' What all agree in, is probably right; what no two agree in, mostprobably wrong. One of our fan-coloring biographers, who paints smallmen as very great, inquired of me lately, with real affection too, whether he might consider as authentic, the change in my religion muchspoken of in some circles. Now this supposed that they knew what hadbeen my religion before, taking for it the word of their priests, whomI certainly never made the confidants of my creed. My answer was, 'Saynothing of my religion. It is known to my God and myself alone. Itsevidence before the world is to be sought in my life; if that has beenhonest and dutiful to society, the religion which has regulated itcannot be a bad one. ' Affectionately adieu. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CXL. --TO JOHN ADAMS, May 5, 1817

TO JOHN ADAMS. 

Monticello, May 5, 1817. 

Dear Sir, Absences and avocations had prevented my acknowledging your favor ofFebruary the 2nd, when that of April the 19th arrived. I had not thepleasure of receiving the former by the hands of Mr. Lyman. His businessprobably carried him in another direction; for I am far inland, anddistant from the great line of communication between the trading cities. Your recommendations are always welcome, for, indeed, the subjects ofthem always merit that welcome, and some of them in an extraordinarydegree. They make us acquainted with what there is excellent in ourancient sister State of Massachusetts, once venerated and beloved, and still hanging on our hopes, for what need we despair of after theresurrection of Connecticut to light and liberality. I had believed thatthe last retreat of monkish darkness, bigotry, and abhorrence of thoseadvances of the mind which had carried the other States a century aheadof them. They seemed still to be exactly where their forefathers werewhen they schismatized from the covenant of works, and to consider asdangerous heresies all innovations good or bad. I join you, therefore, in sincere congratulations that this den of the priesthood is at lengthbroken up, and that a Protestant Popedom is no longer to disgrace theAmerican history and character. If by religion, we are to understandsectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your exclamationon that hypothesis is just, 'that this would be the best of all possibleworlds, if there were no religion in it. ' But if the moral precepts, innate in man, and made a part of his physical constitution, asnecessary for a social being, if the sublime doctrines of philanthropismand deism taught us by Jesus of Nazareth, in which all agree, constitutetrue religion, then, without it, this would be, as you again say, 'something not fit to be named, even indeed, a hell. '

You certainly acted wisely in taking no notice of what the malice ofPickering could say of you. Were such things to be answered, our liveswould be wasted in the filth of fendings and provings, instead ofbeing employed in promoting the happiness and prosperity of ourfellow-citizens. The tenor of your life is the proper and sufficientanswer. It is fortunate for those in public trust, that posterity willjudge them by their works, and not by the malignant vituperations andinvectives of the Pickerings and Gardiners of their age. After all, menof energy of character must have enemies; because there are two sidesto every question, and taking one with decision, and acting on it witheffect, those who take the other will of course be hostile in proportionas they feel that effect. Thus, in the Revolution, Hancock and theAdamses were the raw-head and bloody bones of tories and traitors; whoyet knew nothing of you personally but what was good. I do not entertainyour apprehensions for the happiness of our brother Madison in a stateof retirement. Such a mind as his, fraught with information and withmatter for reflection, can never know _ennui_. Besides, there willalways be work enough cut out for him to continue his active usefulnessto his country. For example, he and Monroe (the President) are nowhere on the work of a collegiate institution to be established in ourneighborhood, of which they and myself are three of six Visitors. This, if it succeeds, will raise up children for Mr. Madison to employ hisattention through life. I say, if it succeeds; for we have two veryessential wants in our way: 1. Means to compass our views; and 2. Menqualified to fulfil them. And these you will agree are essential wantsindeed. 

I am glad to find you have a copy of Sismondi, because his is a fieldfamiliar to you, and on which you can judge him. His work is highlypraised, but I have not yet read it. I have been occupied and delightedwith reading another work, the title of which did not promise muchuseful information or amusement, '_L'Italia avanti il Dominio delRomani, dal Micali_. It has often, you know, been a subject of regretthat Carthage had no writer to give her side of her own history, while her wealth, power, and splendor prove she must have had a verydistinguished policy and government. Micali has given the counterpartof the Roman history, for the nations over which they extended theirdominion. For this he has gleaned up matter from every quarter, andfurnished materials for reflection and digestion to those who, thinkingas they read, have perceived that there was a great deal of matterbehind the curtain, could that be fully withdrawn. He certainly givesnew views of a nation whose splendor has masked and palliated theirbarbarous ambition. I am now reading Botta's History of our ownRevolution. Bating the ancient practice which he has adopted, of puttingspeeches into mouths which never made them, and fancying motives ofaction which we never felt, he has given that history with more detail, precision, and candor, than any writer I have yet met with. It is, to besure, compiled from those writers; but it is a good secretion of theirmatter, the pure from the impure, and presented in a just sense ofright, in opposition to usurpation. 

Accept assurances for Mrs. Adams and yourself of my affectionate esteemand respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CXLI. --TO MARQUIS DE LA FAYETTE, May 14, 1817

TO MARQUIS DE LA FAYETTE. 

Monticello, May 14, 1817. 

Although, Dear Sir, much retired from the world, and meddling little inits concerns, yet I think it almost a religious duty to salute at timesmy old friends, were it only to say and to know that 'all's well. 'Our hobby has been politics; but all here is so quiet, and with you sodesperate, that little matter is furnished us for active attention. Withyou too, it has long been forbidden ground, and therefore imprudentfor a foreign friend to tread, in writing to you. But although ourspeculations might be intrusive, our prayers cannot but be acceptable, and mine are sincerely offered for the well-being of France. Whatgovernment she can bear, depends not on the state of science, howeverexalted, in a select band of enlightened men, but on the condition ofthe general mind. That, I am sure, is advanced and will advance, andthe last change of government was fortunate, inasmuch as the new will beless obstructive to the effects of that advancement. For I consider yourforeign military oppression as an ephemeral obstacle only. 

Here all is quiet. The British war has left us in debt; but that isa cheap price for the good it has done us. The establishment of thenecessary manufactures among ourselves, the proof that our government issolid, can stand the shock of war, and is superior even to civil schism, are precious facts for us; and of these the strongest proofs werefurnished, when, with four eastern States tied to us, as dead to livingbodies, all doubt was removed as to the achievements of the war, hadit continued. But its best effect has been the complete suppression ofparty. The federalists who were truly American, and their great mass wasso, have separated from their brethren who were mere Anglomen, and arereceived with cordiality into the republican ranks. Even Connecticut, as a State, and the last one expected to yield its steady habits (whichwere essentially bigoted in politics as well as religion), has chosena republican governor, and republican legislature. Massachusetts indeedstill lags; because most deeply involved in the parricide crimes andtreasons of the war. But her gangrene is contracting, the sound fleshadvancing on it, and all there will be well. I mentioned Connecticutas the most hopeless of our States. Little Delaware had escaped myattention. That is essentially a Quaker State, the fragment of areligious sect which, there, in the other States, in England, are ahomogeneous mass, acting with one mind, and that directed by the mothersociety in England. Dispersed, as the Jews, they still form, as thosedo, one nation, foreign to the land they live in. They are ProtestantJesuits, implicitly devoted to the will of their superior, andforgetting all duties to their country in the execution of the policyof their order. When war is proposed with England, they have religiousscruples; but when with France, these are laid by, and they becomeclamorous for it. They are, however, silent, passive, and give no othertrouble than of whipping them along. Nor is the election of Monroe aninefficient circumstance in our felicities. Four and twenty years, which he will accomplish, of administration in republican forms andprinciples, will so consecrate them in the eyes of the people asto secure them against the danger of change. The evanition of partydissensions has harmonized intercourse, and sweetened society beyondimagination. The war then has done us all this good, and the further oneof assuring the world, that although attached to peace from a sense ofits blessings, we will meet war when it is made necessary. 

I wish I could give better hopes of our southern brethren. Theachievement of their independence of Spain is no longer a question. Butit is a very serious one, what will then become of them. Ignorance andbigotry, like other insanities, are incapable of self-government. Theywill fall under military despotisms, and become the murderous tools ofthe ambition of their respective Bonapartes; and whether this will befor their greater happiness, the rule of one only has taught you tojudge. No one, I hope, can doubt my wish to see them and all mankindexercising self-government, and capable of exercising it. But thequestion is not what we wish, but what is practicable. As their sincerefriend and brother, then, I do believe the best thing for them, would befor themselves to come to an accord with Spain, under the guaranteeof France, Russia, Holland, and the United States, allowing to Spaina nominal supremacy, with authority only to keep the peace among them, leaving them otherwise all the powers of self-government, untiltheir experience in them, their emancipation from their priests, and advancement in information, shall prepare them for completeindependence. I exclude England from this confederacy, because herselfish principles render her incapable of honorable patronage ordisinterested co-operation: unless, indeed, what seems now probable, arevolution, should restore to her an honest government, one which willpermit the world to live in peace. Portugal grasping at an extensionof her dominion in the south, has lost her great northern province ofPernambuco, and I shall not wonder if Brazil should revolt in mass, andsend their royal family back to Portugal, Brazil is more populous, morewealthy, more energetic, and as wise as Portugal. I have been insensiblyled, my dear friend, while writing to you, to indulge in that line ofsentiment in which we have been always associated, forgetting that theseare matters not belonging to my time. Not so with you, who have stillmany years to be a spectator of these events. That these years mayindeed be many and happy, is the sincere prayer of your affectionatefriend. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CXLII. --TO ALBERT GALLATIN, June 16, 1817

TO ALBERT GALLATIN. 

Monticello, June 16, 1817. 

Dear Sir, The importance that the enclosed letters should safely reach theirdestination, impels me to avail myself of the protection of your cover. This is an inconvenience to which your situation exposes you, while itadds to the opportunities of exercising yourself in works of charity. 

According to the opinion I hazarded to you a little before yourdeparture, we have had almost an entire change in the body of Congress. The unpopularity of the compensation law was completed, by the manner ofrepealing it as to all the world except themselves. In some States, itis said, every member is changed; in all, many. What opposition therewas to the original law, was chiefly from southern members. Yet many ofthose have been left out, because they received the advanced wages. Ihave never known so unanimous a sentiment of disapprobation; and whatis remarkable, is, that it was spontaneous. The newspapers were almostentirely silent, and the people not only unled by their leaders, but inopposition to them. I confess I was highly pleased with this proofof the innate good sense, the vigilance, and the determination of thepeople to act for themselves. 

Among the laws of the late Congress, some were of note: a navigationact, particularly, applicable to those nations only who have navigationacts; pinching one of them especially, not only in the general way, butin the intercourse with her foreign possessions. This part may re-acton us, and it remains for trial which may bear longest. A law respectingour conduct as a neutral between Spain and her contending colonies, was passed by a majority of one only, I believe, and against thevery general sentiment of our country. It is thought to strain ourcomplaisance to Spain beyond her right or merit, and almost against theright of the other party, and certainly against the claims they have toour good wishes and neighborly relations. That we should wish to seethe people of other countries free, is as natural, and at least asjustifiable, as that one King should wish to see the Kings of othercountries maintained in their despotism. Right to both parties, innocentfavor to the juster cause, is our proper sentiment. 

You will have learned that an act for internal improvement, afterpassing both houses, was negatived by the President. The act wasfounded, avowedly, on the principle that the phrase in the constitution, which authorizes Congress 'to lay taxes, to pay the debts and providefor the general welfare, ' was an extension of the powers specificallyenumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, you know, was the federal doctrine. Whereas, our tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only land-mark which now divides thefederalists from the republicans, that Congress had not unlimitedpowers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to thosespecifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they shouldprovide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposeswhich the enumeration did not place under their action: consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes forwhich they may raise money. I think the passage and rejection of thisbill a fortunate incident. Every State will certainly concede the power;and this will be a national confirmation of the grounds of appeal tothem, and will settle for ever the meaning of this phrase, which, by amere grammatical quibble, has countenanced the General Government in aclaim of universal power. For in the phrase, 'to lay taxes, to pay thedebts and provide for the general welfare, ' it is a mere question ofsyntax, whether the two last infinitives are governed by the first, orare distinct and co-ordinate powers; a question unequivocally decidedby the exact definition of powers immediately following. It is fortunatefor another reason, as the States, in conceding the power, will modifyit, either by requiring the federal ratio of expense in each State, orotherwise, so as to secure us against its partial exercise. Without thiscaution, intrigue, negotiation, and the barter of votes might become ashabitual in Congress, as they are in those legislatures which have theappointment of officers, and which, with us, is called 'logging, ' theterm of the farmers for their exchanges of aid in rolling together thelogs of their newly cleared grounds. Three of our papers have presentedus the copy of an act of the legislature of New York, which, if it hasreally passed, will carry us back to the times of the darkest bigotryand barbarism to find a parallel. Its purport is, that all those whoshall hereafter join in communion with the religious sect of ShakingQuakers, shall be deemed civilly dead, their marriages dissolved, andall their children and property taken out of their hands. This act beingpublished nakedly in the papers, without the usual signatures, or anyhistory of the circumstances of its passage, I am not without a hope itmay have been a mere abortive attempt. It contrasts singularly with acotemporary vote of the Pennsylvania legislature, who, on a propositionto make the belief in a God a necessary qualification for office, rejected it by a great majority, although assuredly there was not asingle atheist in their body. And you remember to have heard, that, whenthe act for religious freedom was before the Virginia Assembly, a motionto insert the name of Jesus Christ before the phrase, 'the author of ourholy religion, ' which stood in the bill, was rejected, although that wasthe creed of a great majority of them. 

I have been charmed to see that a Presidential election now producesscarcely any agitation. On Mr. Madison's election there was little, onMonroe's all but none. In Mr. Adams's time and mine, parties were sonearly balanced as to make the struggle fearful for our peace. But sincethe decided ascendancy of the republican body, federalism has lookedon with silent but unresisting anguish. In the middle, southern, andwestern States, it is as low as it ever can be; for nature has made somemen monarchists and tories by their constitution, and some, of course, there always will be. 

*****

We have had a remarkably cold winter. At Hallowell, in Maine, themercury was at thirty-four degrees below zero, of Fahrenheit, which issixteen degrees lower than it was in Paris in 1788-9. Here it was at sixdegrees above zero, which is our greatest degree of cold. 

Present me respectfully to Mrs. Gallatin, and be assured of my constantand affectionate friendship. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CXLIII. --TO JOHN ADAMS, May 17, 1818

TO JOHN ADAMS. 

Monticello, May 17, 1818. 

Dear Sir, I was so unfortunate as not to receive from Mr. Holly's own hand yourfavor of January the 28th, being then at my other home. He dined onlywith my family, and left them with an impression which has filled mewith regret that I did not partake of the pleasure his visit gave them. I am glad he is gone to Kentucky. Rational Christianity will thrive morerapidly there than here. They are freer from prejudices than we are, andbolder in grasping at truth. The time is not distant, though neither younor I shall see it, when we shall be but a secondary people to them. Ourgreediness for wealth, and fantastical expense have degraded, and willdegrade, the minds of our maritime citizens. These are the peculiarvices of commerce. 

I had been long without hearing from you, but I had heard of youthrough a letter from Doctor Waterhouse. He wrote to reclaim againstan expression of Mr. Wirt's, as to the commencement of motion inthe revolutionary ball. The lawyers say that words are always to beexpounded _secundum subjectam materiem_, which, in Mr. Wirt's case, wasVirginia. It would, moreover, be as difficult to say at what momentthe Revolution began, and what incident set it in motion, as to fix themoment that the embryo becomes an animal, or the act which gives hima beginning. But the most agreeable part of his letter was that whichinformed me of your health, your activity, and strength of memory;and the most wonderful, that which assured me that you retained yourindustry and promptness in epistolary correspondence. Here you haveentire advantage over me. My repugnance to the writing-table becomesdaily and hourly more deadly and insurmountable. In place of this hascome on a canine appetite for reading. And I indulge it, because I seein it a relief against the _tædium senectutis_; a lamp to lighten mypath through the dreary wilderness of time before me, whose bourne I seenot. Losing daily all interest in the things around us, something elseis necessary to fill the void. With me it is reading, which occupies themind without the labor of producing ideas from my own stock. 

I enter into all your doubts as to the event of the revolution of SouthAmerica. They will succeed against Spain. But the dangerous enemy iswithin their own breasts. Ignorance and superstition will chain theirminds and bodies under religious and military despotism. I do believe itwould be better for them to obtain freedom by degrees only; because thatwould by degrees bring on light and information, and qualify them totake charge of themselves understanding; with more certainty, if, inthe mean time, under so much control as may keep them at peace withone another. Surely, it is our duty to wish them independence andself-government, because they wish it themselves, and they have theright, and we none, to choose for themselves: and I wish, moreover, thatour ideas may be erroneous, and theirs prove well-founded. But these arespeculations, my friend, which we may as well deliver over to those whoare to see their developement. We shall only be lookers on, from theclouds above, as now we look down on the labors, the hurry, and bustleof the ants and bees. Perhaps, in that super-mundane region, we maybe amused with seeing the fallacy of our own guesses, and even thenothingness of those labors which have filled and agitated our own timehere. 

_En attendant_, with sincere affections to Mrs. Adams and yourself, Isalute you both cordially. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CXLIV. --TO JOHN ADAMS, November 13, 1818

TO JOHN ADAMS. 

Monticello, November 13, 1818. 

The public papers, my dear friend, announce the fatal event of whichyour letter of October the 20th had given me ominous foreboding. Tried myself in the school of affliction, by the loss of every form ofconnection which can rive the human heart, I know well, and feel whatyou have lost, what you have suffered, are suffering, and have yet toendure. The same trials have taught me that, for ills so immeasurable, time and silence are the only medicine. I will not, therefore, byuseless condolences, open afresh the sluices of your grief, nor, although mingling sincerely my tears with yours, will I say a word morewhere words are vain, but that it is of some comfort to us both, thatthe term is not very distant, at which we are to deposit in the samecerement our sorrows and suffering bodies, and to ascend in essence toan ecstatic meeting with the friends we have loved and lost, and whom weshall still love, and never lose again. God bless you, and support youunder your heavy affliction. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CXLV. --TO ROBERT WALSH, December 4, 1818

TO ROBERT WALSH. 

Monticello, December 4, 1818. 

Dear Sir, Yours of November the 8th has been some time received; but it is in mypower to give little satisfaction as to its inquiries. Dr. Franklin hadmany political enemies, as every character must, which, with decisionenough to have opinions, has energy and talent to give them effect onthe feelings of the adversary opinion. These enmities were chiefly inPennsylvania and Massachusetts. In the former, they were merely ofthe proprietary party. In the latter, they did not commence till theRevolution, and then sprung chiefly from personal animosities, which, spreading by little and little, became at length of some extent. Dr. Lee was his principal calumniator, a man of much malignity, who, besidesenlisting his whole family in the same hostility, was enabled, as theagent of Massachusetts with the British government, to infuse it intothat State with considerable effect. Mr. Izard, the Doctor's enemyalso, but from a pecuniary transaction, never countenanced these chargesagainst him. Mr. Jay, Silas Deane, Mr. Laurens, his colleagues also, ever maintained towards him unlimited confidence and respect. That hewould have waived the formal recognition of our independence, I neverheard on any authority worthy notice. As to the fisheries, England wasurgent to retain them exclusively, France neutral, and I believe, thathad they been ultimately made a _sine qua non_, our commissioners (Mr. Adams excepted) would have relinquished them, rather than have brokenoff the treaty. To Mr. Adams's perseverance alone, on that point, Ihave always understood we were indebted for their reservation. As to thecharge of subservience to France, besides the evidence of his friendlycolleagues before named, two years of my own service with him at Paris, daily visits, and the most friendly and confidential conversations, convince me it had not a shadow of foundation. He possessed theconfidence of that government in the highest degree, insomuch, thatit may truly be said, that they were more under his influence, thanhe under theirs. The fact is, that his temper was so amiable andconciliatory, his conduct so rational, never urging impossibilities, oreven things unreasonably inconvenient to them, in short, so moderateand attentive to their difficulties, as well as our own, that what hisenemies called subserviency, I saw was only that reasonable disposition, which, sensible that advantages are not all to be on one side, yieldingwhat is just and liberal, is the more certain of obtaining liberalityand justice. Mutual confidence produces, of course, mutual influence, and this was all which subsisted between Dr. Franklin and the governmentof France. 

I state a few anecdotes of Dr. Franklin, within my own knowledge, toomuch in detail for the scale of Delaplaine's work, but which may find acadre in some of the more particular views you contemplate. My health isin a great measure restored, and our family join with me in affectionaterecollections and assurances of respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CXLVI. --TO M. DE NEUVILLE, December 13, 1818

TO M. DE NEUVILLE. 

Monticello, December 13, 1818. 

I thank your Excellency for the notice with which your letters favor me, of the liberation of France from the occupation of the allied powers. Tono one, not a native, will it give more pleasure. In the desolation ofEurope, to gratify the atrocious caprices of Bonaparte, France sinnedmuch: but she has suffered more than retaliation. Once relieved fromthe incubus of her late oppression, she will rise like a giant fromher slumbers. Her soil and climate, her arts and eminent science, hercentral position and free constitution, will soon make her greater thanshe ever was. And I am a false prophet if she does not, at some futureday, remind of her sufferings those who have inflicted them the mosteagerly. I hope, however, she will be quiet for the present, and riskno new troubles. Her constitution, as now amended, gives as much ofself-government as perhaps she can yet bear, and will give more, whenthe habits of order shall have prepared her to receive more. Besides thegratitude which every American owes her, as our sole ally during thewar of independence, I am additionally affectioned by the friendshipsI contracted there, by the good dispositions I witnessed, and by thecourtesies I received. 

I rejoice, as a moralist, at the prospect of a reduction of the dutieson wine, by our national legislature. It is an error to view a tax onthat liquor as merely a tax on the rich. It is a prohibition of its useto the middling class of our citizens, and a condemnation of them tothe poison of whiskey, which is desolating their houses. No nation isdrunken where wine is cheap; and none sober, where the dearness of winesubstitutes ardent spirits as the common beverage. It is, in truth, theonly antidote to the bane of whiskey. Fix but the duty at the rate ofother merchandise, and we can drink wine here as cheap as we do grog:and who will not prefer it? Its extended use will carry health andcomfort to a much enlarged circle. Every one in easy circumstances (asthe bulk of our citizens are) will prefer it to the poison to which theyare now driven by their government. And the treasury itself will findthat a penny a piece from a dozen, is more than a groat from a singleone. This reformation, however, will require time. Our merchants knownothing of the infinite variety of cheap and good wines to be had inEurope; and particularly in France, in Italy, and the Grecian islands:as they know little, also, of the variety of excellent manufactures andcomforts to be had any where out of England. Nor will these things beknown, nor of course called for here, until the native merchants ofthose countries, to whom they are known, shall bring them forward, exhibit, and vend them at the moderate profits they can afford. Thisalone will procure them familiarity with us, and the preference theymerit in competition with corresponding articles now in use. 

Our family renew with pleasure their recollections of your kind visitto Monticello, and join me in tendering sincere assurances of thegratification it afforded us, and of our great esteem and respectfulconsideration. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CXLVII. --TO DOCTOR VINE UTLEY, March 21, 1819

TO DOCTOR VINE UTLEY. 

Monticello, March 21, 1819. 

Sir, Your letter of February the 18th came to hand on the 1st instant; andthe request of the history of my physical habits would have puzzled menot a little, had it not been for the model with which you accompaniedit, of Doctor Rush's answer to a similar inquiry. I live so much likeother people, that I might refer to ordinary life as the history of myown. Like my friend the Doctor, I have lived temperately, eating littleanimal food, and that not as an aliment, so much as a condiment for thevegetables, which constitute my principal diet. I double, however, theDoctor's glass and a half of wine, and even treble it with a friend;but halve its effect by drinking the weak wines only. The ardent wines Icannot drink, nor do I use ardent spirits in any form. Malt liquorsand cider are my table drinks, and my breakfast, like that also ofmy friend, is of tea and coffee. I have been blest with organs ofdigestion, which accept and concoct, without ever murmuring, whateverthe palate chooses to consign to them, and I have not yet lost a toothby age. I was a hard student until I entered on the business of life, the duties of which leave no idle time to those disposed to fulfilthem; and now, retired, and at the age of seventy-six, I am again a hardstudent. Indeed my fondness for reading and study revolts me from thedrudgery of letter-writing. And a stiff wrist, the consequence of anearly dislocation, makes writing both slow and painful. I am not soregular in my sleep as the Doctor says he was, devoting to it fromfive to eight hours, according as my company or the book I am readinginterests me; and I never go to bed without an hour, or half hour'sprevious reading of something moral, whereon to ruminate in theintervals of sleep. But whether I retire to bed early or late, I risewith the sun. I use spectacles at night, but not necessarily in theday, unless in reading small print. My hearing is distinct in particularconversation, but confused when several voices cross each other, whichunfits me for the society of the table. I have been more fortunate thanmy friend in the article of health. So free from catarrhs that I havenot had one (in the breast, I mean) on an average of eight or ten yearsthrough life. I ascribe this exemption partly to the habit of bathing myfeet in cold water every morning for sixty years past. A fever of morethan twenty-four hours I have not had above two or three times in mylife. A periodical headache has afflicted me occasionally, once, perhaps, in six or eight years, for two or three weeks at a time, which seemsnow to have left me; and, except on a late occasion of indisposition, Ienjoy good health; too feeble, indeed, to walk much, but riding withoutfatigue six or eight miles a day, and sometimes thirty or forty. I mayend these egotisms, therefore, as I began, by saying that my life hasbeen so much like that of other people, that I might say with Horace, to every one, '_Nomine mutato, narratur fabula de te_. ' I must not end, however, without due thanks for the kind sentiments of regard you areso good as to express towards myself; and with my acknowledgments forthese, be pleased to accept the assurances of my respect and esteem. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CXLVIII. --TO JOHN ADAMS, July 9, 1819

TO JOHN ADAMS. 

Monticello, July 9, 1819. 

Dear Sir, I am in debt to you for your letters of May the 21st, 27th, and Junethe 22nd. The first, delivered me by Mr. Greenwood, gave me thegratification of his acquaintance; and a gratification it always is, tobe made acquainted with gentlemen of candor, worth, and information, asI found Mr. Greenwood to be. That, on the subject of Mr. Samuel AdamsWells, shall not be forgotten in time and place, when it can be used tohis advantage. 

But what has attracted my peculiar notice, is the paper from Mecklenburgcounty, of North Carolina, published in the Essex Register, which youwere so kind as to enclose in your last, of June the 22nd. And youseem to think it genuine. I believe it spurious. I deem it to be a veryunjustifiable quiz, like that of the volcano, so minutely related to usas having broken out in North Carolina, some half dozen years ago, in that part of the country, and perhaps in that very county ofMecklenburg, for I do not remember its precise locality. If this paperbe really taken from the Raleigh Register, as quoted, I wonder it shouldhave escaped Ritchie, who culls what is good from every paper, as thebee from every flower; and the National Intelligencer, too, which isedited by a North-Carolinian: and that the fire should blaze out all atonce in Essex, one thousand miles from where the spark is said tohave fallen. But if really taken from the Raleigh Register, who is thenarrator, and is the name subscribed real, or is it as fictitious as thepaper itself? It appeals, too, to an original book, which is burnt, toMr. Alexander, who is dead, to a joint letter from Caswell, Hughes, andHooper, all dead, to a copy sent to the dead Caswell, and another sentto Doctor Williamson, now probably dead, whose memory did not recollect, in the history he has written of North Carolina, this gigantic stepof its county of Mecklenburg. Horry, too, is silent in his history ofMarion, whose scene of action was the country bordering On Mecklenburg. Ramsay, Marshall, Jones, Girardin, Wirt, historians of the adjacentStates, all silent. When Mr. Henry's resolutions, far short ofindependence, flew like lightning through every paper, and kindled bothsides of the Atlantic, this flaming declaration of the same date, of theindependence of Mecklenburg county, of North Carolina, absolving it fromthe British allegiance, and abjuring all political connection with thatnation, although sent to Congress, too, is never heard of. It is notknown even a twelvemonth after, when a similar proposition is first madein that body. Armed with this bold example, would not you have addressedour timid brethren in peals of thunder, on their tardy fears? Wouldnot every advocate of independence have rung the glories of Mecklenburgcounty, in North Carolina, in the ears of the doubting Dickinson andothers, who hung so heavily on us? Yet the example of independentMecklenburg county, in North Carolina, was never once quoted. The paperspeaks, too, of the continued exertions of their delegation (Caswell, Hooper, Hughes, ) 'in the cause of liberty and independence. ' Now, youremember as well as I do, that we had not a greater tory in Congressthan Hooper; that Hughes was very wavering, sometimes firm, sometimesfeeble, according as the day was clear or cloudy; that Caswell, indeed, was a good whig, and kept these gentlemen to the notch, while he waspresent; but that he left us soon, and their line of conduct became thenuncertain until Penn came, who fixed Hughes, and the vote of the State. I must not be understood as suggesting any doubtfulness in the Stateof North Carolina. No State was more fixed or forward. Nor do I affirm, positively, that this paper is a fabrication: because the proof of anegative can only be presumptive. But I shall believe it such untilpositive and solemn proof of its authenticity shall be produced. And ifthe name of McKnitt be real, and not a part of the fabrication, it needsa vindication by the production of such proof. For the present, I mustbe an unbeliever in the apocryphal gospel. 

I am glad to learn that Mr. Ticknor has safely returned to his friends;but should have been much more pleased had he accepted the Professorshipin our University, which we should have offered him in form. Mr. Bowditch, too, refuses us; so fascinating is the _vinculum_ of the_dulce natale solum_. Our wish is to procure natives, where they can befound, like these gentlemen, of the first order of acquirement intheir respective lines; but preferring foreigners of the first order tonatives of the second, we shall certainly have to go, for several of ourProfessors, to countries more advanced in science than we are. 

I set out within three or four days for my other home, the distanceof which, and its cross mails, are great impediments to epistolarycommunications. I shall remain there about two months; and there, here, and every where, I am and shall always be, affectionately andrespectfully yours. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CXLIX. --TO JUDGE ROANE, September 6, 1819

TO JUDGE ROANE. 

Poplar Forest, September 6, 1819. 

Dear Sir, I had read in the Enquirer, and with great approbation, the piecessigned Hampden, and have read them again with redoubled approbation inthe copies you have been so kind as to send me. I subscribe to everytittle of them. They contain the true principles of the revolutionof 1800, for that was as real a revolution in the principles of ourgovernment as that of 1776 was in its form; not effected indeed by thesword, as that, but by the rational and peaceable instrument of reform, the suffrage of the people. The nation declared its will by dismissingfunctionaries of one principle, and electing those of another, in thetwo branches, executive and legislative, submitted to their election. Over the judiciary department, the constitution had deprived them oftheir control. That, therefore, has continued the reprobated system: andalthough new matter has been occasionally incorporated into the old, yetthe leaven of the old mass seems to assimilate to itself the new; andafter twenty years' confirmation of the federated system by the voiceof the nation, declared through the medium of elections, we find thejudiciary, on every occasion, still driving us into consolidation. 

In denying the right they usurp of exclusively explaining theconstitution, I go further than you do, if I understand rightly yourquotation from the Federalist, of an opinion that 'the judiciary is thelast resort in relation _to the other departments of the government_, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact underwhich the judiciary is derived. ' If this opinion be sound, then indeedis our constitution a complete _felo de se_. For intending to establishthree departments, co-ordinate and independent, that they might checkand balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to oneof them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of theothers, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent ofthe nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment ithas provided is not even a scare-crow; that such opinions as the oneyou combat, sent cautiously out, as you observe also, by detachment, notbelonging to the case often, but sought for out of it, as if to rallythe public opinion beforehand to their views, and to indicate the linethey are to walk in, have been so quietly passed over as never to haveexcited animadversion, even in a speech of any one of the body entrustedwith impeachment. The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thingof wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shapeinto any form they please. It should be remembered, as an axiom ofeternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government isindependent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while thespirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted no where but with the people in mass. Theyare inherently independent of all but moral law. My construction ofthe constitution is very different from that you quote. It is that eachdepartment is truly independent of the others, and has an equal right todecide for itself what is the meaning of the constitution in the casessubmitted to its action; and especially, where it is to act ultimatelyand without appeal. I will explain myself by examples, which, havingoccurred while I was in office, are better known to me, and theprinciples which governed them. 

A legislature had passed the sedition-law. The federal courtshad subjected certain individuals to its penalties, of fine andimprisonment. On coming into office, I released these individuals by thepower of pardon committed to executive discretion, which could never bemore properly exercised than where citizens were suffering without theauthority of law, or, which was equivalent, under a law unauthorizedby the constitution, and therefore null. In the case of Marbury andMadison, the federal judges declared that commissions, signed and sealedby the President, were valid, although not delivered. I deemed deliveryessential to complete a deed, which, as long as it remains in the handsof the party, is as yet no deed, it is in posse only, but not inesse, and I withheld delivery of the commissions. They cannot issue amandamus* to the President or legislature, or to any of their officers. When the British treaty of 180- arrived, without any provision againstthe impressment of our seamen, I determined not to ratify it. The Senatethought I should ask their advice. I thought that would be a mockery ofthem, when I was predetermined against following it, should they adviseits ratification. The constitution had made their advice necessary toconfirm a treaty, but not to reject it. This has been blamed by some;but I have never doubted its soundness. In the cases of two persons, antenati, under exactly similar circumstances, the federal court haddetermined that one of them (Duane) was not a citizen; the House ofRepresentatives nevertheless determined that the other (Smith of SouthCarolina) was a citizen, and admitted him to his seat in their body. Duane was a republican, and Smith a federalist, and these decisions wereduring the federal ascendancy. 

 * The constitution controlling the common law in this particular. 

These are examples of my position, that each of the three departmentshas equally the right to decide for itself what is its duty under theconstitution, without any regard to what the others may have decidedfor themselves under a similar question. But you intimate a wish that myopinion should be known on this subject. No, dear Sir, I withdrawfrom all contests of opinion, and resign every thing cheerfully tothe generation now in place. They are wiser than we were, and theirsuccessors will be wiser than they, from the progressive advance ofscience. Tranquillity is the _summum bonum_ of age. I wish, therefore, to offend no man's opinions, nor to draw disquieting animadversionson my own. While duty required it, I met opposition with a firm andfearless step. But, loving mankind in my individual relations withthem, I pray to be permitted to depart in their peace; and like thesuperannuated soldier, '_quadragenis stipendiis emeritis_'to hang myarms on the post. I have unwisely, I fear, embarked in an enterprise ofgreat public concern, but not to be accomplished within my term, withouttheir liberal and prompt support. A severe illness the last year andanother from which I am just emerged, admonish me that repetitions maybe expected, against which a declining frame cannot long bear up. I amanxious therefore to get our University so far advanced as may encouragethe public to persevere to its final accomplishment. That secured, Ishall sing my _Nunc demittas_. I hope your labors will be long continuedin the spirit in which they have always been exercised, in maintenanceof those principles on which I verily believe the future happiness ofour country essentially depends. I salute you with affectionate andgreat respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CL. --TO JOHN ADAMS, December 10, 1819

TO JOHN ADAMS. 

Monticello, December 10, 1819. 

Dear Sir, I have to acknowledge the receipt of your favor of November the 23rd. The banks, bankrupt-law, manufacturers, Spanish treaty, are nothing. These are occurrences which, like waves in a storm, will pass underthe ship. But the Missouri question is a breaker on which we lose theMissouri country by revolt, and what more, God only knows. From thebattle of Bunker's Hill to the treaty of Paris, we never had so ominousa question. It even damps the joy with which I hear of your high health, and welcomes to me the consequences of my want of it. I thank God that Ishall not live to witness its issue. _Sed hæc hactenus_. 

I have been amusing myself latterly with reading the voluminous lettersof Cicero. They certainly breathe the purest effusions of an exaltedpatriot, while the parricide Caesar is lost in odious contrast. When theenthusiasm, however, kindled by Cicero's pen and principles, subsidesinto cool reflection, I ask myself, What was that government which thevirtues of Cicero were so zealous to restore, and the ambition of Caesarto subvert? And if Caesar had been as virtuous as he was daring andsagacious, what could he, even in the plenitude of his usurped power, have done to lead his fellow-citizens into good government? I do not sayto restore it, because they never had it, from the rape of the Sabinesto the ravages of the Caesars. If their people indeed had been, likeourselves, enlightened, peaceable, and really free, the answer would beobvious. 'Restore independence to all your foreign conquests, relieveItaly from the government of the rabble of Rome, consult it as anation entitled to self-government, and do its will. ' But steeped incorruption, vice, and venality, as the whole nation was, (and nobodyhad done more than Caesar to corrupt it, ) what could even Cicero, Cato, Brutus, have done, had it been referred to them to establish agood government for their country? They had no ideas of governmentthemselves, but of their degenerate Senate, nor the people of liberty, but of the factious opposition of their tribunes. They had afterwardstheir Tituses, their Trajans, and Antoninuses, who had the will to makethem happy, and the power to mould their government into a good andpermanent form. But it would seem as if they could not see their wayclearly to do it. No government can continue good, but under the controlof the people; and their people were so demoralized and depraved, as tobe incapable of exercising a wholesome control. Their reformation thenwas to be taken up _ab incunabulis_. Their minds were to be informed byeducation what is right and what wrong; to be encouraged in habits ofvirtue, and deterred from those of vice, by the dread of punishments, proportioned indeed, but irremissible; in all cases, to follow truthas the only safe guide, and to eschew error, which bewilders us in onefalse consequence after another, in endless succession. These arethe inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for thestructure of order and good government. But this would have been anoperation of a generation or two, at least, within which period wouldhave succeeded many Neros and Commoduses, who would have quashed thewhole process. I confess then, I can neither see what Cicero, Cato, andBrutus, united and uncontrolled, could have devised to lead their peopleinto good government, nor how this enigma can be solved, nor how furthershown why it has been the fate of that delightful country never to haveknown, to this day, and through a course of five and twenty hundredyears, the history of which we possess, one single day of free andrational government. Your intimacy with their history, ancient, middle, and modern, your familiarity with the improvements in the science ofgovernment at this time, will enable you, if any body, to go back withour principles and opinions to the limes of Cicero, Cato, and Brutus, and tell us by what process these great and virtuous men could have ledso unenlightened and vitiated a people into freedom and good government, _et eris mihi magnus Apollo. Cura ut valeas, et tibi persuadeascarissimum te mihi esse_. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CLI. --TO WILLIAM SHORT, April 13, 1820

TO WILLIAM SHORT. 

Monticello, April 13, 1820. 

Dear Sir, Your favor of March the 27th is received, and, as you request, a copy ofthe syllabus is now enclosed. It was originally written to Dr. Rush. Onhis death, fearing that the inquisition of the public might get hold ofit, I asked the return of it from the family, which they kindly compliedwith. At the request of another friend, I had given him a copy. He lentit to his friend to read, who copied it, and in a few months it appearedin the Theological Magazine of London. Happily that repository isscarcely known in this country; and the syllabus, therefore, is still asecret, and in your hands I am sure it will continue so. 

But while this syllabus is meant to place the character of Jesus in itstrue and high light, as no impostor himself, but a great reformer of theHebrew code of religion, it is not to be understood that I am withhim in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side ofSpiritualism: he preaches the efficacy of repentance towards forgivenessof sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it, &c. &c. Itis the innocence of his character, the purity and sublimity of his moralprecepts, the eloquence of his inculcations, the beauty of the apologuesin which he conveys them, that I so much admire; sometimes, indeed, needing indulgence to eastern hyperbolism. My eulogies, too, may befounded on a postulate which all may not be ready to grant. Among thesayings and discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find manypassages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovelybenevolence; and others again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce itimpossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the samebeing. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore to himthe former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and rogueryof others of his disciples. Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paulwas the great Coryphæus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus. These palpable interpolations and falsifications of his doctrines led meto try to sift them apart. I found the work obvious and easy, and thathis part composed the most beautiful morsel of morality which has beengiven to us by man. The syllabus is therefore of his doctrine, notall of mine: I read them as I do those of other ancient and modernmoralists, with a mixture of approbation and dissent. 

I rejoice, with you, to see an encouraging spirit of internalimprovement prevailing in the States. The opinion I have ever expressedof the advantages of a western communication through the James River, Istill entertain; and that the Cayuga is the most promising of the linksof communication. 

The history of our University you know so far. Seven of the tenpavilions destined for the Professors, and about thirty dormitories, will be completed this year, and three others, with six hotels forboarding, and seventy other dormitories, will be completed the nextyear, and the whole be in readiness then to receive those who are tooccupy them. But means to bring these into place, and to set the machineinto motion, must come from the legislature. An opposition, in the meantime, has been got up. That of our alma mater, William and Mary, is notof much weight. She must descend into the secondary rank of academies ofpreparation for the University. The serious enemies are the priests ofthe different religious sects, to whose spells on the human mindits improvement is ominous. Their pulpits are now resounding withdenunciations against the appointment of Doctor Cooper, whom they chargeas a monotheist in opposition to their tritheism. Hostile as these sectsare, in every other point, to one another, they unite in maintainingtheir mystical theogony against those who believe there is one God only. The Presbyterian clergy are loudest; the most intolerant of all sects, the most tyrannical and ambitious; ready at the word of the lawgiver, ifsuch a word could be now obtained, to put the torch to the pile, andto rekindle in this virgin hemisphere the flames in which their oracleCalvin consumed the poor Servetus, because, he could not find in hisEuclid the proposition which has demonstrated that three are one, andone is three, nor subscribe to that of Calvin, that magistrates havea right to exterminate all heretics to Calvinistic creed. They pant tore-establish, by law, that holy inquisition, which they can now onlyinfuse into public opinion. We have most unwisely committed to thehierophants of our particular superstition the direction of publicopinion, that lord of the universe. We have given them stated andprivileged days to collect and catechize us, opportunities of deliveringtheir oracles to the people in mass, and of moulding their minds aswax in the hollow of their hands. But in despite of their fulminationsagainst endeavors to enlighten the general mind, to improve the reasonof the people, and encourage them in the use of it, the liberality ofthis State will support this institution, and give fair play to thecultivation of reason. Can you ever find a more eligible occasion ofvisiting once more your native country, than that of accompanying Mr. Correa, and of seeing with him this beautiful and hopeful institution_in ovo_. 

Although I had laid down as a law to myself, never to write, talk, oreven think of politics, to know nothing of public affairs, and thereforehad ceased to read newspapers, yet the Missouri question arousedand filled me with alarm. The old schism of federal and republicanthreatened nothing, because it existed in every State, and united themtogether by the fraternism of party. But the coincidence of a markedprinciple, moral and political, with a geographical line, onceconceived, I feared would never more be obliterated from the mind; thatit would be recurring on every occasion, and renewing irritations, untilit would kindle such mutual and mortal hatred, as to render separationpreferable to eternal discord. I have been among the most sanguine inbelieving that our Union would be of long duration. I now doubt it much, and see the event at no great distance, and the direct consequence ofthis question: not by the line which has been so confidently counted on;the laws of nature control this; but by the Potomac, Ohio, and Missouri, or more probably, the Mississippi upwards to our northern boundary. Myonly comfort and confidence is, that I shall not live to see this; and Ienvy not the present generation the glory of throwing away the fruits oftheir fathers' sacrifices of life and fortune, and of rendering desperatethe experiment which was to decide ultimately whether man is capable ofself-government. This treason against human hope will signalize theirepoch in future history, as the counterpart of the medal of theirpredecessors. 

You kindly inquire after my health. There is nothing in it immediatelythreatening, but swelled legs, which are kept down mechanically, bybandages from the toe to the knee. These I have worn for six months. Butthe tendency to turgidity may proceed from debility alone. I can walkthe round of my garden; not more. But I ride six or eight miles a daywithout fatigue. I shall set out for Poplar Forest within three or fourdays; a journey from which my physician augurs much good. 

I salute you with constant and affectionate friendship and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CLII. --TO JOHN HOLMES, April 22, 1820

TO JOHN HOLMES. 

Monticello, April 22, 1820. 

I thank you, dear Sir, for the copy you have been so kind as to sendme of the letter to your constituents on the Missouri question. It isa perfect justification to them. I had for a long time ceased to readnewspapers, or pay any attention to public affairs, confident they werein good hands, and content to be a passenger in our bark to the shorefrom which I am not distant. But this momentous question, like afire-bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I consideredit at once as the knell of the Union. It is hushed, indeed, forthe moment. But this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence. Ageographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral andpolitical, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, willnever be obliterated; and every new irritation will mark it deeper anddeeper. I can say, with conscious truth, that there is not a man onearth who would sacrifice more than I would to relieve us from thisheavy reproach, in any practicable way. The cession of that kind ofproperty (for so it is misnamed) is a bagatelle which would not costme a second thought, if, in that way, a general emancipation andexpatriation could be effected: and, gradually, and with due sacrifices, I think it might be. But as it is, we have the wolf by the ears, and wecan neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other. Of one thing I am certain, that asthe passage of slaves from one State to another, would not make aslave of a single human being who would not be so without it, so theirdiffusion over a greater surface would make them individually happier, and proportionally facilitate the accomplishment of their emancipation, by dividing the burthen on a greater number of coadjutors. Anabstinence, too, from this act of power, would remove the jealousyexcited by the undertaking of Congress to regulate the condition of thedifferent descriptions of men composing a State. This certainly is theexclusive right of every State, which nothing in the constitution hastaken from them, and given to the General Government. Could Congress, for example, say, that the non-freemen of Connecticut shall be freemen, or that they shall not emigrate into any other State?

I regret that I am now to die in the belief, that the useless sacrificeof themselves by the generation of 1776, to acquire self-governmentand happiness to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise andunworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be, that I live not to weep over it. If they would but dispassionately weighthe blessings they will throw away, against an abstract principle morelikely to be effected by union than by scission, they would pause beforethey would perpetrate this act of suicide on themselves, and of treasonagainst the hopes of the world. To yourself, as the faithful advocate ofthe Union, I tender the offering of my high esteem and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CLIII. --TO WILLIAM SHORT, August 4, 1820

TO WILLIAM SHORT. 

Monticello, August 4, 1820. 

Dear Sir, I owe you a letter for your favor of June the 29th, which was receivedin due time; and there being no subject of the day, of particularinterest, I will make this a supplement to mine of April the 13th. Myaim in that was, to justify the character of Jesus against the fictionsof his pseudo-followers, which have exposed him to the inference ofbeing an impostor. For if we could believe that he really countenancedthe follies, the falsehoods, and the charlatanisms which his biographersfather on him, and admit the misconstructions, interpolations, andtheorizations of the fathers of the early, and fanatics of the latterages, the conclusion would be irresistible by every sound mind, that hewas an impostor. I give no credit to their falsifications of his actionsand doctrines, and to rescue his character, the postulate in my letterasked only what is granted in reading every other historian. WhenLivy and Siculus, for example, tell us things which coincide with ourexperience of the order of nature, we credit them on their word, andplace their narrations among the records of credible history. But whenthey tell us of calves speaking, of statues sweating blood, and otherthings against the course of nature, we reject these as fables notbelonging to history. In like manner, when an historian, speaking of acharacter well known and established on satisfactory testimony, imputesto it things incompatible with that character, we reject them withouthesitation, and assent to that only of which we have better evidence. Had Plutarch informed us that Cæsar and Cicero passed their whole livesin religious exercises, and abstinence from the affairs of the world, we should reject what was so inconsistent with their establishedcharacters, still crediting what he relates in conformity with our ideasof them. So again, the superlative wisdom of Socrates is testifiedby all antiquity, and placed on ground not to be questioned. When, therefore, Plato puts into his mouth such paralogisms, such quibbles onwords, and sophisms, as a school-boy would be ashamed of, we concludethey were the whimsies of Plato's own foggy brain, and acquit Socratesof puerilities so unlike his character. (Speaking of Plato, I will add, that no writer, ancient or modern, has bewildered the world with more_ignes fatui_, than this renowned philosopher, in Ethics, in Politics, and Physics. In the latter, to specify a single example, compare hisviews of the animal economy, in his Timasus, with those of Mrs. Bryan inher Conversations on Chemistry, and weigh the science of the canonizedphilosopher against the good sense of the unassuming lady. But Plato'svisions have furnished a basis for endless systems of mystical theology, and he is therefore all but adopted as a Christian saint. It is surelytime for men to think for themselves, and to throw off the authority ofnames so artificially magnified. But to return from this parenthesis. ) Isay, that this free exercise of reason is all I ask for the vindicationof the character of Jesus. We find in the writings of his biographersmatter of two distinct descriptions. First, a ground-work of vulgarignorance, of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticisms, andfabrications. Intermixed with these, again, are sublime ideas of theSupreme Being, aphorisms, and precepts of the purest morality andbenevolence, sanctioned by a life of humility, innocence, and simplicityof manners, neglect of riches, absence of worldly ambition and honors, with an eloquence and persuasiveness which have not been surpassed. These could not be inventions of the grovelling authors who relate them. They are far beyond the powers of their feeble minds. They show thatthere was a character, the subject of their history, whose splendidconceptions were above all suspicion of being interpolations from theirhands. Can we be at a loss in separating such materials, and ascribingeach to its genuine author? The difference is obvious to the eye andto the understanding, and we may read as we run to each his part; and Iwill venture to affirm, that he who, as I have done, will undertake towinnow this grain from its chaff, will find it not to require a moment'sconsideration. The parts fall asunder of themselves, as would those ofan image of metal and clay. 

There are, I acknowledge, passages not free from objection, which wemay, with probability, ascribe to Jesus himself; but claiming indulgencefrom the circumstances under which he acted. His object was thereformation of some articles in the religion of the Jews, as taught byMoses. That sect had presented for the object of their worship, a beingof terrific character, cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust. Jesus, taking for his type the best qualities of the human head and heart, wisdom, justice, goodness, and adding to them power, ascribed all ofthese, but in infinite perfection, to the Supreme Being, and formed himreally worthy of their adoration. Moses had either not believed ina future state of existence, or had not thought it essential to beexplicitly taught to his people. Jesus inculcated that doctrinewith emphasis and precision. Moses had bound the Jews to many idleceremonies, mummeries, and observances, of no effect towards producingthe social utilities which constitute the essence of virtue; Jesusexposed their futility and insignificance. The one instilled into hispeople the most anti-social spirit towards other nations; the otherpreached philanthropy and universal charity and benevolence. The officeof reformer of the superstitions of a nation, is ever dangerous. Jesushad to walk on the perilous confines of reason and religion: and a stepto right or left might place him within the gripe of the priests ofthe superstition, a blood-thirsty race, as cruel and remorseless as thebeing whom they represented as the family God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, and the local God of Israel. They were constantly layingsnares, too, to entangle him in the web of the law. He wasjustifiable, therefore, in avoiding these by evasions, by sophisms, bymisconstructions, and misapplications of scraps of the prophets, andin defending himself with these their own weapons, as sufficient, _adhomines_, at least. That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankindas the Son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by thewritings of men more learned than myself in that lore. But that he mightconscientiously believe himself inspired from above, is very possible. The whole religion of the Jews, inculcated on him from his infancy, was founded in the belief of divine inspiration. The fumes of themost disordered imaginations were recorded in their religious code, as special communications of the Deity; and as it could not but happenthat, in the course of ages events would now and then turn up to whichsome of these vague rhapsodies might be accommodated by the aid ofallegories, figures, types, and other tricks upon words, they have notonly preserved their credit with the Jews of all subsequent times, but are the foundation of much of the religions of those who haveschismatized from them. Elevated by the enthusiasm of a warm and pureheart, conscious of the high strains of an eloquence which had not beentaught him, he might readily mistake the coruscations of his own finegenius for inspirations of an higher order. This belief, carried, therefore, no more personal imputation, than the belief of Socrates, that himself was under the care and admonitions of a guardian Daemon. And how many of our wisest men still believe in the reality of theseinspirations, while perfectly sane on all other subjects. Excusing, therefore, on these considerations, those passages in the gospels whichseem to bear marks of weakness in Jesus, ascribing to him what alone isconsistent with the great and pure character of which the same writingsfurnish proofs, and to their proper authors their own trivialitiesand imbecilities, I think myself authorized to conclude the purity anddistinction of his character, in opposition to the impostures whichthose authors would fix upon him; and that the postulate of my formerletter is no more than is granted in all other historical works. 

Mr. Correa is here, on his farewell visit to us. He has been muchpleased with the plan and progress of our University, and has given somevaluable hints to its botanical branch. He goes to do, I hope, much goodin his new country; the public instruction there, as I understand, being within the department destined for him. He is not withoutdissatisfaction, and reasonable dissatisfaction, too, with the piraciesof Baltimore; but his justice and friendly dispositions will, I am sure, distinguish between the iniquities of a few plunderers, and the soundprinciples of our country at large, and of our government especially. From many conversations with him, I hope he sees, and will promote, inhis new situation, the advantages of a cordial fraternization amongall the American nations, and the importance of their coalescing in anAmerican system of policy, totally independent of, and unconnected withthat of Europe. The day is not distant, when we may formally requirea meridian of partition through the ocean which separates the twohemispheres, on the hither side of which no European gun shall ever beheard, nor an American on the other; and when, during the rage of theeternal wars of Europe, the lion and the lamb, within our regions, shalllie down together in peace. The excess of population in Europe, andwant of room, render war, in their opinion, necessary to keep down thatexcess of numbers. Here, room is abundant, population scanty, and peacethe necessary means for producing men, to whom the redundant soil isoffering the means of life and happiness. The principles of societythere and here, then, are radically different, and I hope no Americanpatriot will ever lose sight of the essential policy of interdicting inthe seas and territories of both Americas, the ferocious and sanguinarycontests of Europe. I wish to see this coalition begun. I am earnest foran agreement with the maritime powers of Europe, assigning them the taskof keeping down the piracies of their seas and the cannibalisms ofthe African coasts, and, to us, the suppression of the same enormitieswithin our seas: and for this purpose, I should rejoice to see thefleets of Brazil and the United States riding together as brethren ofthe same family, and pursuing the same object. And indeed it would beof happy augury to begin at once this concert of action here, on theinvitation of either to the other government, while the way might bepreparing for withdrawing our cruisers from Europe, and preventing navalcollisions there which daily endanger our peace. 

*****

Accept assurances of the sincerity of my friendship and respect for you. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CLIV. --TO JOHN ADAMS, August 15, 1820

TO JOHN ADAMS. 

Monticello, August 15, 1820. 

I am a great defaulter, my Dear Sir, in our correspondence, butprostrate health rarely permits me to write; and when it does, mattersof business imperiously press their claims. I am getting better however, slowly, swelled legs being now the only serious symptom, and these, Ibelieve, proceed from extreme debility. I can walk but little; but Iride six or eight miles a day without fatigue; and within a few days, I shall endeavor to visit my other home, after a twelvemonth's absencefrom it. Our University, four miles distant, gives me frequent exercise, and the oftener, as I direct its architecture. Its plan is unique, andit is becoming an object of curiosity for the traveller. I have latelyhad an opportunity of reading a critique on this institution in yourNorth American Review of January last, having been not without anxietyto see what that able work would say of us: and I was relieved onfinding in it much coincidence of opinion, and even where criticismswhere indulged, I found they would have been obviated had thedevelopements of our plan been fuller. But these were restrained by thecharacter of the paper reviewed, being merely a report of outlines, not a detailed treatise, and addressed to a legislative body, not toa learned academy. For example, as an inducement to introduce theAnglo-Saxon into our plan, it was said that it would reward amplythe few weeks of attention which alone would be requisite for itsattainment; leaving both term and degree under an indefinite expression, because I know that not much time is necessary to attain it to an usefuldegree, sufficient to give such instruction in the etymologies of ourlanguage as may satisfy ordinary students, while more time would berequisite for those who should propose to attain a critical knowledgeof it. In a letter which I had occasion to write to Mr. Crofts who sentyou, I believe, as well as myself, a copy of his treatise on the Englishand German languages, as preliminary to an etymological dictionary hemeditated, I went into explanations with him of an easy process forsimplifying the study of the Anglo-Saxon, and lessening the terrors anddifficulties presented by it's rude alphabet, and unformed orthography. But this is a subject beyond the bounds of a letter, as it was beyondthe bounds of a report to the legislature. Mr. Crofts died, I believe, before any progress was made in the work he had projected. 

The reviewer expresses doubt, rather than decision, on our placingmilitary and naval architecture in the department of pure mathematics. Military architecture embraces fortification and field works, which, with their bastions, curtains, hornworks, redoubts, &c. Are based on atechnical combination of lines and angles. These are adapted to offenceand defence, with and against the effects of bombs, balls, escalades, he. But lines and angles make the sum of elementary geometry, a branchof pure mathematics: and the direction of the bombs, balls, and otherprojectiles, the necessary appendages of military works, although nopart of their architecture, belong to the conic sections, a branch oftranscendental geometry. Diderot and D'Alembert, therefore, in their_Arbor scienciæ_, have placed military architecture in the departmentof elementary geometry. Naval architecture teaches the best form andconstruction of vessels; for which best form it has recourse to thequestion of the solid of least resistance; a problem of transcendentalgeometry. And its appurtenant projectiles belong to the same branch asin the preceding case. It is true, that so far as respects the action ofthe water on the rudder and oars, and of the wind on the sails, it maybe placed in the department of mechanics, as Diderot and D'Alemberthave done; but belonging quite as much to geometry, and allied in itsmilitary character to military architecture, it simplified our plan toplace both under the same head. These views are so obvious, that I amsure they would have required but a second thought to reconcile thereviewer to their location under the head of pure mathematics. Forthis word location, see Bailey, Johnson, Sheridan, Walker, &c. But ifdictionaries are to be the arbiters of language, in which of them shallwe find neologism? No matter. It is a good word, well sounding, obvious, and expresses an idea, which would otherwise require circumlocution. Thereviewer was justifiable, therefore, in using it; although he notedat the same time, as unauthoritative, _centrality, grade, sparse_; allwhich have been long used in common speech and writing. I am a friendto neology. It is the only way to give to a language copiousness andeuphony. Without it we should still be held to the vocabulary of Alfredor of Ulphilas; and held to their state of science also: for I amsure they had no words which could have conveyed the ideas of oxygen, cotyledons, zoophytes, magnetism, electricity, hyaline, and thousands ofothers expressing ideas not then existing, nor of possible communicationin the state of their language. What a language has the French becomesince the date of their revolution, by the free introduction of newwords! The most copious and eloquent in the living world; and equal tothe Greek, had not that been regularly modifiable almost _ad infinitum_. Their rule was, that whenever their language furnished or adopted aroot, all its branches in every part of speech, were legitimated bygiving them their appropriate terminations:

[Illustration: page331]

And this should be the law of every language. Thus, having adopted theadjective fraternal, it is a root which should legitimate fraternity, fraternation, fraternization, fraternism, to fratenate, fraternize, fraternally. And give the word neologism to our language, as a root, and it should give us its fellow substantives, neology, neologist, neologization; its adjectives, neologous, neological, neologistical;its verb, neologize; and adverb neologically. Dictionaries are butthe depositories of words already legitimated by usage. Society is thework-shop in which new ones are elaborated. When an individual usesa new word, if ill formed, it is rejected in society, if well formed, adopted, and after due time, laid up in the depository of dictionaries. And if, in this process of sound neologization, our trans-Atlanticbrethren shall not choose to accompany us, we may furnish, afterthe Ionians, a second example of a colonial dialect improving on itsprimitive. 

But enough of criticism: let me turn to your puzzling letter of May the12th, on matter, spirit, motion, &c. Its crowd of scepticisms kept mefrom sleep. I read it, and laid it down: read it, and laid it down, again and again: and to give rest to my mind, I was obliged to recurultimately to my habitual anodyne, 'I feel, therefore I exist. ' I feelbodies which are not myself: there are other existences then. I callthem matter. I feel them changing place. This gives me motion. Wherethere is an absence of matter, I call it void, or nothing, or immaterialspace. On the basis of sensation, of matter and motion, we may erectthe fabric of all the certainties we can have or need. I can conceivethought to be an action of a particular organization of matter, formedfor that purpose by its creator, as well as that attraction is an actionof matter, or magnetism of loadstone. When he who denies to the Creatorthe power of endowing matter with the mode of action called thinking, shall show how he could endow the sun with the mode of action calledattraction, which reins the planets in the track of their orbits, or howan absence of matter can have a will, and by that will put matter intomotion, then the Materialist may be lawfully required to explain theprocess by which matter exercises the faculty of thinking. When once wequit the basis of sensation, all is in the wind. To talk of immaterialexistences, is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, God, are immaterial, is to say, they are nothings, or that there is noGod, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I amsupported in my creed of materialism by the Lockes, the Tracys, andthe Stewarts. At what age* of the Christian church this heresy ofimmaterialism, or masked atheism, crept in, I do not exactly know. But aheresy it certainly is. Jesus taught nothing of it. He told us, indeed, that 'God is a spirit, ' but he has not defined what a spirit is, norsaid that it is not matter. And the ancient fathers generally, of thethree first centuries, held it to be matter, light and thin indeed, anethereal gas; but still matter. Origen says. '_Deus reapse corporalisest; sed graviorum tantum ratione corporum incorporeus_. ' Tertullian, '_Quid enim Deus nisi corpus?_' And again, '_Quis negabit Deum essecorpus? Etsi Deus spiritus, spiritus etiam corpus est, sui generis insua effigie_. St. Justin Martyr, [Illustration: 332]

And St. Macarius, speaking of angels, says, '_Quamvis enim subtiliasint, tamen in substantia, forma, et figura, secundum tenuitatem naturaseorum, corpora sunt tenuia_. ' And St. Austin, St. Basil, Lactantius, Tatian, Athenagoras, and others, with whose writings I pretend not afamiliarity, are said by those who are better acquainted with them, to deliver the same doctrine. (Enfield x. 3. 1. ) Turn to your Ocellusd'Argens, 97, 105. And to his Timseus 17. For these quotations. InEngland, these Immaterialists might have been burnt until the 29 Car. 2. When the writ _de hæretico comburendo_ was abolished; and here until theRevolution, that statute not having extended to us. All heresies beingnow done away with us, these schismatists are merely atheists, differingfrom the material atheist only in their belief, that 'nothing madesomething, ' and from the material deist, who believes that matter alonecan operate on matter. 

 [* That of Athanasius and the Council of Nicasa, anno 324]

Rejecting all organs of information, therefore, but my senses, I ridmyself of the pyrrhonisms with which an indulgence in speculationshyperphysical and antiphysical, so uselessly occupy and disquiet themind. A single sense may indeed be sometimes deceived, but rarely; andnever all our senses together, with their faculty of reasoning. Theyevidence realities, and there are enough of these for all the purposesof life, without plunging into the fathomless abyss of dreams andphantasms. I am satisfied, and sufficiently occupied with the thingswhich are, without tormenting or troubling myself about those which mayindeed be, but of which I have no evidence. I am sure that I really knowmany, many things, and none more surely than that I love you with allmy heart, and pray for the continuance of your life until you shall betired of it yourself. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CLV. --TO JOSEPH C. CABELL, November 28, 1820

TO JOSEPH C. CABELL. 

Poplar Forest, November 28, 1820. 

Dear Sir, I sent in due time the Report of the Visitors to the Governor, with arequest that he would endeavor to convene the Literary Board in time tolay it before the legislature on the second day of their session. Itwas enclosed in a letter which will explain itself to you. If deliveredbefore the crowd of other business presses on them, they may act onit immediately, and before there will have been time for unfriendlycombinations and manoeuvres by the enemies of the institution. I encloseyou now a paper presenting some views which may be useful to you inconversations, to rebut exaggerated estimates of what our institutionis to cost, and reproaches of deceptive estimates. One hundred andsixty-two thousand three hundred and sixty-four dollars will be aboutthe cost of the whole establishment, when completed. Not an officeat Washington has cost less. The single building of the courthouse ofHenrico has cost nearly that: and the massive walls of the millions ofbricks of William and Mary could not now be built for a less sum. 

Surely Governor Clinton's display of the gigantic efforts of New Yorktowards the education of her citizens, will stimulate the pride as wellas the patriotism of our legislature, to look to the reputation andsafety of their own country, to rescue it from the degradation ofbecoming the Barbary of the Union, and of falling into the ranks of ourown negroes. To that condition it is fast sinking. We shall be in thehands of the other States, what our indigenous predecessors were wheninvaded by the science and arts of Europe. The mass of education inVirginia, before the Revolution, placed her with the foremost of hersister colonies. What is her education now? Where is it? The littlewe have, we import, like beggars, from other States; or import theirbeggars to bestow on us their miserable crumbs. And what is wanting torestore us to our station among our confederates? Not more money fromthe people. Enough has been raised by them, and appropriated to thisvery object. It is that it should be employed understandingly, and fortheir greatest good. That good requires, that while they are instructedin general, competently to the common business of life, others shouldemploy their genius with necessary information to the useful arts, toinventions for saving labor and increasing our comforts, to nourishingour health, to civil government, military science, &c. 

Would it not have a good effect for the friends of the Universityto take the lead in proposing and effecting a practical scheme ofelementary schools? to assume the character of the friends, rather thanthe opponents of that object? The present plan has appropriated to theprimary schools forty-five thousand dollars for three years, making onehundred and thirty-five thousand dollars. I should be glad to know ifthis sum has educated one hundred and thirty-five poor children? I doubtit much. And if it has, they have cost us one thousand dollars apiece for what might have been done with thirty dollars. Supposing theliterary revenue to be sixty thousand dollars, I think it demonstrable, that this sum, equally divided between the two objects, would amplysuffice for both. One hundred counties, divided into about twelve wardseach, on an average, and a school in each ward of perhaps tenchildren, would be one thousand and two hundred schools, distributedproportionably over the surface of the State. The inhabitants of eachward, meeting together (as when they work on the roads), buildinggood log-houses for their school and teacher, and contributing for hisprovisions, rations of pork, beef, and corn, in the proportion, each ofhis other taxes, would thus lodge and feed him without feeling it;and those of them who are able, paying for the tuition of their ownchildren, would leave no call on the public fund but for the tuitionfee of, here and there, an accidental pauper, who would still be fed andlodged with his parents. Suppose this fee ten dollars, and threehundred dollars apportioned to a county on an average (more or less dulyproportioned), would there be thirty such paupers for every county? Ithink not. The truth is, that the want of common education with us isnot from our poverty, but from want of an orderly system. More money isnow paid for the education of a part, than would be paid for that of thewhole, if systematically arranged. Six thousand common schools in NewYork, fifty pupils in each, three hundred thousand in all; onehundred and sixty thousand dollars annually paid to the masters; fortyestablished academies, with two thousand two hundred and eighteenpupils; and five colleges, with seven hundred and eighteen students;to which last classes of institutions seven hundred and twenty thousanddollars have been given; and the whole appropriations for educationestimated at two and a half millions of dollars! What a pigmy to this isVirginia become, with a population almost equal to that of New York!And whence this difference? From the difference their rulers set onthe value of knowledge, and the prosperity it produces. But still, if apigmy, let her do what a pigmy may do. If among fifty children in eachof the six thousand schools of New York, there are only paupers enoughto employ twenty-five dollars of public money to each school, surelyamong the ten children of each of our one thousand and two hundredschools, the same sum of twenty-five dollars to each school will teachits paupers (five times as much as to the same number in New York), andwill amount for the whole to thirty thousand dollars a year, the onehalf only of our literary revenue. 

Do then, Dear Sir, think of this, and engage our friends to take inhand the whole subject. It will reconcile the friends of the elementaryschools, and none are more warmly so than myself, lighten thedifficulties of the University, and promote in every order of men thedegree of instruction proportioned to their condition, and to theirviews in life. It will combine with the mass of our force, a wisedirection of it, which will insure to our country its future prosperityand safety. I had formerly thought that visitors of the schools mightbe chosen by the county, and charged to provide teachers for every ward, and to superintend them. I now think it would be better for every wardto choose its own resident visitor, whose business it would be to keep ateacher in the ward, to superintend the school, and to call meetings ofthe ward for all purposes relating to it: their accounts to be settled, and wards laid off by the courts. I think ward elections better formany reasons, one of which is sufficient, that it will keep elementaryeducation out of the hands of fanaticizing preachers, who, in countyelections, would be universally chosen, and the predominant sect of thecounty would possess itself of all its schools. 

A wrist stiffened by an ancient accident, now more so by the effect ofage, renders writing a slow and irksome operation with me. I cannot, therefore, present these views by separate letters to each of ourcolleagues in the legislature, but must pray you to communicate them toMr. Johnson and General Breckenridge, and to request them toconsider this as equally meant for them. Mr. Gordon, being the localrepresentative of the University and among its most zealous friends, would be a more useful second to General Breckenridge in the House ofDelegates, by a free communication of what concerns the University, withwhich he has had little opportunity of becoming acquainted. So also, would it be as to Mr. Rives, who would be a friendly advocate. 

Accept the assurances of my constant and affectionate esteem andrespect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CLVI. --TO THOMAS RITCHIE, December, 25, 1820

TO THOMAS RITCHIE. 

Monticello, December, 25, 1820. 

Dear Sir, On my return home after a long absence, I find here your favor ofNovember the 23rd, with Colonel Taylor's 'Construction Construed, ' whichyou have been so kind as to send me, in the name of the author as wellas yourself. Permit me, if you please, to use the same channelfor conveying to him the thanks I render you also for this mark ofattention. I shall read it, I know, with edification, as I did hisEnquiry, to which I acknowledge myself indebted for many valuable ideas, and for the correction of some errors of early opinion, never seen ina correct light until presented to me in that work. That the presentvolume is equally orthodox I know before reading it, because I knowthat Colonel Taylor and myself have rarely, if ever, differed in anypolitical principle of importance. Every act of his life, and every wordhe ever wrote, satisfies me of this. So, also, as to the two Presidents, late and now in office, I know them both to be of principles as trulyrepublican as any men living. If there be any thing amiss, therefore, in the present state of our affairs, as the formidable deficit latelyunfolded to us indicates, I ascribe it to the inattention of Congressto their duties, to their unwise dissipation and waste of the publiccontributions. They seemed, some little while ago, to be at a lossfor objects whereon to throw away the supposed fathomless funds of thetreasury. I had feared the result, because I saw among them some of myold fellow-laborers, of tried and known principles, yet often in theirminorities. I am aware that in one of their most ruinous vagaries, the people were themselves betrayed into the same phrenzy with theirRepresentatives. The deficit produced, and a heavy tax to supply it, will, I trust, bring both to their sober senses. 

But it is not from this branch of government we have most to fear. Taxesand short elections will keep them right. The judiciary of the UnitedStates is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly workingunder ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a generaland special government to a general and supreme one alone. This will layall things at their feet, and they are too well versed in English law toforget the maxim, '_Boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem. _' We shallsee if they are bold enough to take the daring stride their five lawyershave lately taken. If they do, then, with the editor of our book in hisaddress to the public, I will say, that against this every man shouldraise his voice, and more, should uplift his arm. Who wrote thisadmirable address? Sound, luminous, strong, not a word too much, nor onewhich can be changed but for the worse. That pen should go on, lay barethese wounds of our constitution, expose these _decisions seriatim_, and arouse, as it is able, the attention of the nation to these boldspeculators on its patience. Having found, from experience, thatimpeachment is an impracticable thing, a mere scare-crow, they considerthemselves secure for life; they skulk from responsibility to publicopinion, the only remaining hold on them, under a practice firstintroduced into England by Lord Mansfield. An opinion is huddled up inconclave, perhaps by a majority of one, delivered as if unanimous andwith the silent acquiescence of lazy or timid associates, by a craftychief judge, who sophisticates the law to his mind, by the turn of hisown reasoning. A judiciary law was once reported by the Attorney Generalto Congress, requiring each judge to deliver his opinion _seriatim_ andopenly, and then to give it in writing to the clerk to be entered in therecord. A judiciary independent of a King or executive alone, is a goodthing; but independence of the will of the nation is a solecism, atleast in a republican government. 

But to return to your letter; you ask for my opinion of the work yousend me, and to let it go out to the public. This I have ever made apoint of declining (one or two instances only excepted). Complimentarythanks to writers who have sent me their works, have betrayed mesometimes before the public, without my consent having been asked. ButI am far from presuming to direct the reading of my fellow-citizens, whoare good enough judges themselves of what is worthy their reading. I am, also, too desirous of quiet to place myself in the way of contention. Against this I am admonished by bodily decay, which cannot beunaccompanied by corresponding wane of the mind. Of this I am as yetsensible sufficiently to be unwilling to trust myself before the public, and when I cease to be so, I hope that my friends will be too carefulof me to draw me forth and present me, like a Priam in armor, as aspectacle for public compassion. I hope our political bark will ridethrough all its dangers; but I can in future be but an inert passenger. 

I salute you with sentiments of great friendship and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CLVII. --TO JOHN ADAMS, January 22, 1821

TO JOHN ADAMS. 

Monticello, January 22, 1821. 

I was quite rejoiced, dear Sir, to see that you had health and spiritsenough to take part in the late convention of your State, for revisingits constitution, and to bear your share in its debates and labors. The amendments of which we have as yet heard, prove the advance ofliberalism in the intervening period; and encourage a hope that thehuman mind will some day get back to the freedom it enjoyed two thousandyears ago. This country, which has given to the world the example ofphysical liberty, owes to it that of moral emancipation also, for as yetit is but nominal with us. The inquisition of public opinion overwhelms, in practice, the freedom asserted by the laws in theory. 

Our anxieties in this quarter are all concentrated in the question, whatdoes the Holy Alliance in and out of Congress mean to do with us on theMissouri question? And this, by the bye, is but the name of the case, itis only the John Doe or Richard Roe of the ejectment. The real question, as seen in the States afflicted with this unfortunate population, is, Are our slaves to be presented with freedom and a dagger? For ifCongress has the power to regulate the conditions of the inhabitants ofthe States, within the States, it will be but another exercise of thatpower, to declare that all shall be free. Are we then to see againAthenian and Lacedæmonian confederacies? To wage another Peloponnesianwar to settle the ascendancy between them? Or is this the tocsin ofmerely a servile war? That remains to be seen: but not, I hope, by youor me. Surely, they will parley awhile, and give us time to get outof the way. What a Bedlamite is man? But let us turn from our ownuneasiness to the miseries of our southern friends. Bolivar and Morillo, it seems, have come to a parley, with dispositions at length to stopthe useless effusion of human blood in that quarter. I feared from thebeginning, that these people were not yet sufficiently enlightened forself-government; and that after wading through blood and slaughter, they would end in military tyrannies, more or less numerous. Yet as theywished to try the experiment, I wished them success in it: they havenow tried it, and will possibly find that their safest road will be anaccommodation with the mother country, which shall hold them togetherby the single link of the same chief magistrate, leaving to him powerenough to keep them in peace with one another, and to themselves theessential power of self-government and self-improvement, until theyshall be sufficiently trained by education and habits of freedom, to walk safely by themselves. Representative government, nativefunctionaries, a qualified negative on their laws, with a previoussecurity by compact for freedom of commerce, freedom of the press, habeas corpus, and trial by jury, would make a good beginning. Thislast would be the school in which their people might begin to learn theexercise of civic duties as well as rights. For freedom of religion theyare not yet prepared. The scales of bigotry have not sufficiently fallenfrom their eyes, to accept it for themselves individually, much less totrust others with it. But that will come in time, as well as a generalripeness to break entirely from the parent stem. You see, my dear Sir, how easily we prescribe for others a cure for their difficulties, whilewe cannot cure our own. We must leave both, I believe, to Heaven, andwrap ourselves up in the mantle of resignation, and of that friendshipof which I tender to you the most sincere assurances. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CLVIII. --TO JOSEPH C CABELL, January 31, 1821

TO JOSEPH C CABELL. 

Monticello, January 31, 1821. 

Dear Sir, Your favors of the 18th and 25th came together, three days ago. Theyfill me with gloom as to the dispositions of our legislature towardsthe University. I perceive that I am not to live to see it opened. Asto what had better be done within the limits of their will, I trustwith entire confidence to what yourself, General Breckenridge, and Mr. Johnson shall think best. You will see what is practicable, and give itsuch shape as you think best. If a loan is to be resorted to, I thinksixty thousand dollars will be necessary, including the library. Its instalments cannot begin until those of the former loan areaccomplished; and they should not begin later, nor be less than thirteenthousand dollars a year. (I think it safe to retain two thousand dollarsa year for care of the buildings, improvement of the grounds, andunavoidable contingencies. ) To extinguish the second loan, will requirebetween five and six instalments, which will carry us to the end of1833, or thirteen years from this time. My individual opinion is, thatwe had better not open the institution until the buildings, library, andall, are finished, and our funds cleared of incumbrance. These buildingsonce erected, will secure the full object infallibly at the end ofthirteen years, and as much earlier as the legislature shall choose. Andif we were to begin sooner, with half funds only, it would satisfy thecommon mind, prevent their aid beyond that point, and our institution, remaining at that for ever, would be no more than the paltry academieswe now have. Even with the whole funds we shall be reduced to sixProfessors. While Harvard will still prime it over us with her twentyProfessors. How many of our youths she now has, learning the lessons ofanti-Missourianism, I know not; but a gentleman lately from Princetontold me he saw there the list of the students at that place, and thatmore than half were Virginians. These will return home, no doubt, deeply impressed with the sacred principles of our Holy Alliance ofrestrictionists. 

But the gloomiest of all prospects, is in the desertion of the bestfriends of the institution, for desertion I must call it. I know not thenecessities which may force this on you. General Cocke, you say, willexplain them to me; but I cannot conceive them, nor persuade myselfthey are uncontrollable. I have ever hoped, that yourself, GeneralBreckenridge, and Mr. Johnson, would stand at your posts in thelegislature, until every thing was effected, and the institution opened. If it is so difficult to get along with all the energy and influence ofour present colleagues in the legislature, how can we expect to proceedat all, reducing our moving power? I know well your devotion to yourcountry, and your foresight of the awful scenes coming on her, sooner orlater. With this foresight, what service can we ever render her equalto this? What object of our lives can we propose so important? Whatinterest of our own which ought not to be postponed to this? Health, time, labor, on what in the single life which nature has given us, canthese be better bestowed than on this immortal boon to our country? Theexertions and the mortifications are temporary; the benefit eternal. Ifany member of our college of Visitors could justifiably withdraw fromthis sacred duty, it would be myself, who _quadragenis stipendiisjamdudum peractis_, have neither vigor of body nor mind left to keepthe field: but I will die in the last ditch, and so I hope you will, my friend, as well as our firm-breasted brothers and colleagues, Mr. Johnson and General Breckenridge. Nature will not give you a second lifewherein to atone for the omissions of this. Pray then, dear and verydear Sir, do not think of deserting us, but view the sacrifices whichseem to stand in your way, as the lesser duties, and such as ought to bepostponed to this, the greatest of all. Continue with us in these holylabors, until, having seen their accomplishment, we may say with oldSimeon, '_Nunc dimittas, Domine_. Under all circumstances, however, ofpraise or blame, I shall be affectionately yours. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CLIX. --TO GENERAL BRECKENRIDGE, February 15, 1821

TO GENERAL BRECKENRIDGE. 

Monticello, February 15, 1821. 

Dear Sir, I learn with deep affliction, that nothing is likely to be done for ourUniversity this year. So near as it is to the shore that one shove morewould land it there, I had hoped that would be given; and that we shouldopen with the next year an institution on which the fortunes of ourcountry may depend more than may meet the general eye. The reflectionsthat the boys of this age are to be the men of the next; that theyshould be prepared to receive the holy charge which we are cherishing todeliver over to them; that in establishing an institution of wisdom forthem, we secure it to all our future generations; that in fulfillingthis duty, we bring home to our own bosoms the sweet consolation ofseeing our sons rising under a luminous tuition, to destinies of highpromise; these are considerations which will occur to all; but all, Ifear, do not see the speck in our horizon which is to burst on us as atornado, sooner or later. The line of division lately marked out betweendifferent portions of our confederacy, is such as will never, I fear, be obliterated, and we are now trusting to those who are against usin position and principle, to fashion to their own form the mindsand affections of our youth. If, as has been estimated, we send threehundred thousand dollars a year to the northern seminaries, for theinstruction of our own sons, then we must have there five hundred of oursons, imbibing opinions and principles in discord with those of theirown country. This canker is eating on the vitals of our existence, andif not arrested at once, will be beyond remedy. We are now certainlyfurnishing recruits to their school. If it be asked what are we to do, or said we cannot give the last lift to the University without stoppingour primary schools, and these we think most important; I answer, I knowtheir importance. Nobody can doubt my zeal for the general instructionof the people. Who first started that idea? I may surely say, Myself. Turn to the bill in the revised code, which I drew more than fortyyears ago, and before which the idea of a plan for the education of thepeople, generally, had never been suggested in this State. There youwill see developed the first rudiments of the whole system of generaleducation we are now urging and acting on: and it is well known to thoseWith whom I have acted on this subject, that I never have proposed asacrifice of the primary to the ultimate grade of instruction. Let uskeep our eye steadily on the whole system. If we cannot do everything at once, let us do one at a time. The primary schools needno preliminary expense; the ultimate grade requires a considerableexpenditure in advance. A suspension of proceeding for a year or two onthe primary schools, and an application of the whole income, during thattime, to the completion of the buildings necessary for the University, would enable us then to start both institutions at the same time. Theintermediate branch, of colleges, academies, and private classicalschools, for the middle grade, may hereafter receive any necessary aidswhen the funds shall become competent. In the mean time, they are goingon sufficiently, as they have ever yet gone on, at the private expenseof those who use them, and who in numbers and means are competent totheir own exigencies. The experience of three years has, I presume, leftno doubt, that the present plan of primary schools, of putting moneyinto the hands of twelve hundred persons acting for nothing, and underno responsibility, is entirely inefficient. Some other must be thoughtof; and during this pause, if it be only for a year, the whole revenueof that year, with that of the last three years which has not beenalready thrown away, would place our University in readiness to startwith a better organization of primary schools, and both may then go on, hand in hand, for ever. No diminution of the capital will in this wayhave been incurred; a principle which ought to be deemed sacred. Arelinquishment of interest on the late loan of sixty thousand dollars, would so far, also, forward the University without lessening thecapital. 

But what may be best done I leave with entire confidence to yourself andyour colleagues in legislation, who know better than I do the conditionsof the literary fund and its wisest application; and I shall acquiescewith perfect resignation to their will. I have brooded, perhaps withfondness, over this establishment, as it held up to me the hope ofcontinuing to be useful while I continued to live. I had believed thatthe course and circumstances of my life had placed within my power someservices favorable to the outset of the institution. But this may beegoism; pardonable, perhaps, when I express a consciousness that mycolleagues and successors will do as well, whatever the legislatureshall enable them to do. 

I have thus, my dear Sir, opened my bosom, with all its anxieties, freely to you. I blame nobody for seeing things in a different light. Iam sure that all act conscientiously, and that all will be done honestlyand wisely which can be done. I yield the concerns of the world withcheerfulness to those who are appointed in the order of nature tosucceed to them; and for yourself, for our colleagues, and for all incharge of our country's future fame and fortune, I offer up sincereprayers. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CLX. --TO --------- NICHOLAS, December 11, 1821

TO --------- NICHOLAS. 

Monticello, December 11, 1821, Dear Sir, Your letter of December the 19th places me under a dilemma, which Icannot solve but by an exposition of the naked truth. I would havewished this rather to have remained as hitherto, without inquiry; butyour inquiries have a right to be answered. I will do it as exactlyas the great lapse of time and a waning memory will enable me. I maymisremember indifferent circumstances, but can be right in substance. 

At the time when the republicans of our country were so much alarmed atthe proceedings of the federal ascendancy in Congress, in theexecutive and the judiciary departments, it became a matter of seriousconsideration how head could be made against their enterprises on theconstitution. The leading republicans in Congress found themselves ofno use there, browbeaten, as they were, by a bold and overwhelmingmajority. They concluded to retire from that field, take a stand in theState legislatures, and endeavor there to arrest their progress. Thealien and sedition laws furnished the particular occasion. The sympathybetween Virginia and Kentucky was more cordial, and more intimatelyconfidential, than between any other two States of republican policy. Mr. Madison came into the Virginia legislature. 1 was then in theVice-Presidency, and could not leave my station. But your father, Colonel W. C. Nicholas, and myself happening to be together, theengaging the co-operation of Kentucky in an energetic protestationagainst the constitutionality of those laws, became a subject ofconsultation. Those gentlemen pressed me strongly to sketch resolutionsfor that purpose, your father undertaking to introduce them to thatlegislature, with a solemn assurance, which I strictly required, thatit should not be known from what quarter they came. I drew and deliveredthem to him, and, in keeping their origin secret, he fulfilled hispledge of honor. Some years after this, Colonel Nicholas asked me ifI would have any objection to its being known that I had drawn them. I pointedly enjoined that it should not. Whether he had unguardedlyintimated it before to any one, I know not: but I afterwards observed inthe papers repeated imputations of them to me; on which, as has been mypractice on all occasions of imputation, I have observed entire silence. The question, indeed, has never before been put to me, nor should Ianswer it to any other than yourself; seeing no good end to be proposedby it, and the desire of tranquillity inducing with me a wish to bewithdrawn from public notice. Your father's zeal and talents were toowell known, to derive any additional distinction from the penning theseresolutions. That circumstance, surely, was of far less merit than the, proposing and carrying them through the legislature of his State. Theonly fact in this statement, on which my memory is not distinct, isthe time and occasion of the consultation with your father and ColonelNicholas. It took place here I know; but whether any other person waspresent, or communicated with, is my doubt. I think Mr. Madison waseither with us, or consulted, but my memory is uncertain as to minutedetails. 

I fear, Dear Sir, we are now in such another crisis, with thisdifference only, that the judiciary branch is alone and single-handed inthe present assaults on the constitution. But its assaults are more sureand deadly, as from an agent seemingly passive and unassuming. May youand your cotemporaries meet them with the same determination and effect, as your father and his did the alien and sedition laws, and preserveinviolate a constitution, which, cherished in all its chastity andpurity, will prove in the end a blessing to all the nations of theearth. With these prayers, accept those for your own happiness andprosperity. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CLXI. --TO JEDIDIAH MORSE, March 6, 1822

TO JEDIDIAH MORSE. 

Monticello, March 6, 1822. 

Sir, I have duly received your letter of February the 16th, and have now toexpress my sense of the honorable station proposed to my ex-brethrenand myself, in the constitution of the society for the civilization andimprovement of the Indian tribes. The object, too, expressed, as that ofthe association, is one which I have ever had much at heart, and neveromitted an occasion of promoting, while I have been in situations todo it with effect, and nothing, even now, in the calm of age andretirement, would excite in me a more lively interest than an approvableplan of raising that respectable and unfortunate people from the stateof physical and moral abjection, to which they have been reduced bycircumstances foreign to them. That the plan now proposed is entitledto unmixed approbation, I am not prepared to say, after matureconsideration, and with all the partialities which its professed objectwould rightfully claim from me. 

I shall not undertake to draw the line of demarcation between privateassociations of laudable views and unimposing numbers, and those whosemagnitude may rivalize and jeopardize the march of regular government. Yet such a line does exist. I have seen the days, they were those whichpreceded the Revolution, when even this last and perilous engine becamenecessary; but they were days which no man would wish to see a secondtime. That was the case where the regular authorities of the governmenthad combined against the rights of the people, and no means ofcorrection remained to them, but to organize a collateral power, which, with their support, might rescue and secure their violated rights. Butsuch is not the case with our government. We need hazard no collateralpower, which, by a change of its original views, and assumption ofothers we know not how virtuous or how mischievous, would be readyorganized, and in force sufficient to shake the established foundationsof society, and endanger its peace and the principles on which it isbased. Is not the machine now proposed of this gigantic stature? Itis to consist of the ex-Presidents of the United States, theVice-President, the Heads of all the executive departments, the membersof the supreme judiciary, the Governors of the several States andTerritories, all the members of both Houses of Congress, all the generalofficers of the army, the commissioners of the navy, all Presidents andProfessors of colleges and theological seminaries, all the clergy ofthe United States, the. Presidents and Secretaries of all associationshaving relation to Indians, all commanding officers within or nearIndian territories, all Indian superintendants and agents; all these exofficio; and as many private individuals as will pay a certain pricefor membership. Observe, too, that the clergy will constitute * nineteentwentieths of this association, and, by the law of the majority, maycommand the twentieth part, which, composed of all the high authoritiesof the United States, civil and military, may be outvoted and wieldedby the nineteen parts with uncontrollable power, both as to purpose andprocess. . Can this formidable array be reviewed without dismay?

 * The clergy of the United States may probably be estimated at eight thousand. The residue of this society at four hundred; but if the former number be halved, the reasoning will be the same. 

It will be said, that in this association will be all the confidentialofficers of the government; the choice of the people themselves. No manon earth has more implicit confidence than myself in the integrityand discretion of this chosen band of servants. But is confidence ordiscretion, or is strict limit, the principle of our constitution? Itwill comprehend, indeed, all the functionaries of the government: butseceded from their consitutional stations as guardians of the nation, and acting not by the laws of their station, but by those of a voluntarysociety, having no limit to their purposes but the same will whichconstitutes their existence. It will be the authorities of the people, and all influential characters from among them, arrayed on one side, andon the other, the people themselves deserted by their leaders. It is afearful array. It will be said, that these are imaginary fears. I knowthey are so at present. I know it is as impossible for these agents ofour choice and unbounded confidence, to harbor machinations againstthe adored principles of our constitution, as for gravity to changeits direction, and gravid bodies to mount upwards. The fears are indeedimaginary: but the example is real. Under its authority, as a precedent, future associations will arise with objects at which we shouldshudder at this time. The society of Jacobins, in another country, was instituted on principles and views as virtuous as ever kindled thehearts of patriots. It was the pure patriotism of their purposes whichextended their association to the limits of the nation, and renderedtheir power within it boundless; and it was this power which degeneratedtheir principles and practices to such enormities, as never before couldhave been imagined. Yet these were men; and we and our descendantswill be no more. The present is a case where, if ever, we are to guardagainst ourselves; not against ourselves as we are, but as we may be;for who can now imagine what we may become under circumstances not nowimaginable? The object, too, of this institution, seems to requireso hazardous an example as little as any which could be proposed. Thegovernment is, at this time, going on with the process of civilizingthe Indians, on a plan probably as promising as any one of us is ableto devise, and with resources more competent than we could expect tocommand by voluntary taxation. Is it that the new characters called intoassociation with those of the government, are wiser than these? Is itthat a plan originated by a meeting of private individuals, is betterthan that prepared by the concentrated wisdom of the nation, of men notself-chosen, but clothed with the full confidence of the people? Is itthat there is no danger that a new authority, marching independentlyalong side of the government, in the same line and to the same object, may not produce collision, may not thwart and obstruct the operations ofthe government, or wrest the object entirely from their hands? Might wenot as well appoint a committee for each department of the government, to counsel and direct its head separately, as volunteer ourselves tocounsel and direct the whole, in mass? And might we not do it as wellfor their foreign, their fiscal, and their military, as for their Indianaffairs? And how many societies, auxiliary to the government, may weexpect to see spring up, in imitation of this, offering to associatethemselves in this and that of its functions? In a word, why not takethe government out of its constitutional hands, associate them indeedwith us, to preserve a semblance that the acts are theirs, but insuringthem to be our own by allowing them a minor vote only?

These considerations have impressed my mind with a force soirrresistible, that (in duty bound to answer your polite letter, withoutwhich I should not have obtruded an opinion) I have not been able towithhold the expression of them. Not knowing the individuals who haveproposed this plan, I cannot be conceived as entertaining personaldisrespect for them. On the contrary, I see in the printed list personsfor whom I cherish sentiments of sincere friendship; and others, forwhose opinions and purity of purpose I have the highest respect. Yetthinking, as I do, that this association is unnecessary; that thegovernment is proceeding to the same object under control of the law;that they are competent to it in wisdom, in means, and inclination; thatthis association, this wheel within a wheel, is more likely to producecollision than aid; and that it is, in its magnitude, of dangerousexample; I am bound to say, that, as a dutiful citizen, I cannot inconscience become a member of this society, possessing as it does myentire confidence in the integrity of its views. I feel with awe theweight of opinion to which I may be opposed, and that, for myself, Ihave need to ask the indulgence of a belief, that the opinion I havegiven is the best result I can deduce from my own reason and experience, and that it is sincerely conscientious. Repeating, therefore, my justacknowledgments for the honor proposed to me, I beg leave to add theassurances to the society and yourself of my highest confidence andconsideration. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CLXII. --TO DOCTOR BENJAMIN WATERHOUSE, June 26, 1822

TO DOCTOR BENJAMIN WATERHOUSE. 

Monticello, June 26, 1822. 

Dear Sir, I have received and read with thankfulness and pleasure yourdenunciation of the abuses of tobacco and wine. Yet, however sound inits principles, I expect it will be but a sermon to the wind. You willfind it is as difficult to inculcate these sanative precepts on thesensualities of the present day, as to convince an Athanasian that thereis but one God. I wish success to both attempts, and am happy to learnfrom you that the latter, at least, is making progress, and the morerapidly in proportion as our Platonizing Christians make more stir andnoise about it. The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to thehappiness of man. 

1. That there is one only God, and he all perfect. 

2. That there is a future state of rewards and punishments. 

3. That to love God with all thy heart, and thy neighbor as thyself, isthe sum of religion. These are the great points on which he endeavoredto reform the religion of the Jews. But compare with these thedemoralizing dogmas of Calvin. 

1. That there are three Gods. 

2. That good works, or the love of our neighbor, are nothing. 

3. That faith is everything, and the more incomprehensible theproposition, the more merit in its faith. 

4. That reason in religion is of unlawful use. 

5. That God, from the beginning, elected certain individuals to besaved, and certain others to be damned; and that no crimes of the formercan damn them; no virtues of the latter, save. 

Now, which of these is the true and charitable Christian? He whobelieves and acts on the simple doctrines of Jesus; or the impiousdogmatists, as Athanasius and Calvin? Verily I say these are the falseshepherds foretold as to enter not by the door into the sheepfold, butto climb up some other way. They are mere usurpers of the Christianname, teaching a counter-religion made up of the deliria of crazyimaginations, as foreign from Christianity as is that of Mahomet. Theirblasphemies have driven thinking men into infidelity, who have toohastily rejected the supposed author himself, with the horrors sofalsely imputed to him. Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached alwaysas pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world wouldnow have been Christian. I rejoice that in this blessed country of freeinquiry and belief, which has surrendered its creed and conscienceto neither kings nor priests, the genuine doctrine of one only God isreviving, and I trust that there is not a young man now living in theUnited States, who will not die an Unitarian. 

But much I fear, that when this great truth shall be re-established, itsvotaries will fall into the fatal error of fabricating formulas ofcreed and confessions of faith, the engines which so soon destroyed thereligion of Jesus, and made of Christendom a mere Aceldama; that theywill give up morals for mysteries, and Jesus for Plato. How much wiserare the Quakers, who, agreeing in the fundamental doctrines of theGospel, schismatize about no mysteries, and, keeping within the paleof common sense, suffer no speculative differences of opinion, anymore than of feature, to impair the love of their brethren. Be this thewisdom of Unitarians, this the holy mantle which shall cover within itscharitable circumference all who believe in one God, and who love theirneighbor! I conclude my sermon with sincere assurances of my friendlyesteem and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CLXIII. --TO JOHN ADAMS

TO JOHN ADAMS. 

Monticello, June 27, 1822. 

Dear Sir, Your kind letter of the 11th has given me great satisfaction. Foralthough I could not doubt but that the hand of age was pressing heavilyon you, as on myself, yet we like to know the particulars and thedegree of that pressure. Much reflection, too, has been produced byyour suggestion of lending my letter of the 1st, to a printer. I havegenerally great aversion to the insertion of my letters in the publicpapers; because of my passion for quiet retirement, and never to beexhibited in scene on the public stage. Nor am I unmindful of theprecept of Horace, '_Solve senescentem, mature sanus, equum, nepeccet ad extremum ridendus_. ' In the present case, however, I see apossibility that this might aid in producing the very quiet afterwhich I pant. I do not know how far you may suffer, as I do, under thepersecution of letters, of which every mail brings a fresh load. They are letters of inquiry, for the most part, always of good will, sometimes from friends whom I esteem, but much oftener from personswhose names are unknown to me, but written kindly and civilly, and towhich, therefore, civility requires answers. Perhaps, the better knownfailure of your hand in its function of writing, may shield you ingreater degree from this distress, and so far qualify the misfortune ofits disability. I happened to turn to my letter-list some time ago, anda curiosity was excited to count those received in a single year. Itwas the year before the last. I found the number to be one thousand twohundred and sixty-seven, many of them requiring answers of elaborateresearch, and all to be answered with due attention and consideration. Take an average of this number for a week or a day, and I will repeatthe question suggested by other considerations in mine of the 1st. Isthis life? At best it is but the life of a mill-horse, who sees noend to his circle but in death. To such a life, that of a cabbage isparadise. It occurs, then, that my condition of existence, truly statedin that letter, if better known, might check the kind indiscretionswhich are so heavily oppressing the departing hours of life. Such arelief would, to me, be an ineffable blessing. But yours of the 11th, equally interesting and affecting, should accompany that to which it isan answer. The two, taken together, would excite a joint interest, andplace before our fellow-citizens the present condition of two ancientservants, who, having faithfully performed their forty or fiftycampaigns, _stipendiis omnibus expletis_, have a reasonable claimto repose from all disturbance in the sanctuary of invalids andsuperannuates. But some device should be thought of for their gettingbefore the public otherwise than by our own publication. Your printer, perhaps, could frame something plausible, ------'s name, should be leftblank, as his picture, should it meet his eye, might give him pain. Iconsign, however, the whole subject to your consideration, to do in itwhatever your own judgment shall approve, and repeat always, with truth, the assurance of my constant and affectionate friendship and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CLXIV. --TO WILLIAM T. BARRY, July 2, 1822

TO WILLIAM T. BARRY. 

Monticello, July 2, 1822. 

Sir, Your favor of the 15th of June is received, and I am very thankful forthe kindness of its expressions respecting myself. But it ascribes to memerits which I do not claim. I was only of a band devoted to the causeof independence, all of whom exerted equally their best endeavors forits success, and have a common right to the merits of its acquisition. So also in the civil revolution of 1801. Very many and very meritoriouswere the worthy patriots who assisted in bringing back our governmentto its republican tack. To preserve it in that will require unremittingvigilance. Whether the surrender of our opponents, their reception intoour camp, their assumption of our name, and apparent accession toour objects, may strengthen or weaken the genuine principles ofrepublicanism, may be a good or an evil, is yet to be seen. I considerthe party division of whig and tory the most wholesome which can existin any government, and well worthy of being nourished, to keep out thoseof a more dangerous character. We already see the power, installedfor life, responsible to no authority (for impeachment is not even ascare-crow), advancing with a noiseless and steady pace to the greatobject of consolidation. The foundations are already deeply laid bytheir decisions, for the annihilation of constitutional State rights, and the removal of every check, every counterpoise to the ingulphing*power of which themselves are to make a sovereign part. If ever thisvast country is brought under a single government, it will be one of themost extensive corruption, indifferent and incapable of a wholesome careover so wide a spread of surface. This will not be borne, and you willhave to choose between reformation and revolution. If I know the spiritof this country, the one or the other is inevitable. Before the cankeris become inveterate, before its venom has reached so much of the bodypolitic as to get beyond control, remedy should be applied. Let thefuture appointments of judges be for four or six years, and renewableby the President and Senate. This will bring their conduct, at regularperiods, under revision and probation, and may keep them in equipoisebetween the general and special governments. We have erred in thispoint, by copying England, where certainly it is a good thing to havethe judges independent of the King. But we have omitted to copy theircaution also, which makes a judge removable on the address ofboth legislative Houses. That there should be public functionariesindependent of the nation, whatever may be their demerit, is a solecismin a republic, of the first order of absurdity and inconsistency. 

To the printed inquiries respecting our schools, it is not in mypower to give an answer. Age, debility, an ancient dislocated, and nowstiffened wrist, render writing so slow and painful, that I am obligedto decline every thing possible requiring writing. An act of ourlegislature will inform you of our plan of primary schools, and theannual reports show that it is becoming completely abortive, and mustbe abandoned very shortly, after costing us to this day one hundred andeighty thousand dollars, and yet to cost us forty-five thousand dollarsa year more until it shall be discontinued; and if a single boy hasreceived the elements of common education, it must be in some part ofthe country not known to me. Experience has but too fully confirmed theearly predictions of its fate. But on this subject I must refer youto others more able than I am to go into the necessary details; and Iconclude with the assurances of my great esteem and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CLXV. --TO DOCTOR WATERHOUSE, July 19, 1822

TO DOCTOR WATERHOUSE. 

Monticello, July 19, 1822. 

Dear Sir, An anciently dislocated, and now stiffening wrist, makes writing anoperation so slow and painful to me, that I should not so soon havetroubled you with an acknowledgment of your favor of the 8th, but forthe request it contained of my consent to the publication of my letterof June the 26th. No, my dear Sir, not for the world. Into what a nestof hornets would it thrust my head! the _genus irritabile vatum_, onwhom argument is lost, and reason is, by themselves, disclaimed inmatters of religion. Don Quixote undertook to redress the bodilywrongs of the world, but the redressment of mental vagaries would be anenterprise more than Quixotic. I should as soon undertake to bring thecrazy skulls of Bedlam to sound understanding, as inculcate reason intothat of an Athanasian. I am old, and tranquillity is now my _summumbonum_. Keep me, therefore, from the fire and faggots of Calvin and hisvictim Servetus. Happy in the prospect of a restoration of primitiveChristianity, I must leave to younger athletes to encounter and lop offthe false branches which have been engrafted into it by the mycologistsof the middle and modern ages. I am not aware of the peculiar resistanceto Unitarianism, which you ascribe to Pennsylvania. When I lived inPhiladelphia there was a respectable congregation of that sect, with ameeting-house and regular service which I attended, and in which DoctorPriestley officiated to numerous audiences. Baltimore has one or twochurches, and their pastor, author of an inestimable book on thissubject, was elected chaplain to the late Congress. That doctrine hasnot yet been preached to us: but the breeze begins to be felt whichprecedes the storm; and fanaticism is all in a bustle, shutting itsdoors and windows to keep it out. But it will come, and drive before itthe foggy mists of Platonism which have so long obscured our atmosphere. I am in hopes that some of the disciples of your institution will becomemissionaries to us, of these doctrines truly evangelical, and open oureyes to what has been so long hidden from them. A bold and eloquentpreacher would be no where listened to with more freedom than in thisState, nor with more firmness of mind. They might need a preparatorydiscourse on the text of 'Prove all things, hold fast that which isgood, ' in order to unlearn the lesson that reason is an unlawful guidein religion. They might startle on being first awaked from the dreams ofthe night, but they would rub their eyes at once, and look the spectresboldly in the face. The preacher might be excluded by our hierophantsfrom their churches and meeting-houses, but would be attended inthe fields by whole acres of hearers and thinkers. Missionaries fromCambridge would soon be greeted with more welcome, than from thetritheistical school of Andover. Such are my wishes, such would be mywelcomes, warm and cordial as the assurances of my esteem and respectfor you. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CLXVI. --TO JOHN ADAMS

TO JOHN ADAMS. 

Monticello, November 1, 1822. 

Dear Sir, I have racked my memory and ransacked my papers, to enable myself toanswer the inquiries of your favor of October the 15th; but to littlepurpose. My papers furnish me nothing, my memory, generalities only. I know that while I was in Europe, and anxious about the fate of ourseafaring men, for some of whom, then in captivity in Algiers, we weretreating, and all were in like danger, I formed, undoubtingly, theopinion that our government, as soon as practicable, should provide anaval force sufficient to keep the Barbary States in order; and on thissubject we communicated together, as you observe. When I returned tothe United States and took part in the administration under GeneralWashington, I constantly maintained that opinion; and in December, 1790, took advantage of a reference to me from the first Congress which metafter I was in office, to report in favor of a force sufficient forthe protection of our Mediterranean commerce; and I laid before theman accurate statement of the whole Barbary force, public and private. I think General Washington approved of building vessels of war to thatextent. General Knox, I know, did. But what was Colonel Hamilton'sopinion, I do not in the least remember. Your recollections on thatsubject are certainly corroborated by his known anxieties for a closeconnection with Great Britain, to which he might apprehend danger fromcollisions between their vessels and ours. Randolph was then AttorneyGeneral; but his opinion on the question I also entirely forget. Somevessels of war were accordingly built and sent into the Mediterranean. The additions to these in your time, I need not note to you, whoare well known to have ever been an advocate for the wooden wallsof Themistocles. Some of those you added, were sold under an act ofCongress passed while you were in office. I thought, afterwards, thatthe public safety might require some additional vessels of strength, to be prepared and in readiness for the first moment of a war, providedthey could be preserved against the decay which is unavoidable if keptin the water, and clear of the expense of officers and men. With thisview I proposed that they should be built in dry docks, above the levelof the tide waters, and covered with roofs. I further advised, thatplaces for these docks should be selected where there was a command ofwater on a high level, as that of the Tiber at Washington, by whichthe vessels might be floated out, on the principle of a lock. But themajority of the legislature was against any addition to the navy, and the minority, although for it in judgment, voted against it on aprinciple of opposition. We are now, I understand, building vessels toremain on the stocks, under shelter, until wanted, when they will belaunched and finished. On my plan they could be in service at an hour'snotice. On this, the finishing, after launching, will be a work of time. 

This is all I recollect about the origin and progress of our navy. Thatof the late war, certainly raised our rank and character among nations. Yet a navy is a very expensive engine. It is admitted, that in ten ortwelve years a vessel goes to entire decay; or, if kept in repair, costsas much as would build a new one: and that a nation who could count ontwelve or fifteen years' of peace, would gain by burning its navy andbuilding a new one in time. Its extent, therefore, must be governed bycircumstances. Since my proposition for a force adequate to the piraciesof the Mediterranean, a similar necessity has arisen in our own seasfor considerable addition to that force. Indeed, I wish we could havea convention with the naval powers of Europe, for them to keep downthe pirates of the Mediterranean, and the slave ships on the coast ofAfrica, and for us to perform the same duties for the society of nationsin our seas. In this way, those collisions would be avoided between thevessels of war of different nations, which beget wars and constitute theweightiest objection to navies. I salute you with constant affection andrespect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

 [The annexed is the letter to which the foregoing is a reply. ]

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON. 

Montezillo, October 15, 1822. Dear Sir, I have long entertained scruples about writing this letter, upon asubject of some delicacy. But old age has overcome them at last. 

You remember the four ships ordered by Congress to be built, and thefour captains appointed by Washington, Talbot, and Truxton, and Barry, &c, to carry an ambassador to Algiers, and protect our commerce in theMediterranean. I have always imputed this measure to you; for severalreasons. First, because you frequently proposed it to me while wewere at Paris, negotiating together for peace with the Barbary powers. Secondly, because I knew that Washington and Hamilton were not onlyindifferent about a navy, but averse to it. There was no Secretary ofthe Navy; only four Heads of department. You were Secretary of State;Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury; Knox, Secretary of War; and Ibelieve Bradford was Attorney General. I have always suspected that youand Knox were in favor of a navy. If Bradford was so, the majority wasclear. But Washington, I am confident, was against it in his judgment. But his attachment to Knox, and his deference to your opinion, for Iknow he had a great regard for you, might induce him to decide in favorof you and Knox, even though Bradford united with Hamilton in oppositionto you. That Hamilton was averse to the measure, I have personalevidence; for while it was pending, he came in a hurry and a fit ofimpatience to make a visit to me. He said, he was likely to be calledupon for a large sum of money to build ships of war, to fight theAlgerines, and he asked my opinion of the measure. I answered him thatI was clearly in favor of it. For I had always been of opinion, from thecommencement of the Revolution, that a navy was the most powerful, thesafest, and the cheapest national defence for this country. My advice, therefore, was, that as much of the revenue as could possibly bespared, should be applied to the building and equipping of ships. Theconversation was of some length, but it was manifest in his looks and inhis air, that he was disgusted at the measure, as well as at the opinionthat I had expressed. 

Mrs. Knox not long since wrote a letter to Doctor Waterhouse, requestinghim to procure a commision for her son, in the navy; 'that navy, ' saysher ladyship, 'of which his father was the parent. ' 'For, ' says she, 'Ihave frequently heard General Washington say to my husband, the navy wasyour child. ' I have always believed it to be Jefferson's child, thoughKnox may have assisted in ushering it into the world. Hamilton's hobbywas the army. That Washington was averse to a navy, I had full prooffrom his own lips, in many different conversations, some of them oflength, in which he always insisted that it was only building andarming ships for the English. '_Si quid novisti rectius istis, candidusimperii; si non, his utere mecum_. '

If I am in error in any particular, pray correct your humble servant. 

John Adams. 

LETTER CLXVII. --TO DOCTOR COOPER, November 2, 1822

TO DOCTOR COOPER. 

Monticello, November 2, 1822. 

Dear Sir, Your favor of October the 18th came to hand yesterday. The atmosphereof our country is unquestionably charged with a threatening cloud offanaticism, lighter in some parts, denser in others, but too heavyin all. I had no idea, however, that in Pennsylvania, the cradle oftoleration and freedom of religion, it could have arisen to the heightyou describe. This must be owing to the growth of Presbyterianism. The blasphemy and absurdity of the five points of Calvin, and theimpossibility of defending them, render their advocates impatient ofreasoning, irritable, and prone to denunciation. In Boston, however, andits neighborhood, Unitarianism has advanced to so great strength, as nowto humble this haughtiest of all religious sects; insomuch, that theycondescend to interchange with them and the other sects, the civilitiesof preaching freely and frequently in each other's meeting-houses. InRhode Island, on the other hand, no sectarian preacher will permit anUnitarian to pollute his desk. In our Richmond there is much fanaticism, but chiefly among the women. They have their night meetings and prayingparties, where, attended by their priests, and sometimes by a hen-peckedhusband, they pour forth the effusions of their love to Jesus, in termsas amatory and carnal, as their modesty would permit them to use to amere earthly lover. In our village of Charlottesville, there is a gooddegree of religion, with a small spice only of fanaticism. We have foursects, but without either church or meeting-house. The court-house isthe common temple, one Sunday in the month to each. Here, Episcopalianand Presbyterian, Methodist and Baptist, meet together, join inhymning their Maker, listen with attention and devotion to each others'preachers, and all mix in society with perfect harmony. It is not so inthe districts where Presbyterianism prevails undividedly. Their ambitionand tyranny would tolerate no rival, if they had power. Systematicalin grasping at an ascendancy over all other sects, they aim, like theJesuits, at engrossing the education of the country, are hostile toevery institution which they do not direct, and jealous at seeing othersbegin to attend at all to that object. The diffusion of instruction, towhich there is now so growing an attention, will be the remote remedyto this fever of fanaticism; while the more proximate one will be theprogress of Unitarianism. That this will, ere long, be the religion ofthe majority from north to south, I have no doubt. 

In our University you know there is no professorship of Divinity. Ahandle has been made of this, to disseminate an idea that this isan institution, not merely of no religion, but against all religion. Occasion was taken at the last meeting of the Visitors, to bring forwardan idea that might silence this calumny, which weighed on the mindsof some honest friends to the institution. In our annual report to thelegislature, after stating the constitutional reasons against a publicestablishment of any religious instruction, we suggest the expediency ofencouraging the different religious sects to establish, each for itself, a professorship of their own tenets, on the confines of the University, so near as that the students may attend the lectures there, and havethe free use our own library, and every other accommodation we can givethem; preserving, however, their independence of us and of each other. This fills the chasm objected to ours, as a defect in an institutionprofessing to give instruction in all useful sciences. I think theinvitation will be accepted, by some sects from candid intentions, and by others from jealousy and rivalship. And by bringing the sectstogether, and mixing them with the mass of other students, we shallsoften their asperities, liberalize and neutralize their prejudices, andmake the general religion, a religion of peace, reason, and morality. 

The time of opening our University is still as uncertain as ever. Allthe pavilions, boarding-houses, and dormitories are done. Nothing isnow wanting but the central building for a library and other generalpurposes. For this we have no funds, and the last legislature refusedall aid. We have better hopes of the next. But all is uncertain. I haveheard with regret of disturbances on the part of the students in yourseminary. The article of discipline is the most difficult in Americaneducation. Premature ideas of independence, too little repressed byparents, beget a spirit of insubordination, which is the great obstacleto science with us, and a principal cause of its decay since theRevolution. I look to it with dismay in our institution, as a breakerahead, which I am far from being confident we shall be able to weather. The advance of age, and tardy pace of the public patronage, may probablyspare me the pain of witnessing consequences. 

I salute you with constant friendship and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CLXVIII. --TO JAMES SMITH, December 8, 1822

TO JAMES SMITH. 

Monticello, December 8, 1822. 

Sir, I have to thank you for your pamphlets on the subject of Unitarianism, and to express my gratification with your efforts for the revival ofprimitive Christianity in your quarter. No historical fact is betterestablished, than that the doctrine of one God, pure and uncompounded, was that of the early ages of Christianity; and was amoung theefficacious doctrines which gave it triumph over the polytheism of theancients, sickened with the absurdities of their own theology. Nor wasthe unity of the Supreme Being ousted from the Christian creed by theforce of reason, but by the sword of civil government, wielded at thewill of the fanatic Athanasius. The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God likeanother Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth andgrowth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs. And a strongproof of the solidity of the primitive faith, is its restoration, as soon as a nation arises which vindicates to itself the freedom ofreligious opinion, and its external divorce from the civil authority. The pure and simple unity of the Creator of the universe, is now allbut ascendant in the eastern States; it is dawning in the west, andadvancing towards the south; and I confidently expect that the presentgeneration will see Unitarianism become the general religion of theUnited States. The eastern presses are giving us many excellent pieceson the subject, and Priestley's learned writings on it are, or shouldbe, in every hand. In fact, the Athanasian paradox that one is three, and three but one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that nocandid man can say he has any idea of it, and how can he believe whatpresents no idea? He who thinks he does, only deceives himself. Heproves, also, that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remainingguard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship withoutrudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullability, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and themind becomes a wreck. 

I write with freedom, because, while I claim a right to believe inone God, if so my reason tells me, I yield as freely to others that ofbelieving in three. Both religions, I find, make honest men, and thatis the only point society has any right to look to. Although this mutualfreedom should produce mutual indulgence, yet I wish not to be broughtin question before the public on this or any other subject, and Ipray you to consider me as writing under that trust. I take no partin controversies, religious or political. At the age of eighty, tranquillity is the greatest good of life, and the strongest of ourdesires that of dying in the good-will of all mankind. And with theassurances of all my good-will to Unitarian and Trinitarian, to Whig andTory, accept for yourself that of my entire respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER, CLXIX. --TO JOHN ADAMS, February 25, 1823

TO JOHN ADAMS, Monticello, February 25, 1823. 

Dear Sir, I received, in due time, your two favors of December the 2nd andFebruary the 10th, and have to acknowledge for the ladies of my nativeState their obligations to you for the encomiums which you are so kindas to bestow on them. They certainly claim no advantages over those oftheir sister States, and are sensible of more favorable circumstancesexisting with many of them, and happily availed, which our situationdoes not offer. But the paper respecting Monticello, to which youallude, was not written by a Virginian, but a visitant from anotherState; and written by memory at least a dozen years after the visit. This has occasioned some lapses of recollection, and a confusion of somethings in the mind of our friend, and particularly as to the volume ofslanders supposed to have been cut out of newspapers and preserved. Itwould not, indeed, have been a single volume, but an Encyclopaedia inbulk. But I never had such a volume; indeed, I rarely thought thoselibels worth reading, much less preserving and remembering. At the endof every year, I generally sorted all my pamphlets, and had them boundaccording to their subjects. One of these volumes consisted of personalaltercations between individuals, and calumnies on each other. Thiswas lettered on the back, 'Personalities, ' and is now in the library ofCongress. I was in the habit, also, while living apart from my family, of cutting out of the newspapers such morsels of poetry, or tales, asI thought would please, and of sending them to my grandchildren, whopasted them on leaves of blank paper and formed them into a book. Thesetwo volumes have been confounded into one in the recollection of ourfriend. Her poetical imagination, too, has heightened the scenes shevisited, as well as the merits of the inhabitants, to whom her societywas a delightful gratification. 

I have just finished reading O'Meara's Bonaparte. It places him in ahigher scale of understanding than I had allotted him. I had thought himthe greatest of all military captains, but an indifferent statesman, andmisled by unworthy passions. The flashes, however, which escapedfrom him in these conversations with O'Meara, prove a mind of greatexpansion, although not of distinct developement and reasoning. Heseizes results with rapidity and penetration, but never explainslogically the process of reasoning by which he arrives at them. Thisbook, too, makes us forget his atrocities for a moment, in commiserationof his sufferings. I will not say that the authorities of the world, charged with the care of their country and people, had not a rightto confine him for life, as a lion or tiger, on the principles ofself-preservation. There was no safety to nations while he was permittedto roam at large. But the putting him to death in cold blood, bylingering tortures of mind, by vexations, insults, and deprivations, wasa degree of inhumanity to which the poisonings and assassinations of theschool of Borgia and the den of Marat never attained. The book proves, also, that nature had denied him the moral sense, the first excellenceof well-organized man. If he could seriously and repeatedly affirm, thathe had raised himself to power without ever having committed a crime, itproves that he wanted totally the sense of right and wrong. If he couldconsider the millions of human lives which he had destroyed or caused tobe destroyed, the desolations of countries by plunderings, burnings, and famine, the destitutions of lawful rulers of the world without theconsent of their constituents, to place his brothers and sisters ontheir thrones, the cutting up of established societies of men andjumbling them discordantly together again at his caprice, the demolitionof the fairest hopes of mankind for the recovery of their rights andamelioration of their condition, and all the numberless train of hisother enormities; the man, I say, who could consider all these as nocrimes, must have been a moral monster, against whom every hand shouldhave been lifted to slay him. 

You are so kind as to inquire after my health. The bone of my arm iswell knitted, but my hand and fingers are in a discouraging condition, kept entirely useless by an oedematous swelling of slow amendment. 

God bless you and continue your good health of body and mind. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CLXX. --TO JOHN ADAMS, April 11, 1823

TO JOHN ADAMS. 

Monticello, April 11, 1823. 

Dear Sir, The wishes expressed in your last favor, that I may continue in life andhealth until I become a Calvinist, at least in his exclamation of, '_MonDieu! jusqu'a quand?_' would make me immortal. I can never join Calvinin addressing his God. He was indeed an atheist, which I can never be;or rather his religion was daemonism. If ever man worshipped a falseGod, he did. The being described in his five points, is not the God whomyou and I acknowledge and adore, the Creator and benevolent Governor ofthe world; but a daemon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonableto believe in no God at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrociousattributes of Calvin. Indeed, I think that every Christian sect givesa great handle to atheism by their general dogma, that, without arevelation, there would not be sufficient proof of the being of a God. Now one sixth of mankind only are supposed to be Christians: theother five sixths then, who do not believe in the Jewish and Christianrevelation, are without a knowledge of the existence of a God! Thisgives completely a _gain de cause_ to the disciples of Ocellus, Timasus, Spinosa, Diderot, and D'Holbach. The argument which they rest on astriumphant and unanswerable is, that in every hypothesis of cosmogony, you must admit an eternal pre-existence of something; and according tothe rule of sound philosophy, you are never to employ two principles tosolve a difficulty when one will suffice. They say then, that it is moresimple to believe at once in the eternal pre-existence of the world, as it is now going on, and may for ever go on by the principle ofreproduction which we see and witness, than to believe in the eternalpre-existence of an ulterior cause, or creator of the world, a beingwhom we see not and know not, of whose form, substance, and mode, orplace of existence, or of action, no sense informs us, no power of themind enables us to delineate or comprehend. On the contrary, I hold(without appeal to revelation), that when we take a view of theuniverse, in its parts, general or particular, it is impossible for thehuman mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummateskill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition. Themovements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course bythe balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces; the structure of ourearth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters, and atmosphere;animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles;insects, mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organized as man ormammoth; the mineral substances, their generation and uses; it isimpossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe, that there isin all this, design, cause, and effect, up to an ultimate cause, afabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver andregulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and theirregenerator into new and other forms. We see, too, evident proofs ofthe necessity of a superintending power, to maintain the universe inits course and order. Stars, well known, have disappeared, new ones havecome into view; comets, in their incalculable courses, may run foul ofsuns and planets, and require renovation under other laws; certain racesof animals are become extinct; and were there no restoring power, allexistences might extinguish successively, one by one, until all shouldbe reduced to a shapeless chaos. So irresistible are these evidences ofan intelligent and powerful agent, that, of the infinite numbers of menwho have existed through all time, they have believed, in the proportionof a million at least to unit, in the hypothesis of an eternalpre-existence of a creator, rather than in that of a self-existentuniverse. Surely this unanimous sentiment renders this more probable, than that of the few in the other hypothesis. Some early Christians, indeed, have believed in the co-eternal pre-existence of both thecreator and the world, without changing their relation of cause andeffect. That this was the opinion of St. Thomas, we are informed byCardinal Toleta, in these words; '_Deus ab terno fuit jam omnipotens, si cut cum produxit mundum. Ah aternopotuit producers mundum. Si sol ahczterno esset, lumen ah æterno esset; et si pes, similiter vestigium. At lumen et vestigium effectus sunt efficients solis et pedis; potuitergo cum causa æterna effectus coaternus esse. Cujus sententia, est S. Thomas, theologorum primus_. '--Cardinal Toleta. 

[Illustration: page364]

[Illustration: page365]

Of the nature of this being we know nothing. Jesus tells us, that 'Godis a spirit'(John iv. 24. ), but without defining what a spirit is:[Greek phrase] Down to the third century, we know that it was stilldeemed material but of a lighter, subtler matter than our gross bodies. So says Origen; _Deus igitur, cui anima similis est, juxta Originem, reapte corporalis est; sed graviorum tantum ratione corporumincorporeus_. ' These are the words of Huet in his commentary on Origen. Origen himself says, [Greek and Latin phrase]

These two fathers were of the third century. Calvin's character ofthis Supreme Being seems chiefly copied from that of the Jews. But thereformation of these blasphemous attributes, and substitution of thosemore worthy, pure, and sublime, seems to have been the chief object ofJesus in his discourses to the Jews: and his doctrine of the cosmogonyof the world is very clearly laid down in the three first verses ofthe first chapter of John, in these words: [Greek phrase] Which, trulytranslated, means, 'In the beginning God existed, and reason [or mind]was with God, and that mind was God. This was in the beginning with God. All things were created by it, and without it was made not one thingwhich was made. ' Yet this text, so plainly declaring the doctrine ofJesus, that the world was created by the supreme intelligent being, hasbeen perverted by modern Christians to build up a second person of theirtritheism, by a mistranslation of the word _Xoyog_. One of its legitimatemeanings, indeed, is 'a word. ' But in that sense it makes an unmeaningjargon: while the other meaning, 'reason, ' equally legitimate, explainsrationally the eternal pre-existence of God, and his creation of, theworld. Knowing how incomprehensible it was that 'a word, ' the mereaction or articulation of the organs of speech could create a world, they undertook to make of this articulation a second pre-existing being, and ascribe to him, and not to God, the creation of the universe. Theatheist here plumes himself on the uselessness of such a God, and thesimpler hypothesis of a self-existent universe. The truth is, that thegreatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselvesthe expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of asystem of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundationin his genuine words. And the day will come, when the mysticalgeneration of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb ofa virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minervain the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason, and freedom of thought, in these United States, will do away all thisartificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuinedoctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors. 

So much for your quotation of Calvin's '_Mon Dieu! jusqu'a quand_'inwhich, when addressed to the God of Jesus, and our God, I join youcordially, and await his time and will with more readiness thanreluctance. May we meet there again, in Congress, with our ancientcolleagues, and receive with them the seal of approbation, 'Well done, good and faithful servants. '

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CLXXI. --TO THE PRESIDENT, June 11, 1823

TO THE PRESIDENT. 

Monticello, June 11, 1823. 

Dear Sir, Considering that I had not been to Bedford for a twelvemonth before, I thought myself singularly unfortunate in so timing my journey, asto have been absent exactly at the moment of your late visit to ourneighborhood. The loss, indeed, was all my own; for in these shortinterviews with you. I generally get my political compass rectified, learn from you whereabouts we are, and correct my course again. Inexchange for this, I can give you but newspaper ideas, and little indeedof these, for I read but a single paper, and that hastily. I find Horaceand Tacitus so much better writers than the champions of the gazettes, that I lay those down, to take up these, with great reluctance. And onthe question you propose, whether we can, in any form, take a bolderattitude than formerly in favor of liberty, I can give you butcommonplace ideas. They will be but the widow's mite, and offered onlybecause requested. The matter which now embroils Europe, the presumptionof dictating to an independent nation the form of its government, is soarrogant, so atrocious, that indignation, as well as moral sentiment, enlists all our partialities and prayers in favor of one, and ourequal execrations against the other. I do not know, indeed, whether allnations do not owe to one another a bold and open declaration of theirsympathies with the one party, and their detestation of the conduct ofthe other. But farther than this we are not bound to go; and indeed, forthe sake of the world, we ought not to increase the jealousies, or drawon ourselves the power, of this formidable confederacy. I have everdeemed it fundamental for the United States, never to take activepart in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirelydistinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war. All theirenergies are expended in the destruction of the labor, property, andlives of their people. On our part, never had a people so favorablea chance of trying the opposite system, of peace and fraternity withmankind, and the direction of all our means and faculties to thepurposes of improvement instead of destruction. With Europe we havefew occasions of collision, and these, with a little prudence andforbearance, may be generally accommodated. Of the brethren of our ownhemisphere, none are yet, or for an age to come will be, in a shape, condition, or disposition to war against us. And the foothold, which thenations of Europe had in either America, is slipping from under them, so that we shall soon be rid of their neighborhood. Cuba alone seems atpresent to hold up a speck of war to us. Its possession by Great Britainwould indeed be a great calamity to us. Could we induce her to join usin guarantying its independence against all the world, except Spain, itwould be nearly as valuable to us as if it were our own. But should shetake it, I would not immediately go to war for it; because the first waron other accounts will give it to us; or the island will give itself tous, when, able to do so. While no duty, therefore, calls on us to takepart in the present war of Europe, and a golden harvest offers itself inreward for doing nothing, peace and neutrality seem to be our duty andinterest. We may gratify ourselves, indeed, with a neutrality as partialto Spain as would be justifiable without giving cause of war to heradversary; we might and ought to avail ourselves of the happy occasionof procuring and cementing a cordial reconciliation with her, bygiving assurance of every friendly office which neutrality admits, andespecially, against all apprehension of our intermeddling in the quarrelwith her colonies. And I expect daily and confidently to hear of a sparkkindled in France, which will employ her at home, and relieve Spain fromall further apprehensions of danger. 

That England is playing false with Spain cannot be doubted. Hergovernment is looking one way and rowing another. It is curious to lookback a little on past events. During the ascendancy of Bonaparte, theword among the herd of Kings was, '_Sauve qui peut_. ' Each shiftedfor himself, and left his brethren to squander and do the same as theycould. After the battle of Waterloo, and the military possession ofFrance, they rallied and combined in common cause, to maintain eachother against any similar and future danger. And in this alliance, Louis, now avowedly, and George, secretly but solidly, were of thecontracting parties; and there can be no doubt that the allies are boundby treaty to aid England with their armies, should insurrection takeplace among her people. The coquetry she is now playing off betweenher people and her allies is perfectly understood by the latter, and accordingly gives no apprehensions to France, to whom it is allexplained. The diplomatic correspondence she is now displaying, thesedouble papers fabricated merely for exhibition, in which she makesherself talk of morals and principle, as if her qualms of consciencewould not permit her to go all lengths with her Holy Allies, are all togull her own people. It is a theatrical farce, in which the five powersare the actors, England the Tartuffe, and her people the dupes. Playingthus so dextrously into each other's hands, and their own personsseeming secured, they are now looking to their privileged orders. These faithful auxiliaries, or accomplices, must be saved. This war isevidently that of the general body of the aristocracy, in which Englandis also acting her part. 'Save but the Nobles, and there shall be nowar, ' says she, masking her measures at the same time under the form offriendship and mediation, and hypocritically, while a party, offeringherself as a judge, to betray those whom she is not permitted openly tooppose. A fraudulent neutrality, if neutrality at all, is all Spain willget from her. And Spain, probably, perceives this, and willingly winksat it rather than have her weight thrown openly into the other scale. 

But I am going beyond my text, and sinning against the adage of carryingcoals to Newcastle. In hazarding to you my crude and uninformed notionsof things beyond my cognizance, only be so good as to remember that itis at your request, and with as little confidence on my part as profiton yours. You will do what is right, leaving the people of Europe to acttheir follies and crimes among themselves, while we pursue in good faiththe paths of peace and prosperity. To your judgment we are willinglyresigned, with sincere assurances of affectionate esteem and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CLXXII. --TO JUDGE JOHNSON, June 12, 1823

TO JUDGE JOHNSON. 

Monticello, June 12, 1823. 

Dear Sir, Our correspondence is of that accommodating character, which admits ofsuspension at the convenience of either party, without inconvenience tothe other. Hence this tardy acknowledgment of your favor of April the11th. I learn from that with great pleasure, that you have resolved oncontinuing your history of parties. Our opponents are far ahead of us inpreparations for placing their cause favorably before posterity. YetI hope even from some of them the escape of precious truths, in angryexplosions or effusions of vanity, which will betray the genuinemonarchism of their principles. They do not themselves believe whatthey endeavor to inculcate, that we were an opposition party, not onprinciple, but merely seeking for office. The fact is, that at theformation of our government, many had formed their political opinionson European writings and practices, believing the experience of oldcountries, and especially of England, abusive as it was, to be a saferguide than mere theory. The doctrines of Europe were, that men innumerous associations cannot be restrained within the limits of orderand justice, but by forces physical and moral, wielded over them byauthorities independent of their will. Hence their organization ofkings, hereditary nobles, and priests. Still further to constrain thebrute force of the people, they deem it necessary to keep them down byhard labor, poverty, and ignorance, and to take from them, as from bees, so much of their earnings, as that unremitting labor shall be necessaryto obtain a sufficient surplus barely to sustain a scanty and miserablelife. And these earnings they apply to maintain their privileged ordersin splendor and idleness, to fascinate the eyes of the people, andexcite in them an humble adoration and submission, as to an order ofsuperior beings. Although few among us had gone all these lengths ofopinion, yet many had advanced, some more, some less, on the way. And inthe convention which formed our government, they endeavored to drawthe cords of power as tight as they could obtain them, to lessen thedependence of the general functionaries on their constituents, tosubject to them those of the States, and to weaken their means ofmaintaining the steady equilibrium which the majority of the conventionhad deemed salutary for both branches, general and local. To recover, therefore, in practice, the powers which the nation had refused, and towarp to their own wishes those actually given, was the steady object ofthe federal party. Ours, on the contrary, was to maintain the willof the majority of the convention, and of the people themselves. Webelieved, with them, that man was a rational animal, endowed by naturewith rights, and with an innate sense of justice; and that he couldbe restrained from wrong and protected in right, by moderate powers, confided to persons of his own choice, and held to their dutiesby dependence on his own will. We believed that the complicatedorganization of kings, nobles, and priests, was not the wisest nor bestto effect the happiness of associated man; that wisdom and virtue werenot hereditary; that the trappings of such a machinery consumed, bytheir expense, those earnings of industry they were meant to protect, and, by the inequalities they produced, exposed liberty to sufferance. We believed that men, enjoying in ease and security the full fruits oftheir own industry, enlisted by all their interests on the side oflaw and order, habituated to think for themselves, and to follow theirreason as their guide, would be more easily and safely governed, thanwith minds nourished in error, and vitiated and debased, as in Europe, by ignorance, indigence, and oppression. The cherishment of the peoplethen was our principle, the fear and distrust of them, that of the otherparty. Composed, as we were, of the landed and laboring interests of thecountry, we could not be less anxious for a government of law and orderthan were the inhabitants of the cities, the strong holds of federalism. And whether our efforts to save the principles and form of ourconstitution have not been salutary, let the present republican freedom, order, and prosperity of our country determine. History may distorttruth, and will distort it for a time, by the superior efforts atjustification of those who are conscious of needing it most. Nor willthe opening scenes of our present government be seen in their trueaspect, until the letters of the day, now held in private hoards, shallbe broken up and laid open to public view. What a treasure will be foundin General Washington's cabinet, when it shall pass into the hands ofas candid a friend to truth as he was himself! When no longer, likeCaesar's notes and memorandums in the hands of Anthony, it shall be opento the high priests of federalism only, and garbled to say so much, andno more, as suits their views. 

With respect to his Farewell Address, to the authorship of which, itseems, there are conflicting claims, I can state to you some facts. Hehad determined to decline a re-election at the end of his first term, and so far determined, that he had requested Mr. Madison to prepare forhim something valedictory, to be addressed to his constituents on hisretirement. This was done: but he was finally persuaded to acquiescein a second election, to which no one more strenuously pressed him thanmyself, from a conviction of the importance of strengthening, by longerhabit, the respect necessary for that office, which the weight of hischaracter only could effect. When, at the end of this second term, hisValedictory came out, Mr. Madison recognised in it several passages ofhis draught; several others we were both satisfied were from the penof Hamilton, and others from that of the President himself. These heprobably put into the hands of Hamilton to form into a whole, and henceit may all appear in Hamilton's hand-writing, as if it were all of hiscomposition. 

I have stated above, that the original objects of the federalists were, 1. To warp our government more to the form and principles of monarchy, and 2. To weaken the barriers of the State governments as co-ordinatepowers. In the first they have been so completely foiled by theuniversal spirit of the nation, that they have abandoned the enterprise, shrunk from the odium of their old appellation, taken to themselves aparticipation of ours, and under the pseudo-republican mask, are nowaiming at their second object, and strengthened by unsuspectingor apostate recruits from our ranks, are advancing fast towards anascendancy. I have been blamed for saying, that a prevalence of thedoctrines of consolidation would one day call for reformation orrevolution. I answer by asking, if a single State of the Union wouldhave agreed to the constitution, had it given all powers to the GeneralGovernment? If the whole opposition to it did not proceed from thejealousy and fear of every State, of being subjected to the otherStates, in matters merely its own? And if there is any reason to believethe States more disposed now than then, to acquiesce in this generalsurrender of all their rights and powers to a consolidated government, one and undivided?

You request me confidentially, to examine the question, whether theSupreme Court has advanced beyond its constitutional limits, andtrespassed on those of the State authorities? I do not undertake it, mydear Sir, because I am unable. Age, and the wane of mind consequent onit, have disqualified me from investigations so severe, and researchesso laborious. And it is the less necessary in this case, as having beenalready done by others with a logic and learning to which I couldadd nothing. On the decision of the case of Cohens vs. The State ofVirginia, in the Supreme Court of the United States, in March, 1821, Judge Roane, under the signature of Algernon Sidney, wrote for theEnquirer, a series of papers on the law of that case. I considered thesepapers maturely as they came out, and confess, that they appeared to meto pulverize every word which had been delivered by Judge Marshall, of the extra-judicial part of his opinion; and all was extra-judicial, except the decision that the act of Congress had not purported togive to the corporation of Washington the authority claimed by theirlottery-law, of controlling the laws of the States within the Statesthemselves. But unable to claim that case, he could not let it goentirely, but went on gratuitously to prove, that notwithstanding theeleventh amendment of the constitution, a State could be brought, asa defendant, to the bar of his court; and again, that Congress mightauthorize a corporation of its territory to exercise legislation withina State, and paramount to the laws of that State. I cite the sum andresult only of his doctrines, according to the impression made on mymind at the time, and still remaining. If not strictly accurate incircumstance, it is so in substance. This doctrine was so completelyrefuted by Roane, that if he can be answered, I surrender human reasonas a vain and useless faculty, given to bewilder, and not to guide us. And I mention this particular case as one only of several, because itgave occasion to that thorough examination of the constitutional limitsbetween the General and State jurisdictions, which you have asked for. There were two other writers in the same paper, under the signatures ofFletcher of Saltoun, and Somers, who in a few essays presented some veryluminous and striking views of the question. And there was a particularpaper which recapitulated all the cases in which it was thought thefederal court had usurped on the State jurisdictions. These essays willbe found in the Enquirers of 1821, from May the 10th to July the 13th. It is not in my present power to send them to you, but if Ritchie canfurnish them, I will procure and forward them. If they had been read inthe other States, as they were here, I think they would have left, thereas here, no dissentients from their doctrine. The subject was taken upby our legislature of 1821-22, and two draughts of remonstrances wereprepared and discussed. As well as I remember, there was no differenceof opinion as to the matter of right; but there was as to the expediencyof a remonstrance at that time, the general mind of the States beingthen under extraordinary excitement by the Missouri question; and itwas dropped on that consideration. But this case is not dead; it onlysleepeth. The Indian Chief said, he did not go to war for every pettyinjury by itself, but put it into his pouch, and when that was full, he then made war. Thank Heaven, we have provided a more peaceable andrational mode of redress. 

This practice of Judge Marshall, of travelling out of his case toprescribe what the law would be in a moot case not before the court, isvery irregular and very censurable. 1 recollect another instance, andthe more particularly, perhaps, because it in some measure bore onmyself. Among the midnight appointments of Mr. Adams, were commissionsto some federal justices of the peace for Alexandria. These were signedand sealed by him, but not delivered. I found them on the table of thedepartment of State, on my entrance into office, and 1 forbade theirdelivery. Marbury, named in one of them, applied to the Supreme Courtfor a Mandamus to the Secretary of State (Mr. Madison), to deliver thecommission intended for him. The Court determined at once, that being anoriginal process, they had no cognizance of it; and there the questionbefore them was ended. But the Chief Justice went on to lay down whatthe law would be, had they jurisdiction of the case; to wit, that theyshould command the delivery. 

The object was clearly to instruct any other court having thejurisdiction, what they should do, if Marbury should apply to them. Besides the impropriety of this gratuitous interference, could any thingexceed the perversion of law? For if there is any principle of law neveryet contradicted, it is that delivery is one of the essentials tothe validity of a deed. Although signed and sealed, yet as long as itremains in the hands of the party himself, it is in fieri only, it isnot a deed, and can be made so only by its delivery. In the hands of athird person it may be made an escrow. But whatever is in the executiveoffices is certainly deemed to be in the hands of the President; and, inthis case, was actually in my hands, because, when I countermanded them, there was as yet no Secretary of State. Yet this case of Marbury andMadison is continually cited by bench and bar, as if it weresettled law, without any animadversion on its being merely an obiterdissertation of the Chief Justice. 

It may be impracticable to lay down any general formula of words whichshall decide at once, and with precision, in every case, this limit ofjurisdiction. But there are two canons which will guide us safely inmost of the cases. 1. The capital and leading object of the constitutionwas, to leave with the States all authorities which respected theirown citizens only, and to transfer to the United States those whichrespected citizens of foreign or other States: to make us several asto ourselves, but one as to all others. In the latter case, then, constructions should lean to the general jurisdiction, if the words willbear it; and in favor of the States in the former, if possible to be soconstrued. And indeed, between citizens and citizens of the sameState, and under their own laws, I know but a single case in which ajurisdiction is given to the General Government. That is, where anything but gold or silver is made a lawful tender, or the obligation ofcontracts is any otherwise impaired. The separate legislatures had sooften abused that power, that the citizens themselves chose to trustit to the general, rather than to their own special authorities. 2. Onevery question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time whenthe constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in thedebates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of thetext, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which itwas passed. Let us try Cohen's case by these canons only, referringalways however, for full argument, to the essays before cited. 

1. It was between a citizen and his own State, and under a law of hisState. It was a domestic case therefore, and not a foreign one. 

2. Can it be believed, that under the jealousies prevailing againstthe General Government, at the adoption of the constitution, the Statesmeant to surrender the authority of preserving order, of enforcing moralduties, and restraining vice, within their own territory? And this isthe present case, that of Cohen being under the ancient and general lawof gaming. Can any good be effected, by taking from the States the moralrule of their citizens, and subordinating it to the general authority, or to one of their corporations, which may justify forcing the meaningof words, hunting after possible constructions, and hanging inference oninference, from heaven to earth, like Jacob's ladder? Such an intentionwas impossible, and such a licentiousness of construction and inference, if exercised by, both governments, as may be done with equal right, would equally authorize both to claim all powers, general andparticular, and break up the foundations of the Union. Laws are made formen of ordinary understanding, and should, therefore, be construed bythe ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be soughtfor in metaphysical subtleties, which may make any thing mean everything or nothing, at pleasure. It should be left to the sophisms ofadvocates, whose trade it is, to prove that a defendant is a plaintiff, though dragged into court, torto collo, like Bonaparte's volunteers intothe field in chains, or that a power has been given, because it oughtto have been given, et alia talia. The States supposed, that, by theirtenth amendment, they had secured themselves against constructivepowers. They were not lessoned yet by Cohen's case, nor aware of theslipperiness of the eels of the law. I ask for no straining of wordsagainst the General Government nor yet against the States. I believe theStates can best govern our home concerns, and the General Governmentour foreign ones. I wish, therefore, to see maintained that wholesomedistribution of powers, established by the constitution for thelimitation of both; and never to see all offices transferred toWashington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, theymay more secretly be bought and sold, as at market. 

But the Chief Justice says, 'there must be an ultimate arbitersomewhere. ' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party?The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by theirdeputies in convention, at the call of Congress, or of two thirds of theStates. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimedby two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicityof our constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where thatof other nations is at once to force. 

I rejoice in the example you set of _seriatim_ opinions. I have heard itoften noticed, and always with high approbation. Some of your brethrenwill be encouraged to follow it occasionally, and in time, it may befelt by all as a duty, and the sound practice of the primitive courtbe again restored. Why should not every judge be asked his opinion, andgive it from the bench, if only by yea or nay? Besides ascertaining thefact of his opinion, which the public have a right to know, in orderto judge whether it is impeachable or not, it would show whether theopinions were unanimous or not, and thus settle more exactly the weightof their authority. 

The close of my second sheet warns me that it is time now to relieveyou from this letter of unmerciful length. Indeed, I wonder how I haveaccomplished it, with two crippled wrists, the one scarcely able to movemy pen, the other to hold my paper. But I am hurried sometimes beyondthe sense of pain, when unbosoming myself to friends who harmonize withme in principle. You and I may differ occasionally in details of minorconsequence, as no two minds, more than two faces, are the same inevery feature. But our general objects are the same; to preserve therepublican form and principles of our constitution, and cleave to thesalutary distribution of powers which that has established. These arethe two sheet anchors of our Union. If driven from either, we shall bein danger of foundering. To my prayers for its safety and perpetuity, Iadd those for the continuation of your health, happiness, and usefulnessto your country. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CLXXIII. --TO JAMES MADISON, August 30, 1823

TO JAMES MADISON. 

Monticello, August 30, 1823. 

Dear Sir, I received the enclosed letters from the President, with a request thatafter perusal I would forward them to you, for perusal by yourself also, and to be returned then to him. 

You have doubtless seen Timothy Pickering's fourth of July observationson the Declaration of Independence. If his principles and prejudices, personal and political, gave us no reason to doubt whether he had trulyquoted the information he alleges to have received from Mr. Adams, Ishould then say, that in some of the particulars, Mr. Adams's memoryhas led him into unquestionable error. At the age of eighty-eight, andforty-seven years after the transactions of Independence, this is notwonderful. Nor should I, at the age of eighty, on the small advantageof that difference only, venture to oppose my memory to his, were itnot supported by written notes, taken by myself at the moment and on thespot. He says, 'The committee of five, to wit, Doctor Franklin, Sherman, Livingston, and ourselves, met, discussed the subject, andthen appointed him and myself to make the draught; that, we, as asub-committee, met, and after the urgencies of each on the other, Iconsented to undertake the task; that, the draught being made, we, thesub-committee, met, and conned the paper over, and he does not rememberthat he made or suggested a single alteration. ' Now these detailsare quite incorrect. The committee of five met; no such thing as asub-committee was proposed, but they unanimously pressed on myself aloneto undertake the draught. I consented; I drew it: but before I reportedit to the committee, I communicated it separately to Doctor Franklinand Mr. Adams, requesting their corrections, because they were the twomembers of whose judgments and amendments I wished most to have thebenefit, before presenting it to the committee: and you have seen theoriginal paper now in my hands, with the corrections of Doctor Franklinand Mr. Adams interlined in their own hand-writings. Their alterationswere two or three only, and merely verbal. I then wrote a fair copy, reported it to the committee, and from them, unaltered, to Congress. This personal communication and consultation with Mr. Adams, hehas misremembered into the actings of a sub-committee. Pickering'sobservations, and Mr. Adams's in addition, 'that it contained no newideas, that it is a common-place compilation, its sentiments hackniedin Congress for two years before, and its essence contained in Otis'spamphlet, ' may all be true. Of that I am not to be the judge. RichardHenry Lee charged it as copied from Locke's Treatise on Government. Otis's pamphlet I never saw, and whether I had gathered my ideas fromreading or reflection I do not know. I know only that I turned toneither book nor pamphlet while writing it. I did not consider it asany part of my charge to invent new ideas altogether, and to offer nosentiment which had ever been expressed before. Had Mr. Adams beenso restrained, Congress would have lost the benefit of his bold andimpressive advocations of the rights of Revolution. For no man'sconfident and fervid addresses, more than Mr. Adams's, encouraged andsupported us through the difficulties surrounding us, which, like theceaseless action of gravity, weighed on us by night and by day. Yet, onthe same ground, we may ask what of these elevated thoughts was new, orcan be affirmed never before to have entered the conceptions of man?

Whether, also, the sentiments of Independence, and the reasons fordeclaring it, which makes so great a portion of the instrument, had beenhacknied in Congress for two years before the 4th of July, '76, or thisdictum also of Mr. Adams be another slip of memory, let historysay. This, however, I will say for Mr. Adams, that he supported theDeclaration with zeal and ability, fighting fearlessly for every word ofit. As to myself, I thought it a duty to be, on that occasion, a passiveauditor of the opinions of others, more impartial judges than I couldbe, of its merits or demerits. During the debate I was sitting byDoctor Franklin, and he observed that I was writhing a little underthe acrimonious criticisms on some of its parts; and it was on thatoccasion, that by way of comfort, he told me the story of John Thomson, the hatter, and his new sign. 

Timothy thinks the instrument the better for having a fourth of itexpunged. He would have thought it still better, had the other threefourths gone out also, all but the single sentiment (the only one heapproves), which recommends friendship to his dear England, whenever sheis willing to be at peace with us. His insinuations are, that although'the high tone of the instrument was in unison with the warm feelings ofthe times, this sentiment of habitual friendship to England should neverbe forgotten, and that the duties it enjoins should especially be bornein mind on every celebration of this anniversary. ' In other words, thatthe Declaration, as being a libel on the government of England, composedin times of passion, should now be buried in utter oblivion, to sparethe feelings of our English friends and Angloman fellow-citizens. But itis not to wound them that we wish to keep it in mind; but to cherish theprinciples of the instrument in the besoms of our own citizens: and itis a heavenly comfort to see that these principles are yet so stronglyfelt, as to render a circumstance so trifling as this little lapse ofmemory of Mr. Adams's, worthy of being solemnly announced and supportedat an anniversary assemblage of the nation on its birth-day. Inopposition, however, to Mr. Pickering, I pray God that these principlesmay be eternal, and close the prayer with my affectionate wishes foryourself of long life, health, and happiness. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CLXXIV. --TO JOHN ADAMS, September 4, 1823

TO JOHN ADAMS. 

Monticello, September 4, 1823. 

Dear Sir, Your letter of August the 15th was received in due time, and with thewelcome of every thing which comes from you. With its opinions on thedifficulties of revolutions from despotism to freedom, I very muchconcur. The generation which commences a revolution rarely completes it. Habituated from their infancy to passive submission of body fend mindto their kings and priests, they are not qualified, when called on, to think and provide for themselves; and their inexperience, theirignorance and bigotry, make them instruments often, in the hands of theBonapartes and Iturbides, to defeat their own rights and purposes. Thisis the present situation of Europe and Spanish America. But it isnot desperate. The light which has been shed on mankind by the art ofprinting, has eminently changed the condition of the world. As yet, thatlight has dawned on the middling classes only of the men in Europe. The kings and the rabble, of equal ignorance, have not yet received itsrays; but it continues to spread, and while printing is preserved, itcan no more recede than the sun return on his course. A first attempt torecover the right of self-government may fail, so may a second, a third, &c. But as a younger and more instructed race comes on, the sentimentbecomes more and more intuitive, and a fourth, a fifth, or somesubsequent one of the ever-renewed attempts will ultimately succeed. In France, the first effort was defeated by Robespierre, the second byBonaparte, the third by Louis XVIII. , and his holy allies; another isyet to come, and all Europe, Russia excepted, has caught the spirit; andall will attain representative government, more or less perfect. Thisis now well understood to be a necessary check on Kings, whom they willprobably think it more prudent to chain and tame, than to exterminate. To attain all this, however, rivers of blood must yet flow, and years ofdesolation pass over; yet the object is worth rivers of blood, and yearsof desolation. For what inheritance so valuable, can man leave to hisposterity? The spirit of the Spaniard, and his deadly and eternal hatredto a Frenchman, give me much confidence that he will never submit, butfinally defeat this atrocious violation of the laws of God and man, under which he is suffering; and the wisdom and firmness of the Cortes, afford reasonable hope, that that nation will settle down in a temperaterepresentative government, with an executive properly subordinated tothat. Portugal, Italy, Prussia, Germany, Greece, will follow suit. Youand I shall look down from another world on these glorious achievementsto man, which will add to the joys even of heaven. 

I observe your toast of Mr. Jay on the 4th of July, wherein you say thatthe omission of his signature to the Declaration of Independence was byaccident. Our impressions as to this fact being different, I shallbe glad to have mine corrected, if wrong. Jay, you know, had been inconstant opposition to our laboring majority. Our estimate at the timewas, that he, Dickinson, and Johnson of Maryland, by their ingenuity, perseverance, and partiality to our English connection, had constantlykept us a year behind where we ought to have been, in our preparationsand proceedings. From about the date of the Virginia instructions of Maythe 15th, 1776, to declare Independence, Mr. Jay absented himself fromCongress, and never came there again until December, 1778. Of course, he had no part in the discussions or decision of that question. Theinstructions to their Delegates by the convention of New York, thensitting, to sign the Declaration, were presented to Congress on the 15thof July only, and on that day the journals show the absence of Mr. Jay, by a letter received from him, as they had done as early as the 29thof May, by another letter. And I think he had been omitted by theconvention on a new election of Delegates, when they changed theirinstructions. Of this last fact, however, having no evidence but anancient impression, I shall not affirm it. But whether so or not, noagency of accident appears in the case. This error of fact, however, whether yours or mine, is of little consequence to the public. Buttruth being as cheap as error, it is as well to rectify it for our ownsatisfaction. 

I have had a fever of about three weeks, during the last and precedingmonth, from which I am entirely recovered except as to strength. 

Ever affectionately yours. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CLXXV. --TO JOHN ADAMS, October 12, 1823

TO JOHN ADAMS. 

Monticello, October 12, 1823. 

Dear Sir, I do not write with the ease which your letter of September the 18thsupposes. Crippled wrists and fingers make writing slow and laborious. But while writing to you, I lose the sense of these things in therecollection of ancient times, when youth and health made happiness outof every thing. I forget for a while the hoary winter of age, when wecan think of nothing but how to keep ourselves warm, and how to get ridof our heavy hours until the friendly hand of death shall rid us of allat once. Against this _tedium vita_, however, I am fortunately mountedon a hobby, which, indeed, I should have better managed some thirtyor forty years ago; but whose easy amble is still sufficient to giveexercise and amusement to an octogenary rider. This is the establishmentof a University, on a scale more comprehensive, and in a country morehealthy and central than our old William and Mary, which these obstacleshave long kept in a state of languor and inefficiency. But the tardinesswith which such works proceed, may render it doubtful whether I shalllive to see it go into action. 

Putting aside these things, however, for the present, I write thisletter as due to a friendship coeval with our government, and nowattempted to be poisoned, when too late in life to be replaced by newaffections. I had for some time observed, in the public papers, darkhints and mysterious innuendoes of a correspondence of yours with afriend, to whom you had opened your bosom without reserve, and which wasto be made public by that friend or his representative. And now it issaid to be actually published. It has not yet reached us, but extractshave been given, and such as seemed most likely to draw a curtain ofseparation between you and myself. Were there no other motive than thatof indignation against the author of this outrage on private confidence, whose shaft seems to have been aimed at yourself more particularly, thiswould make it the duty of every honorable mind to disappoint thataim, by opposing to its impression a seven-fold shield of apathyand insensibility. With me, however, no such armor is needed. Thecircumstances of the times in which we have happened to live, and thepartiality of our friends at a particular period, placed us in a stateof apparent opposition, which some might suppose to be personal also:and there might, not be wanting those who wished to make it so, byfilling our ears with malignant falsehoods, by dressing up hideousphantoms of their own creation, presenting them to you under my name, to me under yours, and endeavoring to instil into our minds thingsconcerning each other the most destitute of truth. And if there hadbeen, at any time, a moment when we were off our guard, and in a temperto let the whispers of these people make us forget what we had known ofeach other for so many years, and years of so much trial, yet all men, who have attended to the workings of the human mind, who have seenthe false colors under which passion sometimes dresses the actions andmotives of others, have seen also those passions subsiding with time andreflection, dissipating like mists before the rising sun, and restoringto us the sight of all things in their true shape and colors. It wouldbe strange, indeed, if, at our years, we were to go an age back to huntup imaginary or forgotten facts, to disturb the repose of affections sosweetening to the evening of our lives. Be assured, my dear Sir, that Iam incapable of receiving the slightest impression from the effort nowmade to plant thorns on the pillow of age, worth, and wisdom, and tosow tares between friends who have been such for near half a century. Beseeching you, then, not to suffer your mind to be disquieted by thiswicked attempt to poison its peace, and praying you to throw it by amongthe things which have never happened, I add sincere assurances of myunabated and constant attachment, friendship, and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CLXXVI. --TO THE PRESIDENT, October 24, 1823

TO THE PRESIDENT. 

Monticello, October 24, 1823. 

Dear Sir, The question presented by the letters you have sent me, is the mostmomentous which has ever been offered to my contemplation since that ofIndependence. That made us a nation, this sets our compass, and pointsthe course which we are to steer through the ocean of time opening onus. And never could we embark on it under circumstances more auspicious. Our first and fundamental maxim should be, never to entangle ourselvesin the broils of Europe. Our second, never to suffer Europe tointermeddle with cis-Atlantic affairs. America, North and South, has aset of interests distinct from those of Europe, and peculiarly her own. 

She should therefore have a system of her own, separate and apart fromthat of Europe. While the last is laboring to become the domicile ofdespotism, our endeavor should surely be, to make our hemisphere that offreedom. One nation, most of all, could disturb us in this pursuit;she now offers to lead, aid, and accompany us in it. By acceding to herproposition, we detach her from the band of despots, bring her mightyweight into the scale of free government, and emancipate a continent atone stroke, which might otherwise linger long in doubt and difficulty. Great Britain is the nation which can do us the most harm of any one, or all, on earth; and with her on our side we need not fear the wholeworld. With her, then, we should most sedulously cherish a cordialfriendship; and nothing would tend more to knit our affections, than tobe fighting once more, side by side, in the same cause. Not that I wouldpurchase even her amity at the price of taking part in her wars. But thewar in which the present proposition might engage us, should that be itsconsequence, is not her war, but ours. Its object is to introduce andestablish the American system, of keeping out of our land all foreignpowers, of never permitting those of Europe to intermeddle with theaffairs of our nations. It is to maintain our own principle, not todepart from it. And if, to facilitate this, we can effect a divisionin the body of the European powers, and draw over to our side itsmost powerful member, surely we should do it. But I am clearly of Mr. Canning's opinion, that it will prevent instead of provoking war. WithGreat Britain withdrawn from their scale, and shifted into that of ourtwo continents, all Europe combined would not undertake such a war. Forhow would they propose to get at either enemy without superior fleets?Nor is the occasion to be slighted which this proposition offers, ofdeclaring our protest against the atrocious violations of the rightsof nations, by the interference of any one in the internal affairs ofanother, so flagitiously begun by Bonaparte, and now continued by theequally lawless Alliance, calling itself Holy. 

But we have first to ask ourselves a question. Do we wish to acquire toour own confederacy any one or more of the Spanish provinces? I candidlyconfess, that I have ever looked on Cuba as the most interestingaddition which could ever be made to our system of States. The controlwhich, with Florida Point, this island would give us over the Gulf ofMexico, and the countries and isthmus bordering on it, as well asall those whose waters flow into it, would fill up the measure of ourpolitical well-being. Yet, as I am sensible that this can never beobtained, even with her own consent, but by war; and its independence, which is our second interest (and especially its independence ofEngland), can be secured without it, I have no hesitation in abandoningmy first wish to future chances, and accepting its independence, withpeace and the friendship of England, rather than its association, at theexpense of war and her enmity. 

I could honestly, therefore, join in the declaration proposed, that weaim not at the acquisition of any of those possessions, that we will notstand in the way of any amicable arrangement between them and the mothercountry; but that we will oppose, with all our means, the forcibleinterposition of any other power, as auxiliary, stipendiary, or underany other form or pretext, and most especially, their transfer to anypower by conquest, cession, or acquisition in any other way. I shouldthink it, therefore, advisable, that the Executive should encourage theBritish government to a continuance in the dispositions expressed inthese letters, by an assurance of his concurrence with them as far ashis authority goes; and that as it may lead to war, the declaration ofwhich requires an act of Congress, the case shall be laid before themfor consideration at their first meeting, and under the reasonableaspect in which it is seen by himself. 

I have been so long weaned from political subjects, and have so longceased to take any interest in them, that I am sensible I am notqualified to offer opinions on them worthy of any attention. But thequestion now proposed involves consequences so lasting, and effects sodecisive of our future destinies, as to re-kindle all the interest Ihave heretofore felt on such occasions, and to induce me to the hazardof opinions, which will prove only my wish to contribute still my mitetowards any thing which may be useful to our country. And praying you toaccept it at only what it is worth, I add the assurance of my constantand affectionate friendship and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CLXXVII. --TO THE MARQUIS DE LA FAYETTE, November 4, 1823

TO THE MARQUIS DE LA FAYETTE. 

Monticello, November 4, 1823. 

My Dear Friend, Two dislocated wrists and crippled fingers have rendered writing soslow and laborious, as to oblige me to withdraw from nearly allcorrespondence: not, however, from yours, while I can make a stroke witha pen. We have gone through too many trying scenes together, to forgetthe sympathies and affections they nourished. 

Your trials have indeed been long and severe. When they will end, is yetunknown, but where they will end, cannot be doubted. Alliances, Holy orHellish, may be formed, and retard the epoch of deliverance, may swellthe rivers of blood which are yet to flow, but their own will close thescene, and leave to mankind the right of self-government. I trust thatSpain will prove, that a nation cannot be conquered which determinesnot to be so, and that her success will be the turning of the tide ofliberty, no more to be arrested by human efforts. Whether the state ofsociety in Europe can bear a republican government, I doubted, you knowwhen with you, and I do now. A hereditary chief, strictly limited, theright of war vested in the legislative body, a rigid economy of thepublic contributions, and absolute interdiction of all useless expenses, will go far towards keeping the government honest and unoppressive. But the only security o£ all, is in a free press. The force of publicopinion cannot be resisted, when permitted freely to be expressed. Theagitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary to keep thewaters pure. 

We are all, for example, in agitation even in our peaceful country. Forin peace as well as in war, the mind must be kept in motion. Who isto be the next President, is the topic here of every conversation. Myopinion on that subject is what I expressed to you in my last letter. The question will be ultimately reduced to the northernmost andsouthernmost candidates. The former will get every federal vote in theUnion, and many republicans; the latter, all those denominated ofthe old school; for you are not to believe that these two parties areamalgamated, that the lion and the lamb are lying down together. The Hartford convention, the victory of Orleans, the peace of Ghent, prostrated the name of federalism. Its votaries abandoned it throughshame and mortification; and now call themselves republicans. But thename alone is changed, the principles are the same. For in truth, the parties of Whig and Tory are those of nature. They exist in allcountries, whether called by these names, or by those of Aristocrats andDemocrats, Cote Droite and Cote Gauche, Ultras and Radicals, Servilesand Liberals. The sickly, weakly, timid man, fears the people, and isa tory by nature. The healthy, strong, and bold, cherishes them, and isformed a whig by nature. On the eclipse of federalism with us, althoughnot its extinction, its leaders got up the Missouri question, under thefalse front of lessening the measure of slavery, but with the real viewof producing a geographical division of parties, which might insurethem the next President. The people of the north went blindfold into thesnare, followed their leaders for a while with a zeal truly moral andlaudable, until they became sensible that they were injuring instead ofaiding the real interests of the slaves, that they had been used, merelyas tools for electioneering purposes; and that trick of hypocrisy thenfell as quickly as it had been got up. To that is now succeeding adistinction, which, like that of republican and federal, or whig andtory, being equally intermixed through every State, threatens none ofthose geographical schisms which go immediately to a separation. Theline of division now is the preservation of State rights as reserved inthe constitution, or by strained constructions of that instrument, to merge all into a consolidated government. The tories are forstrengthening the executive and General Government; the whigs cherishthe representative branch, and the rights reserved by the States, as thebulwark against consolidation, which must immediately generate monarchy. And although this division excites, as yet, no warmth, yet it exists, is well understood, and will be a principle of voting at the ensuingelection, with the reflecting men of both parties. 

I thank you much for the two books you were so kind as to send me by Mr. Gallatin. Miss Wright had before favored me with the first edition ofher American work: but her 'Few Days in Athens, ' was entirely new, andhas been a treat to me of the highest order. The matter and mannerof the dialogue is strictly ancient; the principles of the sects arebeautifully and candidly explained and contrasted; and the scenery andportraiture of the interlocutors are of higher finish than any thing inthat line left us by the ancients; and like Ossian, if not ancient, itis equal to the best morsels of antiquity. I augur, from this instance, that Herculaneum is likely to furnish better specimens of modern than ofancient genius; and may we not hope more from the same pen?

After much sickness, and the accident of a broken and disabled arm, Iam again in tolerable health, but extremely debilitated, so as to bescarcely able to walk into my garden. The hebitude of age too, andextinguishment of interest in the things around me, are weaning me fromthem, and dispose me with cheerfulness to resign them to the existinggeneration, satisfied that the daily advance of science will enable themto administer the commonwealth with increased wisdom. You have stillmany valuable years to give to your country, and with my prayers that, they may be years of health and happiness, and especially that they maysee the establishment of the principles of government which you havecherished through life, accept the assurance of my affectionate andconstant friendship and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CLXXVIII. --TO JOSEPH C CABELL, February 3, 1824

TO JOSEPH C CABELL. 

Monticello, February 3, 1824. 

Dear Sir, I am favored with your two letters of January the 26th and 29th, andam glad that yourself and the friends of the University are so wellsatisfied, that the provisos amendatory of the University Act are merenullities. I had not been able to put out of my head the Algebraicalequation, which was among the first of my college lessons, that a—a = 0. Yet I cheerfully arrange myself to your opinions. I did not suppose, nordo I now suppose it possible, that both Houses of the legislature shouldever consent, for an additional fifteen thousand dollars of revenue, to set all the Professors and students of the University adrift: andif foreigners will have the same confidence which we have in ourlegislature, no harm will have been done by the provisos. 

You recollect that we had agreed that the Visitors who are of thelegislature should fix on a certain day of meeting, after the rising ofthe Assembly, to put into immediate motion the measures which this actwas expected to call for. You will of course remind the Governor thata re-appointment of Visitors is to be made on the day following Sunday, the 29th of this month; and as he is to appoint the day of their firstmeeting, it would be well to recommend to him that which our brethrenthere shall fix on. It may be designated by the Governor as the third, fourth, &c. Day after the rising of the legislature, which will give itcertainty enough. 

You ask what sum would be desirable for the purchase of books andapparatus. Certainly the largest you can obtain. Forty or fifty thousanddollars would enable us to purchase the most essential books of textand reference for the schools, and such an apparatus for Mathematics, Astronomy, and Chemistry, as may enable us to set out with tolerablecompetence, if we can, through the banks and otherwise, anticipate thewhole sum at once. 

I remark what you say on the subject of committing ourselves to any onefor the Law appointment. Your caution is perfectly just. I hope, and amcertain, that this will be the standing law of discretion and duty withevery member of our board, in this and all cases. You know we haveall, from the beginning, considered the high qualifications of ourProfessors, as the only means by which we can give to our institutionsplendor and pre-eminence over all its sister seminaries. The onlyquestion, therefore, we can ever ask ourselves, as to any candidate, will be, Is he the most highly qualified? The college of Philadelphiahas lost its character of primacy by indulging motives of favoritism andnepotism, and by conferring the appointments as if the professorshipswere entrusted to them as provisions for their friends. And even thatof Edinburgh, you know, is also much lowered from the same cause. We arenext to observe, that a man is not qualified for a Professor, knowingnothing but merely his own profession. He should be otherwise welleducated as to the sciences generally; able to converse understandinglywith the scientific men with whom he is associated, and to assist in thecouncils of the Faculty on any subject of science on which they may haveoccasion to deliberate. Without this, he will incur their contempt, and bring disreputation on the institution. With respect to theprofessorship you mention, I scarcely know any of our judges personally;but I will name, for example, the late Judge Roane, who, I believe, wasgenerally admitted to be among the ablest of them. His knowledge wasconfined to the common law chiefly, which does not constitute one halfof the qualification of a really learned lawyer, much less that of aProfessor of law for an University. And as to any other branchesof science, he must have stood mute in the presence of his literaryassociates, or of any learned strangers or others visiting theUniversity. Would this constitute the splendid stand we propose to take?

In the course of the trusts I have exercised through life with powers ofappointment, I can say with truth, and with unspeakable comfort, that Inever did appoint a relation to office, and that merely because Inever saw the case in which some one did not offer, or occur, betterqualified; and I have the most unlimited confidence, that in theappointment of Professors to our nursling institution, every individualof my associates will look with a single eye to the sublimation of itscharacter, and adopt, as our sacred motto, '_Detur digniori_? In thisway it will honor us, and bless our country. 

I perceive that I have permitted my reflections to run into generalitiesbeyond the scope of the particular intimation in your letter I will letthem go, however, as a general confession of faith, not belonging merelyto the present case. 

Name me affectionately to our brethren with you, and be assured yourselfof my constant friendship and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CLXXIX. --TO JARED SPARKS, February 4, 1824

TO JARED SPARKS. 

Monticello, February 4, 1824. 

Dear Sir, I duly received your favor of the 3th, and with it the last number ofthe North American Review. This has anticipated the one I should receivein course, but have not yet received, under my subscription to the newseries. The article on the African colonization of the people of color, to which you invite my attention, I have read with great consideration. It is, indeed, a fine one, and will do much good. I learn from it more, too, than I had before known, of the degree of success and promise ofthat colony. 

In the disposition of these unfortunate people, there are two rationalobjects to be distinctly kept in view. 1. The establishment of a colonyon the coast of Africa, which may introduce among the aborigines thearts of cultivated life, and the blessings of civilization and science. By doing this, we may make to them some retribution for the long courseof injuries we have been committing on their population. And consideringthat these blessings will descend to the '_nati natorum, et quinascentur ab illis_, ' we shall in the long run have rendered themperhaps more good than evil. To fulfil this object, the colony ofSierra Leone promises well, and that of Mesurado adds to our prospect ofsuccess. Under this view, the Colonization Society is to be consideredas a missionary society, having in view, however, objects more humane, more justifiable, and less aggressive on the peace of other nations, than the others of that appellation. 

The second object, and the most interesting to us, as coming home toour physical and moral characters, to our happiness and safety, is toprovide an asylum to which we can, by degrees, send the whole of thatpopulation from among us, and establish them under our patronage andprotection, as a separate, free, and independent people, in some countryand climate friendly to human life and happiness. That any place on thecoast of Africa should answer the latter purpose, I have ever deemedentirely impossible. And without repeating the other arguments whichhave been urged by others, I will appeal to figures only, which admitno controversy. I shall speak in round numbers, not absolutely accurate, yet not so wide from truth as to vary the result materially. There arein the United States a million and a half of people of color inslavery. To send off the whole of these at once, nobody conceives to bepracticable for us, or expedient for them. Let us take twenty-five yearsfor its accomplishment, within which time they will be doubled. Theirestimated value as property, in the first place, (for actual propertyhas been lawfully vested in that form, and who can lawfully take it fromthe possessors?) at an average of two hundred dollars each, young andold, would amount to six hundred millions of dollars, which must be paidor lost by somebody. To this, add the cost of their transportationby land and sea to Mesurado, a year's provision of food and clothing, implements of husbandry and of their trades, which will amount to threehundred millions more, making thirty-six millions of dollars a yearfor twenty-five years, with insurance of peace all that time, and it isimpossible to look at the question a second time. I am aware that atthe end of about sixteen years, a gradual detraction from this sum willcommence, from the gradual diminution of breeders, and go on duringthe remaining nine years. Calculate this deduction, and it is stillimpossible to look at the enterprise a second time. I do not say this toinduce an inference that the getting rid of them is for ever impossible. For that is neither my opinion nor my hope. But only that it cannot bedone in this way. There is, I think, a way in which it can be done; thatis, by emancipating the after born, leaving them, on due compensation, with their mothers, until their services are worth their maintenance, and then putting them to industrious occupations, until a proper age fordeportation. This was the result of my reflections on the subject fiveand forty years ago, and I have never yet been able to conceive anyother practicable plan. It was sketched in the Notes on Virginia, underthe fourteenth query. The estimated value of the new-born infant isso low (say twelve dollars and fifty cents), that it would probablybe yielded by the owner gratis, and would thus reduce the six hundredmillions of dollars, the first head of expense, to thirty-seven millionsand a half: leaving only the expenses of nourishment while with themother, and of transportation. And from what fund are these expenses tobe furnished? Why not from that of the lands which have been ceded bythe very States now needing this relief? And ceded on no consideration, for the most part, but that of the general good of the whole. Thesecessions already constitute one fourth of the States of the Union. Itmay be said that these lands have been sold; are now the property ofthe citizens composing those States; and the money long ago received andexpended. But an equivalent of lands in the territories since acquiredmay be appropriated to that object, or so much at least, as may besufficient; and the object, although more important to the slave States, is highly so to the others also, if they were serious in their argumentson the Missouri question. The slave States, too, if more interested, would also contribute more by their gratuitous liberation, thus takingon themselves alone the first and heaviest item of expense. 

In the plan sketched in the Notes on Virginia, no particular placeof asylum was specified; because it was thought possible, that in therevolutionary state of America, then commenced, events might open to ussome one within practicable distance. This has now happened. St. Domingohas become independent, and with a population of that color only; andif the public papers are to be credited, their Chief offers to paytheir passage, to receive them as free citizens, and to provide thememployment. This leaves, then, for the general confederacy, no expensebut of nurture with the mother a few years, and would call, of course, for a very moderate appropriation of the vacant lands. Suppose the wholeannual increase to be of sixty thousand effective births, fifty vessels, of four hundred tons burthen each, constantly employed in that shortrun, would carry off the increase of every year, and the old stockwould die off in the ordinary course of nature, lessening from thecommencement until its final disappearance. In this way no violation ofprivate rights is proposed. Voluntary surrenders would probably come inas fast as the means to be provided for their care would be competentto it. Looking at my own State only, (and I presume not to speak forthe others, ) I verily believe that this surrender of property wouldnot amount to more, annually, than half our present direct taxes, to becontinued fully about twenty or twenty-five years, and then graduallydiminishing for as many more until their final extinction; and even thishalf tax would not be paid in cash, but by the delivery of an objectwhich they have never yet known or counted as part of their property:and those not possessing the object will be called on for nothing. Ido not go into all the details of the burthens and benefits of thisoperation. And who could estimate its blessed effects? I leave thisto those who will live to see their accomplishment, and to enjoy abeatitude forbidden to my age. But I leave it with this admonition, torise and be doing. A million and a half are within their control;but six millions (which a majority of those now living will see themattain), and one million of these fighting men, will say, 'We will notgo. '

I am aware that this subject involves some constitutional scruples. But a liberal construction, justified by the object, may go far, andan amendment of the constitution, the whole length necessary. Theseparation of infants from their mothers, too, would produce somescruples of humanity. But this would be straining at a gnat, andswallowing a camel. 

I am much pleased to see that you have taken up the subject of the dutyon imported books. I hope a crusade will be kept up against it, untilthose in power shall become sensible of this stain on our legislationand shall wipe it from their code, and from the remembrance of man, ifpossible. 

I salute you with assurances of high respect and esteem. 

Th: Jefferson„

LETTER CLXXX. --TO EDWARD LIVINGSTON, April 4, 1824

TO EDWARD LIVINGSTON. 

Monticello, April 4, 1824. 

Dear Sir, It was with great pleasure I learned that the good people of New Orleanshad restored you again to the councils of our country. I did not doubtthe aid it would bring to the remains of our old school in Congress, inwhich your early labors had been so useful. You will find, I suppose, on revisiting our maritime States, the names of things more changed thanthe things themselves; that though our old opponents have given up theirappellation, they have not, in assuming ours, abandoned their views, andthat they are as strong nearly as they ever were. These cares, however, are no longer mine. I resign myself cheerfully to the managers of theship, and the more contentedly, as I am near the end of my voyage. Ihave learned to be less confident in the conclusions of human reason, and give more credit to the honesty of contrary opinions. The radicalidea of the character of the constitution of our government, which Ihave adopted as a key in cases of doubtful construction, is, that thewhole field of government is divided into two departments, domestic andforeign, (the States in their mutual relations being of the latter) thatthe former department is reserved exclusively to the respective Stateswithin their own limits, and the latter assigned to a separate set offunctionaries, constituting what may be called the, foreign branch, which, instead of a federal basis, is established as a distinctgovernment _quo ad hoc_, acting as the domestic branch does on thecitizens directly and coercively; that these departments have distinctdirectories, co-ordinate, and equally independent and supreme, eachwithin its own sphere of action. Whenever a doubt arises to which ofthese branches a power belongs, I try it by this test. I recollect nocase where a question simply between citizens of the same State has beentransferred to the foreign department, except that of inhibiting tendersbut of metallic money, and _ex post facto_ legislation. The causes ofthese singularities are well remembered. 

I thank you for the copy of your speech on the question of nationalimprovement, which I have read with great pleasure, and recognise in itthose powers of reasoning and persuasion of which I had formerly seenfrom you so many proofs. Yet, in candor, I must say it has not removed, in my mind, all the difficulties of the question. And I should really bealarmed at a difference of opinion with you, and suspicious of my own, were it not that I have, as companions in sentiment, the Madisons, theMonroes, the Randolphs, the Macons, all good men and true, of primitiveprinciples. In one sentiment of the speech I particularly concur. 'If wehave a doubt relative to any power, we ought not to exercise it. ' Whenwe consider the extensive and deep-seated opposition to this assumption, the conviction entertained by so many, that this deduction of powers byelaborate construction prostrates the rights reserved to the States, thedifficulties with which it will rub along in the course of its exercise;that changes of majorities will be changing the system backwards andforwards, so that no undertaking under it will be safe; that there isnot a State in the Union which would not give the power willingly, byway of amendment, with some little guard, perhaps, against abuse; Icannot but think it would be the wisest course to ask an express grantof the power. A government held together by the bands of reason only, requires much compromise of opinion; that things even salutary shouldnot be crammed down the throats of dissenting brethren, especially whenthey may be put into a form to be willingly swallowed, and that a greatdeal of indulgence is necessary to strengthen habits of harmony andfraternity. In such a case, it seems to me it would be safer and wiserto ask an express grant of the power. This would render its exercisesmooth and acceptable to all, and insure to it all the facilities whichthe could contribute, to prevent that kind of abuse which all will fear, because all know it is so much practised in public bodies, I mean thebartering of votes. It would reconcile every one, if limited by theproviso, that the federal proportion of each State should be expendedwithin the State. With this single security against partiality andcorrupt bargaining, I suppose there is not a State, perhaps not a manin the Union, who would not consent to add this to the powers of theGeneral Government. But age has weaned me from questions of this kind. My delight is now in the passive occupation of reading; and it iswith great reluctance I permit my mind ever to encounter subjects ofdifficult investigation. You have many years yet to come of vigorousactivity, and I confidently trust they will be employed in cherishingevery measure which may foster our brotherly union, and perpetuate aconstitution of government destined to be the primitive and preciousmodel of what is to change the condition of man over the globe. Withthis confidence, equally strong in your powers and purposes, I pray youto accept the assurance of my cordial esteem and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CLXXXI. --TO MAJOR JOHN CARTWRIGHT, June 5, 1824

TO MAJOR JOHN CARTWRIGHT. 

Monticello, June 5, 1824. 

Dear and Venerable Sir, I am much indebted for your kind letter of February the 29th, and foryour valuable volume on the English constitution. I have, read this withpleasure and much approbation, and think it has deduced the constitutionof the English nation from its rightful root, the Anglo-Saxon, it isreally wonderful, that so many able and learned men should have failedin their attempts to define it with correctness. No wonder then, thatPaine, who thought more than he read, should have credited the greatauthorities who have declared, that the will of Parliament is theconstitution of England. So Marbois, before the French revolution, observed to me, that the Almanac Royal was the constitution of France. Your derivation of it from the Anglo-Saxons, seems to be made onlegitimate principles. Having driven out the former inhabitants of thatpart of the island called England, they became aborigines as to you, andyour lineal ancestors. They doubtless had a constitution; and althoughthey have not left it in a written formula, to the precise text of whichyou may always appeal, yet they have left fragments of their historyand laws, from which it may be inferred with considerable certainty. Whatever their history and laws show to have been practised withapprobation, we may presume was permitted by their constitution;whatever was not so practised, was not permitted. And although thisconstitution was violated and set at nought by Norman force, yet forcecannot change right. A perpetual claim was kept up by the nation, bytheir perpetual demand of a restoration of their Saxon laws; which showsthey were never relinquished by the will of the nation. In the pullingsand haulings for these ancient rights, between the nation, and its kingsof the races of Plantagenets, Tudors, and Stuarts, there was sometimesgain, and sometimes loss, until the final re-conquest of their rightsfrom the Stuarts. The destitution and expulsion of this race broke thethread of pretended inheritance extinguished all regal usurpations, andthe nation reentered into all its rights; and although in their bill ofrights they specifically reclaimed some only, yet the omission of theothers was no renunciation of the right to assume their exercise also, whenever occasion should occur. The new King received no rights orpowers, but those expressly granted to him. It has ever appeared to me, that the difference between the whig and the tory of England is, thatthe whig deduces his rights from the Anglo-Saxon source, and the toryfrom the Norman. And Hume, the great apostle of toryism, says in so manywords, (note AA to chapter 42, ) that, in the reign of the Stuarts, 'itwas the people who encroached upon the sovereign, not the sovereign whoattempted, as is pretended, to usurp upon the people. ' This supposes theNorman usurpations to be rights in his successors. And again, (C. 159, )'the Commons established a principle, which is noble in itself, andseems specious, but is belied by all history and experience, that thepeople are the origin of all just power. ' And where else will thisdegenerate son of science, this traitor to his fellow-men, find theorigin of just powers, if not in the majority of the society? Will it bein the minority? Or in an individual of that minority?

Our revolution commenced on more favorable ground. It presented us analbum on which we were free to write what we pleased. We had no occasionto search into musty records, to hunt up royal parchments, or toinvestigate the laws and institutions of a semi-barbarous ancestry. Weappealed to those of nature, and found them engraved on our hearts. Yetwe did not avail ourselves of all the advantages of our position. We hadnever been permitted to exercise self-government. When forced to assumeit, we were novices in its science. Its principles and forms had enteredlittle into our former education. We established however some, althoughnot all its important principles. The constitutions of most of ourStates assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they mayexercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselvescompetent (as in electing their functionaries, executive andlegislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in alljudiciary cases in which any fact is involved), or they may act byrepresentatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right andduty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom ofperson, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of thepress. In the structure of our legislatures, we think experience hasproved the benefit of subjecting questions to two separate bodies ofdeliberants; but in constituting these, natural right has been mistaken, some making one of these bodies, and some both, the representatives ofproperty instead of persons; whereas the double deliberation might beas well obtained without any violation of true principle, either byrequiring a greater age in one of the bodies, or by electing a propernumber of representatives of persons, dividing them by lots into twochambers, and renewing the division at frequent intervals, in orderto break up all cabals. Virginia, of which I am myself a native andresident, was not only the first of the States, but, I believe I maysay, the first of the nations of the earth, which assembled its wise menpeaceably together to form a fundamental constitution, to commit it towriting, and place it among their archives, where every one should befree to appeal to its text. But this act was very imperfect. The otherStates, as they proceeded successively to the same work, madesuccessive improvements; and several of them, still further correctedby experience, have, by conventions, still further amended their firstforms. My own State has gone on so far with its _première ébauch_; butit is now proposing to call a convention for amendment. Among otherimprovements, I hope they will adopt the subdivision of our countiesinto wards. The former may be estimated at an average of twenty-fourmiles square; the latter should be about six miles square each, andwould answer to the hundreds of your Saxon Alfred. In each of thesemight be, 1. An elementary school. 2. A company of militia, with itsofficers. 3. A justice of the peace and constable. 4. Each ward shouldtake care of their own poor. 5. Their own roads. 6. Their own police. 7. Elect within themselves one or more jurors to attend the courtsof justice. And, 8. Give in at their Folk-house, their votes for allfunctionaries reserved to their election. Each ward would thus be asmall republic within itself, and every man in the State would thusbecome an acting member of the common government, transacting in persona great portion of its rights and duties, subordinate indeed, yetimportant and entirely within his competence. The wit of man cannotdevise a more solid basis for a free, durable, and well-administeredrepublic. 

With respect to our State and federal governments, I do not think theirrelations correctly understood by foreigners. They generally supposethe former subordinate to the latter. But this is not the case. They areco-ordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. To the Stategovernments, are reserved all legislation and administration, in affairswhich concern their own citizens only, and to the federal governmentis given whatever concerns foreigners, or the citizens of other States;these functions alone being made federal. The one is the domestic, theother the foreign branch of the same government; neither having controlover the other, but within its own department. There are one or twoexceptions only to this partition of power. But you may ask, if the twodepartments should claim each the same subject of power, where is thecommon umpire to decide ultimately between them? In cases of littleimportance or urgency, the prudence of both parties will keep themaloof from the questionable ground: but if it can neither be avoided norcompromised, a convention of the States must be called, to ascribe thedoubtful power to that department which they may think best. You willperceive by these details, that we have not yet so far perfected ourconstitutions as to venture to make them unchangeable. But still, intheir present state, we consider them not otherwise changeable than bythe authority of the people, on a special election of representativesfor that purpose expressly: they are until then the _lex legum_. 

But can they be made unchangeable? Can one generation bind another, andall others, in succession for ever? I think not. The Creator has madethe earth for the living, not the dead. Rights and powrers can onlybelong to persons, not to things, not to mere matter, unendowed withwill. The dead are not even things. The particles of matter whichcomposed their bodies, make part now of the bodies of other animals, vegetables, or minerals, of a thousand forms. To what then are attachedthe rights and powers they held while in the form of men? A generationmay bind itself as long as its majority continues in life; when thathas disappeared, another majority is in place, holds all the rightsand powers their predecessors once held, and may change their laws andinstitutions to suit themselves. Nothing then is unchangeable but theinherent and unalienable rights of man. 

I was glad to find in your book a formal contradiction, at length, ofthe judiciary usurpation of legislative powers; for such the judges haveusurped in their repeated decisions, that Christianity is a part ofthe common law. The proof of the contrary, which you have adduced, is incontrovertible; to wit, that the common law existed while theAnglo-Saxons were yet Pagans, at a time when they had never yet heardthe name of Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character had everexisted. But it may amuse you, to show when, and by what means, they stole this law in upon us. In a case of _quare impedit_ in theYear-book, 34. H. 6. Folio 38. (anno 1458, ) a question was made, how farthe ecclesiastical law was to be respected in a common law court. AndPrisot, Chief Justice, gives his opinion in these words. '_A tiel leisqu'ils de seint eglise ont enancien scripture, covient a nous a donnercredence; car ceo common ley stir quels touts manners leis sont fondes. Et auxy, Sir, nous sumus obliges de conustre lour ley de saint eglise:et semblablement ils sont obliges de conustre nostre ley. Et, Sir, sipoit apperer or a nous que Pevesque ad fait come un ordinary fera entiel cas, adong nous devons ceo adju-ger bon, ou auterment nemy_, ' &c. See S. C. Fitzh. Abr. Qu. Imp. 89. Bro. Abr. Qu. Imp. 12. Finch in hisfirst book, c. 3. Is the first afterwards who quotes this case, andmistakes it thus. 'To such laws of the church as have warrant in holyscripture, our law giveth credence. ' And cites Prisot; mistranslating'ancien scripture' into 'holy scripture. ' Whereas, Prisot palpably says, 'to such laws as those of holy church have in ancient writing, it isproper for us to give credence;' to wit, to their ancient written laws. This was in 1613, a century and a half after the dictum of Prisot. Wingate, in 1658, erects this false translation into a maxim of thecommon law, copying the words of Finch, but citing Prisot. Wing. Max. 3. And Sheppard, title, 'Religion, ' in 1675, copies the samemistranslation, quoting the Y. B. Finch and Win-gate. Hale expressesit in these words; 'Christianity is parcel of the laws of England. ' 1Ventr. 293, 3 Keb. 607. But he quotes no authority. By these echoingsand re-echoings from one to another, it had become so established in1728, that in the case of the King vs. Woolston, 2 Stra. 834, the courtwould not suffer it to be debated, whether to write against Christianitywas punishable in the temporal court at common law. Wood, therefore, 409, ventures still to vary the phrase and say, that all blasphemyand profaneness are offences by the common law; and cites 2 Stra. Then Blackstone, in 1763, IV. 59, repeats the words of Hale, that'Christianity is part of the laws of England, ' citing Ventris andStrange. And finally, Lord Mansfield, with a little qualification, inEvans's case, in 1767, says, that 'the essential principles of revealedreligion are part of the common law. ' Thus ingulphing Bible, Testament, and all into the common law, without citing any authority. And thus wefind this chain of authorities hanging link by link, one upon another, and all ultimately on one and the same hook, and that a mistranslationof the words 'ancien scripture, ' used by Prisot. Finch quotes Prisot;Wingate does the same. Sheppard quotes Prisot, Finch, and Wingate. Hale cites nobody. The court, in Woolston's case, cite Hale. Wood citesWoolston's case. Blackstone quotes Woolston's case and Hale. And LordMansfield, like Hale, ventures it on his own authority. Here I mightdefy the best read lawyer to produce another scrip of authority for thisjudiciary forgery; and I might go on further to show, how some of theAnglo-Saxon priests interpolated into the text of Alfred's laws, the20th, 21st, 22nd, and 23rd chapters of Exodus, and the 15th of the Actsof the Apostles, from the 23rd to the 29th verses. But this would leadmy pen and your patience too far. What a conspiracy this, between Churchand State! Sing Tantarara, rogues all, rogues all, Sing Tantarara, rogues all!

I must still add to this long and rambling letter, my acknowledgmentsfor your good wishes to the University we are now establishing in thisState. There are some novelties in it. Of that of a professorship ofthe principles of government, you express your approbation. They will befounded in the rights of man. That of agriculture, I am sure, you willapprove: and that also of Anglo-Saxon. As the histories and laws left usin that type and dialect, must be the text-books of the reading of thelearners, they will imbibe with the language their free principlesof government. The volumes you have been so kind as to send, shall beplaced in the library of the University. Having at this time in Englanda person sent for the purpose of selecting some Professors, a Mr. Gilmer of my neighborhood, I cannot but recommend him to your patronage, counsel, and guardianship, against imposition, misinformation, and thedeceptions of partial and false recommendations, in the selectionof characters. He is a gentleman of great worth and correctness, myparticular friend, well educated in various branches of science, andworthy of entire confidence. 

Your age of eighty-four and mine of eighty-one years, insure us a speedymeeting. We may then commune at leisure, and more fully, on the good andevil, which in the course of our long lives, we have. Both witnessed; andin the mean time, I pray you to accept assurances of my high venerationand esteem for your person and character. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CLXXXII. --TO MARTIN VAN BUREN, June 29, 1824

TO MARTIN VAN BUREN. 

Monticello, June 29, 1824. 

Dear Sir, I have to thank you for Mr. Pickering's elaborate philippic against Mr. Adams, Gerry, Smith, and myself; and I have delayed the acknowledgmentuntil I could read it and make some observations on it. 

I could not have believed, that for so many years, and to such a periodof advanced age, he could have nourished passions so vehement andviperous. It appears, that for thirty years past, he has beenindustriously collecting materials for vituperating the characters hehad marked for his hatred; some of whom certainly, if enmities towardshim had ever existed, had forgotten them all, or buried them in thegrave with themselves. As to myself, there never had been any thingpersonal between us, nothing but the general opposition of partysentiment; and our personal intercourse had been that of urbanity, ashimself says. But it seems he has been all this time brooding over anenmity which I had never felt, and that with respect to myself, as wellas others, he has been writing far and near, and in every direction, toget hold of original letters, where he could, copies, where he couldnot, certificates and journals, catching at every gossipping story hecould hear of in any quarter, supplying by suspicions what he could findno where else, and then arguing on this motley farrago, as ifestablished on gospel evidence. And while expressing his wonder, 'at the age of eighty-eight, the strong passions of Mr. Adams should nothave cooled '; that on the contrary, 'they had acquired the mastery ofhis soul, ' (p. 100 ;) that 'where these were enlisted, no reliancecould be placed on his statements, ' (p. 104 ;) the facility and littletruth with which he could represent facts and occurrences, concerningpersons who were the objects of his hatred, (p. 3 ;) that 'he iscapable of making the grossest misrepresentations, and, from detachedfacts, and often from bare suspicions, of drawing unwarrantableinferences, ' if suited to his purpose at the instant, ' (p. 174;) whilemaking such charges, I say, on Mr. Adams, instead of his '_ecce homo_, '(p. 100;) how justly might we say to him, '_Mutato nomine, de te fabulanarratur_. ' For the assiduity and industry he has employed in hisbenevolent researches after matter of crimination against us, I refer tohis pages 13, 14, 34, 36, 46, 71, 79, 90, bis. 92, 93, bis. 101, ter. 104, 116, 118, 141, 143, 146, 150, 151, 153, 168, 171, 172. That Mr. Adams's strictures on him, written and pointed, should have excited somenotice on his part, was not perhaps to be wondered at. But thesufficiency of his motive for the large attack on me may be morequestionable. He says, (p. 4) 'of Mr. Jefferson I should have saidnothing, but for his letter to Mr. Adams, of October the 12th, 1823. 'Now the object of that letter was to soothe the feelings of a friend, wounded by a publication which I thought an 'outrage on privateconfidence. ' Not a word or allusion in it respecting Mr. Pickering, norwas it suspected that it would draw forth his pen in justification ofthis infidelity, which he has, however, undertaken in the course of hispamphlet, but more particularly in its conclusion. 

He arraigns me on two grounds, my actions, and my motives. The veryactions, however, which he arraigns, have been such as the greatmajority of my fellow-citizens have approved. The approbation of Mr. Pickering, and of those who thought with him, I had no right to expect. My motives he chooses to ascribe to hypocrisy, to ambition, and apassion for popularity. Of these the world must judge between us. Itis no office of his or mine. To that tribunal I have ever submittedmy actions and motives, without ransacking the Union for certificates, letters, journals, and gossiping tales, to justify myself and wearythem. Nor shall I do this on the present occasion, but leave still tothem these antiquated party diatribes, now newly revamped and paraded, as if they had not been already a thousand times repeated, refuted, andadjudged against him, by the nation itself. If no action is to be deemedvirtuous for which malice can imagine a sinister motive, then therenever was a virtuous action; no, not even in the life of our Saviorhimself. But he has taught us to judge the tree by its fruit, and toleave motives to him who can alone see into them. 

But whilst I leave to its fate the libel of Mr. Pickering, with thethousands of others like it, to which I have given no other answer thana steady course of similar action, there are two facts or fancies ofhis which I must set to rights. The one respects Mr. Adams, theother myself. He observes, that my letter of October the 12th, 1823, acknowledges the receipt of one from Mr. Adams, of September the 18th, which, having been written a few days after Cunningham's publication, hesays was no doubt written to apologize to me for the pointed reproacheshe had uttered against me in his confidential letters to Cunningham. And thus having 'no doubt' of his conjecture, he considers it as proven, goes on to suppose the contents of the letter (19, 22), makes it placeMr. Adams at my feet suing for pardon, and continues to rant upon it, as an undoubted fact. Now I do most solemnly declare, that so far frombeing a letter of apology, as Mr. Pickering so undoubtingly assumes, there was not a word or allusion in it respecting Cunningham'spublication. 

The other allegation respecting myself, is equally false. In page 34, he quotes Doctor Stuart, as having, twenty years ago, informed him thatGeneral Washington, 'when he became a private citizen, ' called me toaccount for expressions in a letter to Mazzei, requiring, in a tone ofunusual severity, an explanation of that letter. He adds of himself, 'inwhat manner the latter humbled himself, and appeased the just resentmentof Washington, will never be known, as some time after his death, thecorrespondence was not to be found, and a diary for an important periodof his Presidency was also missing. ' The diary being of transactionsduring his Presidency, the letter to Mazzei not known here until sometime after he became a private citizen, and the pretended correspondenceof course after that, I know not why this lost diary and supposedcorrespondence are brought together here, unless for insinuations worthyof the letter itself. The correspondence could not be found, indeed, because it had never existed. I do affirm, that there never passeda word, written or verbal, directly or indirectly, between GeneralWashington and myself on the subject of that letter. He would never havedegraded himself so far as to take to himself the imputation in thatletter on the 'Samsons in combat. ' The whole story is a fabrication, andI defy the framers of it, and all mankind, to produce a scrip of apen between General Washington and myself on the subject, or any otherevidence more worthy of credit than the suspicions, suppositions, andpresumptions of the two persons here quoting and quoted for it. WithDoctor Stuart I had not much acquaintance. I supposed him to be anhonest man, knew him to be a very weak one, and, like Mr. Pickering, very prone to antipathies, boiling with party passions, and, under thedominion of these, readily welcoming fancies for facts. But, come thestory from whomsoever it might, it is an unqualified falsehood. 

This letter to Mazzei has been a precious theme of crimination forfederal malice. It was a long letter of business, in which was inserteda single paragraph only of political information as to the state of ourcountry. In this information there was not one word which would notthen have been, or would not now be approved by every republican inthe United States, looking back to those times, as you will see by afaithful copy now enclosed of the whole of what that letter said onthe subject of the United States, or of its government. This paragraph, extracted and translated, got into a Paris paper at a time when thepersons in power there were laboring under very general disfavor, andtheir friends were eager to catch even at straws to buoy them up. 'Tothem, therefore, I have always imputed the interpolation of an entireparagraph additional to mine, which makes me charge my own country withingratitude and injustice to France. There was not a word in my letterrespecting France, or any of the proceedings or relations between thiscountry and that. Yet this interpolated paragraph has been the burden offederal calumny, has been constantly quoted by them, made the subjectof unceasing and virulent abuse, and is still quoted, as you see, by Mr. Pickering, (page 33, ) as if it were genuine, and really written by me. And even Judge Marshall makes history descend from its dignity, and theermine from its sanctity, to exaggerate, to record, and to sanction thisforgery. In the very last note of his book, he says, 'A letter fromMr. Jefferson to Mr. Mazzei, an Italian, was published in Florence, andrepublished in the Moniteur, with very severe strictures on the conductof the United States. ' And instead of the letter itself, he copieswhat he says are the remarks of the editor, which are an exaggeratedcommentary on the fabricated paragraph itself, and silently leaves tohis reader to make the ready inference that these were the sentiments ofthe letter. Proof is the duty of the affirmative side. A negative cannotbe possibly proved. But, in defect of impossible proof of what was notin the original letter, I have its press-copy still in my possession. Ithas been shown to several, and is open to any one who wishes to see it. I have presumed only that the interpolation was done in Paris. But Inever saw the letter in either its Italian or French dress, and it mayhave been done here, with the commentary handed down to posterity by thejudge. The genuine paragraph, re-translated through Italian and Frenchinto English, as it appeared here in a federal paper, besides themutilated hue which these translations and re-translations of itproduced generally, gave a mistranslation of a single word, whichentirely perverted its meaning, and made it a pliant and fertile text ofmisrepresentation of my political principles. The original, speaking ofan Anglican, monarchical, and aristocratical party, which had sprungup since he had left us, states their object to be 'to draw over usthe substance, as they had already done the forms of the Britishgovernment. ' Now the 'forms' here meant, were the levees, birth-days, the pompous cavalcade to the State House on the meeting of Congress, theformal speech from the throne, the procession of Congress in a body tore-echo the speech in an answer, &c. &c. But the translator here, bysubstituting form in the singular number, for forms in the plural, madeit mean the frame or organization of our government, or its form oflegislative, executive, and judiciary authorities, co-ordinate andindependent: to which form it was to be inferred that I was an enemy. Inthis sense they always quoted it, and in this sense Mr. Pickering stillquotes, it (pages 34, 35, 38), and countenances the inference. NowGeneral Washington perfectly understood what I meant by these forms, as they were frequent subjects of conversation between us. When, on myreturn from Europe, I joined the government in March, 1790, at New York, I was much astonished, indeed, at the mimicry I found establishedof royal forms and ceremonies, and more alarmed at the unexpectedphenomenon, by the monarchical sentiments I heard expressed and openlymaintained in every company, and among others by the high members of thegovernment, executive and judiciary (General Washington alone excepted), and by a great part of the legislature, save only some members who hadbeen of the old Congress, and a very few of recent introduction. Itook occasion, at various times, of expressing to General Washington mydisappointment at these symptoms of a change of principle, and thatI thought them encouraged by the forms and ceremonies, which I foundprevailing, not at all in character with the simplicity of republicangovernment, and looking as if wishfully to those of European courts. His general explanations to me were, that when he arrived at New Yorkto enter on the executive administration of the new government, heobserved to those who were to assist him, that placed as he was in anoffice entirely new to him, unacquainted with the forms and ceremoniesof other governments, still less apprized of those which might beproperly established here, and himself perfectly indifferent to allforms, he wished them to consider and prescribe what they should be; andthe task was assigned particularly to General Knox, a man of parade, and to Colonel Humphreys, who had resided some time at a foreign court. They, he said, were the author's of the present regulations, and thatothers were proposed so highly strained, that he absolutely rejectedthem. Attentive to the difference of opinion prevailing on this subject, when the term of his second election arrived, he called the Heads ofdepartments together, observed to them the situation in which he hadbeen at the commencement of the government, the advice he had taken, andthe course he had observed in compliance with it; that a proper occasionhad now arrived of revising that course, of correcting in it anyparticulars not approved in experience; and he desired us to consulttogether, agree on any changes we should think for the better, andthat he should willingly conform to what we should advise. We met atmy office. Hamilton and myself agreed at once that there was too muchceremony for the character of our government, and, particularly, thatthe parade of the installation at New York ought not to be copied on thepresent occasion, that the President should desire the Chief Justice toattend him at his chambers, that he should administer the oath of officeto him in the presence of the higher officers of the government, andthat the certificate of the fact should be delivered to the Secretaryof State to be recorded. Randolph and Knox differed from us, thelatter vehemently: they thought it not advisable to change any of theestablished forms, and we authorized Randolph to report our opinions tothe President. As these opinions were divided, and no positive advicegiven as to any change, no change was made. Thus the forms, which I hadcensured in my letter to Mazzei, were perfectly understood by GeneralWashington, and were those which he himself but barely tolerated. He hadfurnished me a proper occasion for proposing their reformation, and, myopinion not prevailing, he knew I could not have meant any part of thecensure for him. 

Mr. Pickering quotes too (page 34) the expression in the letter, of 'themen who were Samsons in the field, and Solomons in the council, but whohad had their heads shorn by the harlot England' or, as expressed intheir re-translation, the men who were Solomons in council, and Samsonsin combat, but whose hair had been cut off by the whore England. ' Nowthis expression also was perfectly understood by General Washington. Heknew that I meant it for the Cincinnati generally, and that, from whathad passed between us at the commencement of that institution, I couldnot mean to include him. When the first meeting was called for itsestablishment, I was a member of the Congress then sitting at Annapolis. General Washington wrote to me, asking my opinion on that proposition, and the course, if any, which I thought Congress would observerespecting it. I wrote him frankly my own disapprobation of it; that Ifound the members of Congress generally in the same sentiment; thatI thought they would take no express notice of it, but that in allappointments of trust, honor, or profit, they would silently pass by allcandidates of that order, and give an uniform preference to others. Onhis way to the first meeting in Philadelphia, which I think was in thespring of 1784, he called on me at Annapolis. It was a little aftercandle-light, and he sat with me till after midnight, conversing, almostexclusively, on that subject. While he was feelingly indulgent to themotives which might induce the officers to promote it, he concurred withme entirely in condemning it; and when I expressed an idea that, if thehereditary quality were suppressed, the institution might perhapsbe indulged during the lives of the officers now living, and who hadactually served; 'No, ' he said, 'not a fibre of it ought, to be left, tobe an eye-sore to the public, a ground of dissatisfaction, and a lineof separation between them and their country': and he left me with adetermination to use all his influence for its entire suppression. Onhis return from the meeting, he called on me again, and related to methe course the thing had taken. He. Said, that, from the beginning, he had used every endeavor to prevail on the officers to renounce theproject altogether, urging the many considerations which would renderit odious to their fellow-citizens, and disreputable and injurious tothemselves; that he had at length prevailed on most of the old officersto reject it, although with great and warm opposition from others, andespecially the younger ones, among whom he named Colonel W. S. Smithas particularly intemperate. But that in this state of things, when hethought the question safe, and the meeting drawing to a close, MajorL'Enfant arrived from France with a bundle of eagles, for which he hadbeen sent there, with letters from the French officers who had servedin. America, praying for admission into the order, and a solemn act oftheir King permitting them to wear its ensign. This, he said, changedthe face of matters at once, produced an entire revolution of sentiment, and turned the torrent so strongly in an opposite direction, thatit could be no longer withstood: all he could then obtain, was asuppression of the hereditary quality. He added, that it was the Frenchapplications, and respect for the approbation of the King, which savedthe establishment in its modified and temporary form. Disapproving thusof the institution as much as I did, and conscious that I knew him to doso, he could never suppose that I meant to include him among the Samsonsin the field, whose object was to draw over us the form, as theymade the letter say, of the British government, and especially itsaristocractic member, an hereditary House of Lords. Add to this, thatthe letter saying, 'that two out of the three branches of legislaturewere against us, ' was an obvious exception of him; it being well knownthat the majorities in the two branches of Senate and Representativeswere the very instruments which carried, in opposition to the old andreal republicans, the measures which were the subjects of condemnationin this letter. General Washington, then, understanding perfectly whatand whom I meant to designate, in both phrases, and that they could nothave any application or view to himself, could find in neither any causeof offence to himself; and therefore neither needed, nor ever asked anyexplanation of them from me. Had it even been otherwise, they must knowvery little of General Washington, who should believe to be within thelaws of his character what Doctor Stuart is said to have imputed tohim. Be this, however, as it may, the story is infamously false inevery article of it. My last parting with General Washington was at theinauguration of Mr. Adams, in March, 1797, and was warmly affectionate;and I never had any reason to believe any change on his part, as therecertainly was none on mine. But one session of Congress intervenedbetween that and his death, the year following, in my passage to andfrom which, as it happened to be not convenient to call on him, I neverhad another opportunity; and as to the cessation of correspondenceobserved during that short interval, no particular circumstance occurredfor epistolary communication, and both of us were too much oppressedwith letter-writing, to trouble either the other, with a letter aboutnothing. 

The truth is, that the federalists, pretending to be the exclusivefriends of General Washington, have ever done what they could to sinkhis character, by hanging theirs on it, and by representing as the enemyof republicans him, who, of all men, is best entitled to the appellationof the father of that republic which they were endeavoring to subvert, and the republicans to maintain. They cannot deny, because the electionsproclaimed the truth, that the great body of the nation approved therepublican measures. General Washington was himself sincerely a friendto the republican principles of our constitution. His faith, perhaps, in its duration, might not have been as confident as mine; but herepeatedly declared to me, that he was determined it should have a fairchance for success, and that he would lose the last drop of his blood inits support, against any attempt which, might be made to change it fromits republican form. He made these declarations the oftener, because heknew my suspicions that Hamilton had other views, and he wished to quietmy jealousies on this subject. For Hamilton frankly avowed, that heconsidered the British constitution, with all the corruptions of itsadministration, as the most perfect model of government which had everbeen devised by the wit of man; professing, however, at the same time, that the spirit of this country was so fundamentally republican, thatit would be visionary to think of introducing monarchy here, and that, therefore, it was the duty of its administrators to conduct it on theprinciples their constituents had elected. 

General Washington, after the retirement of his first cabinet, and thecomposition of his second, entirely federal, and at the head of whichwas Mr. Pickering himself, had no opportunity of hearing both sides ofany question. His measures, consequently, took more the hue of the partyin whose hands he was. These measures were certainly not approved by therepublicans; yet were they not imputed, to him, but to the counsellorsaround him; and his prudence so far restrained their impassioned courseand bias, that no act of strong mark, during the remainder of hisadministration, excited much dissatisfaction. He lived too short a timeafter, and too much withdrawn from information, to correct the viewsinto which he had been deluded; and the continued assiduities of theparty drew him into the vortex of their intemperate career; separatedhim still farther from his real friends, and excited him to actions andexpressions of dissatisfaction, which grieved them, but could notloosen their affections from him. They would not suffer the temporaryaberration to weigh against the immeasurable merits of his life; andalthough they tumbled his seducers from their places, they preserved hismemory embalmed in their hearts, with undiminished love and devotion;and there it for ever will remain embalmed, in entire oblivion of everytemporary thing which might cloud the glories of his splendid life. Itis vain, then, for Mr. Pickering and his friends to endeavor to falsifyhis character, by representing him as an enemy to republicans andrepublican principles, and as exclusively the friend of those who wereso; and had he lived longer, he would have returned to his ancient andunbiassed opinions, would have replaced his confidence in those whom thepeople approved and supported, and would have seen that they were onlyrestoring and acting on the principles of his own first administration. 

I find, my dear Sir, that I have written you a very long letteror rather a history. The civility of having sent me a copy of Mr. Pickering's diatribe, would scarcely justify its address to you. I donot publish these things, because my rule of life has been never toharass the public with fendings and provings of personal slanders;and least of all would I descend into the arena of slander with sucha champion as Mr. Pickering. I have ever trusted to the justice andconsideration of my fellow-citizens, and have no reason to repent it, or to change my course. At this time of life, too, tranquillity is the_summum bonum_. But although I decline all newspaper controversy, yetwhen falsehoods have been advanced, within the knowledge of no one somuch as myself, I have sometimes deposited a contradiction in the handsof a friend, which, if worth preservation, may, when I am no more, northose whom I might offend, throw light on history, and recall that intothe path of truth. And if of no other value, the present communicationmay amuse you with anecdotes not known to every one. 

I had meant to have added some views on the amalgamation of parties, towhich your favor of the 8th has some allusion; an amalgamation of name, but not of principle. Tories are tories still, by whatever name they maybe called. But my letter is already too unmercifully long, and I closeit here with assurances of my great esteem and respectful consideration. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CLXXXIII. --TO EDWARD EVERETT, October 15, 1824

TO EDWARD EVERETT. 

Monticello, October 15, 1824. 

Dear Sir, I have yet to thank you for your O. B. K. Oration, delivered in presenceof General la Fayette. It is all excellent, much of it sublimely so, well worthy of its author and his subject, of whom we may truly say, aswas said of Germanicus, '_Fruitur famâ sui_. '

Your letter of September the 10th gave me the first information thatmine to Major Cartwright had got into the newspapers; and the firstnotice, indeed, that he had received it. I was a stranger to his person, but not to his respectable and patriotic character. I received from hima long and interesting letter, and answered it with frankness, goingwithout reserve into several subjects, to which his letter had led, but on which I did not suppose I was writing for the newspapers. Thepublication of a letter in such a case, without the consent of thewriter, is not a fair practice. 

The part which you quote, may draw on me the host of judges and divines. They may cavil, but cannot refute it. Those who read Prisot's opinionwith a candid view to understand, and not to chicane it, cannot mistakeits meaning. The reports in the Year-books were taken very short. Theopinions of the judges were written down sententiously, as notes ormemoranda, and not with all the developement which they probably used indelivering them. Prisot's opinion, to be fully expressed, should be thusparaphrased. 'To such laws as those of holy church have recorded, andpreserved in their ancient books and writings, it is proper for us togive credence; for so is, or so says, the common law, or law of theland, on which all manner of other laws rest for their authority, or arefounded; that is to say, the common law, or the law of the land commonto us all, and established by the authority of us all, is that fromwhich is derived the authority of all other special and subordinatebranches of law, such as the canon law, law merchant, law maritime, law of Gavelkind, Borough English, corporation laws, local customs andusages, to all of which the common law requires its judges to permitauthority in the special or local cases belonging to them. The evidenceof these laws is preserved in their ancient treatises, books, andwritings, in like manner as our own common law itself is known, thetext-of its original enactments having been long lost, and its substanceonly preserved in ancient and traditionary writings. And if it appears, from their ancient books, writings, and records, that the bishop, inthis case, according to the rules prescribed by these authorities, hasdone what an ordinary would have done, in such case, then we shouldadjudge it good, otherwise not. ' To decide this question, they wouldhave to turn to the ancient writings and records of the canon law, in which they would find evidence of the laws of advowsons, _quareimpedit_, the duties of bishops and ordinaries, for which terms Prisotcould never have meant to refer them to the Old or New Testament, _lessaincts scriptures_, where surely they would not be found. A licensewhich should permit 'ancien scripture' to be translated 'holyscripture, ' annihilates at once all the evidence of language. With sucha license, we might reverse the sixth commandment into 'Thou shalt notomit murder. ' It would be the more extraordinary in this case, wherethe mistranslation was to effect the adoption of the whole code of theJewish and Christian laws into the text of our statutes, to convertreligious offences into temporal crimes, to make the breach of everyreligious precept a subject of indictment, submit the question ofidolatry, for example, to the trial of a jury, and to a court, itspunishment, to the third and fourth generation of the offender. Do weallow to our judges this lumping legislation?

The term 'common law, ' although it has more than one meaning, isperfectly definite, _secundum subjectam materiem_. Its most probableorigin was on the conquest of the Heptarchy by Alfred, and theamalgamation of their several codes of law into one, which becamecommon to them all. The authentic text of these enactments has not beenpreserved; but their substance has been committed to many ancientbooks and writings, so faithfully as to have been deemed genuine fromgeneration to generation, and obeyed as such by all. We have somefragments of them collected by Lambard, Wilkins, and others, butabounding with proofs of their spurious authenticity. Magna Chartais the earliest statute, the text of which has come down to us in anauthentic form, and thence downward we have them entire. We do not knowexactly when the common law and statute law, the _lex scripta et nonscripta_, began to be contra-distinguished, so as to give a secondacceptation to the former term; whether before or after Prisot's day, atwhich time we know that nearly two centuries and a half of statutes werein preservation. In later times, on the introduction of the chancerybranch of law, the term common law began to be used in a third sense, asthe correlative of chancery law. This, however, having been long afterPrisot's time, could not have been the sense in which he used the term. He must have meant the ancient _lex, non scripta_, because, had he usedit as inclusive of the _lex scripta_, he would have put his finger onthe statute which had enjoined on the judges a deference to the laws ofholy church. But no such statute existing, he must have referred to thecommon law in the sense of a _lex non scripta_. Whenever, then, the termcommon law is used in either of these senses, and it is never employedin any other, it is readily known in which of them by the context andsubject matter under consideration; which, in the present case, leave noroom for doubt. I do not remember the occasion which led me to take upthis subject, while a practitioner of the law. But I know I went intoit with all the research which a very copious law library enabled me toindulge; and I fear not for the accuracy of any of my quotations. The doctrine might be disproved by many other and different topics ofreasoning; but having satisfied myself of the origin of the forgery, andfound how, like a rolling snow-ball, it had gathered volume, I leaveits further pursuit to those who need further proof, and perhaps I havealready gone further than the feeble doubt you expressed might require, I salute you with great esteem and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CLXXXIV. --TO JOSEPH C. CABELL, January 11, 1825

TO JOSEPH C. CABELL. 

Monticello, January 11, 1825. 

Dear Sir, We are dreadfully nonplussed here by the non-arrival of our threeProfessors. We apprehend that the idea of our opening on the 1st ofFebruary prevails so much abroad (although we have always mentionedit doubtfully), as that the students will assemble on that day withoutawaiting the further notice which was promised. To send them awaywill be discouraging, and to open an University without Mathematics orNatural Philosophy would bring on us ridicule and disgrace. Wetherefore publish an advertisement, stating that on the arrival of theseProfessors, notice will be given of the day of opening the institution. 

Governor Barbour writes me hopefully of getting our fifty thousanddollars from Congress. The proposition has been originated in the Houseof Representatives, referred to the committee of claims, the chairmanof which has prepared a very favorable report, and a bill conformable, assuming the repayment of all interest which the State has actuallypaid. The legislature will certainly owe to us the recovery of thismoney; for had they not given it in some measure the reverencedcharacter of a donation for the promotion of learning, it would neverhave been paid. It is to be hoped, therefore, that the displeasureincurred by wringing it from them at the last session, will now giveway to a contrary feeling, and even place us on a ground of some merit. Should this sentiment take place, and the arrival of our Professors, andfilling our dormitories with students on the 1st of February, encouragethem to look more favorably towards us, perhaps it might dispose them toenlarge somewhat their order on the same fund. You observe the Proctorhas stated in a letter accompanying our Report, that it will take abouttwenty-five thousand dollars more than we have to finish the Rotunda. Besides this, an Anatomical theatre (costing about as much as one of ourhotels, say about five thousand dollars, ) is indispensable to the schoolof Anatomy. There cannot be a single dissection until a proper theatreis prepared, giving an advantageous view of the operation to thosewithin, and effectually excluding observation from without. Either theadditional sums, therefore, of twenty-five thousand and five thousanddollars will be wanting, or we must be permitted to appropriate a partof the fifty thousand to a theatre, leaving the Rotunda unfinished forthe present. Yet I should think neither of these objects an equivalentfor renewing the displeasure of the legislature. Unless we can carrytheir hearty patronage with us, the institution can never flourish. I would not, therefore, hint at this additional aid, unless it wereagreeable to our friends generally, and tolerably sure of being carriedwithout irritation. 

In your letter of December the 31st, you say my 'hand-writing and myletters have great effect there, ' i. E. At Richmond. I am sensible, mydear Sir, of the kindness with which this encouragement is held up tome. But my views of their effect are very different. When I retired fromthe administration of public affairs, I thought I saw some evidence thatI retired with a good degree of public favor, and that my conduct inoffice had been considered, by the one party at least, with approbation, and with acquiescence by the other. But the attempt, in which I haveembarked so earnestly, to procure an improvement in the moral conditionof my native State, although, perhaps, in other States it may havestrengthened good dispositions, it has assuredly weakened them withinour own. The attempt ran foul of so many local interests, of so manypersonal views, and so much ignorance, and I have been considered asso particularly its promoter, that I see evidently a great change ofsentiment towards myself. I cannot doubt its having dissatisfiedwith myself a respectable minority, if not a majority of the House ofDelegates. I feel it deeply, and very discouragingly. Yet I shall notgive way. I have ever found in my progress through life, that, actingfor the public, if we do always what is right, the approbation denied inthe beginning will surely follow us in the end. It is from posterity weare to expect remuneration for the sacrifices we are making for theirservice, of time, quiet, and good will. And I fear not the appeal. Themultitude of fine young men whom we shall redeem from ignorance, whowill feel that they owe to us the elevation of mind, of character, andstation they will be able to attain from the result of our efforts, willinsure their remembering us with gratitude. We will not, then, be 'wearyin well-doing. ' _Usque ad aras amicus tuus_, Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CLXXXV. --TO THOMAS JEFFERSON SMITH, February 21, 1825

THOMAS JEFFERSON TO THOMAS JEFFERSON SMITH. 

This letter will, to you, be as one from the dead. The writer will bein the grave before you can weigh its counsels. Your affectionate andexcellent father has requested that I would address to you somethingwhich might possibly have a favorable influence on the course of lifeyou have to run, and I too, as a namesake, feel an interest in thatcourse. Few words will be necessary, with good dispositions on yourpart. Adore God. Reverence and cherish your parents. Love your neighboras yourself, and your country more than yourself. Be just. Be true. Murmur not at the ways of Providence. So shall the life, into which youhave entered, be the portal to one of eternal and ineffable bliss. Andif to the dead it is permitted to care for the things of this world, every action of your life will be under my regard. Farewell. 

Monticello, February 21, 1825. 

_The Portrait of a Good Man, by the most sublime of Poets, for yourimitation_. 

 Lord, who's the happy man that may to thy blest courts repair; Not stranger-like to visit them, but to inhabit there? 'Tis he, whose every thought and deed by rules of virtue moves; Whose generous tongue disdains to speak the thing his heart disproves. Who never did a slander forge, his neighbor's fame to wound; Nor hearken to a false report, by malice whispered round. Who vice, in all its pomp and power, can treat with just neglect; And piety, though clothed in rags, religiously respect. Who to his plighted vows and trust has ever firmly stood; And though he promise to his loss, he makes his promise good. Whose soul in usury disdains his treasure to employ; Whom no rewards can ever bribe the guiltless to destroy. The man, who, by this steady course, has happiness insured, When earth's foundations shake, shall stand, by Providence secured. 

A Decalogue of Canons for observation in practical life. 

1. Never put off till to-morrow what you can do to-day. 

2. Never trouble another for what you can do yourself. 

3. Never spend your money before you have it. 

4. Never buy what you do not want, because it is cheap; it will be dearto you. 

5. Pride costs us more than hunger, thirst, and cold. 

6. We never repent of having eaten too little. 

7. Nothing is troublesome that we do willingly. 

8. How much pain have cost us the evils which have never happened. 

9. Take things always by their smooth handle. 

10. When angry, count ten before you speak; if very angry, an hundred. 

LETTER CLXXXVI. --TO JAMES MADISON, December 24, 1825

TO JAMES MADISON. 

Monticello, December 24, 1825. 

Dear Sir, I have for sometime considered the question of internal improvement asdesperate. The torrent of general opinion sets so strongly in favorof it as to be irresistible. And I suppose that even the opposition inCongress will hereafter be feeble and formal, unless something can bedone which may give a gleam of encouragement to our friends, or alarmtheir opponents in their fancied security. I learn from Richmond, thatthose who think with us there are in a state of perfect dismay, notknowing what to do, or what to propose. Mr. Gordon, our representative, particularly, has written to me in very desponding terms, not disposedto yield, indeed, but pressing for opinions and advice on the subject. I have no doubt you are pressed in the same way, and I hope you havedevised and recommended something to them. If you have, stop here andread no more, but consider all that follows as _non avenue_. I shallbe better satisfied to adopt implicitly any thing which you may haveadvised, than any thing occurring to myself. For I have long ceasedto think on subjects of this kind, and pay little attention to publicproceedings. But if you have done nothing in it, then I risk for yourconsideration what has occurred to me, and is expressed in the enclosedpaper. Bailey's propositions, which came to hand since I wrote thepaper, and which I suppose to have come from the President himself, showa little hesitation in the purposes of his party; and in that state ofmind, a bolt shot critically may decide the contest, by its effect onthe less bold. The olive-branch held out to them at this moment may beaccepted, and the constitution thus saved at a moderate sacrifice. I saynothing of the paper, which will explain itself. The following heads ofconsideration, or some of them, may weigh in its favor. 

It may intimidate the wavering. It may break the western coalition, by offering the same thing in a different form. It will be viewed withfavor in contrast with the Georgia opposition and fear of strengtheningthat. It will be an example of a temperate mode of opposition in futureand similar cases. It will delay the measure a year at least. It willgive us the chance of better times and of intervening accidents; and inno way place us in a worse than our present situation. I do not dwell onthese topics; your mind will develope them. 

The first question is, whether you approve of doing any thing of thekind. If not, send it back to me, and it shall be suppressed; for Iwould not hazard so important a measure against your opinion, nor evenwithout its support. If you think it may be a canvass on which to putsomething good, make what alterations you please, and I will forward itto Gordon, under the most sacred injunctions that it shall be so used asthat not a shadow of suspicion shall fall on you or myself, that ithas come from either of us. But what you do, do as promptly as yourconvenience will admit, lest it should be anticipated by somethingworse. Ever and affectionately yours, Th: Jefferson. 

_The solemn Declaration and Protest of the Commonwealth of Virginia, onthe Principles of the Constitution of the United, States of America, andon the Violations of them_. 

We, the General Assembly of Virginia, on behalf and in the name of thepeople thereof, do declare as follows. 

The States in North America which confederated to establish theirindependence on the government of Great Britain, of which Virginia wasone, became, on that acquisition, free and independent States, and, assuch, authorized to constitute governments, each for itself, in suchform as it thought best. 

They entered into a compact (which is called the Constitution of theUnited States of America), by which they agreed to unite in a singlegovernment as to their relations with each other, and with foreignnations, and as to certain other articles particularly specified. They retained at the same time, each to itself, the other rights ofindependent government, comprehending mainly their domestic interests. 

For the administration of their federal branch, they agreed to appoint, in conjunction, a distinct set of functionaries, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the manner settled in that compact: while to each, severally and of course, remained its original right of appointing, eachfor itself, a separate set of functionaries, legislative, executive, and judiciary, also, for administering the domestic branch of theirrespective governments. 

These two sets of officers, each independent of the other, constitutethus a whole of government, for each State separately; the powersascribed to the one, as specifically made federal, exercised overthe whole, the residuary powers, retained to the other, exercisableexclusively over its particular State, foreign herein, each to theothers, as they were before the original compact. 

To this construction of government and distribution of its powers, theCommonwealth of Virginia does religiously and affectionately adhere, opposing, with equal fidelity and firmness, the usurpation of either setof functionaries on the rightful powers of the other. 

But the federal branch has assumed in some cases, and claimed in others, a right of enlarging its own powers by constructions, inferences, andindefinite deductions from those directly given, which this Assemblydoes declare to be usurpations of the powers retained to the independentbranches, mere interpolations into the compact, and direct infractionsof it. 

They claim, for example, and have commenced the exercise of a right toconstruct roads, open canals, and effect other internal improvementswithin the territories and jurisdictions exclusively belonging to theseveral States, which this Assembly does declare has not been given tothat branch by the constitutional compact, but remains to each Stateamong its domestic and unalienated powers, exercisable within itself andby its domestic authorities alone. 

This Assembly does further disavow, and declare to be most false andunfounded, the doctrine, that the compact, in authorizing its federalbranch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to paythe debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of theUnited States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they maythink, or pretend, would promote the general welfare, which constructionwould make that, of itself, a complete government, without limitationof powers; but that the plain sense and obvious meaning were, that theymight levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare, bythe various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, andby no others. 

Nor is it admitted, as has been said, that the people of these States, by not investing their federal branch with all the means of betteringtheir condition, have denied to themselves any which may effect thatpurpose; since, in the distribution of these means, they have given tothat branch those which belong to its department, and to the States havereserved separately the residue which belong to them separately: andthus by the organization of the two branches taken together, havecompletely secured the first object of human association, the fullimprovement of their condition, and reserved to themselves all thefaculties of multiplying their own blessings. 

Whilst the General Assembly thus declares the rights retained by theStates, rights which they have never yielded, and which this Statewill never voluntarily yield, they do not mean to raise the banner ofdisaffection, or of separation from their sister States, co-parties withthemselves to this compact. They know and value too highly the blessingsof their Union, as to foreign nations and questions arising amongthemselves, to consider every infraction as to be met by actualresistance. They respect too affectionately the opinions of thosepossessing the same rights, under the same instrument, to make everydifference of construction a ground of immediate rupture. They would, indeed, consider such a rupture as among the greatest calamities whichcould befall them; but not the greatest. There is yet one greater, submission to a government of unlimited powers. It is only when thehope of avoiding this shall become absolutely desperate, that furtherforbearance could not be indulged. Should a majority of the co-parties, therefore, contrary to the expectation and hope of this Assembly, prefer, at this time, acquiescence in these assumptions of power by thefederal member of the government, we will be patient and suffer much, under the confidence that time, ere it be too late, will prove to themalso the bitter consequences in which that usurpation will involve usall. In the mean while, we will breast with them, rather than separatefrom them, every misfortune, save that only of living under a governmentof unlimited powers. We owe every other sacrifice to ourselves, to ourfederal brethren, and to the world at large, to pursue with temper andperseverance the great experiment which shall prove that man is capableof living in society, governing itself by laws self-imposed, andsecuring to its members the enjoyment of life, liberty, property, andpeace; and further to show, that even when the government of its choiceshall manifest a tendency to degeneracy, we are not at once to despairbut that the will and the watchfulness of its sounder parts will reformits aberrations, recall it to original and legitimate principles, andrestrain it within the rightful limits of self-government. And these arethe objects of this Declaration and Protest. 

Supposing then, that it might be for the good of the whole, as some ofits co-States seem to think, that the power of making roads and canalsshould be added to those directly given to the federal branch, as morelikely to be systematically and beneficially directed, than by theindependent action of the several States, this Commonwealth, fromrespect to these opinions, and a desire of conciliation with itsco-States, will consent, in concurrence with them, to make thisaddition, provided it be done regularly by an amendment of the compact, in the way established by that instrument, and provided also, it besufficiently guarded against abuses, compromises, and corrupt practices, not only of possible, but of probable occurrence. 

And as a further pledge of the sincere and cordial attachment of thisCommonwealth to the union of the whole, so far as has been consentedto by the compact called 'The Constitution of the United States ofAmerica, ' (construed according to the plain and ordinary meaning of itslanguage, to the common intendment of the time, and of those who framedit;) to give also to all parties and authorities, time for reflectionand for consideration, whether, under a temperate view of the possibleconsequences, and especially of the constant obstructions which anequivocal majority must ever expect to meet, they will still prefer theassumption of this power rather than its acceptance from the free willof their constituents; and to preserve peace in the mean while, weproceed to make it the duty of our citizens, until the legislature shallotherwise and ultimately decide, to acquiesce under those acts ofthe federal branch of our government which we have declared to beusurpations, and against which, in point of right, we do protest as nulland void, and never to be quoted as precedents of right. 

We therefore do enact, and be it enacted by the General Assembly ofVirginia, that all citizens of this Commonwealth, and persons andauthorities within the same, shall pay full obedience at all times tothe acts which may be passed by the Congress of the United States, theobject of which shall be the construction of post-roads, making canalsof navigation, and maintaining the same, in any part of the UnitedStates, in like manner as if the said acts were, _totidem verbis_, passed by the legislature of this Commonwealth. 

LETTER CLXXXVII. --TO WILLIAM B. GILES, December 25, 1825

TO WILLIAM B. GILES. 

Monticello, December 25, 1825. 

Dear Sir, Your favor of the 15th was received four days ago. It found me engagedin what I could not lay aside till this day. 

Far advanced in my eighty-third year, worn down with infirmities whichhave confined me almost entirely to the house for seven or eightmonths past, it afflicts me much to receive appeals to my memory fortransactions so far back as that which is the subject of your letter. My memory is indeed become almost a blank, of which no better proof canprobably be given you than by my solemn protestation, that I have notthe least recollection of your intervention between Mr. John Q. Adamsand myself, in what passed on the subject of the embargo. Not theslightest trace of it remains in my mind. Yet I have no doubt of theexactitude of the statement in your letter. And the less, as I recollectthe interview with Mr. Adams, to which the previous communications whichhad passed between him and yourself were probably and naturally thepreliminary. That interview I remember well; not indeed in the verywords which passed between us, but in their substance, which was of acharacter too awful, too deeply engraved in my mind, and influencing toomaterially the course I had to pursue, ever to be forgotten. Mr. Adamscalled on me pending the embargo, and while endeavors were making toobtain its repeal. He made some apologies for the call, on the ground ofour not being then in the habit of confidential communications, but thatthat which he had then to make, involved too seriously the interest ofour country not to overrule all other considerations with him, and makeit his duty to reveal it to myself particularly. I assured him there wasno occasion for any apology for his visit; that, on the contrary, his communications would be thankfully received, and would add aconfirmation the more to my entire confidence in the rectitudeand patriotism of his conduct and principles. He spoke then of thedissatisfaction of the eastern portion of our confederacy with therestraints of the embargo then existing, and their restlessnessunder it. That there was nothing which might not be attempted, to ridthemselves of it. That he had information of the most unquestionablecertainty, that certain citizens of the Eastern States (I think henamed Massachusetts particularly) were in negotiation with agents of theBritish government, the object of which was an agreement that the NewEngland States should take no further part in the war then going on;that, without formally declaring their separation from the Union of theStates, they should withdraw from all aid and obedience to them, that their navigation and commerce should be free from restraint andinterruption by the British; that they should be considered and treatedby them as neutrals, and as such might conduct themselves towards bothparties; and, at the close of the war, be at liberty to rejoin theconfederacy. He assured me that there was imminent danger that theconvention would take place; that the temptations were such as mightdebauch many from their fidelity to the Union; and that, to enableits friends to make head against it, the repeal of the embargo wasabsolutely necessary. I expressed a just sense of the merit of thisinformation, and of the importance of the disclosure to the safetyand even the salvation of our country: and however reluctant I was toabandon the measure (a measure which persevered in a little longer, wehad subsequent and satisfactory assurance would have effected its objectcompletely), from that moment, and influenced by that information, I sawthe necessity of abandoning it, and instead of effecting our purpose bythis peaceful weapon, we must fight it out, or break the Union. I thenrecommended to my friends to yield to the necessity of a repeal of theembargo, and to endeavor to supply its place by the best substitute, inwhich they could procure a general concurrence. 

I cannot too often repeat, that this statement is not pretended to bein the very words which passed; that it only gives faithfully theimpression remaining on my mind. The very words of a conversation aretoo transient and fugitive to be so long retained in remembrance. Butthe substance was too important to be forgotten, not only from therevolution of measures it obliged me to adopt, but also from therenewals of it in my memory on the frequent occasions I have had ofdoing justice to Mr. Adams, by repeating this proof of his fidelity tohis country, and of his superiority over all ordinary considerationswhen the safety of that was brought into question. 

With this best exertion of a waning memory which I can command, acceptassurances of my constant and affectionate friendship and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CLXXXVIII. --TO WILLIAM B. GILES, December 26, 1825

TO WILLIAM B. GILES. 

Monticello, December 26, 1825. 

Dear Sir, I wrote you a letter yesterday, of which you will be free to make whatuse you please. This will contain matters not intended for the publiceye. I see, as you do, and with the deepest affliction, the rapidstrides with which the federal branch of our government is advancingtowards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and theconsolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and thattoo, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to theirpower. Take together the decisions of the federal court, the doctrinesof the President, and the misconstructions of the constitutional compactacted on by the legislature of the federal branch, and it is but tooevident, that the three ruling branches of that department are incombination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of thepowers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions, foreign and domestic. Under the power to regulate commerce, they assumeindefinitely that also over agriculture and manufactures, and call itregulation to take the earnings of one of these branches of industry, and that too the most depressed, and put them into the pockets of theother, the most flourishing of all. Under the authority to establishpost-roads, they claim that of cutting down mountains for theconstruction of roads, of digging canals, and aided by a littlesophistry on the words 'general welfare, ' a right to do, not only theacts to effect that, which are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think or pretend will be for the generalwelfare. And what is our resource for the preservation of theconstitution? Reason and argument? You might as well reason and arguewith the marble columns encircling them. The representatives chosen byourselves? They are joined in the combination, some from incorrect viewsof government, some from corrupt ones, sufficient, voting together, to outnumber the sound parts; and with majorities only of one, two, orthree, bold enough to go forward in defiance. Are we then to standto our arms, with the hot-headed Georgian? No. That must be the lastresource, not to be thought of until much longer and greater sufferings. If every infraction of a compact of so many parties is to be resisted atonce, as a dissolution of it, none can ever be formed which would lastone year. We must have patience and longer endurance then with ourbrethren while under delusion; give them time for reflection andexperience of consequences; keep ourselves in a situation to profit bythe chapter of accidents; and separate from our companions only when thesole alternatives left, are the dissolution of our Union with them, orsubmission to a government without limitation of powers. Between thesetwo evils, when we must make a choice, there can be no hesitation. Butin the mean while, the States should be watchful to note every materialusurpation on their rights; to denounce them as they occur in the mostperemptory terms; to protest against them as wrongs to which our presentsubmission shall be considered, not as acknowledgments or precedentsof right, but as a temporary yielding to the lesser evil, until theiraccumulation shall overweigh that of separation. I would go stillfurther, and give to the federal member, by a regular amendment of theconstitution, a right to make roads and canals of intercommunicationbetween the States, providing sufficiently against corrupt practices inCongress (log-rolling, &c. ), by declaring that the federal proportionof each State of the monies so employed, shall be in works withinthe State, or elsewhere with its consent, and with a due _salvo_ ofjurisdiction. This is the course which I think safest and best as yet. You ask my opinion of the propriety of giving publicity to what isstated in your letter, as having passed between Mr. John Q. Adams andyourself. Of this no one can judge but yourself. It is one of thosequestions which belong to the forum of feeling. This alone can decideon the degree of confidence implied in the disclosure; whether under nocircumstances it was to be communicated to others. It does not seem tobe of that character, or at all to wear that aspect. They are historicalfacts, which belong to the present, as well as future times. Idoubt whether a single fact, known to the world, will carry as clearconviction to it, of the correctness of our knowledge of the treasonableviews of the federal party of that day, as that disclosed by this, themost nefarious and daring attempt to dissever the Union, of which theHartford Convention was a subsequent chapter: and both of these havingfailed, consolidation becomes the first chapter of the next book oftheir history. But this opens with a vast accession of strength fromtheir younger recruits, who, having nothing in them of the feelings orprinciples of '76, now look to a single and splendid government of anaristocracy, founded on banking institutions, and monied incorporationsunder the guise and cloak of their favored branches of manufactures, commerce, and navigation, riding and ruling over the plundered ploughmanand beggared yeomanry. This will be to them a next best blessing to themonarchy of their first aim, and perhaps the surest stepping-stone toit. 

I learn with great satisfaction that your school is thriving well, andthat you have at its head a truly classical scholar. He is one of threeor four whom I can hear of in the State. We were obliged the lastyear to receive shameful Latinists into the classical school of theUniversity; such as we will certainly refuse as soon as we can get frombetter schools a sufficiency of those properly instructed to form aclass. We must get rid of this Connecticut Latin, of this barbarousconfusion of long and short syllables, which renders doubtful whether weare listening to a reader of Cherokee, Shawnee, Iroquois, or what. OurUniversity has been most fortunate in the five Professors procured fromEngland. A finer selection could not have been made. Besides theirbeing of a grade of science which has left little superior behind, thecorrectness of their moral character, their accommodating dispositions, and zeal for the prosperity of the institution, leave us nothing moreto wish. I verily believe that as high a degree of, education can now beobtained here, as in the country they left. And a finer set of youths Inever saw assembled for instruction. They committed some irregularitiesat first, until they learned the lawful length of their tether; sincewhich it has never been transgressed in the smallest degree. A greatproportion of them are severely devoted to study, and I fear not to say, that within twelve or fifteen years from this time, a majority of therulers of our State will have been educated here. They shall carry hencethe correct principles of our day, and you may count assuredly that theywill exhibit their country in a degree of sound respectability it hasnever known, either in our days, or those of our forefathers. I cannotlive to see it. My joy must only be that of anticipation. But that youmay see it in full fruition, is the probable consequence of the twentyyears I am ahead of you in time, and is the sincere prayer of youraffectionate and constant friend, Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CLXXXIX. --TO CLAIBORNE W. GOOCH, January 9, 1826

TO CLAIBORNE W. GOOCH. 

Monticello, January 9, 1826. 

Dear Sir, I have duly received your favor of December the 31st, and fear, withyou, all the evils which the present lowering aspect of our politicalhorizon so ominously portends. That at some future day, which I hopedto be very distant, the free principles of our government might change, with the change of circumstances, was to be expected. But I certainlydid not expect that they would not over-live the generation whichestablished them. And what I still less expected was, that my favoritewestern country was to be made the instrument of change. I had everand fondly cherished the interests of that country, relying on it as abarrier against the degeneracy of public opinion from our original andfree principles. But the bait of local interests, artfully preparedfor their palate, has decoyed them from their kindred attachments, to alliances alien to them. Yet, although I have little hope that thetorrent of consolidation can be withstood, I should not be for giving upthe ship without efforts to save her. She lived well through the firstsquall, and may weather the present one. But, Dear Sir, I am not thechampion called for by our present dangers; _Non tali auxilio, needefensoribus istis, tempus eget_. ' A waning body, a waning mind, and waning memory, with habitual ill health, warn me to withdraw andrelinquish the arena to younger and abler athletes. I am sensiblemyself, if others are not, that this is my duty. If my distant friendsknow it not, those around me can inform them that they should not, infriendship, wish to call me into conflicts, exposing only the decayswhich nature has inscribed among her unalterable laws, and injuring thecommon cause by a senile and puny defence. 

I will, however, say one word on the subject. The South Carolinaresolutions, Van Buren's motion, and above all Bailey's propositions, show that other States are coming forward on the subject, and better forany one to take the lead than Virginia, where opposition is consideredas common-place, and a mere matter of form and habit. We shall see whatour co-States propose, and before the close of the session we may shapeour own course more understandingly. 

Accept the assurance of my great esteem and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CXC. --TO [ANONYMOUS], January 21, 1826

Monticello, January 21, 1826. 

Dear Sir, Your favor of January the 15th is received, and I am entirelysensible of the kindness of the motives which suggested the caution itrecommended. But I believe what I have done is the only thing I couldhave done with honor or conscience. Mr. Giles requested me to state afact which he knew himself, and of which he knew me to be possessed. What use he intended to make of it I knew not, nor had I a right toinquire, or to indicate any suspicion that he would make an unfair one. That was his concern, not mine, and his character was sufficient tosustain the responsibility for it. I knew, too, that if an uncandid useshould be made of it, there would be found those who would so prove it. Independent of the terms of intimate friendship on which Mr. Giles andmyself have ever lived together, the world's respect entitled him tothe justice of my testimony to any truth he might call for; and how thattestimony should connect me with whatever he may do or write hereafter, and with his whole career, as you apprehend, is not understood by me. With his personal controversies I have nothing to do. I never took anypart in them, or in those of any other person. Add to this, that thestatement I have given him on the subject of Mr. Adams, is entirelyhonorable to him in every sentiment and fact it contains. There is nota word in it which I would wish to recall. It is one which Mr. Adamshimself might willingly quote, did he need to quote any thing. It wassimply, that during the continuance of the embargo, Mr. Adams informedme of a combination (without naming any one concerned in it), which hadfor its object a severance of the Union, for a time at least. That Mr. Adams and myself not being then in the habit of mutual consultation andconfidence, I considered it as the stronger proof of the purity of hispatriotism, which was able to lift him above all party passions whenthe safety of his country was endangered. Nor have I kept this honorablefact to myself. During the late canvass, particularly, I had morethan one occasion to quote it to persons who were expressing opinionsrespecting him, of which this was a direct corrective. I have neverentertained for Mr. Adams any but sentiments of esteem and respect; andif we have not thought alike on political subjects, I yet never doubtedthe honesty of his opinions, of which the letter in question, ifpublished, will be an additional proof. Still, I recognise yourfriendship in suggesting a review of it, and am glad of this, as ofevery other occasion, of repeating to you the assurance of my constantattachment and respect. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CXCI. --TO JAMES MADISON, February 17, 1826

TO JAMES MADISON. 

Monticello, February 17, 1826. 

Dear Sir, Immediately on seeing the overwhelming vote of the House ofRepresentatives against giving us another dollar, I rode to theUniversity and desired Mr. Brockenbrough to engage in nothing new, tostop every thing on hand which could be done without, and to employ allhis force and funds in finishing the circular room for the books, andthe Anatomical theatre. These cannot be done without; and for theseand all our debts, we have funds enough. But I think it prudent then toclear the decks thoroughly, to see how we shall stand, and what wemay accomplish further. In the mean time, there have arrived for us indifferent ports of the United States, ten boxes of books, from Paris, seven from London, and from Germany I know not how many; in all, perhaps, about twenty-five boxes. Not one of these can be opened untilthe book-room is completely finished, and all the shelves ready toreceive their charge directly from the boxes, as they shall be opened. This cannot be till May. I hear nothing definitive of the three thousanddollars duty of which we are asking the remission from Congress. In theselection of our Law Professor, we must be rigorously attentive to hispolitical principles. You will recollect, that, before the Revolution, Coke Littleton was the universal elementary book of law students, anda sounder whig never wrote, nor of profounder learning in the orthodoxdoctrines of the British constitution, or in what were called Englishliberties. You remember also that our lawyers were then all whigs. Butwhen his black-letter text, and uncouth but cunning learning got out offashion, and the honied Mansfieldism of Blackstone became the students'hornbook, from that moment, that profession (the nursery of ourCongress) began to slide into toryism, and nearly all the young broodof lawyers now are of that hue. They suppose themselves, indeed, to bewhigs, because they no longer know what whigism or republicanism means. It is in our seminary that that vestal flame is to be kept alive; it isthence it is to spread anew over our own and the sister States. If weare true and vigilant in our trust, within a dozen or twenty yearsa majority of our own legislature will be from our school, and manydisciples will have carried its doctrines home with them to theirseveral States, and will have leavened thus the whole mass. New York hastaken strong ground in vindication of the constitution; South Carolinahad already done the same. Although I was against our leading, I amequally against omitting to follow in the same line, and backing themfirmly; and i hope that yourself or some other will mark out the trackto be pursued by us. 

You will have seen in the newspapers some proceedings in thelegislature, which have cost me much mortification. My own debts hadbecome considerable, but not beyond the effect of some lopping ofproperty, which would have been little felt, when our friend ---- gaveme the coup de grace. Ever since that I have been paying twelve hundreddollars a year interest on his debt, which, with my own, was absorbingso much of my annual income, as that the maintenance of my family wasmaking deep and rapid inroads on my capital, and had already done it. Still, sales at a fair price would leave me competently provided. Hadcrops and prices for several years been such as to maintain a steadycompetition of substantial bidders at market, all would have been safe. But the long succession of years of stunted crops, of reduced prices, the general prostration of the farming business, under levies for thesupport of manufacturers, &c, with the calamitous fluctuations ofvalue in our paper medium, have kept agriculture in a state of abjectdepression, which has peopled the western States by silently breakingup those on the Atlantic, and glutted the land-market, while it drew offits bidders. In such a state of things, property has lost its characterof being a resource for debts. Highland in Bedford, which, in the daysof our plethory, sold readily for from fifty to one hundred dollars theacre (and such sales were many then), would not now sell for more thanfrom ten to twenty dollars, or one quarter or one fifth of its formerprice. Reflecting on these things, the practice occurred to me, ofselling, on fair valuation, and by way of lottery, often resorted tobefore the Revolution to effect large sales, and still in constant usagein every State for individual as well as corporation purposes. If it ispermitted in my case, my lands here alone, with the mills, he, will payevery thing, and leave me Monticello and a farm free. If refused, I mustsell every thing here, perhaps considerably in Bedford, move thitherwith my family, where I have not even a log hut to put my head into, andwhether ground for burial, will depend on the depredations which, under the form of sales, shall have been committed on my property. Thequestion then with me was, _Utrum horum?_ But why afflict you withthese details? Indeed, I cannot tell, unless pains are lessened bycommunication with a friend. The friendship which has subsisted betweenus, now half a century, and the harmony of our political principles andpursuits, have been sources of constant happiness to me through thatlong period. And if I remove beyond the reach of attentions to theUniversity, or beyond the bourne of life itself, as I soon must, it is acomfort to leave that institution under your care, and an assurancethat it will not be wanting. It has also been a great solace to me, tobelieve that you are engaged in vindicating to posterity the course wehave pursued for preserving to them, in all their purity, the blessingsof self-government, which we had assisted too in acquiring for them. Ifever the earth has beheld a system of administration conducted with asingle and steadfast eye to the general interest and happiness of thosecommitted to it, one which, protected by truth, can never know reproach, it is that to which our lives have been devoted. To myself you havebeen a pillar of support through life. Take care of me when dead, and beassured that I shall leave with you my last affections. 

Th: Jefferson. 

 [The following paper it is deemed proper to insert, as well because of the explanation it contains of the reasons which led the author to ask permission of the legislature to sell his property by lottery, as of its otherwise interesting character. ]

THOUGHTS ON LOTTERIES. 

It is a common idea that games of chance are immoral. But what ischance? Nothing happens in this world without a cause. If we know thecause, we do not call it chance; but if we do not know it, we say it wasproduced by chance. If we see a loaded die turn its lightest side up, we know the cause, and that it is not an effect of chance; but whateverside an unloaded die turns up, not knowing the cause, we say it isthe effect of chance. Yet the morality of a thing cannot depend on ourknowledge or ignorance of its cause. Not knowing why a particular sideof an unloaded die turns up, cannot make the act of throwing it, or ofbetting on it, immoral. If we consider games of chance immoral, thenevery pursuit of human industry is immoral, for there is not a singleone that is not subject to chance; not one wherein you do not risk aloss for the chance of some gain. The navigator, for example, riskshis ship in the hope (if she is not lost in the voyage) of gaining anadvantageous freight. The merchant risks his cargo to gain a betterprice for it. A landholder builds a house on the risk of indemnifyinghimself by a rent. The hunter hazards his time and trouble in the hopeof killing game. In all these pursuits, you stake some one thing againstanother which you hope to win. But the greatest of all gamblers is thefarmer. He risks the seed he puts into the ground, the rent he pays forthe ground itself, the year's labor on it, and the wear and tear of hiscattle and gear, to win a crop, which the chances of too much or toolittle rain, and general uncertainties of weather, insects, waste, &c. Often make a total or partial loss. These, then, are games of chance. Yet so far from being immoral, they are indispensable to the existenceof man, and every one has a natural right to choose for his pursuit suchone of them as he thinks most likely to furnish him subsistence. Almostall these pursuits of chance produce something useful to society. Butthere are some which produce nothing, and endanger the well-being of theindividuals engaged in them, or of others depending on them. Such aregames with cards, dice, billiards, &c. And although the pursuit of themis a matter of natural right, yet society, perceiving the irresistiblebent of some of its members to pursue them, and the ruin produced bythem to the families depending on these individuals, consider it as acase of insanity, _quoad hoc_, step in to protect the family and theparty himself, as in other cases of insanity, infancy, imbecility, &c, and suppress the pursuit altogether, and the natural right of followingit. There are some other games of chance, useful on certain occasions, and injurious only when carried beyond their useful bounds. Such areinsurances, lotteries, raffles, &tc. These they do not suppress, buttake their regulation under their own discretion. The insurance ofships on voyages is a vocation of chance, yet useful, and the right toexercise it therefore is left free. So of houses against fire, doubtfuldebts, the continuance of a particular life, and similar cases. Money iswanting for an useful undertaking, as a school, &c. For which a directtax would be disapproved. It is raised therefore by a lottery, whereinthe tax is laid on the willing only, that is to say, on those who canrisk the price of a ticket without sensible injury, for the possibilityof a higher prize. An article of property, insusceptible of division atall, or not without great diminution of its worth, is sometimes of solarge value as that no purchaser can be found, while the owner owesdebts, has no other means of payment, and his creditors no other chanceof obtaining it, but by its sale at a full and fair price. The lotteryis here a salutary instrument for disposing of it, where many run smallrisks for the chance of obtaining a high prize. In this way, the greatestate of the late Colonel Byrd (in 1756) was made competent to pay hisdebts, which, had the whole been brought into the market at once, wouldhave overdone the demand, would have sold at half or quarter the value, and sacrificed the creditors, half or three fourths of whom would havelost their debts. This method of selling was formerly very much resortedto, until it was thought to nourish too much a spirit of hazard. Thelegislature Were therefore induced, not to suppress it altogether, butto take it under their own special regulation. This they did, for thefirst time, by their act of 1769, c. 17. , before which time, every personexercised the right freely; and since which time, it is made unlawfulbut when approved and authorized by a special act of the legislature. 

Since then, this right of sale, by way of lottery, has been exercisedonly under the discretion of the legislature. Let us examine thepurposes for which they have allowed it in practice, not looking beyondthe date of our independence. 

1. It was for a long time an item of the standing revenue of the State. 

1813. C. 1. § 3 An act imposing taxes for the support of government, andc. 2. § 10. 

1814. Dec. C. 1. § 3. 1814. Feb. C. 1. § 3. 1818. C. 1. § 1. 1819. C. 1. 1820. C. 1. 

This then is a declaration by the nation, that an act was not immoral, of which they were in the habitual use themselves as a part of theregular means of supporting the government: the tax on the vender oftickets was their share of the profits, and if their share was innocent, his could not be criminal. 

2. It has been abundantly permitted, to raise money by lottery for thepurposes of schools; and in this, as in many other cases, the lotteryhas been permitted to retain a part of the money (generally from ten tofifteen per cent. ) for the use to which the lottery has been applied. So that while the adventurers paid one hundred dollars for tickets, theyreceived back eighty-five or ninety dollars only, in the form of prizes, the remaining ten or fifteen being the tax levied on them, with theirown consent. Examples are. 

1784. C. 34. Authorizing the city of Williamsburg to raise £2000 for agrammar school. 

1789. C. 68. For Randolph Academy, £1000. 

1789. C. 73. For Fauquier Academy, £500. C. 74. For the FredericksburgAcademy, £4000. 

1790. C. 46. For the Transylvania Seminary, £500. For the SouthamptonAcademy, £300. 

1796. C. 82. For the New London Academy. 

1803. C. 49. For the Fredericksburg Charity School. C» 50. For finishingthe Strasburg Seminary. C. 58. For William and Mary College. C. 62. Forthe Bannister Academy. C. 79. For the Belfield Academy. C. 82. For thePetersburg Academy. 

1804. C. 40. For the Hotsprings Seminary. C. 76. For the StevensburgAcademy. C. 100. For William and Mary College. 

1805. C. 24. For the Rumford Academy. 

1812. C. 10. For the Literary Fund. To sell the privilege for $30, 000annually, for seven years. 

1816. C. 80. For Norfolk Academy, $12, 000. Norfolk Female Society, $2000. Lancastrian School, $6000. 

3. The next object of lotteries has been rivers. 

1790. C. 46. For a bridge between Gosport and Portsmouth, £400. 

1796. C. 83. For clearing Roanoke River. 

1804. C. 62. For clearing Quantico Creek. 

1805. C. 42. For a toll-bridge over Cheat River. 

1816. C. 49. For the Dismal Swamp, $50, 000. 

4. For roads. 

1790. C. 46. For a road to Warminster, £200. For cutting a road fromRockfish gap to Scott's and Nicholas's landing, £400. 1796. C. 85. Torepair certain roads. 

1803. C. 60. For improving roads to Snigger's and Ashby's gaps. C. 61. For opening a road to Brock's gap. C. 65. For opening a road from thetown of Monroe to Sweet Springs and Lewisburg. 

* The acts not being at hand, the sums allowed are not known. 

1803. C. 71. For improving the road to Brock's gap. 

1805. C. 5. For improving the road to Clarksburg. C. 26. For opening aroad from Monongalia Glades to Fishing Creek. 

1813. C. 44. For opening a road from Thornton's gap. 

5. Lotteries for the benefit of counties. 

1796. C. 78. To authorize a lottery in the county of Shenandoah. C. 84. To authorize a lottery in the county of Gloucester. 

6. Lotteries for the benefit of towns. 

1782. C. 31. Richmond, for a bridge over Shockoe, amount not limited. 

1789. C. 75. Alexandria, to pave its streets, £1500. 

1790. C. 46. Do. Do. £5000. 1796. C. 79. Norfolk, one or more lotteriesauthorized. , c. 81. Petersburg, a lottery authorized. 

1803. C. 12. Woodstock, a lottery authorized c. 48. Fredericksburg, for improving its main street. C. 73. Harrisonburg, for improving itsstreets. 

7. Lotteries for religious congregations. 

1785. C. Lll. Completing a church in Winchester. For rebuilding a churchin the parish of Elizabeth River. 

1791. C. 69. For the benefit of the Episcopal society. 

1790. C. 46. For building a church in Warminster, £200. In Halifax, £200. In Alexandria, £500. In Petersburg, £750. In Shepherdstown, £250. 

8. Lotteries for private societies. 

1790. C. 46. For the Amicable Society in Richmond, £1000. 

1791. C. 70. For building a Freemason's hall in Charlotte, £750. 

9. Lotteries for the benefit of private individuals. [To raise money forthem. ]

1796. C. 80. For the sufferers by fire in the town of Lexington. 

1781. C. 6. For completing titles under Byrd's lottery. 

1790. C. 46. To erect a paper-mill in Staunton, £300. To raise £2000 forNathaniel Twining. 

1791. C. 13. To raise £4000 for William Tatham, to enable him tocomplete his geographical work. To enable---------to complete a literarywork. *

* I found such an act, but not noting it at the time, I have not beenable to find it again. But there is such an one. 

We have seen, then, that every vocation in life is subject to theinfluence of chance; that so far from being rendered immoral by theadmixture of that ingredient, were they abandoned on that account, mancould no longer subsist; that, among them, every one has a naturalright to choose that which he thinks most likely to give him comfortablesubsistence; but that while the greater number of these pursuits areproductive of something which adds to the necessaries and comforts oflife, others again, such as cards, dice, &ic, are entirely unproductive, doing good to none, injury to many, yet so easy, and so seducing inpractice to men of a certain constitution of mind, that they cannotresist the temptation, be the consequences what they may; that in thiscase, as in those of insanity, idiocy, infancy, &c, it is the duty ofsociety to take them under its protection, even against their own acts, and to restrain their right of choice of these pursuits, by suppressingthem entirely; that there are others, as lotteries particularly, which, although liable to chance also, are useful for many purposes, and aretherefore retained and placed under the discretion of the legislature, to be permitted or refused according to the circumstances of everyspecial case, of which they are to judge: that between the years 1782and 1820, a space of thirty-eight years only, we have observed seventycase's, where the permission of them has been found useful by thelegislature, some of which are in progress at this time. These casesrelate to the emolument of the whole State, to local benefits ofeducation, of navigation, of roads, of counties, towns, religiousassemblies, private societies, and of individuals under particularcircumstances which may claim indulgence or favor. The latter is thecase now submitted to the legislature, and the question is, whether theindividual soliciting their attention, or his situation, may meritthat degree of consideration, which will justify the legislature inpermitting him to avail himself of the mode of selling by lottery, forthe purpose of paying his debts. 

That a fair price cannot be obtained by sale in the ordinary way, andin the present depressed state of agricultural industry, is well known. Lands in this State will not now sell for more than a third or fourth ofwhat they would have brought a few years ago, perhaps at the very timeof the contraction of the debts for which they are now to be sold. The low price in foreign markets, for a series of years past, ofagricultural produce, of wheat generally, of tobacco most commonly, andthe accumulation of duties on the articles of consumption not producedwithin our State, not only disable the farmer or planter from adding tohis farm by purchase, but reduce him to sell his own, and remove to thewestern country, glutting the market he leave's, while he lessens thenumber of bidders. To be protected against this sacrifice is the objectof the present application, and whether the applicant has any particularclaim to this protection, is the present question. 

Here the answer must be left to others. It is not for me to give it. Imay, however, more readily than others, suggest the offices in which Ihave served. I came of age in 1764, and was soon put into the nominationof justices of the county in which I live, and at the first electionfollowing I became one of its representatives in the legislature. 

I was thence sent to the old Congress. 

Then employed two years, with Mr. Pendleton and Mr. Wythe, on therevisal and reduction to a single code of the whole body of the Britishstatutes, the acts of our Assembly, and certain parts of the common law. 

Then elected Governor. 

Next to the legislature, and to Congress again. 

Sent to Europe as Minister Plenipotentiary. 

Appointed Secretary of State to the new government. 

Elected Vice President, and

President. 

And lastly, a Visitor and Rector of the University. 

In these different offices, with scarcely any interval between them, Ihave been in the public service now sixty-one years; and during the fargreater part of the time, in foreign countries or in other States. Everyone knows how inevitably a Virginia estate, goes to ruin, when the owneris so far distant as to be unable to pay attention to it himself; andthe more especially, when the line of his employment is of a characterto abstract and alienate his mind entirely from the knowledge necessaryto good, and even to saving management. 

If it were thought worth while to specify any particular servicesrendered, I would refer to the specification of them made by thelegislature itself in their Farewell Address, on my retiring fromthe Presidency, February, 1809. [This will be found in 2 Pleasant'sCollection, page 144. ] There is one, however, not therein specified, themost important in its consequences, of any transaction in any portionof my life; to wit, the head I personally made against the federalprinciples and proceedings, during the administration of Mr. Adams. Their usurpations and violations of the constitution at that period, andtheir majority in both Houses of Congress, were so great, so decided, and so daring, that after combating their aggressions, inch by inch, without being able in the least to check their career, the republicanleaders thought it would be best for them to give up their uselessefforts there, go home, get into their respective legislatures, embodywhatever of resistance they could be formed into, and if ineffectual, toperish there as in the last ditch. All, therefore, retired, leavingMr. Gallatin alone in the House of Representatives, and myself in theSenate, where I then presided as Vice-President. Remaining at our posts, and bidding defiance to the brow-beatings and insults by which theyendeavored to drive us off also, we kept the mass of republicans inphalanx together, until the legislatures could be brought up to thecharge; and nothing on earth is more certain, than that if myselfparticularly, placed by my office of Vice-President at the head of therepublicans, had given way and withdrawn from my post, the republicansthroughout the Union would have given up in despair, and the causewould have been lost for ever. By holding on, we obtained time for thelegislatures to come up with their weight; and those of Virginiaand Kentucky particularly, but more especially the former, by theircelebrated resolutions, saved the constitution, at its last gasp. Noperson who was not a witness of the scenes of that gloomy period, canform any idea of the afflicting persecutions and personal indignities wehad to brook. They saved our country however. The spirits of the peoplewere so much subdued and reduced to despair by the X. Y. Z. Imposture, and other stratagems and machinations, that they would have sunk intoapathy and monarchy, as the only form of government which could maintainitself. 

If legislative services are worth mentioning, and the stamp ofliberality and equality, which was necessary to be impressed on our lawsin the first crisis of our birth as a nation, was of any value, theywill find that the leading and most important laws of that day wereprepared by myself, and carried chiefly by my efforts; supported, indeed, by able and faithful coadjutors from the ranks of the House, very effective as seconds, but who would not have taken the field asleaders. 

The prohibition of the further importation of slaves, was the first ofthese measures in time. 

This was followed by the abolition of entails, which broke up thehereditary and high-handed aristocracy, which, by accumulating immensemasses of property in single lines of families, had divided our countryinto two distinct orders, of nobles and plebeians. 

But further to complete the equality among our citizens so essential tothe maintenance of republican government, it was necessary to abolishthe principle of primogeniture. I drew the law of descents, giving equalinheritance to sons and daughters which made a part of the revised code. 

The attack on the establishment of a dominant religion, was first madeby myself. It could be carried at first only by a suspension of salariesfor one year, by battling it again at the next session for another year, and so from year to year, until the public mind was ripened for the billfor establishing religious freedom, which I had prepared for the revisedcode also. This was at length established permanently, and by theefforts chiefly of Mr. Madison, being myself in Europe at the time thatwork was brought forward. 

To these particular services, I think I might add the establishment ofour University, as principally my work, acknowledging at the same time, as I do, the great assistance received from my able colleagues of theVisitation. But my residence in the vicinity threw, of course, on methe chief burthen of the enterprise, as well of the buildings, as ofthe general organization and care of the whole. The effect of thisinstitution on the future fame, fortune, and prosperity of our country, can as yet be seen but at a distance. But an hundred well educatedyouths, which it will turn out annually, and ere long, will fill allits offices with men of superior qualifications, and raise it from itshumble state to an eminence among its associates which it has never yetknown; no, not in its brightest days. That institution is now qualifiedto raise its youth to an order of science unequalled in any other State;and this superiority will be the greater from the free range of mindencouraged there, and the restraint imposed at other seminaries by theshackles of a domineering hierarchy, and a bigoted adhesion to ancienthabits. Those now on the theatre of affairs will enjoy the ineffablehappiness of seeing themselves succeeded by sons of a grade of sciencebeyond their own ken. Our sister States will also be repairing to thesame fountains of instruction, will bring hither their genius to bekindled at our fire, and will carry back the fraternal affectionswhich, nourished by the same alma mater, will knit us to them by theindissoluble bonds of early personal friendships. The good Old Dominion, the blessed mother of us all, will then raise her head with pride amongthe nations, will present to them that splendor of genius which shehas ever possessed, but has too long suffered to rest uncultivatedand unknown, and will become a centre of ralliance to the States whoseyouths she has instructed, and, as it were, adopted. 

I claim some share in the merits of this great work of regeneration. Mywhole labors, now for many years, have been devoted to it, and I standpledged to follow it up through the remnant of life remaining to me. Andwhat remuneration do I ask? Money from the treasury? Not a cent. I asknothing from the earnings or labors of my fellow-citizens. I wish noman's comforts to be abridged for the enlargement of mine. For theservices rendered on all occasions, I have been always paid to my fullsatisfaction. I never wished a dollar more than what the law had fixedon. My request is, only to be permitted to sell my own property freelyto pay my own debts. To sell it, I say, and not to sacrifice it, notto have it gobbled up by speculators to make fortunes for themselves, leaving unpaid those who have trusted to my good faith, and myselfwithout resource in the last and most helpless stage of life. Ifpermitted to sell it in a way which will bring me a fair price, all willbe honestly and honorably paid, and a competence left for myself, andfor those who look to me for subsistence. To sell it in a way which willoffend no moral principle, and expose none to risk but the willing, andthose wishing to be permitted to take the chance of gain. To give me, inshort, that permission which you often allow to others for purposes notmore moral. 

Will it be objected, that although not evil in itself, it may, as aprecedent, lead to evil? But let those who shall quote the precedentbring their case within the same measure. Have they, as in this case, devoted three-score years and one of their lives, uninterruptedly, tothe service of their country? Have the times of those services been astrying as those which have embraced our Revolution, our transition froma colonial to a free structure of government? Have the stations of theirtrial been of equal importance? Has the share they have borne in holdingtheir new government to its genuine principles, been equally marked?And has the cause of the distress, against which they seek a remedy, proceeded, not merely from themselves, but from errors of the publicauthorities, disordering the circulating medium, over which they hadno control, and which have, in fact, doubled and trebled debts, byreducing, in that proportion, the value of the property which was to paythem? If all these circumstances, which characterize the present case, have taken place in theirs also, then follow the precedent. Be assured, the cases will be so rare as to produce no embarrassment, as never tosettle into an injurious habit. The single feature of a sixty years'service, as no other instance of it has yet occurred in our country, soit probably never may again. And should it occur, even once and again, it will not impoverish your treasury, as it takes nothing from that, andasks but a simple permission, by an act of natural right, to do one ofmoral justice. 

In the 'Thoughts on Lotteries, ' the following paper is referred to. Itis here copied to spare the trouble of seeking for the-book. 

_Farewell Address To Th: Jefferson, President Of The United States_. 

[Agreed to by both Houses, February 7, 1809. ]

Sir, The General Assembly of your native State cannot close theirsession, without acknowledging your services in the office which you arejust about to lay down, and bidding you a respectful and affectionatefarewell. 

We have to thank you for the model of an administration conducted onthe purest principles of republicanism; for pomp and state laid aside;patronage discarded; internal taxes abolished; a host of superfluousofficers disbanded; the monarchic maxim that 'a national debt is anational blessing, ' renounced, and more than thirty-three millions ofour debt discharged; the native right to nearly one hundred millionsof acres of our national domain extinguished; and, without the guilt orcalamities of conquest, a vast and, fertile region added to our country, far more extensive than her original possessions, bringing along withit the Mississippi and the port of Orleans, the trade of the west to thePacific Ocean, and in the intrinsic value of the land itself, a sourceof permanent and almost inexhaustible revenue. These are points in youradministration which the historian will not fail to seize, to expand, and teach posterity to dwell upon with delight. Nor will he forget ourpeace with the civilized world, preserved through a season of uncommondifficulty and trial; the good-will cultivated with the unfortunateaborigines of our country, and the civilization humanely extended amongthem; the lesson taught the inhabitants of the coast of Barbary, thatwe have the means of chastising their piratical encroachments, andawing them into justice; and that theme, on which, above all others, thehistoric genius will hang with rapture, the liberty of speech and of thepress, preserved inviolate, without which genius and science are givento man in vain. 

In the principles on which you have administered the government, we seeonly the continuation and maturity of the same virtues and abilities, which drew upon you in your youth the resentment of Dunmore. From thefirst brilliant and happy moment of your resistance to foreign tyranny, until the present day, we mark with pleasure and with gratitude the sameuniform, consistent character, the same warm and devoted attachmentto liberty and the republic, the same Roman love of your country, herrights, her peace, her honor, her prosperity. 

How blessed will be the retirement into which you are about to go! Howdeservedly blessed will it be! For you carry with you the richest of allrewards, the recollection of a life well spent in the service of yourcountry, and proofs the most decisive, of the love, the gratitude, theveneration of your countrymen. 

That your retirement may be as happy as your life has been virtuous anduseful; that our youth may see, in the blissful close of your days, anadditional inducement to form themselves on your model, is the devoutand earnest prayer of your fellow-citizens who compose the GeneralAssembly of Virginia. 

LETTER CXCII. --TO JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, March 30, 1826

TO JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 

Monticello, March 30, 1826. 

Dear Sir, I am thankful for the very interesting message and documents ofwhich you have been so kind as to send me a copy, and will state myrecollections as to the particular passage of the message to which youask my attention. On the conclusion of peace, Congress, sensible oftheir right to assume independence, would not condescend to ask itsacknowledgment from other nations, yet were willing, by some of theordinary international transactions, to receive what would imply thatacknowledgment. They appointed commissioners, therefore, to proposetreaties of commerce to the principal nations of Europe. I was thena member of Congress, was of the committee appointed to prepareinstructions for the commissioners, was, as you suppose, the draughtsmanof those actually agreed to, and was joined with your father and DoctorFranklin to carry them into execution. But the stipulations makingpart of these instructions, which respected privateering, blockades, contraband, and freedom of the fisheries, were not original conceptionsof mine. They had before been suggested by Doctor Franklin, in someof his papers in possession of the public, and had I think, beenrecommended in some letter of his to Congress I happen only to havebeen the inserter of them in the first public act which gave the formalsanction of a public authority. We accordingly proposed our treaties, containing these stipulations, to the principal governments of Europe. But we were then just emerged from a subordinate condition; thenations had as yet known nothing of us and had not yet reflected on therelations which it might be their interest to establish with us. Most ofthem, therefore, listened to our propositions with coyness and reserve;old Frederic alone closing with us without hesitation. The negotiator ofPortugal, indeed, signed a treaty with us, which his government didnot ratify, and Tuscany was near a final agreement. Becoming sensible, however, ourselves, that we should do nothing with the greater powers, we thought it better not to hamper our country with engagements to thoseof less significance, and suffered our powers to expire without closingany other negotiation. Austria soon after became desirous of a treatywith us, and her ambassador pressed it often on me; but our commercewith her being no object, I evaded her repeated invitations. Had thesegovernments been then apprized of the station we should so soon occupyamong nations, all, I believe, would have met us promptly and withfrankness. These principles would then have been established with all, and from being the conventional law with us alone, would have slid intotheir engagements with one another, and become general. These arethe facts within my recollection. They have not yet got into writtenhistory; but their adoption by our southern brethren will bring theminto observance, and make them, what they should be, a part of the lawof the world and of the reformation of principles for which they will beindebted to us. I pray you to accept the homage of my friendly and highconsideration. 

Th: Jefferson. 

LETTER CXCIII. --TO MR. WEIGHTMAN, June 24, 1826

TO MR. WEIGHTMAN. 

Monticello, June 24, 1826. 

Respected Sir, The kind invitation I receive from you, on the part of the citizens ofthe city of Washington, to be present with them at their celebrationon the fiftieth anniversary of American Independence, as one of thesurviving signers of an instrument pregnant with our own, and thefate of the world, is most flattering to myself, and heightened by thehonorable accompaniment proposed for the comfort of such a journey. Itadds sensibly to the sufferings of sickness, to be deprived by it of apersonal participation in the rejoicings of that day. But acquiescenceis a duty, under circumstances not placed among those we are permittedto control. I should indeed, with peculiar delight, have met andexchanged there congratulations personally with the small band, theremnant of that host of worthies, who joined with us on that day, inthe bold and doubtful election we were to make for our country, betweensubmission or the sword; and to have enjoyed with them the consolatoryfact, that our fellow-citizens, after half a century of experience andprosperity, continue to approve the choice we made. May it be to theworld, what I believe it will be (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all), the signal of arousing men to burst the chainsunder which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded themto bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security ofself-government. That form which we have substituted, restores the freeright to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. Alleyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spreadof the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpabletruth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles ontheir backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride themlegitimately, by the grace of God. These are grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day for ever refresh ourrecollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them. 

I will ask permission here to express the pleasure with which Ishould have met my ancient neighbors of the city of Washington andits vicinities, with whom I passed so many years of a pleasing socialintercourse; an intercourse which so much relieved the anxieties of thepublic cares, and left impressions so deeply engraved in my affections, as never to be forgotten. With my regret that ill health forbids me thegratification of an acceptance, be pleased to receive for yourself, and those for whom you write, the assurance of my highest respect andfriendly attachments. 

Th: Jefferson. 

*****

*****

ANA. --EXPLANATION OF THE THREE VOLUMES BOUND IN MARBLED PAPER

_Explanation of the Three Volumes bound in Marbled Paper_. *

In these three volumes will be found copies of the official opinionsgiven in writing by me to General Washington, while I was Secretary ofState, with sometimes the documents belonging to the case. Some ofthese are the rough draughts, some press copies, some fair ones. In theearlier part of my acting in that office, I took no other note of thepassing transactions; but after a while, I saw the importance of doingit in aid of my memory. Very often, therefore, I made memorandums onloose scraps of paper, taken out of my pocket in the moment, and laidby to be copied fair at leisure, which, however, they hardly ever were. These scraps, therefore, ragged, rubbed, and scribbled as they were, Ihad bound with the others by a binder, who came into my cabinet, did itunder my own eye, and without the opportunity of reading a single paper. At this day, after the lapse of twenty-five years, or more, from theirdates, I have given to the whole a calm revisal, when the passions ofthe time are passed away, and the reasons of the transactions act aloneon the judgment. Some of the informations I had recorded, are now cutout from the rest, because I have seen that they were incorrect, ordoubtful, or merely personal or private, with which we have nothing todo. I should perhaps have thought the rest not worth preserving, but fortheir testimony against the only history of that period, which pretendsto have been compiled from authentic and unpublished documents. 

*****

[* These are the volumes containing the Ana to the time that the Authorretired from the office of Secretary of State. The official opinionsand documents referred to, being very voluminous, are for the most partomitted, to make room for the conversations which the same volumescomprise. ]

But a short review of facts ***** will show, that the contests of thatday were contests of principle between the advocates of republican, and those of kingly government, and that, had not the former made theefforts they did, our government would have been even at this early day, a very different thing from what the successful issue of those effortshave made it. 

The alliance between the States under the old Articles of Confederation, for the purpose of joint defence against the aggressions of GreatBritain, was found insufficient, as treaties of alliance generally are, to enforce compliance with their mutual stipulations; and these, oncefulfilled, that bond was to expire of itself, and each State to becomesovereign and independent in all things. Yet, it could not but occur toevery one, that these separate independencies, like the petty States ofGreece, would be eternally at war with each other, and would becomeat length the mere partisans and satellites of the leading powers ofEurope. All, then, must have looked forward to some further bond ofunion, which would insure internal peace, and a political system of ourown, independent of that of Europe. Whether all should be consolidatedinto a single government, or each remain independent as to internalmatters, and the whole form a single nation as to what was foreign only, and whether that national government should be a monarchy or republic, would of course divide opinions, according to the constitutions, thehabits, and the circumstances of each individual. Some officers of thearmy, as it has always been said and believed, (and Steuben and Knoxhave ever been named as the leading agents, ) trained to monarchy bymilitary habits, are understood to have proposed to General Washington, to decide this great question by the army before its disbandment, andto assume himself the crown, on the assurance of their support. The indignity with which he is said to have scouted this parricideproposition, was equally worthy of his virtue and wisdom. The nexteffort was, (on suggestion of the same individuals, in the moment oftheir separation, ) the establishment of an hereditary order, underthe name of the Cincinnati, ready prepared by that distinction to beengrafted into the future frame of government, and placing GeneralWashington still at their head. The General wrote to me on this subject, while I was in Congress at Annapolis, and an extract from my letter isinserted in 5th Marshall's History, page 28. He afterwards called on meat that place, on his way to a meeting of the society, and after a wholeevening of consultation, he left that place fully determined to useall his endeavors for its total suppression. But he found it so firmlyriveted in the affections of the members, that, strengthened as theyhappened to be by an adventitious occurrence of the moment, he couldeffect no more than the abolition of its hereditary principle. He calledagain on his return, and explained to me fully the opposition which hadbeen made, the effect of the occurrence from France, and the difficultywith which its duration had been limited to the lives of the presentmembers. Further details will be found among my papers, in his andmy letters, and some in the _Encyclopédic Méthodique et Dictionnaired'Economic Politique_, communicated by myself to M. Meusnier, itsauthor, who had made the establishment of this society the ground, inthat work, of a libel on our country. 

The want of some authority which should procure justice to the publiccreditors, and an observance of treaties with foreign nations, produced, some time after, the call of a convention of the States at Annapolis. Although, at this meeting, a difference of opinion was evident on thequestion of a republican or kingly government, yet, so general throughthe States was the sentiment in favor of the former, that the friendsof the latter confined themselves to a course of obstruction only, anddelay, to every thing proposed; they hoped, that nothing being done, and all things going from bad to worse, a kingly government might beusurped, and submitted to by the people, as better than anarchy andwars, internal and external, the certain consequences of the presentwant of a general government. The effect of their manoeuvres, withthe defective attendance of Deputies from the States, resulted inthe measure of calling a more general convention, to be held atPhiladelphia. At this the same party exhibited the same practices, andwith the same views of preventing a government of concord, which theyforesaw would be republican, and of forcing: through anarchy their wayto monarchy. But the mass of that convention was too honest, too wise, and too steady, to be baffled and misled by their manoeuvres. One ofthese was a form of government proposed by Colonel Hamilton, which wouldhave been in fact a compromise between the two parties of royalism andrepublicanism. According to this, the executive and one branch of thelegislature were to be during good behavior, i. E. For life, and thegovernors of the States were to be named by these two permanent organs. This, however, was rejected; on which Hamilton left the convention, asdesperate, and never returned again until near its final conclusion. These opinions and efforts, secret or avowed, of the advocates formonarchy, had begotten great jealousy through the States generally;and this jealousy it was, which excited the strong opposition to theconventional constitution; a jealousy which yielded at last only toa general determination to establish certain amendments, as barriersagainst a government either monarchical or consolidated. In what passedthrough the whole period of these conventions, I have gone on theinformation of those who were members of them, being absent myself on mymission to France. 

I returned from that mission in the first year of the new government, having landed in Virginia in December, 1789, and proceeded to New Yorkin March, 1790, to enter on the office of Secretary of State. Here, certainly, I found a state of things which, of all I had evercontemplated, I the least expected. I had left France in the firstyear of her revolution, in the fervor of natural rights, and zeal forreformation. My conscientious devotion to these rights could not beheightened, but it had been aroused and excited by daily exercise. ThePresident received me cordially, and my colleagues and the circleof principal citizens, apparently with welcome. The courtesies ofdinner-parties given me, as a stranger newly arrived among them, placedme at once in their familiar society. But I cannot describe the wonderand mortification with which the table conversations filled me. Politicswere the chief topic, and a preference of kingly over republicangovernment, was evidently the favorite sentiment. An apostate I couldnot be, nor yet a hypocrite; and I found myself, for the most part, theonly advocate on the republican side of the question, unless amongthe guests there chanced to be some member of that party from thelegislative Houses. Hamilton's financial system had then passed. Ithad two objects; 1. As a puzzle, to exclude popular understanding andinquiry; 2. As a machine for the corruption of the legislature: for heavowed the opinion, that man could be governed by one of two motivesonly, force or interest: force, he observed, in this country, was out ofthe question, and the interests, therefore, of the members must be laidhold of, to keep the legislature in unison with the executive. And withgrief and shame it must be acknowledged that his machine was not withouteffect; that even in this, the birth of our government, some memberswere found sordid enough to bend their duty, to their interests, and tolook after personal rather than public good. 

It is well known that during the war, the greatest difficulty weencountered, was the want of money or means to pay our soldiers whofought, or our farmers, manufacturers, and merchants, who furnished thenecessary supplies of food and clothing for them. After the expedient ofpaper money had exhausted itself, certificates of debt were given to theindividual creditors, with assurance of payment, so soon as the UnitedStates should be able. But the distresses of these people often obligedthem to part with these for the half, the fifth, and even a tenth oftheir value; and speculators had made a trade of cozening them from theholders, by the most fraudulent practices, and persuasions that theywould never be paid. In the bill for funding and paying these, Hamiltonmade no difference between the original holders, and the fraudulentpurchasers of this paper. Great and just repugnance arose at puttingthese two classes of creditors on the same footing, and great exertionswere used to pay the former the full value, and to the latter, the priceonly which they had paid, with interest. But this would have preventedthe game which was to be played, and for which the minds of greedymembers were already tutored and prepared. When the trial of strength, on these several efforts, had indicated the form in which the bill wouldfinally pass, this being known within doors sooner than without, andespecially, than to those who were in distant parts of the Union, the base scramble began. Couriers and relay-horses by land, andswift-sailing pilot-boats by sea, were flying in all directions. Activepartners and agents were associated and employed in every State, town, and country neighborhood, and this paper was bought up at fiveshillings, and even as low as two shillings in the pound, before theholder knew that Congress had already provided for its redemption atpar. Immense sums were thus filched from the poor and ignorant, andfortunes accumulated by those who had themselves been poor enoughbefore. Men thus enriched by the dexterity of a leader, would follow ofcourse the chief who was leading them to fortune, and become the zealousinstruments of all his enterprises. 

This game was over, and another was on the carpet at the moment of myarrival; and to this I was most ignorantly and innocently made to holdthe candle. This fiscal manoeuvre is well known by the name of theAssumption. Independently of the debts of Congress, the States had, during the war, contracted separate and heavy debts; and Massachusettsparticularly, in an absurd attempt, absurdly conducted, on the Britishpost of Penobscot: and the more debt Hamilton could rake up, the moreplunder for his mercenaries. This money, whether wisely or foolishlyspent, was pretended to have been spent for general purposes, and ought, therefore, to be paid from the general purse. But it was objected, thatnobody knew what these debts were, what their amount, or what theirproofs. No matter; we will guess them to be twenty millions. But ofthese twenty millions, we do not know how much should be reimbursedto one State, or how much to another. No matter; we will guess. And soanother scramble was set on foot among the several States, and some gotmuch, some little, some nothing. But the main object was obtained, thephalanx of the Treasury was reinforced by additional recruits. Thismeasure produced the most bitter and angry contests ever known inCongress, before or since the Union of the States. I arrived in themidst of it. But a stranger to the ground, a stranger to the actors onit, so long absent as to have lost all familiarity with the subject, and as yet unaware of its object, I took no concern in it. The great andtrying question, however, was lost in the House of Representatives. So high were the feuds excited by this subject, that on its rejectionbusiness was suspended. Congress met and adjourned from day to daywithout doing any thing, the parties being too much out of temper todo business together. The eastern members particularly, who, withSmith from South Carolina, were the principal gamblers in these scenes, threatened a secession and dissolution. Hamilton was in despair. As Iwas going to the President's one day, I met him in the street. He walkedme backwards and forwards before the President's door for half an hour. He painted pathetically the temper into which the legislature had beenwrought; the disgust of those who were called the creditor States; thedanger of the secession of their members, and the separation of theStates. He observed that the members of the administration ought to actin concert; that though this question was not of my department, yet acommon duty should make it a common concern; that the President was thecentre on which all administrative questions ultimately rested, andthat all of us should rally around him, and support, with joint efforts, measures approved by him; and that the question having been lost bya small majority only, it was probable that an appeal from me to thejudgment and discretion of some of my friends, might effect a change inthe vote, and the machine of government, now suspended, might be againset into motion. I told him that I was really a stranger to the wholesubject; that not having yet informed myself of the system of financeadopted, I knew not how far this was a necessary sequence; thatundoubtedly, if its rejection endangered a dissolution of our Union atthis incipient stage, I should deem that the most unfortunate of allconsequences, to avert which all partial and temporary evils should beyielded. I proposed to him, however, to dine with me the next day, and Iwould invite another friend or two, bring them into conference together, and I thought it impossible that reasonable men, consulting togethercoolly, could fail, by some mutual sacrifices of opinion, to form acompromise which was to save the Union. The discussion took place. I could take no part in it but an exhortatory one, because I was astranger to the circumstances which should govern it. But it was finallyagreed, that whatever importance had been attached to the rejection ofthis proposition, the preservation of the Union and of concord among theStates was more important, and that therefore it would be better thatthe vote of rejection should be rescinded, to effect which, some membersshould change their votes. But it was observed that this pill wouldbe peculiarly bitter to the Southern States, and that some concomitantmeasure should be adopted to sweeten it a little to them. There hadbefore been propositions to fix the seat of government either atPhiladelphia, or at Georgetown on the Potomac; and it was thoughtthat by giving it to Philadelphia for ten years, and to Georgetownpermanently afterwards, this might, as an anodyne, calm in some degreethe ferment which might be excited by the other measure alone. So twoof the Potomac members (White and Lee, but White with a revulsion ofstomach almost convulsive, ) agreed to change their votes, and Hamiltonundertook to carry the other point. In doing this, the influence he hadestablished over the eastern members, with the agency of Robert Morriswith those of the middle States, effected his side of the engagement;and so the Assumption was passed, and twenty millions of stock dividedamong favored States, and thrown in as a pabulum to the stock-jobbingherd. This added to the number of votaries to the Treasury, and made itschief the master of every vote in the legislature, which might give tothe government the direction suited to his political views. 

I know well, and so must be understood, that nothing like a majority inCongress had yielded to this corruption. Far from it. But a division, not very unequal, had already taken place in the honest part of thatbody, between the parties styled republican and federal. The latterbeing monarchists in principle, adhered to Hamilton of course, as theirleader in that principle, and this mercenary phalanx added to them, insured him always a majority in both Houses: so that the whole actionof the legislature was now under the direction of the Treasury. Stillthe machine was not complete. The effect of the funding system, and ofthe Assumption, would be temporary; it would be lost with the lossof the individual members whom it had enriched, and some engine ofinfluence more permanent must be contrived, while these myrmidons wereyet in place to carry it through all opposition. This engine was theBank of the United States. All that history is known, so I shall saynothing about it. While the government remained at Philadelphia, aselection of members of both Houses were constantly kept as directors, who, on every question interesting to that institution, or to the viewsof the federal head, voted at the will of that head; and, together withthe stock-holding members, could always make the federal vote that ofthe majority. By this combination, legislative expositions were givento the constitution, and all the administrative laws were shaped onthe model of England and so passed. And from this influence we werenot relieved, until the removal from the precincts of the bank, toWashington. Here then was the real ground of the opposition which wasmade to the course of administration. Its object was to preserve thelegislature pure and independent of the executive, to restrain, theadministration to republican forms and principles, and not permit theconstitution to be construed into a monarchy, and to be warped, inpractice, into all the principles and pollutions of their favoriteEnglish model. Nor was this an opposition to General Washington. Hewas true to the republican charge confided to him; and has solemnly andrepeatedly protested to me, in our conversations, that he would lose thelast drop of his blood in support of it; and he did this the oftener andwith the more earnestness, because he knew my suspicions of Hamilton'sdesigns against it, and wished to quiet them. For he was not aware ofthe drift, or of the effect of Hamilton's schemes. Unversed in financialprojects and calculations and budgets, his approbation of them wasbottomed on his confidence in the man. 

But Hamilton was not only a monarchist, but for a monarchy bottomed oncorruption. In proof of this, I will relate an anecdote, for the truthof which I attest the God who made me. Before the President set out onhis southern tour in April, 1791, he addressed a letter of the fourthof that month, from Mount Vernon, to the Secretaries of State, Treasury, and War, desiring that if any serious and important cases should ariseduring his absence, they would consult and act on them. And he requestedthat the Vice-President should also be consulted. This was the onlyoccasion on which that officer was ever requested to take part in acabinet question. Some occasion for consultation arising, I invitedthose gentlemen (and the Attorney General, as well as I remember, ) todine with me, in order to confer on the subject. After the cloth wasremoved, and our question agreed and dismissed, conversation beganon other matters, and, by some circumstance, was led to the Britishconstitution, on which Mr. Adams observed, 'Purge that constitutionof its corruption, and give to its popular branch equality ofrepresentation, and it would be the most perfect constitution everdevised by the wit of man. ' Hamilton paused and said, 'Purge it of itscorruption, and give to its popular branch equality of representation, and it would become an impracticable government: as it stands atpresent, with all its supposed defects, it is the most perfectgovernment which ever existed. ' And this was assuredly the exact linewhich separated the political creeds of these two gentlemen. The one wasfor two hereditary branches and an honest elective one: the other, foran hereditary King, with a House of Lords and Commons corrupted to hiswill, and standing between him and the people. Hamilton was, indeed, asingular character. Of acute understanding, disinterested, honest, andhonorable in all private transactions, amiable in society, and dulyvaluing virtue in private life, yet so bewitched and perverted by theBritish example, as to be under thorough conviction that corruption wasessential to the government of a nation. Mr. Adams had originally beena republican. The glare of royalty and nobility, during his mission toEngland, had made him believe their fascination a necessary ingredientin government; and Shays's rebellion, not sufficiently understood wherehe then was, seemed to prove that the absence of want and oppression, was not a sufficient guarantee of order. His book on the AmericanConstitutions having made known his political bias, he was taken up bythe monarchical federalists in his absence, and, on his return tothe United States, he was by them made to believe that the generaldisposition of our citizens was favorable to monarchy. He here wrotehis Davila, as a supplement to the former work, and his election tothe Presidency confirmed him in his errors. Innumerable addresses too, artfully and industriously poured in upon him, deceived him into aconfidence that he was on the pinnacle of popularity, when the gulph wasyawning at his feet, which was to swallow up him and his deceivers. Forwhen General Washington was withdrawn, these _energumeni_ of royalism, kept in check hitherto by the dread of his honesty, his firmness, hispatriotism, and the authority of his name, now mounted on the car ofState and free from control, like Phaeton on that of the sun, droveheadlong and wild, looking neither to right nor left, nor regardingany thing but the objects they were driving at; until, displaying thesefully, the eyes of the nation were opened, and a general disbandment ofthem from the public councils took place. 

Mr. Adams, I am sure, has been long since convinced of the treacherieswith which he was surrounded during his administration. He has sincethoroughly seen, that his constituents were devoted to republicangovernment, and whether his judgment is resettled on its ancient basis, or not, he is conformed as a good citizen to the will of the majority, and would now, I am persuaded, maintain its republican structure withthe zeal and fidelity belonging to his character. For even an enemy hassaid, 'He is always an honest man, and often a great one. ' But inthe fervor of the fury and follies of those who made him theirstalking-horse, no man who did not witness it can form an idea oftheir unbridled madness, and the terrorism with which they surroundedthemselves. The horrors of the French revolution, then raging, aidedthem mainly, and using that as a raw-head and bloody-bones, they wereenabled by their stratagems of X. Y. Z. In which ------ was a leadingmountebank, their tales of tub-plots, ocean-massacres, bloody-buoys, andpulpit-lyings and slanderings, and maniacal ravings of their Gardiners, their Osgoods, and Parishes, to spread alarm into all but the firmestbreasts. Their Attorney General had the impudence to say to a republicanmember, that deportation must be resorted to, of which, said he, 'yourepublicans have set the example'; thus daring to identify us with themurderous Jacobins of France. These transactions, now recollected butas dreams of the night, were then sad realities; and nothing rescued usfrom their liberticide effect, but the unyielding opposition of thosefirm spirits who sternly maintained their post in defiance of terror, until their fellow-citizens could be aroused to their own danger, andrally and rescue the standard of the constitution. This has been happilydone. Federalism and monarchism have languished from that moment, untiltheir treasonable combinations with the enemies of their country duringthe late war, their plots of dismembering the Union, and their HartfordConvention, have consigned them to the tomb of the dead: and I fondlyhope, 'we may now truly say, We are all republicans, all federalists, 'and that the motto of the standard to which our country will for everrally, will be, 'Federal union, and republican government': and sure Iam we may say, that we are indebted for the preservation of this pointof ralliance, to that opposition of which so injurious an idea is soartfully insinuated and excited in this history. 

Much of this relation is notorious to the world; and many intimateproofs of it will be found in these notes. From the moment where theyend, of my retiring from the administration, the federalists * gotunchecked hold of General Washington. His memory was already sensiblyimpaired by age, the firm tone of mind for which he had been remarkable, was beginning to relax, its energy was abated, a listlessness of labor, a desire for tranquillity had crept on him, and a willingness to letothers act, and even think for him. Like the rest of mankind, hewas disgusted with atrocities of the French revolution, and was notsufficiently aware of the difference between the rabble who were used asinstruments of their perpetration, and the steady and rational characterof the American people, in which he had not sufficient confidence. Theopposition too of the republicans to the British treaty, and the zealoussupport of the federalists in that unpopular but favorite measure oftheirs, had made him all their own. Understanding, moreover, that Idisapproved of that treaty, and copiously nourished with falsehoods bya malignant neighbor of mine, who ambitioned to be his correspondent, hehad become alienated from myself personally, as from the republican bodygenerally of his fellow-citizens; and he wrote the letters to Mr. Adamsand Mr. Carroll, over which, in devotion to his imperishable fame, wemust for ever weep as monuments of mortal decay. 

Th: Jefferson. February 4th, 1818. 

* See conversation with General Washington, of October 1, 1792, ****

August the 13th, 1791. Notes of a conversation between AlexanderHamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Th: Jefferson mentioned to him a letterreceived from John Adams, disavowing Publicola, and denying that he everentertained a wish to bring this country under an hereditary executive, or introduce an hereditary branch of legislature, &c. See hisletter. Alexander Hamilton condemning Mr. Adams's writings, andmost particularly Davila, as having a tendency to weaken the presentgovernment, declared in substance as follows: 'I own it is my ownopinion, though I do not publish it in Dan or Beersheba, that thepresent government is not that which will answer the ends of society, bygiving stability and protection to its rights, and that it will probablybe found expedient to go into the British form. However, since we haveundertaken the experiment, I am for giving it a fair course, whatever myexpectations may be. The success, indeed, so far, is greater than I hadexpected, and therefore, at present, success seems more possible thanit had done heretofore, and there are still other and other stages ofimprovement, which, if the present does not succeed, may be tried, andought to be tried, before we give up the republican form altogether; forthat mind must be really depraved, which would not prefer the equalityof political rights, which is the foundation of pure republicanism, ifit can be obtained consistently with order. Therefore, whoever by hiswritings disturbs the present order of things, is really blameable, however pure his intentions may be, and he was sure Mr. Adams's werepure. ' This is the substance of a declaration made in much more lengthyterms, and which seemed to be more formal than usual for a privateconversation between two, and as if intended to qualify some lessguarded expressions which had been dropped on former occasions. Th:Jefferson has committed it to writing in the moment of A. Hamilton'sleaving the room. 

December the 25th, 1791. Colonel Gunn (of Georgia), dining the other daywith Colonel Hamilton, said to him, with that plain freedom he is knownto use, 'I wish, Sir, you would advise your friend King to observe somekind of consistency in his votes. There has been scarcely a questionbefore the Senate on which he has not voted both ways. On therepresentation bill, for instance, he first voted for the propositionof the Representatives, and ultimately voted against it. ' 'Why, ' saysColonel Hamilton, 'I 'll tell you as to that, Colonel Gunn, that itnever was intended that bill should pass. ' Gunn told this to Butler, whotold it to Th: Jefferson. 

*****

CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT. 

February the 28th, 1792. I was to have been with him long enough beforethree o'clock (which was the hour and day he received visits) tohave opened to him a proposition for doubling the velocity of thepost-riders, who now travel about fifty miles a day, and might, withoutdifficulty, go one hundred, and for taking measures (by way-bills) toknow where the delay is, when there is any. I was delayed by business, so as to have scarcely time to give him the outlines. I run over themrapidly, and observed afterwards, that I had hitherto never spokento him on the subject of the post-office, not knowing whether it wasconsidered as a revenue law, or a law for the general accommodation ofthe citizens: that the law just passed seemed to have removed the doubt, by declaring that the whole profits of the office should be applied toextending the posts, and that even the past profits should be refundedby the Treasury for the same purpose: that I therefore conceived it wasnow in the department of the Secretary of State: that I thought it wouldbe advantageous so to declare it for another reason, to wit, that thedepartment of the Treasury possessed already such an influence asto swallow up the whole executive powers, and that even the futurePresidents (not supported by the weight of character which himselfpossessed) would not be able to make head against this department. Thatin urging this measure I had certainly no personal interest, since, ifI was supposed to have any appetite for power, yet, as my career wouldcertainly be exactly as short as his own, the intervening time was tooshort to be an object. My real wish was to avail the public of everyoccasion, during the residue of the President's period, to place thingson a safe footing. He was now called on to attend his company, and hedesired me to come and breakfast with him the next morning. 

February the 29th. I did so; and after breakfast we retired to hisroom, and I unfolded my plan for the post-office, and after suchan approbation of it as he usually permitted himself on the firstpresentment of any idea, and desiring me to commit it to writing, he, during that pause of conversation which follows a business closed, said, in an affectionate tone, that he had felt much concern at an expressionwhich dropped from me yesterday, and which marked my intention ofretiring when he should. That as to himself, many motives obliged him toit. He had, through the whole course of the war, and most particularlyat the close of it, uniformly declared his resolution to retire frompublic affairs, and never to act in any public office; that he hadretired under that firm resolution: that the government however, whichhad been formed, being found evidently too inefficacious, and it beingsupposed that his aid was of some consequence towards bringing thepeople to consent to one of sufficient efficacy for their own good, heconsented to come into the convention, and on the same motive, aftermuch pressing, to take a part in the new government, and get it underway. That were he to continue longer, it might give room to say, thathaving tasted the sweets of office, he could not do without them: thathe really felt himself growing old, his bodily health less firm, hismemory, always bad, becoming worse, and perhaps the other faculties ofhis mind showing a decay to others of which he was insensible himself;that this apprehension particularly oppressed him: that he found, moreover, his activity lessened, business therefore more irksome, and tranquillity and retirement become an irresistible passion. That, however he felt himself obliged, for these reasons, to retire from thegovernment, yet he should consider it as unfortunate, if that shouldbring on the retirement of the great officers of the government, and that this might produce a shock on the public mind of dangerousconsequence. 

I told him that no man had ever had less desire of entering into publicoffices than myself; that the circumstance of a perilous war, whichbrought every thing into danger, and called for all the serviceswhich every citizen could render, had induced me to undertake theadministration of the government of Virginia; that I had both beforeand after refused repeated appointments of Congress to go abroad in thatsort of office, which, if I had consulted my own gratification, wouldalways have been the most agreeable to me; that at the end of twoyears, I resigned the government of Virginia, and retired with a firmresolution never more to appear in public life; that a domestic loss, however, happened, and made me fancy that absence and a change ofscene for a time might be expedient for me; that I therefore accepteda foreign appointment, limited to two years; that at the close of that, Doctor Franklin having left France, I was appointed to supply his place, which I had accepted, and though I continued in it three or four years, it was under the constant idea of remaining only a year or two longer;that the revolution in France coming on, I had so interested myselfin the event of that, that when obliged to bring my family home, I hadstill an idea of returning and awaiting the close of that, to fix theera of my final retirement; that on my arrival here I found he hadappointed me to my present office; that he knew I had not come intoit without some reluctance; that it was, on my part, a sacrifice ofinclination to the opinion that I might be more serviceable here thanin France, and with a firm resolution in my mind, to indulge my constantwish for retirement at no very distant day; that when, therefore, I hadreceived his letter, written from Mount Vernon, on his way to Carolinaand Georgia (April the 1st, 1791), and discovered, from an expressionin that, that he meant to retire from the government ere long, and as tothe precise epoch there could be no doubt, my mind was immediately madeup, to make that the epoch of my own retirement from those labors ofwhich I was heartily tired. That, however, I did not believe there wasany idea in either of my brethren in the administration of retiring;that on the contrary, I had perceived at a late meeting of the trusteesof the sinking fund, that the Secretary of the Treasury had developedthe plan he intended to pursue, and that it embraced years in its view. 

He said, that he considered the Treasury department as a much morelimited one, going only to the single object of revenue, while thatof the Secretary of State, embracing nearly all the objects ofadministration, was much more important, and the retirement of theofficer therefore, would be more noticed: that though the government hadset out with a pretty general good will of the public, yet that symptomsof dissatisfaction had lately shown themselves far beyond what he couldhave expected, and to what height these might arise, in case of toogreat a change in the administration, could not be foreseen. 

I told him that in my opinion, there was only a single source of thesediscontents. Though they had indeed appeared to spread themselves overthe War department also, yet I considered that as an overflowing onlyfrom their real channel, which would never have taken place, if theyhad not first been generated in another department, to wit, that ofthe Treasury. That a system had there been contrived, for deluging theStates with paper-money instead of gold and silver, for withdrawing ourcitizens from the pursuits of commerce, manufactures, buildings, andother branches of useful industry, to occupy themselves and theircapitals in a species of gambling, destructive of morality, and whichhad introduced its poison into the government itself. That it was afact, as certainly known as that he and I were then conversing, thatparticular members of the legislature, while those laws were on thecarpet, had feathered their nests with paper, had then voted for thelaws, and constantly since lent all the energy of their talents, andinstrumentality of their offices, to the establishment and enlargementof this system; that they had chained it about our necks for a greatlength of time, and in order to keep the game in their hands, had, fromtime to time, aided in making such legislative constructions of theconstitution, as made it a very different thing from what the peoplethought they had submitted to; that they had now brought forward aproposition far beyond every one ever yet advanced, and to which theeyes of many were turned, as the decision which was to let us know, whether we live under a limited or an unlimited government. He askedme to what proposition I alluded; I answered, to that in the reporton manufactures, which, under color of giving bounties for theencouragement of particular manufactures, meant to establish thedoctrine, that the power given by the constitution to collect taxes toprovide for the general welfare of the United States, permitted Congressto take every thing under their management which they should deem forthe public welfare, and which is susceptible of the application ofmoney; consequently, that the subsequent enumeration of their powerswas not the description to which resort must be had, and did not at allconstitute the limits of their authority: that this was a very differentquestion from that of the bank, which was thought an incident to anenumerated power: that, therefore, this decision was expected withgreat anxiety; that, indeed, I hoped the proposition would be rejected, believing there was a majority in both Houses against it, and that if itshould be, it would be considered as a proof that things were returninginto their true channel: and that, at any rate, I looked forward to thebroad representation which would shortly take place, for keeping thegeneral constitution on its true ground; and that this would remove agreat deal of the discontent which had shown itself. The conversationended with this last topic. It is here stated nearly as much at lengthas it really was; the expressions preserved where I could recollectthem, and their substance always faithfully stated. 

Th: Jefferson. 

March 1, 1792. 

On the 2nd of January, 1792, Messrs. Fitzsimmons and Gerry (amongothers) dined with me. These two staid, with a Mr. Learned ofConnecticut, after the company was gone. We got on the subject ofreferences by the legislature to the Heads of departments, consideringtheir mischief in every direction. Gerry and Fitzsimmons clearly opposedto them. 

Two days afterwards (January the 4th), Mr. Bourne from Rhode Islandpresented a memorial from his State, complaining of inequality in theAssumption, and moved to refer it to the Secretary of the Treasury. Fitzsimmons, Gerry, and others opposed it; but it was carried. 

January the 19th. Fitzsimmons moved, that the President of the UnitedStates be requested to direct the Secretary of the Treasury, to laybefore the House information to enable the legislature to judge ofthe additional revenue necessary on the increase of the militaryestablishment. The House, on debate, struck out the words, 'President ofthe United States. '

March the 7th. The subject resumed. An animated debate took place on thetendency of references to the Heads of departments; and it seemed thata great majority would be against it: the House adjourned. Treasurygreatly alarmed, and much industry supposed to be used before nextmorning, when it was brought on again, and debated through the day, andon the question, the Treasury carried it by thirty-one to twenty-seven:but deeply wounded, since it was seen that all Pennsylvania, exceptJacobs, voted against the reference; that Tucker of South Carolina votedfor it, and Sumpter absented himself, debauched for the moment only, because of the connection of the question with a further assumptionwhich South Carolina favored; but showing that they never were to becounted on among the Treasury votes. 

Some others absented themselves. Gerry changed sides. On the whole, itshowed that Treasury influence was tottering. Committed to writing this10th of March, 1792. 

March the 11th, 1792. Consulted verbally by the President, on whom acommittee of the Senate (Izard, Morris, and King) are to wait to-morrowmorning, to know whether he will think it proper to redeem our Algerinecaptives, and make a treaty with the Algerines, on the single vote ofthe Senate, without taking that of the Representatives. 

My opinions run on the following heads. 

We must go to Algiers with cash in our hands. Where shall we get it? Byloan? By converting money now in the treasury?

Probably a loan might be obtained on the President's authority: but asthis could not be repaid without a subsequent act of legislature, the Representatives might refuse it. So if money in the treasury beconverted, they may refuse to sanction it. 

The subsequent approbation of the Senate being necessary to validate atreaty, they expect to be consulted beforehand, if the case admits. 

So the subsequent act of the Representatives being necessary where moneyis given, why should not they expect to be consulted in like manner, when the case admits? A treaty is a law of the land. But prudence willpoint out this difference to be attended to in making them; viz. Wherea treaty contains such articles only as will go into execution ofthemselves, or be carried into execution by the judges, they may besafely made; but where there are articles which require a law to bepassed afterwards by the legislature, great caution is requisite. 

For example; the consular convention with France required a very smalllegislative regulation. This convention was unanimously ratified by theSenate. Yet the same identical men threw by the law to enforce it atthe last session, and the Representatives at this session have placed itamong the laws which they may take up or not, at their own convenience, as if that was a higher motive than the public faith. 

Therefore, against hazarding this transaction without the sanction ofboth Houses. 

The President concurred. The Senate express the motive for thisproposition, to be a fear that the Representatives would not keep thesecret. He has no opinion of the secrecy of the Senate. In this verycase, Mr. Izard made the communication to him, sitting next to him attable, on one hand, while a lady (Mrs. McLane) was on his other hand, and the French minister next to her; and as Mr. Izard got on with hiscommunication, his voice kept rising, and his stutter bolting the wordsout loudly at intervals, so that the minister might hear if he would. Hesaid he had a great mind at one time to have got up, in order to put astop to Mr. Izard. 

March the 11th, 1792. Mr. Sterret tells me that sitting round a fire theother day with four or five others, Mr. Smith (of South Carolina) wasone. Somebody mentioned that the murderers of Hogeboom, sheriff ofColumbia county, New York, were acquitted. 'Ay, ' says Smith, 'this iswhat comes of your damned trial by jury. '

1791. Towards the latter end of November, Hamilton had drawn Ternantinto a conversation on the subject of the treaty of commerce recommendedby the National Assembly of France to be negotiated with us, and, ashe had no ready instructions on the subject, he led him into a proposalthat Ternant should take the thing up as a volunteer with me, that weshould arrange conditions, and let them go for confirmation or refusal. Hamilton communicated this to the President, who came into it, andproposed it to me. I disapproved of it, observing, that such a volunteerproject would be binding on us, and not them; that it would enable themto find out how far we would go, and avail themselves of it. However, the President thought it worth trying, and I acquiesced. I prepared aplan of treaty for exchanging the privileges of native subjects, andfixing all duties for ever as they now stood. Hamilton did not like thisway of fixing the duties, because, he said, many articles here wouldbear to be raised, and therefore, he would prepare a tariff. He did so, raising duties for the French, from twenty-five to fifty per cent. Sothey were to give us the privileges of native subjects, and we, as acompensation, were to make them pay higher duties. Hamilton, having madehis arrangements with Hammond to pretend that though he had no powers toconclude a treaty of commerce, yet his general commission authorized himto enter into the discussion of one, then proposed to the President atone of our meetings, that the business should be taken up with Hammondin the same informal way. I now discovered the trap which he had laid, by first getting the President into the step with Ternant. I opposedthe thing warmly. Hamilton observed, if we did it with Ternant we shouldalso with Hammond. The President thought this reasonable. I desired himto recollect, I had been against it with Ternant, and only acquiescedunder his opinion. So the matter went off as to both. His schemeevidently was, to get us engaged first with Ternant, merely that hemight have a pretext to engage us on the same ground with Hammond, taking care, at the same time, by an extravagant tariff, to renderit impossible we should come to any conclusion with Ternant: probablymeaning, at the same time, to propose terms so favorable to GreatBritain, as would attach us to that country by treaty. On one of thoseoccasions he asserted, that our commerce with Great Britain and hercolonies was put on a much more favorable footing than with France andher colonies. I therefore prepared the tabular comparative view of thefooting-of our commerce with those nations, which see among my papers. See also my project of a treaty and Hamilton's tariff. Committed towriting March the 11th, 1792. 

It was observable, that whenever, at any of our consultations, anything was proposed as to Great Britain, Hamilton had constantly readysomething which Mr. Hammond had communicated to him, which suited thesubject and proved the intimacy of their communications; insomuch, thatI believe he communicated to Hammond all our views, and knew fromhim, in return, the views of the British court. Many evidences of thisoccurred; I will state some. I delivered to the President my report ofinstructions for Carmichael and Short, on the subject of navigation, boundary, and commerce, and desired him to submit it to Hamilton. Hamilton made several just criticisms on different parts of it. Butwhere I asserted that the United States had no right to alienate an inchof the territory of any State, he attacked and denied the doctrine. See my report, his note, and my answer. A few days after came to handKirkland's letter, informing us that the British, at Niagara, expectedto run a new line between themselves and us; and the reports of Pondand Stedman, informing us it was understood at Niagara, that CaptainStevenson had been sent here by Simcoe to settle that plan with Hammond. Hence Hamilton's attack of the principle I had laid down, in order toprepare the way for this new line. See minute of March the 9th. Anotherproof. At one of our consultations, about the last of December, Imentioned that I wished to give in my report on commerce, in which Icould not avoid recommending a commercial retaliation against GreatBritain. Hamilton opposed it violently: and among other arguments, observed, that it was of more importance to us to have the posts than tocommence a commercial war; that this, and this alone, would free us fromthe expense of the Indian wars; that it would therefore be the heightof imprudence in us, while treating for the surrender of the posts, toengage in any thing which would irritate them; that if we did so, theywould naturally say, 'These people mean war; let us therefore hold whatwe have in our hands. ' This argument, struck me forcibly, and Isaid, 'If there is a hope of obtaining the posts, I agree it wouldbe imprudent to risk that hope by a commercial retaliation. I will, therefore, wait till Mr. Hammond gives me in his assignment of breaches, and if that gives a glimmering of hope that they mean to surrender theposts, I will not give in my report till the next session. ' Now, Hammondhad received my assignment of breaches on the 15th of December, andabout the 22nd or 23rd had made me an apology for not having been ableto send me his counter-assignment of breaches; but in terms which showedI might expect it in a few days. From the moment it escaped my lipsin the presence of Hamilton, that I would not give in my report till Ishould see Hammond's counter-complaint, and judge if there was a hopeof the posts, Hammond never said a word to me on any occasion, as to thetime he should be ready. At length the President got out of patience, and insisted I should jog him. This I did on the 21st of February, atthe President's assembly: he immediately promised I should have it in afew days, and accordingly, on the 5th of March I received it. 

Written March the 11th, 1792. 

March the 12th, 1792. Sent for by the President, and desired to bringthe letter he had signed to the King of France. Went. He said the Houseof Representatives had, on Saturday, taken up the communication he hadmade of the King's letter to him, and come to a vote in their own name;that he did not expect this when he sent this message and the letter, otherwise he would have sent the message without the letter, as I hadproposed. That he apprehended the legislature would be endeavoringto invade the executive. I told him, I had understood the House hadresolved to request him to join their congratulations to his on thecompletion and acceptance of the constitution; on which part of thevote, there were only two dissentients (Barnwell and Benson); thatthe vote was thirty-five to sixteen on the part which expressed anapprobation of the wisdom of the constitution; that in the letter he hadsigned, I had avoided saying a word in approbation of the constitution, not knowing whether the King, in his heart, approved it. 'Why, indeed, 'says he, ' I begin to doubt very much of the affairs of France; there arepapers from London as late as the 10th of January, which represent themas going into confusion. He read over the letter he had signed, found there was not a word which could commit his judgment about theconstitution, and gave it to me back again. This is one of many proofsI have had, of his want of confidence in the event of the Frenchrevolution. The fact is, that Gouverneur Morris, a highflying monarchyman, shutting his eyes and his faith to every fact against hiswishes, and believing every thing he desires to be true, has kept thePresident's mind constantly poisoned with his forebodings. That thePresident wishes the revolution may be established, I believe fromseveral indications. I remember, when I received the news of the King'sflight and capture, I first told him of it at his assembly. I never sawhim so much dejected by any event in my life. He expressed clearly, onthis occasion, his disapprobation of the legislature referring things tothe Heads of departments. 

Written March the 12th. 

Eodem die. Ten o'clock, A. M. The preceding was about nine o'clock. ThePresident now sends Lear to me, to ask what answer he shall give tothe committee, and particularly, whether he shall add to it, that, 'inmaking the communication, it was not his expectation that the Houseshould give any answer. ' I told Mr. Lear, that I thought the House hada right, independently of legislation, to express sentiments on othersubjects. That when these subjects did not belong to any other branchparticularly, they would publish them by their own authority; that inthe present case, which respected a foreign nation, the President beingthe organ of our nation with other nations, the House would satisfytheir duty, if, instead of a direct communication, they should passtheir sentiments through the President: that if expressing a sentimentwere really an invasion of the executive power, it was so faint a one, that it would be difficult to demonstrate it to the public, and to apublic partial to the French revolution, and not disposed to consideredthe approbation of it from any quarter is improper. That the Senate, indeed, had given many indications of their wish to invade the executivepower: the Representatives had done it in one case, which was indeedmischievous and alarming; that of giving orders to the Heads of theexecutive departments, without consulting the President; but that thelate vote for directing the Secretary of the Treasury to report ways andmeans, though carried, was carried by so small a majority, and with theaid of members so notoriously under local influence on that question, as to give a hope that the practice would be arrested, and theconstitutional course be taken up, of asking the President to haveinformation laid before them. But that in the present instance, it wasso far from being clearly an invasion of the executive, and would beso little approved by the general voice, that I could not advise thePresident to express any dissatisfaction at the vote of the House; and Igave Lear, in writing, what I thought should be his answers. See it. 

March the 31st. A meeting at the President's; present, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Henry Knox, and Edmund Randolph. The subject wasthe resolution of the House of Representatives, of March the 27th, toappoint a committee to inquire into the causes of the failure of thelate expedition under Major General St. Clair, with the power to callfor such persons, papers, and records, as may be necessary to assisttheir inquiries. The committee had written to Knox for the originalletters, instructions, &tc. The President had called us to consult, merely because it was the first example, and he wished that so far asit should become a precedent, it should be rightly conducted. He neitheracknowledged nor denied, nor even doubted the propriety of what theHouse were doing, for he had not thought upon it, nor was acquaintedwith subjects of this kind: he could readily conceive there might bepapers of so secret a nature, as that they ought not to be given up. Wewere not prepared, and wished time to think and inquire. 

April the 2nd. Met again at the President's, on the same subject. Wehad all considered, and were of one mind, first, that the House wasan inquest, and therefore might institute inquiries. Secondly, that itmight call for papers generally. Thirdly, that the executive ought tocommunicate such papers as the public good would permit, and oughtto refuse those, the disclosure of which would injure the public:consequently were to exercise a discretion. Fourthly, that neither thecommittee nor House had a right to call on the Head of a department, whoand whose papers were under the President alone; but that the committeeshould instruct their chairman to move the House to address thePresident. We had principally consulted the proceedings of the Commonsin the case of Sir Robert Walpole, 13 Chandler's Debates. For the firstpoint, seepages 161, 170, 172, 183, 187, 207; for the second, pages 153, 173, 207; for the third, 81, 173, Appendix, page 44; for the fourth, page246. Note: Hamilton agreed with us in all these points, except as to thepower of the House to call on Heads of departments. He observed, thatas to his department, the act constituting it had made it subject toCongress, in some points, but he thought himself not so far subject, asto be obliged to produce all the papers they might call for. They mightdemand secrets of a very mischievous nature. [Here I thought he beganto fear they would go to examining how far their own members and otherpersons in the government had been dabbling in stocks, banks, &c. Andthat he probably would choose in this case to deny their power; and, in short, he endeavored to place himself subject to the House, whenthe executive should propose what he did not like, and subject to theexecutive, when the House should propose any thing disagreeable. ]I observed here a difference between the British parliament and ourCongress; that the former was a legislature, an inquest, and a council(S. C. Page 91. ) for the King. The latter was, by the constitution, alegislature and an inquest, but not a council. Finally agreed, to speakseparately to the members of the committee, and bring them by persuasioninto the right channel. It was agreed in this case, that there was nota paper which might not be properly produced; that copies only should besent, with an assurance, that if they should desire it, a clerk shouldattend with the originals to be verified by themselves. The committeewere Fitzsimmons, Steele, Mercer, Clarke, Sedgwick, Giles, and Vining. 

April the 9th, 1792. The President had wished to redeem our captives atAlgiers, and to make a peace with them on paying an annual tribute. TheSenate were willing to approve this, but unwilling to have the lowerHouse applied to previously to furnish the money; they wished thePresident to take the money from the treasury, or open a loan for it. They thought that to consult the Representatives on one occasion, would give them a handle always to claim it, and would let them into aparticipation of the power of making treaties, which the constitutionhad given exclusively to the President and Senate. They said, too, thatif the particular sum was noted by the Representatives, it would not bea secret. The President had no confidence in the secrecy of the Senate, and did not choose to take money from the treasury or to borrow. But heagreed he would enter into provisional treaties with the Algerines, not to be binding on us till ratified here. I prepared questions forconsultation with the Senate, and added, that the Senate were to beapprized, that on the return of the provisional treaty, and after theyshould advise the ratification, he would not have the seal put to ittill the two Houses should vote the money. He asked me, if the treatystipulating a sum and ratified by him, with the advice of the Senate, would not be good under the constitution, and obligatory on theRepresentatives to furnish the money. I answered, it certainly would, and that it would be the duty of the Representatives to raise the money;but that they might decline to do what was their duty, and I thought itmight be incautious to commit himself by a ratification with a foreignnation, where he might be left in the lurch in the execution: it waspossible too, to conceive a treaty, which it would not be their dutyto provide for. He said that he did not like throwing too much intodemocratic hands, that if they would not do what the constitution calledon them to do, the government would be at an end, and must then assumeanother form. He stopped here; and I kept silence to see whetherhe would say any thing more in the same line, or add any qualifyingexpression to soften what he had said: but he did neither. I hadobserved, that wherever the agency of either, or both Houses would berequisite subsequent to a treaty, to carry it into effect, it would beprudent to consult them previously, if the occasion admitted. That thusit was, we were in the habit of consulting the Senate previously, whenthe occasion permitted, because their subsequent ratification would benecessary. That there was the same reason for consulting the lower Housepreviously, where they were to be called on afterwards, and especiallyin the case of money, as they held the purse-strings, and would bejealous of them. However, he desired me to strike out the intimationthat the seal would not be put till both Houses should have voted themoney. 

April the 6th. The President called on me before breakfast, and firstintroduced some other matter, then fell on the representation bill, which he had now in his possession for the tenth day. I had before givenhim my opinion in writing, that the method of apportionment was contraryto the constitution. He agreed that it was contrary to the commonunderstanding of that instrument, and to what was understood at the timeby the makers of it: that, yet it would bear the construction which thebill put, and he observed that the vote for and against the bill wasperfectly geographical, a northern against a southern vote, and hefeared he should be thought to be taking side with a southern party. Iadmitted the motive of delicacy, but that it should not induce him todo wrong: urged the dangers to which the scramble for the fractionarymembers would always lead. He here expressed his fear that there would, ere long, be a separation of the Union; that the public mind seemeddissatisfied and tending to this. He went home, sent for Randolph, theAttorney General, desired him to get Mr. Madison immediately and cometo me, and if we three concurred in opinion that he should negative thebill, he desired to hear nothing more about it, but that we would drawthe instrument for him to sign. They came. Our minds had been beforemade up. 

We drew the instrument. Randolph carried it to him, and told him weall concurred in it. He walked with him to the door, and as if he stillwished to get off, he said, 'And you say you approve of this yourself. ''Yes, Sir, ' says Randolph, 'I do upon my honor. ' He sent it to the Houseof Representatives instantly. A few of the hottest friends of the billexpressed passion, but the majority were satisfied, and both in andout of doors it gave pleasure to have, at length, an instance of thenegative being exercised. 

Written this the 9th of April. 

July the 10th, 1792. My letter of ---- to the President, directed to himat Mount Vernon, had not found him there, but came to him here. He toldme of this, and that he would take an occasion of speaking with me onthe subject. He did so this day. He began by observing that he had putit off from day to day, because the subject was painful; to wit, hisremaining in office, which that letter solicited. He said that thedeclaration he had made when he quitted his military command, of neveragain entering into public life, was sincere. That, however, when he wascalled on to come forward to set the present government in motion, it appeared to him that circumstances were so changed as to justify achange in his resolution: he was made to believe that in two years allwould be well in motion, and he might retire. At the end of two yearshe found some things still to be done. At the end of the third year, hethought it was not worth while to disturb the course of things, asin one year more his office would expire, and he was decided then toretire. Now he was told there would still be danger in it. Certainly, if he thought so, he would conquer his longing for retirement. But hefeared it would be said his former professions of retirement had beenmere affectation, and that he was like other men, when once in officehe could not quit it. He was sensible, too, of a decay of his hearing, perhaps his other faculties might fall off and he not be sensible of it. That with respect to the existing causes of uneasiness, he thought therewe're suspicions against a particular party, which had been carried agreat deal too far: there might be desires, but he did not believe therewere designs to change the form of government into a monarchy: thatthere might be a few who wished it in the higher walks of life, particularly in the great cities; but that the main body of the peoplein the eastern States were as steadily for republicanism as in thesouthern. That the pieces lately published, and particularly inFreneau's paper, seemed to have in view the exciting opposition tothe government. That this had taken place in Pennsylvania as to theexcise-law, according to information he had received from General Hand. That they tended to produce a separation of the Union, the most dreadfulof all calamities, and that whatever tended to produce anarchy, tended, of course, to produce a resort to monarchical government. He consideredthose papers as attacking him directly, for he must be a fool indeed toswallow the little sugar-plumbs here and there thrown out to him. Thatin condemning the administration of the government, they condemnedhim, for if they thought there were measures pursued contrary to hissentiments, they must conceive him too careless to attend to them, ortoo stupid to understand them. That though, indeed, he had signed manyacts which he did not approve in all their parts, yet he had never puthis name to one which he did not think, on the whole, was eligible. Thatas to the bank, which had been an act of so much complaint, until therewas some infallible criterion of reason, a difference of opinion must betolerated. He did not believe the discontents extended far from the seatof government. He had seen and spoken with many people in Maryland andVirginia in his late journey. He found the people contented andhappy. He wished, however, to be better informed on this head. If thediscontents were more extensive than he supposed, it might be, that thedesire that he should remain in the government was not general. 

My observations to him tended principally to enforce the topics of myletter. I will not, therefore, repeat them, except where they producedobservations from him. I said, that the two great complaints were, thatthe national debt was unnecessarily increased, and that it had furnishedthe means of corrupting both branches of the legislature; that he mustknow, and every body knew, there was a considerable squadron in both, whose votes were devoted to the paper and stock-jobbing interest, thatthe names of a weighty number were known, and several others suspectedon good grounds. That on examining the votes of these men, they wouldbe found uniformly for every Treasury measure, and that as most of thesemeasures had been carried by small majorities, they were carried bythese very votes. That, therefore, it was a cause of just uneasiness, when we saw a legislature legislating for their own interests, inopposition to those of the people. He said not a word on the corruptionof the legislature, but took up the other point, defended theAssumption, and argued that it had not increased the debt, for that allof it was honest debt. He justified the excise-law, as one of the bestlaws which could be passed, as nobody would pay the tax who did notchoose to do it. With respect to the increase of the debt by theAssumption, I observed to him, that what was meant and objected to was, that it increased the debt of the General Government, and carriedit beyond the possibility of payment. That if the balances had beensettled, and the debtor States directed to pay their deficiencies tothe creditor States, they would have done it easily, and by resources oftaxation in their power, and acceptable to the people; by a direct taxin the south, and an excise in the north. Still, he said, it wouldbe paid by the people. Finding him decided, I avoided entering intoargument with him on those points. 

Bladensburg, October the 1st, 1792. This morning, at Mount Vernon, Ihad the following conversation with the President. He opened it byexpressing his regret at the resolution in which I appeared so fixed, inthe letter I had written him, of retiring from public affairs. He said, that he should be extremely sorry that I should do it, as long as hewas in office, and that he could not see where he should find anothercharacter to fill my office. That as yet, he was quite undecided whetherto retire in March or not. His inclinations led him strongly to do it. Nobody disliked more the ceremonies of his office, and he had not theleast taste or gratification in the execution of its functions. That hewas happy at home alone, and that his presence there was now peculiarlycalled for by the situation of Major Washington, whom he thoughtirrecoverable, and should he get well, he would remove into anotherpart of the country, which might better agree with him. That he did notbelieve his presence necessary; that there were other characters whowould do the business as well or better. Still, however, if his aid wasthought necessary to save the cause to which he had devoted his lifeprincipally, he would make the sacrifice of a longer continuance. Thathe therefore reserved himself for future decision, as his declarationwould be in time if made a month before the day of election. He haddesired Mr. Lear to find out from conversation, without appearing tomake the inquiry, whether any other person would be desired by anybody. He had informed him, he judged from conversations that it wasthe universal desire he should continue, and he believed that thosewho expressed a doubt of his continuance, did it in the language ofapprehension, and not of desire. But this, says he, is only from thenorth; it may be very different in the south. I thought this meant asan opening to me to say what was the sentiment in the south, from whichquarter I came. I told him, that as far as I knew, there was but onevoice there, which was for his continuance. That as to myself, I hadever preferred the pursuits of private life to those of public, which had nothing in them agreeable to me. I explained to him thecircumstances of the war which had first called me into public life, andthose following the war, which had called me from a retirement on whichI had determined. That I had constantly kept my eye on my own home, and could no longer refrain from returning to it. As to himself, hispresence was important; that he was the only man in the United Stateswho possessed the confidence of the whole; that government was foundedin opinion and confidence, and that the longer he remained, the strongerwould become the habits of the people in submitting to the government, and in thinking it a thing to be maintained; that there was no otherperson, who would be thought any thing more than the head of a party. Hethen expressed his concern at the difference which he found to subsistbetween the Secretary of the Treasury and myself, of which he said hehad not been aware. He knew, indeed, that there was a marked differencein our political sentiments, but he had never suspected it had gone sofar in producing a personal difference, and he wished he could be themediator to put an end to it. That he thought it important to preservethe check of my opinions in the administration, in order to keep thingsin their proper channel, and prevent them from going too far. That asto the idea of transforming this government into a monarchy, he didnot believe there were ten men in the United States whose opinions wereworth attention, who entertained such a thought. I told him there weremany more than he imagined. I recalled to his memory a dispute athis own table, a little before we left Philadelphia, between GeneralSchuyler on one side and Pinckney and myself on the other, wherein theformer maintained the position, that hereditary descent was as likely toproduce good magistrates as election. I told him, that though thepeople were sound, there were a numerous sect who had monarchy incontemplation; that the Secretary of the Treasury was one of these. ThatI had heard him say that this constitution was a shilly-shally thing, ofmere milk and water, which could not last, and was only good as a stepto something better. That when we reflected, that he had endeavored inthe convention, to make an English constitution of it, and when failingin that, we saw all his measures tending to bring it to the same thing, it was natural for us to be jealous; and particularly, when we saw thatthese measures had established corruption in the legislature, wherethere was a squadron devoted to the nod of the Treasury, doing whateverhe had directed, and ready to do what he should direct. That if theequilibrium of the three great bodies, legislative, executive, andjudiciary, could be preserved, if the legislature could be keptindependent, I should never fear the result of such a government;but that I could not but be uneasy, when I saw that the executive hadswallowed up the legislative branch. He said, that as to that interestedspirit in the legislature, it was what could not be avoided in anygovernment, unless we were to exclude particular descriptions of men, such as the holders of the funds, from all office. I told him, there wasgreat difference between the little accidental schemes of self-interest, which would take place in every body of men, and influence their votes, and a regular system for forming a corps of interested persons, whoshould be steadily at the orders of the Treasury. He touched on themerits of the funding system, observed there was a difference of opinionabout it, some thinking it very bad, others very good; that experiencewas the only criterion of right which he knew, and this alone woulddecide which opinion was right. That for himself, he had seen ouraffairs desperate and our credit lost, and that this was in a sudden andextraordinary degree raised to the highest pitch. I told him, all thatwas ever necessary to establish our credit, was an efficient governmentand an honest one, declaring it would sacredly pay our debts, layingtaxes for this purpose, and applying them to it. I avoided going furtherinto the subject. He finished by another exhortation to me not to decidetoo positively on retirement, and here we were called to breakfast. 

October the 31st, 1792. I had sent to the President, Viar and Jaudenes'sletter of the 29th instant, whereupon he desired a consultation ofHamilton, Knox, E. Randolph, and myself, on these points. 1. What noticewas to be taken hereof to Spain. 2. Whether it should make part of thecommunication to the legislature. I delivered my opinion, that it oughtto be communicated to both Houses, because the communications intendedto be made, being to bring on the question, whether they would declarewar against any, and which of the nations or parts of the nations ofIndians to the south, it would be proper this information should bebefore them, that they might know how far such a declaration would leadthem. There might be some who would be for war against the Indians, ifit were to stop there, but who would not be for it, if it were to leadto a war against Spain. I thought it should be laid before both Houses, because it concerned the question of declaring war, which was thefunction equally of both Houses. I thought a simple acknowledgment ofthe receipt of the letter should be made by me to the Spanish Charges, expressing that it contained some things very unexpected to us, but thatwe should refer the whole, as they had proposed, to the negotiatorsat Madrid. This would secure to us a continuation of the suspensionof Indian hostilities, which the Governor of New Orleans said he hadbrought about till the result of the negotiation at Madrid should beknown; would not commit us as to running or not running the line, orimply any admission of doubt about our tentorial right; and would avoida rupture with Spain, which was much to be desired, while we had similarpoints to discuss with Great Britain. Hamilton declared himself theadvocate for peace. War would derange our affairs greatly; throw usback many years in the march towards prosperity; be difficult for us topursue, our countrymen not being disposed to become soldiers; a partof the Union feeling no interest in the war, would with difficulty bebrought to exert itself; and we had no navy. He was for every thingwhich would procrastinate the event. A year, even, was a great gain to anation strengthening as we were. It laid open to us, too, the chapterof accidents, which in the present state of Europe, was a very pregnantone. That while, however, he was for delaying the event of war, he hadno doubt it was to take place between us for the object in question:that jealousy and perseverance were remarkable features in the characterof the Spanish government, with respect to their American possessions;that so far from receding as to their claims against us, they hadbeen strengthening themselves in them. He had no doubt the presentcommunication was by authority from the court. Under this impressionhe thought we should be looking forward to the day of rupture, andpreparing for it. That if we were unequal to the contest ourselves, itbehoved us to provide allies for our aid. That in this view, but twonations could be named, France and England. France was too intimatelyconnected with Spain in other points, and of too great mutual value, ever to separate for us. Her affairs too, were such, that whateverissue they had, she could not be in a situation to make a respectablemediation for us. England alone, then, remained. It would not be easy toeffect it with her; however, he was for trying it, and for sounding themon the proposition of a defensive treaty of alliance. The inducements tosuch a treaty, on their part, might be, 1. The desire of breaking up ourformer connections, which we knew they had long wished. 2. A continuanceof the statu quo in commerce for ten years, which he believed wouldbe desirable to them. 3. An admission to some navigable part of theMississippi, by some line drawn from the Lake of the Woods to suchnavigable part. He had not, he said, examined the map to see how sucha line might be run, so as not to make too great a sacrifice. Thenavigation of the Mississippi being a joint possession, we mightthen take measures in concert for the joint security of it. He was, therefore, for immediately sounding them on this subject through ourminister at London; yet so as to keep ourselves unengaged as long aspossible, in hopes a favorable issue with Spain might be otherwiseeffected. But he was for sounding immediately, and for not letting slipan opportunity of securing our object. 

E. Randolph concurred, in general, with me. He objected that such areliance could not be effected without pecuniary consideration probably, which he could not give. And what was to be their aid? If men, ourcitizens would see their armies get foothold in the United States, withgreat jealousy; it would be difficult to protect them. Even the French, during the distresses of the late war, excited some jealous sentiments, Hamilton said, money was often but not always demanded, and the aid heshould propose to stipulate would be in ships. Knox _non dissentiente_. 

The President said the remedy would be worse than the disease, andstated some of the disagreeable circumstances which would attend ourmaking such overtures. 

November, 1792. Hamilton called on me to speak about our furnishingsupplies to the French colony of St. Domingo. He expressed his opinion, that we ought to be cautious, and not go too far in our applicationof money to their use, lest it should not be recognised by the mothercountry. He did not even think that some kinds of government theymight establish could give a sufficient sanction. * I observed, that theNational Convention was now met, and would certainly establish a formof government; that as we had recognised the former government becauseestablished by authority of the nation, so we must recognise any otherwhich should be established by the authority of the nation. He said wehad recognised the former, because it contained an important member ofthe ancient, to wit, the King, and wore the appearance of his consent;but if, in any future form, they should omit the King, he did not knowthat we could with safety recognise it, or pay money to its order. 

 * There had been a previous consultation at the President's (about the first week in November) on the expediency of suspending payments to France, under her present situation. I had admitted that the late constitution was dissolved by the dethronement of the King; and the management of affairs surviving to the National Assembly only, this was not an integral legislature, and therefore not competent to give a legitimate discharge for our payments: that I thought consequently, that none should be made till some legitimate body came into place; and that I should consider the National Convention, called, but not met as we had yet heard, to be a legitimate body. Hamilton doubted whether it would be a legitimate body, and whether, if the King should be re-established, he might not disallow such payments on good grounds. Knox, for once, dared to differ from Hamilton, and to express, very submissively, an opinion, that a convention named by the whole body of the nation, would be competent to do any thing. It ended by agreeing, that I should write to Gouverneur Morris to suspend payment generally, till further orders. 

November the 19th, 1792. Beckley brings me the pamphlet written byHamilton, before the war, in answer to 'Common Sense. ' It is entitled'Plain Truth. ' Melancthon Smith sends it to Beckley, and in his lettersays, it was not printed in New York by Loudon, because prevented by amob, and was printed in Philadelphia, and that he has these facts fromLoudon. 

November the 21st, 1792. Mr. Butler tells me, that he dined last winterwith Mr. Campbell from Denmark, in company with Hamilton, Lawrence, Dr. Shippen, T. Shippen, and one other person whom he cannot recollect. Thatafter dinner political principles became the subject of conversation;that Hamilton declared openly, that 'there was no stability, no securityin any kind of government but a monarchy. ' That Lawrence took himup, and entered the lists of argument against him; that the disputecontinued long, and grew warm, remarkably so as between them; thatShippen, at length, joined Lawrence in it; and in fine, that it broke upthe company. Butler recommended to the company, that the dispute havingprobably gone farther than was intended, it ought to be considered asconfined to the company. 

Thursday, December the 27th, 1792. I waited on the President on somecurrent business. After this was over, he observed to me, that hethought it was time to endeavor to effect a stricter connection withFrance, and that Gouverneur Morris should be written to on this subject. He went into the circumstances of dissatisfaction between Spain andGreat Britain, and us, and observed, there was no nation on whom wecould rely, at all times, but France; and that, if we did not preparein time some support, in the event of rupture with Spain and England, we might be charged with a criminal negligence. I was much pleased withthe tone of these observations. It was the very doctrine which had beenmy polar star, and I did not need the successes of the republican armsin France, lately announced to us, to bring me to these sentiments. For it is to be noted, that on Saturday last, (the 22nd) I received Mr. Short's letters of October the 9th and 12th, with the Leyden gazettes toOctober the 13th, giving us the first news of the retreat of the Duke ofBrunswick, and the capture of Spires and Worms by Custine, and thatof Nice by Anselme. I therefore expressed to the President my cordialapprobation of these ideas; told him, I had meant on that day (as anopportunity of writing by the British packet would occur immediately) totake his orders for removing the suspension of payments to France, whichhad been imposed by my last letter to Gouverneur Morris, but was meant, as I supposed, only for the interval between the abolition of the lateconstitution by the dethronement of the King, and the meeting of someother body, invested by the will of the nation with powers to transacttheir affairs; that I considered the National Convention, thenassembled, as such a body; and that, therefore, we ought to go on withthe payments to them, or to any government they should establish; that, however, I had learned last night, that some clause in the bill forproviding reimbursement of the loan made by the bank to the UnitedStates, had given rise to a question before the House of Representativesyesterday, which might affect these payments; a clause in that billproposing, that the money formerly borrowed in Amsterdam, to pay theFrench debt, and appropriated by law (1790, August 4th, c. 34. § 2. ) tothat purpose, lying dead as was suggested, should be taken to pay thebank, and the President be authorized to borrow two millions of dollarsmore, out of which it should be replaced: and if this should be done, the removal of our suspension of payments, as I had been about topropose, would be premature. He expressed his disapprobation of theclause above mentioned; thought it highly improper in the legislature tochange an appropriation once made, and added, that no one could tell inwhat that would end. I concurred, but observed, that on a division ofthe House, the ayes for striking out the clause were twenty-seven, thenoes twenty-six; whereon the Speaker gave his vote against striking out, which divides the House: the clause for the disappropriation remainedof course. I mentioned suspicions, that the whole of this was a trickto serve the bank under a great existing embarrassment; that the debt tothe bank was to be repaid by instalments; that the first instalment wasof two hundred thousand dollars only, or rather one hundred and sixtythousand dollars, (because forty thousand of the two hundred thousanddollars would be the United States' own dividend of the instalment. ) Yethere were two millions to be paid them at once, and to be taken from apurpose of gratitude and honor, to which it had been appropriated. 

December the 30th, 1792. I took the occasion furnished by Pinckney'sletter of September the 19th, asking instructions how to conduct himselfas to the French revolution, to lay down the catholic principle ofrepublicanism, to wit, that every people may establish what form ofgovernment they please, and change it as they please; the will of thenation being the only thing essential. I was induced to do this, inorder to extract the President's opinion on the question which dividedHamilton and myself in the conversation of November, 1792, and theprevious one of the first week of November, on the suspension ofpayments to France: and if favorable to mine, to place the principle onrecord in the letter-books of my office. I therefore wrote the letterof December the 30th, to Pinckney, and sent it to the President, and hereturned me his approbation in writing, in his note of the same date, which see. 

February the 7th, 1793. I waited on the President with letters andpapers from Lisbon. After going through these, I told him that I had forsome time suspended speaking with him on the subject of my going outof office, because I had understood that the bill for intercourse withforeign nations was likely to be rejected by the Senate, in which case, the remaining business of the department would be too inconsiderable tomake it worth while to keep it up. But that the bill being now passed, Iwas freed from the considerations of propriety which had embarrassed me. That &c. [nearly in the words of a letter to Mr. T. M. Randolph, ofa few days ago, ] and that I should be willing, if he had taken noarrangements to the contrary, to continue somewhat longer, how long Icould not say, perhaps till summer, perhaps autumn. He said, so far fromtaking arrangements on the subject, he had never mentioned to any mortalthe design of retiring which I had expressed to him, till yesterday, when having heard that I had given up my house, and that it was rentedby another, he thereupon mentioned it to Mr. E. Randolph, and asked him, as he knew my retirement had been talked of, whether he had heardany persons suggested in conversation to succeed me. He expressed hissatisfaction at my change of purpose and his apprehensions that myretirement would be a new source of uneasiness to the public. Hesaid Governor Lee had that day informed him of the general discontentprevailing in Virginia, of which he never had had any conception, much less sound information. That it appeared to him very alarming. Heproceeded to express his earnest wish that Hamilton and myself couldcoalesce in the measures of the government, and urged here the generalreasons for it, which he had done to me in two former conversations. He said he had proposed the same thing to Hamilton, who expressedhis readiness, and he thought our coalition would secure the generalacquiescence of the public. I told him my concurrence was of much lessimportance than he seemed to imagine; that I kept myself aloof from allcabal and correspondence on the subject with the government, and saw andspoke with as few as I could. That as to a coalition with Mr. Hamilton, if by that was meant that either was to sacrifice his general systemto the other, it was impossible. We had both, no doubt, formed ourconclusions after the most mature consideration; and principlesconscientiously adopted, could not be given up on either side. My wishwas, to see both Houses of Congress cleansed of all persons interestedin the bank or public stocks: and that a pure legislature being givenus, I should always be ready to acquiesce under their determinations, even if contrary to my own opinions; for that I subscribe to theprinciple, that the will of the majority, honestly expressed, shouldgive law. I confirmed him in the fact of the great discontents tothe south; that they were grounded on seeing that their judgmentsand interests were sacrificed to those of the eastern States on everyoccasion, and their belief that it was the effect of a corrupt squadronof voters in Congress, at the command of the Treasury; and they see thatif the votes of those members who had any interest distinct from, and contrary to the general interest of their constituents, had beenwithdrawn, as in decency and honesty they should have been, the lawswould have been the reverse of what they are on all the great questions. I instanced the new Assumption carried in the House of Representativesby the Speaker's vote. On this subject he made no reply. He explainedhis remaining in office to have been the effect of strong solicitationsafter he returned here; declaring that he had never mentioned hispurpose of going out but to the Heads of departments and Mr. Madison; heexpressed the extreme wretchedness of his existence while in office, and went lengthily into the late attacks on him for levees, &c. And explained to me how he had been led into them by the persons heconsulted at New York; and that if he could but know what the sense ofthe public was, he would most cheerfully conform to it. 

February the 16th, 1793. E. Randolph tells J. Madison and myself, acurious fact which he had from Lear. When the President went to NewYork, he resisted for three weeks the efforts to introduce levees. Atlength he yielded, and left it to Humphreys and some others to settlethe forms. Accordingly, an antechamber and presence-room were provided, and when those who were to pay their court were assembled, the Presidentset out, preceded by Humphreys. After passing through the antechamber, the door of the inner room was thrown open, and Humphreys entered first, calling out with a loud voice, 'The President of the United States. ' ThePresident was so much disconcerted with it, that he did not recover itthe whole time of the levee, and when the company was gone, he saidto Humphreys, 'Well, you have taken me in once, but, by God, you shallnever take me in a second time. '

There is reason to believe that the rejection of the late additionalAssumption by the Senate was effected by the President through Lear, operating on Langdon. Beckley knows this. 

February the 26th, 1793. Notes on the proceedings of yesterday. [See theformal opinions given to the President in writing, and signed. ]

First question. We were all of opinion that the treaty should proceedmerely to gratify the public opinion, and not from an expectation ofsuccess. I expressed myself strongly, that the event was so unpromising, that I thought the preparations for a campaign should go on without theleast relaxation, and that a day should be fixed with the commissionersfor the treaty, beyond which they should not permit the treaty to beprotracted, by which day, orders should be given for our forces to enterinto action. The President took up the thing instantly, after I had saidthis, and declared he was so much in the opinion that the treaty wouldend in nothing, that he then, in the presence of us all, gave orders toGeneral Knox, not to slacken the preparations for the campaign in theleast, but to exert every nerve in preparing for it. Knox said somethingabout the ultimate day for continuing the negotiations. I acknowledgedmyself not a judge on what day the campaign should begin, but thatwhatever it was, that day should terminate the treaty. Knox said hethought a winter campaign was always the most efficacious against theIndians. I was of opinion, since Great Britain insisted on furnishingprovisions, that we should offer to repay. Hamilton thought we shouldnot. 

Second question. I considered our right of preemption of theIndian lands, not as amounting to any dominion, or jurisdiction, orparamountship whatever, but merely in the nature of a remainder afterthe extinguishment of a present right, which gave us no present rightwhatever, but of preventing other nations from taking possession, and sodefeating our expectancy; that the Indians had the full, undivided, andindependent sovereignty as long as they chose to keep it, and that thismight be for ever; that as fast as we extend our rights by purchase fromthem, so fast we extend the limits of our society, and as soon as a newportion became encircled within our line, it became a fixed limit ofour society: that the executive, with either or both branches of thelegislature, could not alien any part of our territory; that by thelaw of nations it was settled, that the unity and indivisibility ofthe society was so fundamental, that it could not be dismembered by theconstituted authorities, except, 1. Where all power was delegated tothem (as in the case of despotic governments, ) or, 2. Where it wasexpressly delegated; that neither of these delegations had been madeto our General Government, and, therefore, that it had no rightto dismember or alienate any portion of territory once ultimatelyconsolidated with us; and that we could no more cede to the Indiansthan to the English or Spaniards, as it might, according to acknowledgedprinciples, remain as irrevocably and eternally with the one as theother. But I thought, that, as we had a right to sell and settle landsonce comprehended within our lines, so we might forbear to exercisethat right, retaining the property, till circumstances should be morefavorable to the settlement, and this I agreed to do in the presentinstance, if necessary for peace. 

Hamilton agreed to the doctrine of the law of nations, as laid down inEurope, but that it was founded on the universality of settlement there;consequently that no lopping-off of territory could be made without alopping-off of citizens, which required their consent; but that the lawof nations for us, must be adapted to the circumstance of our unsettledcountry, which he conceived the President and Senate may cede: thatthe power of treaty was given to them by the constitution, withoutrestraining it to particular objects; consequently that it was given inas plenipotentiary a form as held by any sovereign in any other society. Randolph was of opinion, there was a difference between a cession toIndians and to any others, because it only restored the ceded part tothe condition in which it was before we bought it, and consequently, that we might buy it again hereafter: therefore, he thought theexecutive and Senate could cede it. Knox joined in the main opinion. ThePresident discovered no opinion, but he made some efforts to get us tojoin in some terms which could unite us all, and he seemed to directthose efforts more towards me: but the thing could not be done. 

Third question. We agreed in idea as to the line to be drawn; to wit, soas to retain all lands appropriated, or granted, or reserved. 

Fourth question. We all thought, if the Senate should be consulted, andconsequently apprized of our line, it would become known to Hammond, andwe should lose all chance of saving any thing more at the treaty thanour ultimatum. 

The President, at this meeting, mentioned the declaration of someperson, in a paper of Fenno, that he would commence an attack on thecharacter of Dr. Franklin. He said, the theme was to him excessivelydisagreeable on other considerations, but most particularly so, asthe party seemed to do it as a means of defending him (the President)against the late attacks on him: that such a mode of defence would bepeculiarly painful to him, and he wished it could be stopped. Hamiltonand Randolph undertook to speak to Fenno to suppress it, withoutmentioning it as the President's wish. Both observed, that they hadheard this declaration mentioned in many companies, and that it hadexcited universal horror and detestation. 

The paper in Fenno must lie between two persons, viz. Adams and Izard, because they are the only persons who could know such facts as are therepromised to be unfolded. Adams is an enemy to both characters, and mightchoose this ground as an effectual position to injure both. Izard hatedFranklin with unparalleled bitterness, but humbly adores the President, because he is in _loco regis_. If the paper proceeds, we shall easilydiscover which of these two gentlemen is the champion. In the mean time, the first paper leads our suspicions more towards Izard than Adams, fromthe circumstance of style, and because he is quite booby enough not tosee the injury he would do to the President by such a mode of defence. 

February the 28th. Knox, E. Randolph, and myself met at Knox's, whereHamilton was also to have met, to consider the time, manner, and placeof the President's swearing in. Hamilton had been there before, andhad left his opinion with Knox; to wit, that the President should aska judge to attend him in his own house to administer the oath, in thepresence of the Heads of departments; which oath should be deposited inthe Secretary of State's office. I concurred in this opinion. Randolphwas for the President's going to the Senate chamber to take the oath, attended by the marshal of the United States, who should then makeproclamation, &c. Knox was for this, and for adding the House ofRepresentatives to the presence, as they would not yet be departed. Ourindividual opinions were written, to be communicated to the President, out of which he might form one. In the course of our conversation, Knox, stickling for parade, got into great warmth, and swore that ourgovernment must either be entirely new modeled, or it would be knockedto pieces in less than ten years; and that, as it is at present, hewould not give a copper for it; that it is the President's character, and not the written constitution which keeps it together. 

Same day. Conversation with Lear. He expressed the strongest confidencethat republicanism was the universal creed of America, except of a veryfew; that a republican administration must of necessity immediatelyoverbear the contrary faction; said that he had seen with extremeregret, that a number of gentlemen had for a long time been endeavoringto instil into the President, that the noise against the administrationof the government was that of a little faction, which would soon besilent, and which was detested by the people, who were contented andprosperous: that this very party, however, began to see their error, andthat the sense of America was bursting forth to their conviction. 

March the 2nd, 1793. See, in the papers of this date, Mr. Giles'sresolutions. He and one or two others were sanguine enough to believe, that the palpableness of these resolutions rendered it impossible theHouse could reject them. Those who knew the composition of the House, 1. Of bank directors, 2. Holders of bank stock, 3. Stock-jobbers, 4. Blinddevotees, 5. Ignorant persons who did not comprehend them, 6. Lazy andgood-humored persons, who comprehended and acknowledged them, yet weretoo lazy to examine, or unwilling to pronounce censure; the persons whoknew these characters, foresaw, that the three first descriptions makingone third of the House, the three latter would make one half of theresidue; and of course, that they would be rejected by a majority oftwo to one. But they thought, that even this rejection would do good, byshowing the public the desperate and abandoned dispositions with whichtheir affairs were conducted. The resolutions were proposed, and nothingspared to present them in the fulness of demonstration. There were notmore than three or four who voted otherwise than had been expected. 

March the 30th, 1793. At our meeting at the President's, February the25th, in discussing the question, whether we should furnish to Francethe three millions of livres desired, Hamilton, in speaking on thesubject, used this expression; 'When Mr. Genet arrives, whether weshall receive him or not, will then be a question for discussion'; whichexpression I did not recollect till E. Randolph reminded me of it a fewdays after. Therefore, on the 20th instant, as the President was shortlyto set out for Mount Vernon, I observed to him, that as Genet mightarrive in his absence, I wished to know beforehand how I should treathim, whether as a person who would or would not be received. He said, hecould see no ground of doubt, but that he ought to be received. On the24th, he asked E. Randolph's opinion on the subject, saying, he hadconsulted Colonel Hamilton thereon, who went into lengthy considerationsof doubt and difficulty, and viewing it as a very unfortunate thing, that the President should have the decision of so critical a pointforced on him; but in conclusion, said, since he was brought into thatsituation, he did not see but that he must receive Mr. Genet. Randolphtold the President, he was clear he should be received, and thePresident said, he had never had any doubt on the subject in his mind. Afterwards on the same day, he spoke to me again on it, and said, Mr. Genet should unquestionably be received; but he thought not with toomuch warmth or Cordiality, so only as to be satisfactory to him. Iwondered at first at this restriction: but when Randolph afterwardscommunicated to me his conversation of the 24th, I became satisfied itwas a small sacrifice to the opinion of Hamilton. 

March the 31st. Mr. Beckley tells me, that the merchants' bonds forduties on six months' credit became due the 1st instant, to a very greatamount; that Hamilton went to the bank on that day, and directed thebank to discount for those merchants all their bonds at thirty days, and that he would have the collectors credited for the money at thetreasury. Hence, the treasury lumping its receipts by the month in itsprinted accounts, these sums will be considered by the public as onlyreceived on the last day; consequently, the bank makes the month'sinterest out of it. Beckley had this from a merchant, who had a bonddiscounted, and who supposes a million of dollars were discounted at thebank here. Mr. Brown got the same information from another merchant, who supposed only six hundred thousand dollars discounted here. But theysuppose the same orders went to all the branch banks to a great amount. 

Eodem die. Mr. Brown tells me he has it from a merchant here, thatduring the last winter, the directors of the bank ordered the freestdiscounts. Every man could obtain it. Money being so flush, the six percents run up to twenty-one and twenty-two shillings. Then the directorssold out their private stocks. When the discounted notes were becomingdue, they stopped discounts, and not a dollar was to be had. Thisreduced six per cents to eighteen shillings and three pence; then thesame directors bought in again. 

April the 7th, 1793. Mr. Lear called on me, and introduced of himself aconversation on the affairs of the United States. He laughed at thecry of prosperity, and the deriving it from the establishment of thetreasury: he said, that, so far from giving in to this opinion, and thatwe were paying off our national debt, he was clear the debt was growingon us: that he had lately expressed this opinion to the President, whoappeared much astonished at it. I told him I had given the same hint tothe President last summer, and lately again had suggested, that wewere even depending for the daily subsistence of government on borrowedmoney. He said, that was certain, and was the only way of accounting forwhat was become of the money drawn over from Holland to this country. He regretted that the President was not in the way of hearing fullinformation, declared he communicated to him every thing he could learnhimself; that the men who vaunted the present government so much on someoccasions, were the very men who at other times declared it was a poorthing, and such a one as could not stand, and he was sensible theyonly esteemed it as a stepping-stone to something else, and had availedthemselves of the first moments of the enthusiasm in favor of it, topervert its principles and make of it what they wanted: and that thoughthey raised the cry of anti-federalism against those who censured themode of administration, yet he was satisfied, whenever it should come tobe tried, that the very men whom they called anti-federalists, were themen who would save the government, and he looked to the next Congressfor much rectification. 

April the 18th. The President sends a set of questions to be considered, and calls a meeting. Though those sent me were in his own hand-writing, yet it was palpable from the style, their ingenious tissue and suite, that they were not the President's, that they were raised upon aprepared chain of argument, in short, that the language was Hamilton's, and the doubts his alone. They led to a declaration of the executive, that our treaty with France is void. E. Randolph, the next day, told methat the day before the date of these questions, Hamilton went with himthrough the whole chain of reasoning of which these questions are theskeleton, and that he recognised them the moment he saw them. 

We met. The first question, whether we should receive the Frenchminister, Genet, was proposed, and we agreed unanimously that he shouldbe received; Hamilton, at the same time, expressing his great regretthat any accident had happened, which should oblige us to recognisethe government. The next question was, whether he should be receivedabsolutely, or with qualifications. Here Hamilton took up the wholesubject, and went through it in the order in which the questions sketchit. See the chain of his reasoning in my opinion of April the 28th. Knoxsubscribed at once to Hamilton's opinion that we ought to declare thetreaty void, acknowledging, at the same time, like a fool as he is, that he knew nothing about it. I was clear it remained valid. Randolphdeclared himself of the same opinion, but on Hamilton's undertaking topresent to him the authority in Vattel (which we had not present), andto prove to him, that if the authority was admitted, the treaty might bedeclared void, Randolph agreed to take further time to consider. It wasadjourned. We determined unanimously the last question, that Congressshould not be called. There having been an intimation by Randolph, thatin so great a question he should choose to give a written opinion, andthis being approved by the President, I gave in mine April the 28th. Hamilton gave in his. I believe Knox's was never thought worth offeringor asking for. Randolph gave his May the 6th, concurring with mine. The President told me, the same day, he had never had a doubt about thevalidity of the treaty; but that since a question had been suggested, he thought it ought to be considered: that this being done, I mightnow issue passports to sea-vessels in the form prescribed by the Frenchtreaty. I had for a week past only issued the Dutch form; to have issuedthe French, would have been presupposing the treaty to be in existence. The President suggested, that he thought it would be as wellthat nothing should be said of such a question having been underconsideration. Written May the 6th. 

May the 6th, 1793. When the question was, whether the proclamation ofApril the 22nd should be issued, Randolph observed, that there shouldbe a letter written by me to the ministers of the belligerent powers, todeclare that it should not be taken as conclusive evidence against ourcitizens in foreign courts of admiralty, for contraband goods. Knoxsuddenly adopted the opinion before Hamilton delivered his. Hamiltonopposed it pretty strongly. I thought it an indifferent thing, butrather approved Randolph's opinion. The President was against it; butobserved that, as there were three for it, it should go. This wasthe first instance I had seen of an opportunity to decide by a meremajority, including his own vote. 

May the 12th. Lear called on me to-day. Speaking of the lowness ofstocks (sixteen shillings), I observed it was a pity we had not money tobuy on public account. He said, yes, and that it was the more provoking, as two millions had been borrowed for that purpose, and drawn over here, and yet were not here. That he had no doubt those would take notice ofthe circumstance whose duty it was to do so. I suppose he must mean thePresident. 

May the 23rd. I had sent to the President, yesterday, draughts of aletter from him to the Provisory Executive Council of France, and of onefrom myself to Mr. Ternant, both on the occasion of his recall. I calledon him to-day. He said there was an expression in one of them, which hehad never before seen in any of our public communications, to wit, 'ourrepublic' The letter prepared for him to the Council, began thus: 'TheCitizen Ternant has delivered to me the letter wherein you inform me, that yielding &c. You had determined to recall him from his mission, asyour Minister Plenipotentiary to our republic. ' He had underscoredthe words our republic. He said that certainly ours was a republicangovernment, but yet we had not used that style in this way; that if anybody wanted to change its form into a monarchy, he was sure it was onlya few individuals, and that no man in the United States would set hisface against it more than himself: but that this was not what he wasafraid of; his fears were from another quarter; that there was moredanger of anarchy being introduced. He adverted to a piece in Freneau'spaper of yesterday; he said he despised all their attacks on himpersonally, but that there never had been an act of the government, notmeaning in the executive line only, but in any line, which that paperhad not abused. He had also marked the word republic thus X, where itwas applied to the French republic. (See the original paper. ) He wasevidently sore and warm, and I took his intention to be, that I shouldinterpose in some way with Freneau, perhaps withdraw his appointmentof translating clerk to my office. But I will not do it. His paper hassaved our constitution, which was galloping fast into monarchy, and hasbeen checked by no one means so powerfully as by that paper. It is welland universally known, that it has been that paper which has checked thecareer of the monocrats; and the President, not sensible of the designsof the party, has not, with his usual good sense and _sang froid_, looked on the efforts and effects of this free press, and seen that, though some bad things have passed through it to the public, yet thegood have preponderated immensely. 

June the 7th, 1793. Mr. Beckley, who has returned from New York withina few days, tells me that, while he was there, Sir John Temple, ConsulGeneral of the northern States for Great Britain showed him a letterfrom Sir Gregory Page Turner, a member of parliament for a borough inYorkshire, who, he said, had been a member for twenty-five years, andalways confidential for the ministers in which he permitted him to readparticular passages of the following purport: that the government waswell apprized of the predominancy of the British interest in the UnitedStates; that they considered Colonel Hamilton, Mr. King, and Mr. Smith of South Carolina, as the main supports of that interest; thatparticularly, they considered Colonel Hamilton, and not Mr. Hammond astheir effective minister here; that if the anti-federal interest (thatwas his term) at the head of which they considered Mr. Jefferson to beshould prevail, these gentlemen had secured an asylum to themselvesin England. ' Beckley could not understand whether they had secured itthemselves* or whether they were only notified that it was securedto them. So that they understand that they may go on boldly in theirmachinations to change the government, and if they should be oversetand choose to withdraw, they will be secure of a pension in England, asArnold, Deane, &c. Had. Sir John read passages of a letter (which he didnot put into Beckley's hand, as he did the other) from Lord Grenville, saying nearly the same things. This letter mentions Sir John, thatthough they had divided the Consul-Generalship, and given the southerndepartment to Bond, yet he Sir John, was to retain his whole salary. [By this it would seem, as if, wanting to use Bond, they had covered hisemployment with this cloak. ] Mr. Beckley says that Sir John Temple is astrong republican. I had a proof of his intimacy with Sir John in thiscircumstance. Sir John received his new commission of Consul General forthe northern department, and, instead of sending it through Mr. Hammond, got Beckley to enclose it to me for his exequatur I wrote to Sir Johnthat it must come through Mr Hammond enclosing it back to him. Heaccordingly then sent it to Mr. Hammond. 

 [* In the margin is written, by Mr. Jefferson; 'Impossible as to Hamilton; he was far above that. ]

In conversation with the President to-day, and speaking about GeneralGreene, he said that he and General Greene had always differed inopinion about the manner of using militia. Greene always placed themin his front: himself was of opinion, they should always be used as areserve to improve any advantage, for which purpose they were the finestfellows in the world. He said he was on the ground of the battle ofGuilford, with a person who was in the action, and who explained thewhole of it to him. That General Greene's front was behind a fence atthe edge of a large field, through which the enemy were obliged to passto get at them; and that, in their passage through this, they must havebeen torn all to pieces, if troops had been posted there who would havestood their ground; and that the retreat from that position was througha thicket, perfectly secure. Instead of this he posted the NorthCarolina militia there who only gave one fire and fell back, so that thewhole benefit of their position was lost. He thinks that the regulars, with their field-pieces, would have hardly let a single man get throughthat field. 

Eodem die (June the 7th). Beckley tells me that he has the followingfact from Governor Clinton. That before the proposition for the presentGeneral Government, i. E. A little before Hamilton conceived a plan forestablishing a monarchical government in the United States, he wrotea draught of a circular letter, which was to be sent to about-------persons, to bring it about. One of these letters in Hamilton'shand-writing, is now in possession of an old militia General up theNorth River, who, at that time, was thought orthodox enough to beentrusted in the execution. This General has given notice to GovernorClinton, that he has this paper, and that he will deliver it intohis hands, and no one's else. Clinton intends, the first interval ofleisure, to go for it, and he will bring it to Philadelphia. Beckley isa man of perfect truth as to what he affirms of his own knowledge, buttoo credulous as to what he hears from others. 

June the 10th, 1793. Mr. Brown gives me the following specimen ofthe phrenzy which prevailed at New York on the opening of the newgovernment. The first public ball which took place after the President'sarrival there, Colonel Humphreys, Colonel W. S. Smith, and Mrs. Knoxwere to arrange the ceremonials. These arrangements were as follows:a sofa at the head of the room, raised on several steps whereon thePresident and Mrs. Washington were to be seated. The gentlemen were todance in swords. Each one, when going to dance, was to lead his partnerto the foot of the sofa, make a low obeisance to the President and hislady, then go and dance, and when done, bring his partner again to thefoot of the sofa for new obeisances, and then to retire to their chairs. It was to be understood, too, that gentlemen should be dressed in bags. Mrs. Knox contrived to come with the President, and to follow him andMrs. Washington to their destination, and she had the design of forcingan invitation from the President to a seat on the sofa. She mounted upthe steps after them unbidden, but unfortunately the wicked sofa was soshort, that when the President and Mrs. Washington were seated, therewas not room for a third person; she was obliged therefore to descend inthe face of the company, and to sit where she could. In other respectsthe ceremony was conducted rigorously according to the arrangements, andthe President made to pass an evening which his good sense rendered avery miserable one to him. 

June the 12th. Beckley tells me that Klingham has been with him to-day, and relates to him the following fact. A certificate of the old Congresshad been offered at the treasury and refused payment and so endorsed inred ink as usual. This certificate came to the hands of Francis, (thequondam clerk of the treasury who, on account of his being dipped inthe infamous case of the Baron Glaubec, Hamilton had been obligedto dismiss, to save appearances, but with an assurance of all futureservice, and he accordingly got him established in New York). Franciswrote to Hamilton that such a ticket was offered him, but he could notbuy it unless he would inform him and give him his certificate that itwas good. Hamilton wrote him a most friendly letter, and sent himthe certificate. He bought the paper, and came on here and got itrecognised, whereby he made twenty-five hundred dollars Klingham sawboth the letter and certificate. 

Irving, a clerk in the treasury, an Irishman, is the author of thepieces now coming out under the signature of Verita's and attacking thePresident. I have long suspected this detestable game was playing by thefiscal party, to place the President on their side. 

July the 18th, 1793. Lear calls on me. I told him that Irving, anIrishman, and a writer in the treasury, who, on a former occasion, hadgiven the most decisive proofs of his devotion to his principal, was theauthor of the pieces signed Veritas: and I wished he could get at someof Irving's acquaintances and inform himself of the fact, as the personwho told me of it would not permit the name of his informer to bementioned. [Note. Beckley told me of it, and he had it from Swaine, the printer to whom the pieces were delivered]; that I had long beforesuspected this excessive foul play in that party of writing themselvesin the character of the most exaggerated democrats and incorporatingwith it a great deal of abuse on the President to make him believe itwas that party who were his enemies, and so throw him entirely intothe scale of the monocrats. Lear said he no longer ago than yesterdayexpressed to the President his suspicions of the artifices of that partyto work on him. He mentioned the following fact as a proof of theirwriting in the character of their adversaries; to wit, the day after thelittle incident of Richet's toasting 'the man of the people' (see thegazettes), Mrs. Washington was at Mrs. Powel's, who mentioned to herthat, when the toast was given, there was a good deal of disapprobationappeared in the audience, and that many put on their hats and went out:on inquiry, he had not found the fact true, and yet it was put into------'s paper, and written under the character of a republican, though he is satisfied it is altogether a slander of the monocrats. He mentioned this to the President, but he did not mention to him thefollowing fact, which he knows; that in New York, the last summer, whenthe parties of Jay and Clinton were running so high, it was an agreedpoint with the former, that if any circumstances should ever bring it toa question, whether to drop Hamilton or the President, they had decidedto drop the President. He said that lately one of the loudest pretendedfriends to the government, damned it, and said it was good for nothing, that it could not support itself, and it was time to put it down andset up a better; and yet the same person, in speaking to the President, puffed off that party as the only friends to the government. He saidhe really feared, that by their artifices and industry, they wouldaggravate the President so much against the republicans, as to separatehim from the body of the people. I told him what the same cabals haddecided to do, if the President had refused his assent to the bank bill;also what Brockhurst Livingston said to ------, that Hamilton's life wasmuch more precious to the community than the President's. 

August the 1st. Met at the President's, to consider what was to bedone with Mr. Genet. All his correspondence with me was read over. The following propositions were made. 1. That a full statement of Mr. Genet's conduct be made in a letter to G. Morris, and be sent with hiscorrespondence, to be communicated to the Executive Council of France;the letter to be so prepared, as to serve for the form of communicationto the Council. Agreed unanimously. 2. That in that letter his recall berequired. Agreed by all, though I expressed a preference of expressingthat desire with great delicacy; the others were for peremptory terms. 3. To send him off. This was proposed by Knox; but rejected by everyother. 4. To write a letter to Mr. Genet, the same in substance withthat written to G. Morris, and let him know we had applied for hisrecall. I was against this, because I thought it would render himextremely active in his plans, and endanger confusion. But I wasoverruled by the other three gentlemen and the President. 5. Thata publication of the whole correspondence, and statement of theproceedings should be made by way of appeal to the people. Hamiltonmade a jury speech of three quarters of an hour, as inflammatory anddeclamatory as if he had been speaking to a jury. E. Randolph opposedit. I chose to leave the contest between them. Adjourned to next day. 

August the 2nd. Met again. Hamilton spoke again three quarters of anhour. I answered on these topics. Object of the appeal. The democraticsociety; this the great circumstance of alarm; afraid it would extendits connections over the continent; chiefly meant for the local objectof the ensuing election of Governor. If left alone, would die away afterthat is over. If opposed, if proscribed, would give it importance andvigor; would give it a new object, and multitudes would join it merelyto assert the right of voluntary associations. That the measure wascalculated to make the President assume the station of the head of aparty, instead of the head of the nation. Plan of the appeal. To consistof facts and the decisions of the President. As to facts we are agreed;but as to the decisions, there have been great differences of opinionamong us. Sometimes as many opinions as persons. This proves there willbe ground to attack the decision. Genet will appeal also; it will becomea contest between the President and Genet--anonymous writers--will besame difference of opinion in public, as in our cabinet--will besame difference in Congress, lot it must be laid before them--would, therefore, work very unpleasantly at home. How would it work abroad?France--unkind--after such proofs of her friendship, should rely onthat friendship and her justice. Why appeal to the world? Friendlynations always negotiate little differences in private. Never appeal tothe world, but when they appeal to the sword. Confederacy of Pilnitzwas to overthrow the government of France. The interference of Franceto disturb other governments and excite insurrections, was a measure ofreprisal. Yet these Princes have been able to make it believed to be thesystem of France. Colonel Hamilton supposes Mr. Genet's proceedingshere are in pursuance of that system: and we are so to declare it tothe world, and to add our testimony to this base calumny of the Princes. What a triumph to them to be backed by our testimony. What a fatalstroke at the cause of liberty; _Et tu, Brute?_ We indispose the Frenchgovernment, and they will retract their offer of the treaty of commerce. The President manifestly inclined to the appeal to the people. * Knox, ina foolish, incoherent sort of a speech, introduced the pasquinade latelyprinted, called the funeral of George W--n and James W---n, King andJudge, &c, where the President was placed on a guillotine. The Presidentwas much inflamed; got into one of those passions when he cannot commandhimself; ran on much on the personal abuse which had been bestowed onhim; defied any man on earth to produce one single act of his since hehad been in the government, which was not done on the purest motives;that he had never repented but once the having slipped the moment ofresigning his office, and that was every moment since; that by God hehad rather be in his grave than in his present situation; that he hadrather be on his farm than to be made Emperor of the world; and yetthat they were charging him with wanting to be a King. That that rascalFreneau sent him three of his papers every day, as if he thought hewould become the distributor of his papers; that he could see in this, nothing but an impudent design to insult him: he ended in this hightone. There was a pause. Some difficulty in resuming our question; itwas, however, after a little while, presented again, and he said thereseemed to be no necessity for deciding it now; the propositions beforeagreed on might be put into a train of execution, and perhaps eventswould show whether the appeal would be necessary or not. He desired wewould meet at my office the next day, to consider what should be donewith the vessels armed in our ports by Mr. Genet, and their prizes. 

 * He said that Mr. Morris, taking a family dinner with him the other day, went largely, and of his own accord, into this subject; advised this appeal, and promised, if the President adopted it, that he would support it himself, and engage for all his connections. The President repeated this twice, and with an air of importance. Now Mr. Morris has no family connections; he engaged then for his political friends. This shows that the President has not confidence enough in the virtue and good sense of mankind, to confide in a government bottomed on them, and thinks other props necessary. 

August the 3rd. We met. The President wrote to take our opinions, whether Congress should be called. Knox pronounced at once against it. Randolph was against it. Hamilton said his judgment was against it, butthat if any two were for it, or against it, he would join them to makea majority. I was for it. We agreed to give separate opinions to thePresident. Knox said we should have had fine work, if Congress hadbeen sitting these two last months. The fool thus let out the secret. Hamilton endeavored to patch up the indiscretion of this blabber, bysaying 'he did not know; he rather thought they would have strengthenedthe executive arm. '

It is evident they do not wish to lengthen the session of the nextCongress, and probably they particularly wish it should not meet tillGenet is gone. At this meeting I received a letter from Mr. Remsen atNew York, informing me of the event of the combat between the Ambuscadeand the Boston. Knox broke out into the most unqualified abuse ofCaptain Courtnay. Hamilton, with less fury, but with the deepestvexation, loaded him with censures. Both showed the most unequivocalmortification at the event. 

August the 6th, 1793. The President calls on me at my house in thecountry, and introduces my letter of July the 31st, announcing that Ishould resign at the close of the next month. He again expressed hisrepentance at not having resigned himself, and how much it was increasedby seeing that he was to be deserted by those on whose aid he hadcounted: that he did not know where he should look to find charactersto fill up the offices; that mere talents did not suffice for thedepartment of State, but it required a person conversant in foreignaffairs, perhaps acquainted with foreign courts; that without this, thebest talents would be awkward and at a loss. He told me that ColonelHamilton had three or four weeks ago written to him, informing him thatprivate as well as public reasons had brought him to the determinationto retire, and that he should do it towards the close of the nextsession. He said he had often before intimated dispositions to resign, but never as decisively before; that he supposed he had fixed on thelatter part of next session, to give an opportunity to Congress toexamine into his conduct: that our going out at times so different, increased his difficulty; for if he had both places to fill at once, hemight consult both the particular talents and geographical situationof our successors. He expressed great apprehensions at the fermentationwhich seemed to be working in the mind of the public; that manydescriptions of persons, actuated by different causes, appeared tobe uniting; what it would end in he knew not; a new Congress was toassemble, more numerous, perhaps of a different spirit; the firstexpressions of their sentiment would be important; if I would only stayto the end of that, it would relieve him considerably. 

I expressed to him my excessive repugnance to public life, theparticular uneasiness of my situation in this place, where the laws ofsociety oblige me always to move exactly in the circle which I know tobear me peculiar hatred; that is to say, the wealthy aristocrats, the merchants connected closely with England, the new created paperfortunes; that thus surrounded, my words were caught, multiplied, misconstrued, and even fabricated and spread abroad to my injury; thathe saw also, that there was such an opposition of views between myselfand another part of the administration, as to render it peculiarlyunpleasing, and to destroy the necessary harmony. Without knowingthe views of what is called the republican party here, or having anycommunication with them, I could, undertake to assure him, from myintimacy with that party in the late Congress, that there was not a viewin the republican party as spread over the United States, which wentto the frame of the government; that I believed the next Congress wouldattempt nothing material, but to render their own body independent; thatthat party were firm in their dispositions to support the government;that the manoeuvres of Mr. Genet might produce some littleembarrassment, but that he would be abandoned by the republicans themoment they knew the nature of his conduct; and on the whole, no crisisexisted which threatened any thing. 

He said, he believed the views of the republican party were perfectlypure, but when men put a machine into motion, it is impossible for themto stop it exactly where they would choose, or to say where it willstop. That the constitution we have is an excellent one, if we can keepit where it is; that it was, indeed, supposed there was a party disposedto change it into a monarchical form, but that he could conscientiouslydeclare there was not a man in the United States who would set hisface more decidedly against it than himself. Here I interrupted him bysaying, 'No rational man in the United States suspects you of any otherdisposition; but there does not pass a week, in which we cannot provedeclarations dropping from the monarchical party, that our government isgood for nothing, is a milk-and-water thing which cannot support itself, we must knock it down, and set up something of more energy. He said, ifthat was the case, he thought it a proof of their insanity, for that therepublican spirit of the Union was so manifest and so solid, that it wasastonishing how any one could expect to move it. 

He returned to the difficulty of naming my successor; he said Mr. Madison would be his first choice, but that he had always expressed tohim such a decision against public office, that he could not expect hewould undertake it. Mr. Jay would prefer his present office. He saidthat Mr. Jay had a great opinion of the talents of Mr. King; that therewas also Mr. Smith of South Carolina, and E. Rutledge: but he observed, that, name whom he would, some objections would be made, some would becalled speculators, some one thing, some another; and he asked me tomention any characters occurring to me. I asked him if Governor Johnsonof Maryland had occurred to him. He said he had; that he was a manof great good sense, an honest man, and, he believed, clear ofspeculations: but this, says he, is an instance of what I was observing;with all these qualifications, Governor Johnson, from a want offamiliarity with foreign affairs, would be in them like a fish out ofwater; every thing would be new to him, and he awkward in every thing. I confessed to him that I had considered Johnson rather as fit for theTreasury department. 'Yes, ' says he, 'for that he would be the fittestappointment that could be made; he is a man acquainted with figures, andhaving as good a knowledge of the resources of this country as any man. 'I asked him if Chancellor Livingston had occurred to him. He said yes;but he was from New York, and to appoint him while Hamilton was in, andbefore it should be known he was going out, would excite a newspaperconflagration, as the ultimate arrangement would not be known. He saidMcLurg had occurred to him as a man of first-rate abilities, but it issaid that he is a speculator. He asked me what sort of a man Wolcot was. I told him I knew nothing of him myself; I had heard him characterizedas a cunning man. I asked him whether some person could not take myoffice per interim, till he should make an appointment; as Mr. Randolph, for instance. 'Yes, ' says he; 'but there you would raise the expectationof keeping it, and I do not know that he is fit for it, nor what isthought of Mr. Randolph. ' I avoided noticing the last observation, andhe put the question to me directly. I then told him, I went into societyso little as to be unable to answer it. I knew that the embarrassmentsin his private affairs had obliged him to use expedients, which hadinjured him with the merchants and shop-keepers, and affected hischaracter of independence; that these embarrassments were serious, andnot likely to cease soon. He said, if I would only stay in till the endof another quarter (the last of December), it would get us through thedifficulties of this year, and he was satisfied that the affairs ofEurope would be settled with this campaign: for that either France wouldbe overwhelmed by it, or the confederacy would give up the contest. Bythat time, too, Congress will have manifested its character and views. Itold him that I had set my private affairs in motion in a line whichhad powerfully called for my presence the last spring, and that theyhad suffered immensely from my not going home; that I had now calculatedthem to my return in the fall, and to fail in going then, would bethe loss of another year, and prejudicial beyond measure. I askedhim whether he could not name Governor Johnson to my office, under anexpress arrangement that at the close of the session he should take thatof the Treasury. He said that men never chose to descend; that beingonce in a higher department, he would not like to go into a lower one. He asked me whether I could not arrange my affairs by going home. I toldhim I did not think the public business would admit of it; that therenever was a day now, in which the absence of the Secretary of Statewould not be inconvenient to the public. And he concluded by desiringthat I would take two or three days to consider whether I could not stayin till the end of another quarter, for that, like a man going, to thegallows, he was willing to put it off as long as he could; but if Ipersisted, he must then look about him and make up his mind to do thebest he could: and so he took leave. 

November the 5th, 1793. E. Randolph tells me, that Hamilton, inconversation with him yesterday, said, 'Sir, if all the people inAmerica were now assembled, and to call on me to say whether I am afriend to the French revolution, I would declare that I have it inabhorrence?'

November the 8th, 1793. At a conference at the President's, where I readseveral letters of Mr. Genet; on finishing one of them, I asked whatshould be the answer. The President thereupon took occasion to observe, that Mr. Genet's conduct continued to be of so extraordinary a nature, that he meant to propose to our serious consideration, whether heshould not have his functions discontinued, and be ordered away. Hewent lengthily into observations on his conduct, to raise against theexecutive, 1. The people, 2. The State governments, 3. The Congress. He showed he felt the venom of Genet's pen, but declared he would notchoose his insolence should be regarded any farther, than as might bethought to affect the honor of the country. Hamilton and Knox readilyand zealously argued for dismissing Mr. Genet. Randolph opposed it withfirmness, and pretty lengthily. The President replied to him lengthily, and concluded by saying he did not wish to have the thing hastilydecided, but that we should consider of it, and give our opinions on hisreturn from Reading and Lancaster. Accordingly, November the 18th, wemet at his house; read new volumes of Genet's letters, received sincethe President's departure; then took up the discussion of the subjectsof communication to Congress. 1. The Proclamation. E. Randolph read thestatement he had prepared; Hamilton did not like it; said much about hisown views; that the President had a right to declare his opinion toour citizens and foreign nations; that it was not the interest of thiscountry to join in the war, and that we were under no obligation to joinin it; that though the declaration would not legally bind Congress, yetthe President had a right to give his opinion of it, and he was againstany explanation in the speech, which should yield that he did not intendthat foreign nations should consider it as a declaration of neutrality, future as well as present; that he understood it as meant to give themthat sort of assurance and satisfaction, and to say otherwise now, would be a deception on them. He was for the President's usingsuch expressions, as should neither affirm his right to make sucha declaration to foreign nations, nor yield it. Randolph and myselfopposed the right of the President to declare any thing future on thequestion, Shall there or shall there not be a war? and that no suchthing was intended; that Hamilton's construction of the effect of theproclamation would have been a determination of the question of theguarantee, which we both denied to have intended, and I had at thetime declared the executive incompetent to. Randolph said he meant thatforeign nations should understand it as an intimation of the President'sopinion, that neutrality would be our interest. I declared my meaning tohave been, that foreign nations should understand no such thing; that, on the contrary, I would have chosen them to be doubtful, and to comeand bid for our neutrality. I admitted the President, having receivedthe nation at the close of Congress in a state of peace, was bound topreserve them in that state till Congress should meet again, and mightproclaim any thing which went no farther. The President declared henever had an idea that he could bind Congress against declaring war, orthat any thing contained in his proclamation could look beyond the firstday of their meeting. His main view was to keep our people in peace;he apologized for the use of the term neutrality in his answers, and justified it, by having submitted the first of them (that to themerchants, wherein it was used) to our consideration, and we had notobjected to the term. He concluded in the end, that Colonel Hamiltonshould prepare a paragraph on this subject for the speech, and it shouldthen be considered. We were here called to dinner. 

After dinner, the _renvoi_ of Genet was proposed by himself. I opposedit on these topics. France, the only nation on earth sincerely ourfriend. The measure so harsh a one, that no precedent is producedwhere it has not been followed by war. Our messenger has now been goneeighty-four days; consequently, we may hourly expect the return, andto be relieved by their revocation of him. Were it now resolved on, itwould be eight or ten days before the matter on which the order shouldbe founded, could be selected, arranged, discussed, and forwarded. Thiswould bring us within four or five days of the meeting of Congress. Would it not be better to wait and see how the pulse of that body, newas it is, would beat. They are with us now, probably, but such a step asthis may carry many over to Genet's side. Genet will not obey theorder, &c. &c. The President asked me what I would do if Genet sent theaccusation to us to be communicated to Congress, as he threatened in theletter to Moultrie. I said I would not send it to Congress; but eitherput it in the newspapers, or send it back to him to be published if hepleased. Other questions and answers were put and returned in a quickeraltercation than I ever before saw the President use. Hamilton was forthe _renvoi_; spoke much of the dignity of the nation; that they werenow to form their character; that our conduct now would tempt or deterother foreign ministers from treating us in the same manner; touched onthe President's personal feelings; did not believe France would make ita cause of war; if she did, we ought to do what was right, and meet theconsequences, &c. Knox on the same side, and said he thought it verypossible Mr. Genet would either declare us a department of France, orlevy troops here and endeavor to reduce us to obedience. Randolph of myopinion, and argued chiefly on the resurrection of popularity to Genet, which might be produced by this measure. That at present he was dead inthe public opinion, if we would but leave him so. The President lamentedthere was not unanimity among us; that as it was, we had left himexactly where we found him; and so it ended. 

November the 21st. We met at the President's. The manner of explainingto Congress the intentions of the proclamation, was the matter ofdebate. Randolph produced his way of stating it. This expressed itsviews to have been, 1. To keep our citizens quiet; 2. To intimate toforeign nations that it was the President's opinion, that the interestsand dispositions of this country were for peace. Hamilton produced hisstatement, in which he declared his intention to be, to say nothingwhich could be laid hold of for any purpose; to leave the proclamationto explain itself. He entered pretty fully into all the argumentationof Pacificus; he justified the right of the President to declare hisopinion for a future neutrality, and that there existed no circumstancesto oblige the United States to enter into the war on account of theguarantee; and that in agreeing to the proclamation, he meant it to beunderstood as conveying both those declarations; viz. Neutrality, andthat the _casus foederis_ on the guarantee did not exist. He admittedthe Congress might declare war, notwithstanding these declarations ofthe President. In like manner, they might declare war in the face of atreaty, and in direct infraction of it. Among other positions laid downby him, this was with great positiveness; that the constitution havinggiven power to the President and Senate to make treaties, they mightmake a treaty of neutrality which should take from Congress the right todeclare war in that particular case, and that under the form of a treatythey might exercise any powers whatever, even those exclusively given bythe constitution to the House of Representatives. Randolph opposed thisposition, and seemed to think that where they undertook to do acts bytreaty (as to settle a tariff of duties), which were exclusively givento the legislature, that an act of the legislature would be necessaryto confirm them, as happens in England, when a treaty interferes withduties established by law. I insisted that in giving to the Presidentand Senate a power to make treaties, the constitution meant only toauthorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers theymight constitutionally exercise. I was sensible of the weak points inthis position, but there were still weaker in the other hypothesis; andif it be impossible to discover a rational measure of authority to havebeen given by this clause, I would rather suppose that the caseswhich my hypothesis would leave unprovided, were not thought of by theconvention, or if thought of, could not be agreed on, or were thoughtof and deemed unnecessary to be invested in the government. Of thislast description, were treaties of neutrality, treaties offensive anddefensive, &c. In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly asto oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they wouldagree to yield, than too broadly, and, indeed, so broadly as to enablethe executive and Senate to do things which the constitution forbids. On the question, which form of explaining the principles of theproclamation should be adopted, I declared for Randolph's, though itgave to that instrument more objects than I had contemplated. Knoxdeclared for Hamilton's. The President said he had had but oneobject, the keeping our people quiet till Congress should meet; thatnevertheless, to declare he did not mean a declaration of neutrality, in the technical sense of the phrase, might perhaps be crying _peccavi_before he was charged. However, he did not decide between the twodraughts. 

November the 23rd. At the President's. Present, Knox, Randolph, and Th:Jefferson. Subject, the heads of the speech. One was, a proposition toCongress to fortify the principal harbors. I opposed the expediencyof the General Government's undertaking it, and the expediency of thePresident's proposing it. It was amended, by substituting a propositionto adopt means for enforcing respect to the jurisdiction of the UnitedStates within its waters. It was proposed to recommend the establishmentof a military academy. I objected that none of the specified powersgiven by the constitution to Congress, would authorize this. It was, therefore, referred for further consideration and inquiry. Knox was forboth propositions. Randolph against the former, but said nothing as tothe latter. The President acknowledged he had doubted of the expediencyof undertaking the former; and as to the latter, though it would be agood thing, he did not wish to bring on any thing which might generateheat and ill-humor. It was agreed that Randolph should draw the speechand the messages. 

November the 28th. Met at the President's. I read over a list of thepapers copying, to be communicated to Congress on the subject of Mr. Genet. It was agreed that Genet's letter of August the 13th to thePresident, mine of August the 16th, and Genet's of November to myselfand the Attorney General, desiring a prosecution of Jay and King, should not be sent to the legislature: on a general opinion, that thediscussion of the fact certified by Jay and King had better be left tothe channel of the newspapers, and in the private hands in which it nowis, than for the President to meddle in it, or give room to a discussionof it in Congress. 

Randolph had prepared a draught of the speech. The clause recommendingfortifications was left out; but that for a military academy wasinserted. I opposed it, as unauthorized by the constitution. Hamiltonand Knox approved it without discussion. Randolph was for it, sayingthat the words of the constitution anthorizing Congress to lay taxes, &c. For the common defence, might comprehend it. The President said hewould not choose to recommend any thing against the constitution, but ifit was doubtful, he was so impressed with the necessity of this measure, that he would refer it to Congress, and let them decide for themselveswhether the constitution authorized it or not. It was, therefore, left in. I was happy to see that Randolph had, by accident, used theexpression 'our republic, ' in the speech. The President, however, madeno objection to it, and so, as much as it had disconcerted him ona former occasion with me, it was now put into his own mouth to bepronounced to the two Houses of legislature. 

No material alterations were proposed or made in any part of thedraught. 

After dinner, I produced the draught of messages on the subject ofFrance and England, proposing that that relative to Spain should besubsequent and secret. 

Hamilton objected to the draught in toto; said that the contrast drawnbetween the conduct of France and England amounted to a declaration ofwar; he denied that France had ever done us favors; that it was mean fora nation to acknowledge favors; that the dispositions of the people ofthis country towards France, he considered as a serious calamity; thatthe executive ought not, by an echo of this language, to nourish thatdisposition in the people; that the offers in commerce made us byFrance, were the offspring of the moment, of circumstances which wouldnot last, and it was wrong to receive as permanent, things merelytemporary; that he could demonstrate that Great Britain showed usmore favors than France. In complaisance to him I whittled down theexpressions without opposition; struck out that of 'favors ancient andrecent' from France; softened some terms, and omitted some sentimentsrespecting Great Britain. He still was against the whole, but insistedthat, at any rate, it should be a secret communication, because thematters it stated were still depending. These were, 1. The inexecutionof the treaty; 2. The restraining our commerce to their own ports andthose of their friends. Knox joined Hamilton in every thing. Randolphwas for the communications; that the documents respecting the firstshould be given in as public; but that those respecting the secondshould not be given to the legislature at all, but kept secret. I beganto tremble now for the whole, lest all should be kept secret. I urged, especially, the duty now incumbent on the President, to lay before thelegislature and the public what had passed on the inexecution of thetreaty, since Mr. Hammond's answer of this month might be consideredas the last we should ever have; that, therefore, it could no longerbe considered as a negotiation pending. I urged that the documentsrespecting the stopping our corn ought also to go, but insisted that ifit should be thought better to withhold them, the restrictions shouldnot go to those respecting the treaty; that neither of these subjectswas more in a state of pendency than the recall of Mr. Genet, on which, nevertheless, no scruples had been expressed. The President took upthe subject with more vehemence than I have seen him show, and decidedwithout reserve, that not only what had passed on the inexecution of thetreaty should go in as public (in which Hamilton and Knox had dividedin opinion from Randolph and myself), but also that those respecting thestopping our corn should go in as public (wherein Hamilton, Knox, andRandolph had been against me. ) This was the first instance I had seen ofhis deciding on the opinion of one against that of three others, whichproved his own to have been very strong. 

December the 1st, 1793. Beckley tells me he had the following fact fromLear. Langdon, Cabot, and some others of the Senate, standing in a knotbefore the fire after the Senate had adjourned, and growling togetherabout some measure which they had just lost; 'Ah!' said Cabot, 'things will never go right till you have a President for life, and anhereditary Senate. ' Langdon told this to Lear, who mentioned it to thePresident. The President seemed struck with it, and declared he had notsupposed there was a man in the United States who could have entertainedsuch an idea. 

*****

*****

March the 2nd, 1797. I arrived at Philadelphia to qualify asVice-President, and called instantly on Mr. Adams, who lodged atFrancis's, in Fourth street. The next morning he returned my visitat Mr. Madison's, where I lodged. He found me alone in my room, andshutting the door himself, he said he was glad to find me alone, forthat he wished a free conversation with me. He entered immediately on anexplanation of the situation of our affairs with France, and thedanger of rupture with that nation, a rupture which would convulse theattachments of this country; that he was impressed with the necessity ofan immediate mission to the Directory; that it would have been the firstwish of his heart to have got me to go there, but that he supposed itwas out of the question, as it did not seem justifiable for him tosend away the person destined to take his place in case of accident tohimself, nor decent to remove from competition one who was a rival inthe public favor. That he had, therefore, concluded to send a mission, which, by its dignity, should satisfy France, and by its selection fromthe three great divisions of the continent, should satisfy all parts ofthe United States; in short, that he had determined to join Gerry andMadison to Pinckney, and he wished me to consult Mr. Madison for him. I told him that, as to myself, I concurred in the opinion ofthe impropriety of my leaving the post assigned me, and that myinclinations, moreover, would never permit me to cross the Atlanticagain; that I would, as he desired, consult Mr. Madison, but I fearedit was desperate, as he had refused that mission on my leaving it, inGeneral Washington's time, though it was kept open a twelvemonth forhim. He said that if Mr. Madison should refuse, he would still appointhim, and leave the responsibility on him. I consulted Mr. Madison, whodeclined, as I expected. I think it was on Monday the 6th of March, Mr. Adams and myself met at dinner at General Washington's, and we happened, in the evening, to rise from table and come away together. As soon aswe got into the street, I told him the event of my negotiation with Mr. Madison. He immediately said, that, on consultation, some objections tothat nomination had been raised, which he had not contemplated; and wasgoing on with excuses which evidently embarrassed him, when we came toFifth street, where our road separated, his being down Market street, mine off along Fifth, and we took leave: and he never after that saidone word to me on the subject, or ever consulted me as to any measuresof the government. The opinion I formed at the time on this transactionwas, that Mr. Adams, in the first moments of the enthusiasm of theoccasion (his inauguration), forgot party sentiments, and, as he neveracted on any system, but was always governed by the feeling of themoment, he thought, for a moment, to steer impartially between theparties; that Monday, the 6th of March, being the first time he hadmet his cabinet, on expressing ideas of this kind, he had been at oncediverted from them, and returned to his former party views. 

July, 1797. Murray is rewarded for his services by an appointment toAmsterdam; W. Smith of Charleston, to Lisbon. 

August the 24th. About the time of the British treaty, Hamilton andTalleyrand, bishop of Autun, dined together, and Hamilton drank freely. Conversing on the treaty, Talleyrand says, '_Mais vraiment, MonsieurHamilton, ce n'est pas Men honnete_, after making the Senate ratifythe treaty, to advise the President to reject it. ' 'The treaty, ' saysHamilton, 'is an execrable one, and Jay was an old woman for makingit; but the whole credit of saving us from it must be given to thePresident. ' After circumstances had led to a conclusion that thePresident also must ratify it, he said to the same Talleyrand, 'Thoughthe treaty is a most execrable one, yet when once we have come to adetermination on it, we must carry it through thick and thin, right orwrong. ' Talleyrand told this to Volney, who told it to me. 

There is a letter now appearing in the papers, from Pickering to Monroe, dated July the 24th, 1797, which I am satisfied is written by Hamilton. He was in Philadelphia at that date. 

December the 26th, 1797. Langdon tells me, that at the second electionof President and Vice-President of the United States, when there was aconsiderable vote given to Clinton in opposition to Mr. Adams, he tookoccasion to remark it in conversation in the Senate chamber with Mr. Adams, who gritting his teeth, said, 'Damn 'em, damn 'em, damn 'em, yousee that an elective government will not do. ' He also tells me that Mr. Adams, in a late conversation, said, ' Republicanism must be disgraced, 'Sir. ' The Chevalier Yrujo called on him at Braintree, and conversing onFrench affairs, and Yrujo expressing his belief of their stability, inopposition to Mr. Adamses, the latter lifting up and shaking his fingerat him, said, 'I'll tell you what, the French republic will not lastthree months. ' This I had from Yrujo. 

Harper, lately in a large company, was saying that the best thing thefriends of the French could do, was to pray for the restoration oftheir monarch. 'Then, ' says a by-stander, 'the best thing we could do, I suppose, would be to pray for the establishment of a monarch in theUnited States. ' 'Qur people, ' says Harper, 'are not yet ripe for it, butit is the best thing we can come to, and we shall come to it. ' Somethinglike this was said in presence of Findlay. He now denies it in thepublic papers, though it can be proved by several members. 

December the 27th. Tench Coxe tells me, that a little before Hamiltonwent out of office, or just as he was going out, taking with him hislast conversation, and among other things, on the subject of theirdifferences, 'For my part, ' says he, 'I avow myself a monarchist; I haveno objection to a trial being made of this thing of a republic, but, '&c. 

January the 5th, 1798. I receive a very remarkable fact indeed, inour history, from Baldwin and Skinner. Before the establishment of ourpresent government, a very extensive combination had taken place in NewYork and the eastern States, among that description of people who werepartly monarchical in principle, or frightened with Shays's rebellionand the impotence of the old Congress. Delegates in different places hadactually had consultations on the subject of seizing on the powers ofa government, and establishing them by force; had corresponded withone another, and had sent a deputy to General Washington to solicit hisco-operation. He refused to join them. The new convention was in themean time proposed by Virginia and appointed. These people believed itimpossible the States should ever agree on a government, as this mustinclude the impost and all the other powers which the States had, athousand times, refused to the general authority. They therefore let theproposed convention go on, not doubting its failure, and confidingthat on its failure would be a still more favorable moment for theirenterprise. They therefore wished it to fail, and especially, whenHamilton, their leader, brought forward his plan of government, failedentirely in carrying it, and retired in disgust from the convention. His associates then took every method to prevent any form of governmentbeing agreed to. But the well-intentioned never ceased trying, first onething, then another, till they could get something agreed to. The finalpassage and adoption of the constitution completely defeated theviews of the combination, and saved us from an attempt to establish agovernment over us by force. This fact throws a blaze of light on theconduct of several members from New York and the eastern States in theconvention of Annapolis, and the grand convention. At that of Annapolis, several eastern members most vehemently opposed Madison's propositionfor a more general convention, with more general powers. They wishedthings to get more and more into confusion, to justify the violentmeasure they proposed. The idea of establishing a government byreasoning and agreement, they publicly ridiculed as an Utopian project, visionary and unexampled. 

February the 6th, 1798. Mr. Baldwin tells me, that in a conversationyesterday with Goodhue, on the state of our affairs, Goodhue said, 'I'lltell you what, I have made up my mind on this subject; I would ratherthe old ship should go down than not'; (meaning the Union of theStates. ) Mr. Hillhouse coming up, 'Well, ' says Mr. Baldwin, 'I'll tellmy old friend Hillhouse what you say '; and he told him. 'Well, ' saysGoodhue, 'I repeat, that I would rather the old ship should go down, if we are to be always kept pumping so. ' 'Mr. Hillhouse, ' says Baldwin, 'you remember when we were learning logic together at school, there wasthe case categorical and the case hypothetical. Mr. Goodhue stated it tome first as the case categorical. I am glad to see that he now changesit to the case hypothetical, by adding, 'if we are always to be keptpumping so. ' Baldwin went on then to remind Goodhue what an advocate hehad been for our tonnage duty, wanting to make it one dollar insteadof fifty cents; and how impatiently he bore the delays of Congressin proceeding to retaliate on Great Britain before Mr. Madison'spropositions came on. Goodhue acknowledged that his opinions had changedsince that. 

February the 15th, 1798. I dined this day with Mr. Adams, (thePresident. ) The company was large. After dinner I was sitting next tohim, and our conversation was first on the enormous price of labor, *house rent, and other things. We both concurred in ascribing itchiefly to the flood of bank paper now afloat, and in condemning thoseinstitutions. We then got on the constitution; and in the course of ourconversation he said, that no republic could ever last which had not aSenate, and a Senate deeply and strongly rooted, strong enough to bearup against all popular storms and passions; that he thought ourSenate as well constituted as it could have been, being chosen by thelegislatures; for if these could not support them, he did not know whatcould do it; that perhaps it might have been as well for them tobe chosen by the State at large, as that would insure a choice ofdistinguished men, since none but such could be known to a whole people;that the only fault in our Senate was, that it was not durable enough;that hitherto, it had behaved very well; however, he was afraid theywould give way in the end. That as to trusting to a popular assembly forthe preservation of our liberties, it was the merest chimera imaginable;they never had any rule of decision but their own will; that he wouldas lieve be again in the hands of our old committees of safety, who madethe law and executed it at the same time; that it had been observed bysome writer (I forget whom he named), that anarchy did more mischief inone night, than tyranny in an age; and that in modern times we might saywith truth, that, in France, anarchy had done more harm in one night, than all the despotism of their Kings had ever done in twenty or thirtyyears. The point in which he views our Senate, as the colossus of theconstitution, serves as a key to the politics of the Senate, who aretwo thirds of them in his sentiments, and accounts for the bold line ofconduct they pursue. 

 * He observed, that eight or ten years ago he gave only fifty dollars to a common laborer for his farm, finding him food and lodging. Now he gives one hundred and fifty dollars, and even two hundred dollars to one. 

March the 1st. Mr. Tazewell tells me, that when the appropriations forthe British treaty were on the carpet, and very uncertain in the lowerHouse, there being at that time a number of bills in the hands ofcommittees of the Senate, none reported, and the Senate idle for wantof them, he, in his place, called on the committees to report, andparticularly on Mr. King, who was of most of them. King said that it wastrue the committees kept back their reports, waiting the event ofthe question about appropriation: that if that was not carried, theyconsidered legislation as at an end; that they might as well break upand consider the Union as dissolved. Tazewell expressed his astonishmentat these ideas, and called on King to know if he had misapprehended him. King rose again and repeated the same words. The next day, Cabot tookan occasion in debate, and so awkward a one as to show it was a thingagreed to be done, to repeat the same sentiments in stronger terms, andcarried further, by declaring a determination on their side to break upand dissolve the government. 

March the 11th. In conversation with Baldwin and Brown of Kentucky, Brown says that in a private company once, consisting of Hamilton, King, Madison, himself, and some one else making a fifth, speaking of the'federal government'; 'Oh!' says Hamilton, 'say the federal monarchy;let us call things by their right names, for a monarchy it is. '

Baldwin mentions at table the following fact. When the bank bill wasunder discussion in the House of Representatives, Judge Wilson came in, and was standing by Baldwin. Baldwin reminded him of the following factwhich passed in the grand convention. Among the enumerated powers givento Congress, was one to erect corporations. It was on debate struckout. Several particular powers were then proposed. Among others, RobertMorris proposed to give Congress a power to establish a national bank. Gouverneur Morris opposed it, observing that it was extremely doubtfulwhether the constitution they were framing could ever be passed at allby the people of America; that to give it its best chance, however, theyshould make it as palatable as possible and put nothing into it notvery essential, which might raise up enemies; that his colleague (RobertMorris) well knew that 'a bank' was, in their State (Pennsylvania)the very watch-word of party; that a bank had been the great bone ofcontention between the two parties of the State, from the establishmentof their constitution, having been erected, put down, and erected again, as either party preponderated; that therefore, to insert this power, would instantly enlist against the whole instrument, the whole of theanti-bank party in Pennsylvania. Whereupon it was rejected, as was everyother special power, except that of giving copyrights to authors, andpatents to inventors; the general power of incorporating being whittleddown to this shred. Wilson agreed to the fact. 

Mr. Hunter of South Carolina, who lodges with Rutledge, [* J. Rutledge, junior] tells me, that Rutledge was explaining to him the plan theyproposed to pursue as to war measures, when Otis came in. Rutledgeaddressed Otis. 'Now, Sir, ' says he, 'you must come forward withsomething liberal for the southern States, fortify their harbors andbuild galleys, in order to obtain their concurrence. ' Otis said, 'Weinsist on convoys for our European trade, and _guarda-costas_, on whichcondition alone, we will give them galleys and fortifications. ' Rutledgeobserved, that in the event of war, McHenry and Pickering must go out;Wolcott, he thought, might remain, but the others were incapable ofconducting a war. Otis said the eastern people would never abandonPickering; he must be retained; McHenry might go. They consideredtogether whether General Pinckney would accept the office ofSecretary of War. They apprehended he would not. It was agreed in thisconversation, that Sewall had more the ear of the President than anyother person. 

March the 12th. When the bill for appropriations was before theSenate, Anderson moved to strike out a clause recognising (by wayof appropriation) the appointment of a committee by the House ofRepresentatives, to sit during their recess to collect evidence onBlount's case, denying they had power, but by a law, to authorize acommittee to sit during recess. Tracy advocated the motion, and said, 'We may as well speak out. The committee was appointed by the House ofRepresentatives, to take care of the British minister, to take care ofthe Spanish minister, to take care of the Secretary of State, in short, to take care of the President of the United States. They were afraidthe President and Secretary of State would not perform the office ofcollecting evidence faithfully; that there would be collusion, &c. Therefore, the House appointed a committee of their own. We shall havethem next sending a committee to Europe to make a treaty, &c. Supposethat the House of Representatives should resolve, that after theadjournment of Congress, they should continue to sit as a committee ofthe whole House during the whole recess. ' This shows how the appointmentof that committee has been viewed by the President's friends. 

April the 5th. Doctor Rush tells me he had it from Mrs. Adams, thatnot a scrip of a pen has passed between the late and present President, since he came into office. 

April the 13th. New instructions of the British government to theirarmed ships now appear, which clearly infringe their treaty with us, by authorizing them to take our vessels carrying produce of the Frenchcolonies from those colonies to Europe, and to lake vessels bound toa blockaded port. See them in Brown's paper, of April the 18th, in dueform. 

The President has sent a government brig to France, probably to carrydespatches. He has chosen as the bearer of these, one Humphreys, the sonof a ship-carpenter, ignorant, under age, not speaking a word of French, most abusive of that nation; whose only merit is, the having mobbed andbeaten Bache on board the frigate built here, for which he was indictedand punished by fine. 

April the 25th. At a dinner given by the bar to the federal judges, Chase and Peters, present about twenty-four lawyers, and WilliamTilghman in the chair, this toast was given; 'Our _King_ in oldEngland. ' Observe the double entendre on the word King. Du Ponceau, who was one of the bar present, told this to Tench Coxe, who told mein presence of H. Tazewell. Dallas was at the dinner; so was ColonelCharles Sims of Alexandria, who is here on a law-suit vs. GeneralIrving. 

May the 3rd. The President some time ago appointed Steele, of Virginia, a commissioner to the Indians, and recently Secretary of the MississippiTerritory. Steele was a Counsellor of Virginia, and was voted out by theAssembly because he turned tory. He then offered for Congress, and wasrejected by the people. Then offered for the Senate of Virginia, and wasrejected. The President has also appointed Joseph Hopkinson commissionerto make a treaty with the Oneida Indians. He is a youth of abouttwenty-two or twenty-three, and has no other claims to such anappointment than extreme toryism, and the having made a poor song to thetune of the President's March. 

October the 13th, 1798. Littlepage, who has been on one or two missionsfrom Poland to Spain, said that when Gardoqui returned from America, he settled with his court an account of secret service money, of sixhundred thousand dollars. _Ex relatione_ Colonel Monroe. 

January, 1799. In a conversation between Doctor Ewen and the President, the former said one of his sons was an aristocrat, the other a democrat. The President asked if it were not the youngest who was the democrat. 'Yes, ' said Ewen. 'Well, ' said the President, 'a boy of fifteen whois not a democrat is good for nothing, and he is no better who is ademocrat at twenty. ' Ewen told Hurt, and Hurt told me. 

January the 14th. Logan tells me that in his conversation with Pickeringon his arrival, the latter abused Gerry very much; said he was a traitorto his country, and had deserted the post to which he was appointed;that the French temporized at first with Pinckney, but found him toomuch of a man for their purpose. Logan observing, that, notwithstandingthe pacific declarations of France, it might still be well to keep up. The military ardor of our citizens, and to have the militia in goodorder: 'The militia, ' said Pickering, 'the militia never did any good tothis country, except in the single affair of Bunker's Hill; that we musthave a standing army of fifty thousand men, which being stationed indifferent parts of the continent, might serve as rallying points for themilitia, and so render them of some service. ' In his conversation withMr. Adams, Logan mentioned the willingness of the French to treat withGerry. 'And do you know why, ' said Mr. Adams. 'Why, Sir?' saidLogan. 'Because, ' said Mr. Adams, 'they know him to have been ananti-federalist, against the constitution. '

January the 2nd, 1800. Information from Tench Coxe. Mr. Liston had senttwo letters to the Governor of Canada by one Sweezy. He had sent copiesof them, together with a third, (original) by one Cribs. Sweezy wasarrested (being an old horse-thief), and his papers examined. T. Coxehad a sight of them. As soon as a rumor got out that there were lettersof Mr. Liston disclosed, but no particulars yet mentioned, Mr. Listonsuspecting that Cribs had betrayed him, thought it best to bring allhis three letters, and lay them before Pickering, Secretary of State. Pickering thought them all very innocent. In his office they were seenby Mr. Hodgen of New Jersey, commissary of military stores, and theintimate friend of Pickering. It happens that there is some landpartnership between Pickering, Hodgen, and Coxe, so that the latter isfreely and intimately visited by Hodgen, who, moreover, speaks freelywith him on political subjects. They were talking the news of the day, when Mr. Coxe observed that these intercepted letters of Liston wereserious things; (nothing being yet out but a general rumor. ) Hodgenasked which he thought the most serious. Coxe said the second; (for heknew yet of no other. ) Hodgen said he thought little of any of them, butthat the third was the most exceptionable. This struck Coxe, who, notbetraying his ignorance of a third letter, asked generally what part ofthat he alluded to. Hodgen said to that wherein he assured the Governorof Canada, that if the French invaded Canada, an army would be marchedfrom these States to his assistance. After this it became known that itwas Sweezy who was arrested, and not Cribs; so that Mr. Liston had madean unnecessary disclosure of his third letter to Mr. Pickering, who, however, keeps his secret for him. In the beginning of the conversationbetween Hodgen and Coxe, Coxe happened to name Sweezy as the bearer ofthe letters. 'That 's not his name, ' says Hodgen, (for he did not knowthat two of the letters had been sent by Sweezy also) 'his name isCribs. ' This put Coxe on his guard, and set him to fishing for the newmatter. 

January the 10th. Doctor Rush tells me, that he had it from SamuelLyman, that during the X. Y. Z. Congress, the federal members held thelargest caucus they have ever had, at which he was present, and thequestion was proposed and debated, whether they should declare waragainst France, and determined in the negative. Lyman was against it. Hetells me, that Mr. Adams told him, that when he came on in the fall toTrenton, he was there surrounded constantly by the opponents of the latemission to France. That Hamilton pressing him to delay it, said, 'Why, Sir, by Christmas, Louis the XVIII. Will be seated on his throne. ' Mr. A. 'By whom?' H. 'By the coalition. ' Mr. A. 'Ah! then farewell to theindependence of Europe. If a coalition, moved by the finger of England, is to give a government to France, there is an end to the independenceof every country. '

January the 12th. General Samuel Smith says that Pickering, Wolcott, and McHenry, wrote a joint letter from Trenton to the President, then atBraintree, dissuading him from the mission to France. Stoddard refusedto join it. Stoddard says the instructions are such, that if theDirectory have any disposition to reconciliation, a treaty will be made. He observed to him also, that Ellsworth looks beyond this mission tothe Presidential chair. That with this view, he will endeavor to makea treaty, and a good one. That Davie has the same vanity and views. Allthis communicated by Stoddard to S. Smith. 

January the 13th. Baer and Harrison G. Otis told J. Nicholas, that inthe caucus mentioned ante 10th, there wanted but five votes to produce adeclaration of war. Baer was against it. 

January the 19th. W. C. Nicholas tells me, that in a conversation withDexter three or four days ago, he asked Dexter whether it would not bepracticable for the States to agree on some uniform mode of choosingelectors of President. Dexter said, 'I suppose you would prefer anelection by districts. ' 'Yes, ' said Nicholas, 'I think it would bebest; but would nevertheless agree to any other consistent with theconstitution. ' Dexter said he did not know what might be the opinion ofhis State, but his own was, that no mode of election would answer anygood purpose; that he should prefer one for life. 'On that reasoning, 'said Nicholas, 'you should prefer an hereditary one. ' 'No, ' he said, 'weare not ripe for that yet. I suppose, ' added he, 'this doctrine is notvery popular with you. ' 'No, ' said Nicholas, 'it would effectually damnany man in my State. ' 'So it would in mine, ' said Dexter; 'but I amunder no inducement to belie my sentiment; I have nothing to ask fromany body; I had rather be at home than here, therefore I speak mysentiments freely. ' Mr. Nicholas, a little before or after this, madethe same proposition of a uniform election to Rossr who replied that hesaw no good in any kind of election. 'Perhaps, ' said he, 'the presentone may last a while. ' On the whole, Mr. Nicholas thinks he perceives, in that party, a willingness and a wish to let every thing go from badto worse, to amend nothing, in hopes it may bring on confusion, and opena door to the kind of government they wish. In a conversation with Gunn, who goes with them, but thinks in some degree with us, Gunn told himthat the very game which the minority of Pennsylvania is now playingwith McKean (see substitute of minority in lower House, and addressof Senate in upper), was meditated by the same party in the federalgovernment, in case of the election of a republican President; and thatthe eastern States would in that case throw things into confusion, and break the Union. That they have in a great degree got rid of theirpaper, so as no longer to be creditors, and the moment they cease toenjoy the plunder of the immense appropriations now exclusively theirs, they would aim at some other order of things. 

January the 24th. Mr. Smith, a merchant of Hamburg, gives me thefollowing information. The St. Andrew's Club, of New York, (allof Scotch tories, ) gave a public dinner lately. Among other guestsAlexander Hamilton was one. After dinner, the first toast was 'ThePresident of the United States. ' It was drunk without any particularapprobation. The next was, 'George the Third. ' Hamilton started up onhis feet, and insisted on a bumper and three cheers. The whole companyaccordingly rose and gave the cheers. One of them, though a federalist, was so disgusted at the partiality shown by Hamilton to a foreignsovereign over his own President, that he mentioned it to a Mr. Schwart-house, an American merchant of New York, who mentioned it toSmith. 

Mr. Smith also tells me, that calling one evening on Mr. Evans, thenSpeaker of the House of Representatives of Pennsylvania, and askingthe news, Evans said, Harper had just been there, and speaking of thePresident's setting out to Braintree, said, 'he prayed to God that hishorses might run away with him, or some other accident happen to breakhis neck before he reached Braintree. ' This was in indignation at hishaving named Murray, &c. To negotiate with France. Evans approved of thewish. 

February the 1st. Doctor Rush tells me that he had it from Asa Green, that when the clergy addressed General Washington on his departurefrom the government, it was observed in their consultation, that he hadnever, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a beliefin the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen theiraddress, as to force him at length to declare publicly whether he was aChristian or not. They did so. However, he observed, the old fox wastoo cunning for them. He answered every article of their addressparticularly except that, which he passed over without notice. Rushobserves, he never did say a word on the subject in any of his publicpapers, except in his valedictory letter to the Governors of the Stateswhen he resigned his commission in the army, wherein he speaks of 'thebenign influence of the Christian religion. '

I know that Gouverneur Morris, who pretended to be in his secrets andbelieved himself to be so, has often told me that General Washingtonbelieved no more of that system than he himself did. 

March, 1800. Heretical doctrines maintained in Senate, on the motionagainst the Aurora. That there is in every legal body of men a right ofself-preservation, authorizing them to do whatever is necessary for thatpurpose: by Tracy, Read, and Lawrence. That the common law authorizesthe proceeding proposed against the Aurora, and is in force here: byRead. That the privileges of Congress are and ought to be indefinite: byRead. 

Tracy says, he would not say exactly that the common law of England inall its extent is in force here; but common sense reason, and morality, which are the foundations of the common law, are in force here, andestablish a common law. He held himself so nearly half way between thecommon law of England and what every body else has called natural law, and not common law, that he could hold to either the one or the other, as he should find expedient. 

Dexter maintained that the common law, as to crimes, is in force in theUnited States. 

Chipman says, that the principles of common right are common law. 

March the 11th. Conversing with Mrs. Adams on the subject of the writersin the newspapers, I took occasion to mention that I never in my lifehad, directly or indirectly, written one sentence for a newspaper; whichis an absolute truth. She said that Mr. Adams, she believed, had prettywell ceased to meddle in the newspapers, since he closed the pieces onDavila. This is the first direct avowal of that work to be his, thoughlong and universally understood to be so. 

March the 14th. Freneau, in Charleston, had the printing of the lawsin his paper. He printed a pamphlet of Pinckney's letters on Robbins'scase. Pickering has given the printing of the laws to the tory paper ofthat place, though not of half the circulation. The printing amounted toabout one hundred dollars a year. 

March the 24th. Mr. Perez Morton of Massachusetts tells me thatThatcher, on his return from the war Congress, declared to him he hadbeen for a declaration of war against France, and many others also; butthat on counting noses they found they could not carry it, and thereforedid not attempt it. 

March the 27th. Judge Breckenridge gives me the following information. He and Mr. Ross were originally very intimate; indeed, he says, he foundhim keeping a little Latin school, and advised and aided him in thestudy of the law, and brought him forward. After Ross became a Senator, and particularly at the time of the western insurrection, they stillwere in concert. After the British treaty, Ross, on his return, informedhim there was a party in the United States who wanted to overturn thegovernment, who were in league with France; that France, by a secretarticle of treaty with Spain, was to have Louisiana; and that GreatBritain was likely to be our best friend and dependence. 

On this information, he, Breckenridge, was induced to become an advocatefor the British treaty. During this intimacy with Ross, he says, thatGeneral Collot, in his journey to the western country, called onhim, and he frequently led Breckenridge into conversations ontheir grievances under the government, and particularly the westernexpedition; that he spoke to him of the advantages that country wouldhave in joining France when she should hold Louisiana; showed him a maphe had drawn of that part of the country; pointed out the passes in themountain, and the facility with which they might hold them againstthe United States, and with which France could support them from NewOrleans. He says, that in these conversations, Collot let himself outwithout common prudence. He says, Michaux (to whom I, at the request ofGenet, had given a letter of introduction to the Governor of Kentucky asa botanist, which was his real profession, ) called on him; that Michauxhad a commissary's commission for the expedition, which Genet hadplanned from that quarter against the Spaniards; that ----------, the late Spanish commandant of St. Genevieve, with one Powers, anEnglishman, called on him. That from all these circumstances, togetherwith Ross's stories, he did believe that there was a conspiracy todeliver our country, or some part of it at least, to the French; that hemade notes of what passed between himself and Collot and the others, andlent them to Mr. Ross, who gave them to the President, by whom they weredeposited in the office of the Board of War; that when he complainedto Ross of this breach of confidence, he endeavored to get off bycompliments on the utility and importance of his notes. They now cooledtowards each other; and his opposition to Ross's election as Governorhas separated them in truth, though not entirely to appearance. 

Doctor Rush tells me, that within a few days he has heard a memberof Congress lament our separation from Great Britain, and express hissincere wishes that we were again dependent on her. 

December the 25th, 1800. Colonel Hitchburn tells me what Colonel Monroehad before told me of, as coming from Hitchburn. He was giving me thecharacters of persons in Massachusetts. Speaking of Lowell, he said hewas, in the beginning of the Revolution, a timid whig, but as soon as hefound we were likely to prevail, he became a great office-hunter. And inthe very breath of speaking of Lowell, he stopped: says he, I will giveyou a piece of information which I do not venture to speak of to others. There was a Mr. Hale in Massachusetts, a reputable, worthy man, whobecoming a little embarrassed in his affairs, I aided him, whichmade him very friendly to me. He went to Canada on some business. TheGovernor there took great notice of him. On his return, he took occasionto mention to me that he was authorized by the Governor of Canadato give from three to five thousand guineas each to himself and someothers, to induce them not to do any thing to the injury of theircountry, but to befriend a good connection between England and it. Hitchburn said he would think of it, and asked Hale to come and dinewith him to-morrow. After dinner he drew Hale fully out. He told him hehad his doubts, but particularly, that he should not like to be alone insuch a business. On that, Hale named to him four others who were tobe engaged, two of whom, said Hitchburn, are now dead, and two living. Hitchburn, when he had got all he wanted out of Hale, declined in afriendly way. But he observed those, four men, from that moment, toespouse the interests of England in every point and on every occasion. Though he did not name the men to me, yet as the speaking of Lowell waswhat brought into his Read to tell me this anecdote, I concluded he wasone. From other circumstances respecting Stephen Higginson, of whom hespoke, I conjectured him to be the other living one. 

December the 26th. In another conversation, I mentioned to ColonelHitchburn, that though he had not named names, I had strongly suspectedHigginson to be one of Hale's men. He smiled and said, if I had stronglysuspected any man wrongfully from his information, he would undeceiveme: that there were no persons he thought more strongly to be suspectedhimself, than Higginson and Lowell. I considered this as saying theywere the men. Higginson is employed in an important business about ournavy. 

February the 12th, 1801. Edward Livingston tells me, that Bayard appliedto-day or last night to General Samuel Smith, and represented to himthe expediency of his coming over to the States who vote for Burr, thatthere was nothing in the way of appointment which he might not command, and particularly mentioned the Secretaryship of the Navy. Smith askedhim if he was authorized to make the offer. He said he was authorized. Smith told this to Livingston, and to W. C. Nicholas, who confirms itto me. Bayard in like manner tempted Livingston, not by offeringany particular office, but by representing to him his (Livingston's)intimacy and connection with Burr; that from him he had every thing toexpect, if he would come over to him. To Doctor Linn of New Jersey, theyhave offered the government of New Jersey. See a paragraph in Martin'sBaltimore paper of February the 10th, signed, 'a looker on, ' staling anintimacy of views between Harper and Burr. 

February the 14th. General Armstrong tells me, that Gouverneur Morris, in conversation with him to-day on the scene which is passing, expressedhimself thus. 'How comes it, ' says he, 'that Burr, who is four hundredmiles off (at Albany), has agents here at work with great activity, while Mr. Jefferson, who is on the spot, does nothing?' This explainsthe ambiguous conduct of himself and his nephew, Lewis Morris, and thatthey were holding themselves free for a price; i. E. Some office, eitherto the uncle or nephew. 

February the 16th. See in the Wilmington Mirror of February the 14th, Mr. Bayard's elaborate argument to prove that the common law, asmodified by the laws of the respective States at the epoch of theratification of the constitution, attached to the courts of the UnitedStates. 

June the 23rd, 1801. Andrew Ellicot tells me, that in a conversationlast summer with Major William Jackson of Philadelphia, on the subjectof our intercourse with Spain, Jackson said we had managed our affairsbadly; that he himself was the author of the papers against the Spanishminister signed Americanus; that his object was irritation; that he wasanxious, if it could have been brought, about, to have plunged us into awar with Spain, that the people might have been occupied with that, andnot with the conduct of the administration, and other things they had nobusiness to meddle with. 

December the 13th, 1803. The Reverend Mr. Coffin of New England, whois now here soliciting donations for a college in Greene county, inTennessee, tells me that when he first determined to engage in thisenterprise, he wrote a paper recommendatory of the enterprise, whichhe meant to get signed by clergymen, and a similar one for persons ina civil character, at the head of which he wished Mr. Adams to put hisname, he being then President, and the application going only for hisname, and not for a donation. Mr. Adams, after reading the paper andconsidering, said, 'he saw no possibility of continuing the union ofthe States; that their dissolution must necessarily take place; that hetherefore saw no propriety in recommending to New England men to promotea literary institution in the south; that it was in fact giving strengthto those who were to be their enemies, and therefore, he would havenothing to do with it. '

December the 31st. After dinner to-day, the pamphlet on the conduct ofColonel Burr being the subject of conversation, Matthew Lyon noticedthe insinuations against the republicans at Washington, pending thePresidential election, and expressed his wish that every thing wasspoken out which was known; that it would then appear on which sidethere was a bidding for votes, and he declared that John Brown of RhodeIsland, urging him to vote for Colonel Burr, used these words. 'What isit you want, Colonel Lyon? Is it office, is it money? Only say what youwant, and you shall have it. '

January the 2nd, 1804. Colonel Hitchburn, of Massachusetts, remindingme of a letter he had written me from Philadelphia, pending thePresidential election, says he did not therein give the details. That hewas in company at Philadelphia with Colonel Burr and ------ that in thecourse of the conversation on the election, Colonel Burr said, 'We musthave a President, and a constitutional one, in some way. ' 'How is it tobe done, ' says Hitchburn; 'Mr. Jefferson's friends will not quit him, and his enemies are not strong enough to carry another. ' 'Why, ' saysBurr, 'our friends must join the federalists, and give the President. ''The next morning at breakfast, Colonel Burr repeated nearly the same, saying, 'We cannot be without a President, our friends must join thefederal vote. ' 'But, ' says Hitchburn, 'we shall then be without aVice-President; who is to be our Vice-President?' Colonel Burr answered, 'Mr. Jefferson. '

January the 26th. Colonel Burr, the Vice-President, calls on me in theevening, having previously asked an opportunity of conversing with me. He began by recapitulating summarily, that he had come to New York astranger, some years ago; that he found the country in possession of tworich families (the Livingstons and Clintons); that his pursuits were notpolitical, and he meddled not. When the crisis, however, of 1800 cameon, they found their influence worn out, and solicited his aid with thepeople. He lent it without any views of promotion. That his being namedas a candidate for Vice-President was unexpected by him. He acceded toit with a view to promote my fame and advancement, and from a desire tobe with me, whose company and conversation had always been fascinatingto him. That, since, those great families had become hostile to him, and had excited the calumnies which I had seen published. That in thisHamilton had joined, and had even written some of the pieces againsthim. That his attachment to me had been sincere, and was stillunchanged, although many little stories had been carried to him, andhe supposed to me also, which he despised; but that attachments must bereciprocal, or cease to exist, and therefore he asked if any changehad taken place in mine towards him; that he had chosen to have thisconversation with myself directly, and not through any intermediateagent. He reminded me of a letter written to him about the time ofcounting the votes (say February, 1801), mentioning that his electionhad left a chasm in my arrangements; that I had lost him from my listin the administration, &c. He observed, he believed it would be forthe interest of the republican cause for him to retire; that adisadvantageous schism would otherwise take place; but that were he toretire, it would be said he shrunk from the public sentence, which henever would do; that his enemies were using my name to destroy him, and something was necessary from me to prevent and deprive them of thatweapon, some mark of favor from me which would declare to the world thathe retired with my confidence. 

I answered by recapitulating to him what had been my conduct previousto the election of 1800. That I had never interfered directly orindirectly, with my friends or any others, to influence the electioneither for him or myself; that I considered it as my duty to be merelypassive, except that in Virginia I had taken some measures to procurefor him the unanimous vote of that State, because I thought any failurethere might be imputed to me. That in the election now coming on, I wasobserving the same conduct, held no councils with any body respectingit, nor suffered any one to speak to me on the subject, believing it myduty to leave myself to the free discussion of the public; that I donot at this moment know, nor have ever heard, who were to be proposedas candidates for the public choice, except so far as could be gatheredfrom the newspapers. That as to the attack excited against him in thenewspapers, I had noticed it but as the passing wind; that I had seencomplaints that Cheetham, employed in publishing the laws, should bepermitted to eat the public bread and abuse its second officer: that asto this, the publishers of the laws were appointed by the Secretary ofState, without any reference to me; that to make the notice general, itwas often given to one republican and one federal printer of the sameplace; that these federal printers did not in the least intermit theirabuse of me, though receiving emoluments from the government, and thatI have never thought it proper to interfere for myself, and consequentlynot in the case of the Vice-President. That as to the letter he referredto, I remembered it, and believed he had only mistaken the date at whichit was written; that I thought it must have been on the first notice ofthe event of the election of South Carolina; and that I had taken thatoccasion to mention to him, that I had intended to have proposed tohim one of the great offices, if he had not been elected; but that hiselection, in giving him a higher station, had deprived me of his aid inthe administration. The letter alluded to was, in fact, mine to him ofDecember the 15th, 1800. I now went on to explain to him verbally, what I meant by saying I had lost him from my list. That in GeneralWashington's time, it had been signified to him that Mr. Adams, theVice-President, would be glad of a foreign embassy; that GeneralWashington mentioned it to me, expressed his doubts whether Mr. Adamswas a fit character for such an office, and his still greater doubts, indeed, his conviction, that it would not be justifiable to send awaythe person who, in case of his death, was provided by the constitutionto take his place: that it would moreover appear indecent for him to bedisposing of the public trusts, in apparently buying off a competitorfor the public favor. I concurred with him in the opinion, and, if Irecollect rightly, Hamilton, Knox, and Randolph were consulted, and gavethe same opinions. That when Mr. Adams came to the administration, inhis first interview with me, he mentioned the necessity of a mission toFrance, and how desirable it would have been to him if he could have gotme to undertake it; but that he conceived it would be wrong in him tosend me away, and assigned the same reasons General Washington had done;and therefore, he should appoint Mr. Madison, &c. That I had myselfcontemplated his (Colonel Burr's) appointment to one of the greatoffices, in case he was not elected Vice-President; but that as soonas that election was known, I saw it could not be done, for the goodreasons which had led General Washington and Mr. Adams to the sameconclusion; and therefore, in my first letter to Colonel Burr, after theissue was known, I had mentioned to him that a chasm in my arrangementshad been produced by this event. I was thus particular in rectifying thedate of this letter, because it gave me an opportunity of explaining thegrounds on which it was written, which were, indirectly, an answer tohis present hints. He left the matter with me for consideration, and theconversation was turned to indifferent subjects. I should here notice, that Colonel Burr must have thought I could swallow strong things inmy own favor, when he founded his acquiescence to the nomination asVice-President, to his desire of promoting my honor, the being with me, whose company and conversation had always been fascinating with him, &c. I had never seen Colonel Burr till he came as a member of Senate. Hisconduct very soon inspired me with distrust. I habitually cautionedMr. Madison against trusting him too much. I saw afterwards, that underGeneral Washington's and Mr. Adams's administrations, whenever a greatmilitary appointment or a diplomatic one was to be made, he came post toPhiladelphia to show himself, and in fact that he was always at market, if they had wanted him. He was indeed told by Dayton in 1800, hemight be Secretary at War; but this bid was too late! His election asVice-President was then foreseen. With these impressions of ColonelBurr, there never had been an intimacy between us, and but littleassociation. When I destined him for a high appointment, it was out ofrespect for the favor he had obtained with the republican party, by hisextraordinary exertions and success in the New York election in 1800. 

April the 15th, 1806. About a month ago, Colonel Burr called on me, andentered into a conversation, in which he mentioned, that a little beforemy coming into office, I had written to him a letter intimating that Ihad destined him for a high employ, had he not been placed by the peoplein a different one; that he had signified his willingness to resign asVice-President, to give aid to the administration in any other place;that he had never asked an office, however; he asked aid of nobody, butcould walk on his own legs and take care of himself; that I had alwaysused him with politeness, but nothing more; that he aided in bringing onthe present order of things; that he had supported the administration;and that he could do me much harm: he wished, however, to beon different ground: he was now disengaged from all particularbusiness--willing to engage in something--should be in town some days, if I should have any thing to propose to him. I observed to him, thatI had always been sensible that he possessed talents which might beemployed greatly to the advantage of the public, and that, as to myself, I had a confidence that if he were employed, he would use his talentsfor the public good: but that he must be sensible the public hadwithdrawn their confidence from him, and that in a government like oursit was necessary to embrace in its administration as great a mass ofpublic confidence as possible, by employing those who had a characterwith the public, of their own, and not merely a secondary one throughthe executive. He observed, that if we believed a few newspapers, itmight be supposed he had lost the public confidence, but that I knew howeasy it was to engage newspapers in any thing. I observed, that Idid not refer to that kind of evidence of his having lost the publicconfidence, but to the late Presidential election, when, though inpossession of the office of Vice-President, there was not a single voiceheard for his retaining it. That as to any harm he could do me, I knewno cause why he should desire it, but, at the same time, I feared noinjury which any man could do me: that I never had done a single act, or been concerned in any transaction, which I feared to have fully laidopen, or which could do me any hurt, if truly stated: that I had neverdone a single thing with a view to my personal interest, or that of anyfriend, or with any other view than that of the greatest public good:that, therefore, no threat or fear on that head would ever be a motiveof action with me. He has continued in town to this time; dined with methis day week, and called on me to take leave two or three days ago. 

I did not commit these things to writing at the time, but I do it now, because in a suit between him and Cheetham, he has had a deposition ofMr. Bayard taken, which seems to have no relation to the suit, norto any other object than to calumniate me. Bayard pretends to haveaddressed to me, during the pending of the Presidential election inFebruary, 1801, through General Samuel Smith, certain conditions onwhich my election might be obtained, and that General Smith, afterconversing with me, gave answers from me. This is absolutely false. Noproposition of any kind was ever made to me on that occasion by GeneralSmith, nor any answer authorized by me. And this fact General Smithaffirms at this moment. 

For some matters connected with this, see my notes of February the 12thand 14th, 1801, made at the moment. But the following transactionstook place about the same time, that is to say, while the Presidentialelection was in suspense in Congress, which, though I did not enter atthe time, they made such an impression on my mind, that they are nowas fresh, as to their principal circumstances, as if they had happenedyesterday. Coming out of the Senate chamber one day, I found GouverneurMorris on the steps. He stopped me, and began a conversation on thestrange and portentous state of things then existing, and went on toobserve, that the reasons why the minority of States was so opposed tomy being elected, were, that they apprehended that, 1. I would turn allfederalists out of office; 2. Put down the navy; 3. Wipe off the publicdebt. That I need only to declare, or authorize my friends to declare, that I would not take these steps, and instantly the event of theelection would be fixed. I told him, that I should leave the worldto judge of the course I meant to pursue, by that which I had pursuedhitherto, believing it to be my duty to be passive and silent during thepresent scene; that I should certainly make no terms; should never gointo the office of President by capitulation, nor with my hands tied byany conditions which should hinder me from pursuing the measures whichI should deem for the public good. It was understood that GouverneurMorris had entirely the direction of the vote of Lewis Morris ofVermont, who, by coming over to Matthew Lyon, would have added anothervote, and decided the election. About the same time, I called on Mr. Adams. We conversed on the state of things. I observed to him, thata very dangerous experiment was then in contemplation, to defeat thePresidential election by an act of Congress declaring the right ofthe Senate to name a President of the Senate, to devolve on him thegovernment during any interregnum: that such a measure would probablyproduce resistance by force, and incalculable consequences, which itwould be in his power to prevent by negativing such an act. He seemed tothink such an act justifiable, and observed, it was in my power to fixthe election by a word in an instant, by declaring I would not turn outthe federal officers, nor put down the navy, nor spunge the nationaldebt. Finding his mind made up as to the usurpation of the government bythe President of the Senate, I urged it no further, observed, theworld must judge as to myself of the future by the past, and turned theconversation to something else. About the same time, Dwight Foster ofMassachusetts called on me in my room one night, and went into a verylong conversation on the state of affairs, the drift of which was to letme understand, that the fears above mentioned were the only obstacle tomy election, to all of which I avoided giving any answer the one wayor the other. From this moment he became most bitterly and personallyopposed to me, and so has ever continued. I do not recollect that Iever had any particular conversation with General Samuel Smith on thissubject. Very possibly I had, however, as the general subject andall its parts were the constant themes of conversation in the privatetête-à-têtes with our friends. But certain I am, that neither he norany other republican ever uttered the most distant hint to me aboutsubmitting to any conditions, or giving any assurances to any body;and still more certainly, was neither he nor any other person everauthorized by me to say what I would or would not do. 

*****

*****

[The following official opinion, though inadvertently omitted in itsproper place, is deemed of sufficient importance to be inserted here. ]

The bill for establishing a National Bank, undertakes, among otherthings, 1. To form the subscribers into a corporation. 

2. To enable them, in their corporate capacities, to receive grants ofland; and so far, is against the laws of _Mortmain_. *

 * Though the constitution controls the laws of Mortmain, so far as to permit Congress itself to hold lands for certain purposes, yet not so far as to permit them to communicate a similar right to other corporate bodies. 

3. To make alien subscribers capable of holding lands; and so far, isagainst the laws of Alienage. 

4. To transmit these lands, on the death of a proprietor, to a certainline of successors; and so far, changes the course of Descents. 

5. To put the lands out of the reach of forfeiture or escheat; and sofar, is against the laws of _Forfeiture_ and _Escheat_. 

6. To transmit personal chattels to successors in a certain line; and sofar, is against the laws of Distribution. 

7. To give them the sole and exclusive right of banking under thenational authority; and so far, is against the laws of Monopoly. 

8. To communicate to them a power to make laws paramount to the laws ofthe States; for so they must be construed, to protect the institutionfrom the control of the State legislatures; and so, probably, they willbe construed. 

I consider the foundation of the constitution as laid on this ground, that all powers not delegated to the United States by the constitutionnor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or tothe people. ' (Twelfth amendment. ) To take a single step beyond theboundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is totake possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible ofany definition. 

The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States by theconstitution. 

I. They are not among the powers specially, enumerated. For these are, 1. A power to _lay taxes_ for the purpose of paying the debts of theUnited States. But no debt is paid by this bill, nor any tax laid. Wereit a bill to raise money, its origination in the Senate would condemn itby the constitution. 

2. To 'borrow money. ' But this bill neither borrows money, nor insuresthe borrowing it. The proprietors of the bank will be just as freeas any other money-holders, to lend or not to lend their money to thepublic. The operation proposed in the bill, first to lend them twomillions, and then borrow them back again cannot change the nature ofthe latter act, which will still be a payment and not a loan, call it bywhat name you please. 

3. 'To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the States, andwith the Indian tribes. ' To erect a bank, and to regulate commerce, arevery different acts. He who erects a bank creates a subject of commercein its bills: so does he who makes a bushel of wheat, or digs a dollarout of the mines. Yet neither of these persons regulates commercethereby. To make a thing which may be bought and sold, is not toprescribe regulations for buying and selling. Besides, if this werean exercise of the power of regulating commerce, it would be void, asextending as much to the internal commerce of every State, as to itsexternal. For the power given to Congress by the constitution, does notextend to the internal regulation, of the commerce of a State (thatis to say, of the commerce between citizen and citizen), which remainsexclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerceonly, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreignnations, or with the Indian tribes. Accordingly, the bill does notpropose the measure as a 'regulation of trade, ' but as 'productive ofconsiderable advantage to trade. '

Still less are these powers covered by any other of the specialenumerations. 

II. Nor are they within either of the general phrases, which are the twofollowing. 

1. 'To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the UnitedStates'; that is to say, 'to lay taxes for the purpose of providingfor the general welfare. ' For the laying of taxes is the power, andthe general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. Congress are not to lay taxes, _ad libitum_, for any purpose theyplease: but only to pay the debts, or provide for the welfare of theUnion. In like manner, they are not to do any thing they please, toprovide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of thefirst, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act theyplease, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all thepreceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that ofinstituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the goodof the United States; and as they would be the sole judges of the goodor evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they pleased. Itis an established rule of construction, where a phrase will bear eitherof two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to theother parts of the instrument, and not that which will render all theothers useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be giventhem. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumeratedpowers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not becarried into effect. It is known that the very power now proposed asa means, was rejected as an end by the convention which formed theconstitution. A proposition was made to them, to authorize Congress toopen parials, and an amendatory one, to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected; and one of the reasons of rejection urgedin debate was, that they then would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudicesand jealousies on that subject, adverse to the reception of theconstitution. 

2. The second general phrase is, 'to make all laws necessary and properfor carrying into execution the enumerated powers. ' But they can allbe carried into execution without a bank. A bank, therefore, is notnecessary, and consequently, not authorized by this phrase. 

It has been much urged, that a bank will give great facility orconvenience in the collection of taxes. Suppose this were true: yet theconstitution allows only the means which are 'necessary' not those whichare merely 'convenient' for effecting the enumerated powers. If sucha latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase, as to give anynon-enumerated power, it will go to every one; for there is no one whichingenuity may not torture into a convenience, in some way or other, tosome one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow upall the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one phrase, as beforeobserved. Therefore it was, that the constitution restrained them to thenecessary means, that is to say, to those means without which the grantof the power would be nugatory. 

But let us examine this 'convenience, ' and see what it is. The reporton this subject, page 2, states the only general convenience to be, thepreventing the transportation and re-transportation of money between theStates and the treasury. (For I pass over the increase of circulatingmedium ascribed to it as a merit, and which, according to my ideas ofpaper money, is clearly a demerit. ) Every State will have to pay a sumof tax-money into the treasury; and the treasury will have to pay inevery State a part of the interest on the public debt, and salariesto the officers of government resident in that State. In most of theStates, there will be still a surplus of tax-money, to come up to theseat of government, for the officers residing there. The payments ofinterest and salary in each State, may be made by treasury orders on thestate collector. This will take up the greater part of the money he hascollected in his State and consequently prevent the great mass of itfrom being drawn out of the state. If there be a balance of commerce infavor of that State, against the one in which the government resides, the surplus of taxes will be remitted by the bills of exchange drawn forthat commercial balance. And so it must be if there were a bank. But ifthere be no balance of commerce, either direct or circuitous, all thebanks in the world could not bring us the surplus of taxes but in theform of money. Treasury orders, then, and bills of exchange, may preventthe displacement of the main mass of the money collected, without theaid of any bank: and where these fail, it cannot be prevented even withthat aid. 

Perhaps, indeed, bank bills may be a more convenient vehicle thantreasury orders. But a little difference in the degree of convenience, cannot constitute the necessity which the constitution makes the groundfor assuming any non-enumerated power. 

Besides; the existing banks will, without doubt, enter into arrangementsfor lending their agency, and the more favorable, as there will be acompetition among them for it. Whereas, this bill delivers us up boundto the national bank, who are free to refuse all arrangements but ontheir own terms, and the public not free, on such refusal to employ anyother bank. That of Philadelphia, I believe, now does this business bytheir post notes, which, by an arrangement with the treasury, are paidby any State collector to whom they are presented. This expedient alone, suffices to prevent the existence of that necessity which may justifythe assumption of a non-enumerated power, as a means for carrying intoeffect an enumerated one. The thing may be done, and has been done, andwell done, without this assumption; therefore, it does not stand on thatdegree of necessity which can honestly justify it. 

It may be said, that a bank, whose bills would have a currency all overthe States, would be more convenient than one whose currency is limitedto a single State. So it would be still more convenient, that thereshould be a bank whose bills should have a currency all over the world. But it does not follow from this superior conveniency, that there existsany where a power to establish such a bank, or that the world may notgo on very well without it. Can it be thought that the constitutionintended, that for a shade or two of convenience, more or less, Congressshould be authorized to break down the most ancient and fundamentallaws of the several States, such as those against mortmain, the laws ofalienage, the rules of descent, the acts of distribution, the lawsof escheat and forfeiture, and the laws of monopoly. Nothing but anecessity invincible by any other means, can justify such a prostrationof laws, which constitute the pillars of our whole system ofjurisprudence. Will Congress be too strait-laced to carry theconstitution into honest effect, unless they may pass over thefoundation laws of the State governments, for the slightest convenienceto theirs?

The negative of the President is the shield provided by theconstitution, to protect against the invasions of the legislature, 1. The rights of the Executive; 2. Of the Judiciary; 3. Of the Statesand State legislatures. The present is the case of a right remainingexclusively with the States, and is, consequently, one of those intendedby the constitution to be placed under his protection. 

It must be added, however, that unless the President's mind, on a viewof every thing which is urged for and against this bill, is tolerablyclear that it is unauthorized by the constitution, if the pro and thecon hang so even as to balance his judgment, a just respect for thewisdom of the legislature would naturally decide the balance in favor oftheir opinion. It is chiefly for cases where they are clearly misled byerror, ambition, or interest, that the constitution has placed a checkin the negative of the President. 

Th: Jefferson. 

February 15, 1791.