1

As early as January of 1803, Jefferson had written to Gallatin:

. . . You are right, in my opinion, as to Mr. L’s proposition; there is no constitutional difficulty as to the acquisition of territory, and whether, when acquired, it may be taken into the Union by the Constitution as it now stands, will become a question of expediency. I think it will be safer not to permit the enlargement of the Union but by amendment of the Constitution.

In pursuance of this view, upon receiving news of the cession, he drew up the first of the amendments in above printed papers, and sent it to the Secretary of the Navy. In reply, Smith wrote him:

Smith
Smith
July 9, 03
Jefferson
Jefferson
Sir,

—I am greatly pleased with the ideas suggested in the proposed amendment of the Constitution and I sincerely hope that they will be adopted by the Legislature of the Union. But I am rather inclined to think that they ought not all to be ingrafted upon the Constitution. Your great object is to prevent emigrations excepting to a certain portion of the ceded territory. This could be effectually accomplished by a Constitutional prohibition that Congress should not erect or establish in that portion of the ceded territory situated North of Lat. 32 degrees any new State or territorial government and that they should not grant to any people excepting Indians any right or title relative to any part of the said portion of the said territory. All other powers of making exchanges, working mines etc. would then remain in Congress to be exercised at discretion; and in the exercise of this discretion, subject as it would be to the three aforementioned restrictions I do not perceive that any thing could be done which would counteract your present intentions.

The rights of occupancy in the soil ought to be secured to the Indians and Government ought, in my opinion, to endeavour to obtain for them the exclusive occupation of the Northern portion of Louisiana excepting such posts as may be necessary to our trade and intercourse with them. But ought not this to be a subject of legislative provision? If the Indian rights of occupancy be a part of the Constitution might not the Government be hereafter thereby much entangled? Under such a Constitutional guarantee the Indians might harass our military posts or our settlements in the Southern portion or elsewhere in the most wanton manner and we could not disturb their rights of occupancy without a formal alteration of the Constitution.

Under the idea that so many such undefined restrictions as you have proposed to be engrafted upon the Constitution might in process of time embarress the government and might probably not be acceptable to Congress, I have respectfully submitted to your consideration the enclosed sketch.

The paper enclosed by Smith is as follows:

Amendment proposed to the Constitution to be added to S. 3. Art. 4.

Louisiana being in virtue of the Treaty c. incorporated with the United States and being thereby a part of the Territory thereof Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the same as fully and effectually as if the same had been at the time of the establishment of the Constitution a part of the Territory of the U. States: provided nevertheless that Congress shall not have power to erect or establish in that portion of Louisiana which is situated North of the Latitude of /32/ degrees any new State or territorial government nor to grant to any citizen or citizens or other individual or individuals excepting Indians any right or title whatever to any part of the said portion of Louisiana until a new Amendment of the Constitution shall give that authority.

Jefferson further wrote to John C. Breckenridge:

Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
Aug 12, 03
Monticello
John C. Breckenridge
Breckenridge, John C.
Dear Sir,

—The enclosed letter, tho’ directed to you, was intended to me also, and was left open with a request, that when perused, I would forward it to you. It gives me occasion to write a word to you on the subject of Louisiana, which being a new one, an interchange of sentiments may produce correct ideas before we are to act on them.

Our information as to the country is very incompleat; we have taken measures to obtain it in full as to the settled part, which I hope to receive in time for Congress. The boundaries, which I deem not admitting question, are the high lands on the western side of the Missisipi enclosing all it’s waters, the Missouri of course, and terminating in the line drawn from the northwestern point of the Lake of the Woods to the nearest source of the Missipi, as lately settled between Gr Britain and the U S. We have some claims, to extend on the sea coast Westwardly to the Rio Norte or Bravo, and better, to go Eastwardly to the Rio Perdido, between Mobile Pensacola, the antient boundary of Louisiana. These claims will be a subject of negociation with Spain, and if, as soon as she is at war, we push them strongly with one hand, holding out a price in the other, we shall certainly obtain the Floridas, and all in good time. In the meanwhile, without waiting for permission, we shall enter into the exercise of the natural right we have always insisted on with Spain, to wit, that of a nation holding the upper part of streams, having a right of innocent passage thro’ them to the ocean. We shall prepare her to see us practise on this, she will not oppose it by force.

Objections are raising to the Eastward against the vast extent of our boundaries, and propositions are made to exchange Louisiana, or a part of it, for the Floridas. But, as I have said, we shall get the Floridas without, and I would not give one inch of the waters of the Mississippi to any nation, because I see in a light very important to our peace the exclusive right to it’s navigation, the admission of no nation into it, but as into the Potomak or Delaware, with our consent under our police. These federalists see in this acquisition the formation of a new confederacy, embracing all the waters of the Missipi, on both sides of it, and a separation of it’s Eastern waters from us. These combinations depend on so many circumstances which we cannot foresee, that I place little reliance on them. We have seldom seen neighborhood produce affection among nations. The reverse is almost the universal truth. Besides, if it should become the great interest of those nations to separate from this, if their happiness should depend on it so strongly as to induce them to go through that convulsion, why should the Atlantic States dread it? But especially why should we, their present inhabitants, take side in such a question? When I view the Atlantic States, procuring for those on the Eastern waters of the Missipi friendly instead of hostile neighbors on it’s Western waters, I do not view it as an Englishman would the procuring future blessings for the French nation, with whom he has no relations of blood or affection. The future inhabitants of the Atlantic Missipi States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better. The inhabited part of Louisiana, from Point Coupée to the sea, will of course be immediately a territorial government, and soon a State. But above that, the best use we can make of the country for some time, will be to give establishments in it to the Indians on the East side of the Missipi, in exchange for their present country, and open land offices in the last, thus make this acquisition the means of filling up the Eastern side, instead of drawing off it’s population. When we shall be full on this side, we may lay off a range of States on the Western bank from the head to the mouth, so, range after range, advancing compactly as we multiply.

This treaty must of course be laid before both Houses, because both have important functions to exercise respecting it. They, I presume, will see their duty to their country in ratifying paying for it, so as to secure a good which would otherwise probably be never again in their power. But I suppose they must then appeal to the nation for an additional article to the Constitution, approving confirming an act which the nation had not previously authorized. The constitution has made no provision for our holding foreign territory, still less for incorporating foreign nations into our Union. The Executive in seizing the fugitive occurrence which so much advances the good of their country, have done an act beyond the Constitution. The Legislature in casting behind them metaphysical subtleties, and risking themselves like faithful servants, must ratify pay for it, and throw themselves on their country for doing for them unauthorized what we know they would have done for themselves had they been in a situation to do it. It is the case of a guardian, investing the money of his ward in purchasing an important adjacent territory; saying to him when of age, I did this for your good; I pretend to no right to bind you: you may disavow me, and I must get out of the scrape as I can: I thought it my duty to risk myself for you. But we shall not be disavowed by the nation, and their act of indemnity will confirm not weaken the Constitution, by more strongly marking out its lines.

We have nothing later from Europe than the public papers give. I hope yourself and all the Western members will make a sacred point of being at the first day of the meeting of Congress; for vestra res agitur.

Accept my affectionate salutations assurances of esteem respect.

After writing thus, Jefferson thought it wise to change his views, and under date of Aug. 18th, he again wrote to Breckenridge:

Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
Breckenridge
Breckenridge
Dear Sir,

—I wrote you on the 12th inst. on the subject of Louisiana, and the constitutional provision which might be necessary for it. A letter received yesterday shews that nothing must be said on that subject which may give a pretext for retracting; but that we should do sub-silentio what shall be found necessary. Be so good therefore as to consider that part of my letter as confidential. It strengthens the reasons for desiring the presence of every friend to the treaty on the first day of the session. Perhaps you can impress this necessity on the Senators of the western states by private letter. Accept my friendly salutations assurances of great respect esteem.

On the same day, he wrote to Thomas Paine:

Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
Thomas Paine
Paine, Thomas
Dear Sir,

—On the 10th inst. I wrote you on the subject of Louisiana, and mentioned the question of a supplement to the constitution on that account. A letter received yesterday renders it prudent to say nothing on that subject, but to do sub-silentio what shall be found necessary. That part of my letter therefore be so good as to consider as confidential. Accept my friendly salutations assurances of great esteem respect.

The reason for this change is given in a letter to the Secretary of State:

Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
Aug. 18, 1803
Monticello
Dear Sir,

—I enclose you two letters from Rob. R. Livingston. That of the 2d of June is just intelligible enough in the unciphered parts to create anxieties which perhaps the cipher may remove. I communicate them for your information, shall be glad to receive them deciphered. I infer that the less we say about constitutional difficulties respecting Louisiana the better, and that what is necessary for surmounting them must be done sub-silentio. . . .

Mr. King said to Mr. Gallatin that the idea of selling Louisiana was, 4 weeks before the treaty, assimilated at Paris with the sale of Dunkirk by Charles the 2d, and that Mr. Livingston had not at that time the least expectation of success. Accept my affectionate salutations and assurances of constant esteem.

To the same correspondent, he wrote on August 25th, saying:

I suppose Monroe will touch on the limits of Louisiana only incidentally, inasmuch as its extension to Perdido curtails Florida, renders it of less worth. I have used my spare moments to investigate, by the help of my books here, the subject of the limits of Louisiana. I am satisfied our right to the Perdido is substantial, can be opposed by a quibble on form only; and our right Westwardly to the Bay of St. Bernard, may be strongly maintained. I will use the first leisure to make a statement of the facts principles on which this depends. Further reflection on the amendmt to the Constitution necessary in the case of Louisiana, satisfies me it will be better to give general powers, with specified exceptions, somewhat in the way stated below.

The paper so enclosed is the second one above printed. A copy of this same paper was sent to the Attorney-General, with the following paper:

Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
Aug. 30, 1803
Monticello
Dear Sir,

—The enclosed letter came to hand by yesterday’s post. You will be sensible of the circumstances which make it improper that I should hazard a formal answer, as well as of the desire its friendly aspect naturally excites, that those concerned in it should understand that the spirit they express is friendly viewed. You can judge also from your knolege of the ground, whether it may be usefully encouraged. I take the liberty, therefore, of availing myself of your neighborhood to Boston, and of your friendship to me, to request you to say to the capt. and others verbally whatever you think would be proper, as expressive of my sentiments on the subject. With respect to the day on which they wish to fix their anniversary, they may be told, that disapproving myself of transferring the honors and veneration for the great birthday of our republic to any individual, or of dividing them with individuals, I have declined letting my own birthday be known, have engaged my family not to communicate it. This has been the uniform answer to every application of the kind.

On further consideration as to the amendment to our Constitution respecting Louisiana, I have thought it better, instead of enumerating the powers which Congress may exercise, to give them the same powers they have as to other portions of the Union generally, and to enumerate the special exceptions, in some such form as the following: . . .

I quote this for your consideration, observing that the less that is said about any constitutional difficulty, the better; and that it will be desirable for Congress to do what is necessary, in silence. I find but one opinion as to the necessity of shutting up the country for some time. We meet in Washington the 25th proximo to prepare for Congress. Accept my affectionate salutations great esteem respect.

In addition, Jefferson wrote to Wilson Cary Nicholas:

Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
Sep. 7, 1803
Monticello
Wilson Cary Nicholas
Nicholas, Wilson Cary
Dear Sir,

—Your favor of the 3d was delivered me at court; but we were much disappointed at not seeing you here, Mr. Madison the Gov. being here at the time. I enclose you a letter from Monroe on the subject of the late treaty. You will observe a hint in it, to do without delay what we 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 be obtained, that if we give the least opening, they will declare the treaty void. A warning amounting to that has been given to them, an unusual kind of letter written by their minister to our Secretary of State, direct. Whatever Congress shall think it necessary to do, should be done with as little debate as possible, particularly so far as respects the constitutional difficulty. I am aware of the force of the observations you make on the power given by the Constn to Congress, to admit new States into the Union, without restraining the subject to the territory then constituting the U S. But when I consider that the limits of the U S are precisely fixed by the treaty of 1783, that the Constitution expressly declares itself to be made for the U S, I cannot help believing the intention was to permit Congress to admit into the Union new States, which should be formed out of the territory for which, under whose authority alone, they were then acting. I do not believe it was meant that they might receive England, Ireland, Holland, c. into it, which would be the case on your construction. When an instrument admits two constructions, the one safe, the other dangerous, the one precise, the other indefinite, I prefer that which is safe precise. I had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation, where it is found necessary, than to assume it by a construction which would make our powers boundless. Our peculiar security is in possession of a written 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 of the treaty making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution. If it has bounds, they can be no others than the definitions of the powers which that instrument gives. It specifies delineates the operations permitted to the federal government, and gives all the powers necessary to carry these into execution. Whatever of these 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 Senate may enter into the treaty; whatever is to be done by a judicial sentence, the judges may pass the sentence. Nothing is more likely than that their enumeration of powers is defective. This is the ordinary case of all human works. Let us go on then perfecting it, by adding, by way of amendment to the Constitution, those powers which time trial show are still wanting. But it has been taken too much for granted, that by this rigorous construction the treaty power would be reduced to nothing. I had occasion once to examine its effect on the French treaty, made by the old Congress, found that out of thirty odd articles which that contained, there were one, two, or three only which could not now be stipulated under our present Constitution. I confess, then, I think it important, in the present case, to set an example against broad construction, by appealing for new power to the people. If, however, our friends shall think differently, certainly I shall acquiesce with satisfaction; confiding, that the good sense of our country will correct the evil of construction when it shall produce ill effects.

No apologies for writing or speaking to me freely are necessary. On the contrary, nothing my friends can do is so dear to me, proves to me their friendship so clearly, as the information they give me of their sentiments those of others on interesting points where I am to act, and where information warning is so essential to excite in me that due reflection which ought to precede action. I leave this about the 21st, and shall hope the District Court will give me an opportunity of seeing you.

Accept my affectionate salutations, assurances of cordial esteem respect.

1

The following is on a separate slip immediately following the above; but it is not in Jefferson’s handwriting:

Together with such tract or tracts elsewhere, within the Province not exceeding in the whole, one million acres, as particular circumstances may in the Opinion of Congress render it expedient to dispose of.

2

From the original in the possession of Dr. Thomas Addis Emmet of New York.

1

Queries.

1. What are the settlements of citizens on the east side of Pearl river? Stating their geographical position, extent numbers.

2. Are there good lands adjoining them to render them capable of enlargement?

3. Have they encroached on the Indians?

4. Are the settlements in a course of enlargement by persons setting down on lands without title?

5. The general character of the inhabitants from whence they are?

6. A special list by name of all such individuals worthy of appointment to such offices as may be necessary among them, and characters so particularized as that we may know for what each is fit.

7. A general account of the Spanish settlements in the adjacent country, stating all material circumstances relative to them, particularly their geographical position numbers. Those on the Chatahouchy, Excambier, Mobile, Pascagoula rivers especially.

8. Their military posts, the position strength of each, and especially on the Mobile.

1

The purpose of these queries is told by Jefferson in a letter to William Dunbar:

Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
July 17th, 1803
Washington
William Dunbar
Dunbar, William
Dear Sir,

—Before you receive this, you will have heard, through the channel of the public papers, of the cession of Louisiana by France to the United States. The terms as stated in the National Intelligencer, are accurate. That the treaty may be ratified in time, I have found it necessary to convene Congress on the 17th of October; and it is very important for the happiness of the country that they should possess all the information which can be obtained respecting it, that they make the best arrangement practicable for its good government. It is the most necessary, because, they will be obliged to ask from the People an amendment of the Constitution, authorizing their receiving the province into the Union, and providing for its government; and the limitations of power which shall be given by that amendment, will be unalterable but by the same authority. I have, therefore, sent some queries to Mr. Clark of New Orleans, to be answered by such person as he shall think best qualified, and to be returned to me before the meeting of Congress; and knowing that you have turned your attention to many of the subjects, I enclose you a copy of them, and ask the favor of you to give me what information you can, in answer to such of them as you shall select as lying within the scope of your information. I am encouraged to propose thus to trouble you, by a thorough persuasion of your readiness and desire to serve the public cause by whatever shall be in your power; and by the belief that you are one of those who will sincerely rejoice at our success in relieving you, by peaceable means, from a powerful and enterprising neighbor; and establishing, on a permanent basis, the tranquility, security, and prosperity, of that interesting country. I tender you my friendly salutations and assurances of great esteem and respect.

P. S. July 18—Since writing the preceding, your favor of June 10th has been received. The exchange of a peaceable for a warring neighbor at New Orleans, was, undoubtedly, ground of just and great disquietude on our part: and the necessity of acquiring the country could not be unperceived by any. The question which divided our Legislature (but not the nation) was, whether we should take it at once, and enter single handed into war with the most powerful nation on the earth, or place things on the best footing practicable for the present, and avail ourselves of the first war in Europe, which it was clear was at no great distance, to obtain the country as the price of our neutrality, or as a reprisal for wrongs which we were sure enough to receive. The war happened somewhat sooner than was expected: but our measures were previously taken, and the thing took the best turn for both parties. Those who were honest in their reasons for preferring immediate war, will, in their candor, rejoice that their opinion was not followed. They may, indeed, still believe it was the best opinion according to the probabilities. We, however believed otherwise, and they, I am sure, will be glad that we did. The letter of yesterday will show you my desire of receiving information from you, and I shall be always thankful for it. My wish is to have everything, compare all together, and to do what, on the whole, I conscientiously think for the best. I repeat my satisfaction and esteem.

A second letter to Dunbar, on this matter, was as follows:

Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
Sep. 21, 1803
Monticello
Dunbar
Dunbar
Dear Sir,

—Your favor in answer to my queries came to hand a few days ago, and I thank you for the matter it contains the promptness with which it has been furnished. Just on my departure from this place, where I habitually pass the sickly months of Aug. Sep. I have time only to ask information on a particular point. It has been affirmed by respectable authority, that Spain on receiving the East West Florida of the English, did not continue that distinction, but restored Louisiana to it’s antient boundary the Perdido, and that the country from the Perdido to the Iberville has been ever since considered as a part of Louisiana, governed by the governor of Louisiana residing at New Orleans: While the country from the Perdido Eastwardly to the Atlantic has been called as antiently, by the simple name of Florida, governed by the governor of Florida residing at St.Augustine. The terms of the treaty render this fact very interesting if true, inasmuch as it fills up the measure of reasoning which fixes the extent of the cession Eastwardly to the Perdido. I write the present to ask of you to ascertain this fact to give the information as quickly as possible, as it may yet be received in time to determine our proceedings. Accept my friendly salutations assurances of great esteem respect.

1

Endorsed “Answer written but not sent.”

On the subject of this letter, Jefferson wrote to Gallatin:

Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
July 25, 1803
Monticello
Gallatin
Gallatin
Dear Sir,

—We agreed that the address of the ward committees ought not to be formally answered. But on further reflection I think it would be better to write a private letter to one of the members, in order that he may understand the true grounds on which the subject rests, and may state them informally to his colleagues. I think these grounds so solid that they cannot fail to remove this cause of division among our friends, and perhaps to cure the incipient schism. Of the signers of the address, I know only Duane and Scott sufficiently to address such a letter to them; and of these I am much more acquainted with the first than the last, and think him on that ground more entitled to this mark of confidence. Some apprehensions may perhaps be entertained that if the schism goes on, he may be in a different section from us. If there be no danger in this, he is the one I should prefer. Give me your opinion on it, if you please, and consider and make any alterations in the letter you think best, and return it to me as soon as you can. I am strongly of opinion it will do good. Accept my affectionate salutations and assurances of respect.

Probably in connection with this intended explanation of his course in reference to office holding, Jefferson drew up the following table of removals and appointments.

lf0054-10_figure_002.jpg
1

A draft of this message was submitted to Madison, who on Oct. 1st returned the following notes to the president:

(0) for ‘before’ is suggested ‘without,’ the former seeming to imply that after the suspension, an assignt had been made.

(1) After or for ‘friendly’ insert ‘proper.’

Omit ‘without difficulty or delay.’ There was perhaps somewhat of both, and it may become expedient to say so to Spain.

(2) The enlightened mind of the first consul of France saw in its true point of view the importance of an arrangement on this subject which might contribute most towards perpetuating the peace and friendship, and promoting the interest of both nations; and the property and sovereignty of all Louisiana, as it had been ceded to France by Spain, was conveyed to the U. States by instruments bearing date on the 30th day of April last. These stipulations (instruments) will be immediately laid before the Senate, and if sanctioned by its concurrence will without delay be communicated to the House of Reps. for the exercise of its constitutional functions thereon.

Such a modification of the paragraph is meant to avoid the implication that the transfer made by France, was covered by the terms ‘territory adjacent to ours’ which describe our proposition. It will also avoid, what the theory of our constitution does not seem to have met, the influence of deliberations and anticipations of the H. of Reps. on a Treaty depending in the Senate. It is not conceived that the course here suggested can produce much delay, since the tenor of the treaty being sufficiently known, the mind of the house can be preparing itself for the requisite provisions. Delay would be more likely to arise from the novelty and doubtfulness of a communication in the first instance, of a treaty negotiated by the Executive, to both Houses for their respective deliberations.

(3) After ‘assure’ are proposed ‘in due season, and under prudent arrangements, important aids to our Treasury, as well as,’ an ample c.

Query: If the two or three succeeding Ps. be not more adapted to the separate and subsequent communication if adopted as above suggested.

(4) For the first sentence may be substituted ‘in the territory between the Mississippi and the Ohio, another valuable acquisition has been made by a treaty c.’ As it stands, it does not sufficiently distinguish the nature of the one acquisition from that of the other, and seems to imply that the acquisition from France was wholly on the other side of the Mississippi.

May it not be as well to omit the detail of the stipulated considerations, and particularly, that of the Roman Catholic Pastor. The jealousy of some may see in it a principle, not according with the exemption of Religion from civil power. In the Indian Treaty it will be less noticed than in a President’s message.

‘Tho’ not so indispensable since the acquisition of the other bank’ conveys an idea that an immediate settlement of the other bank is in view, and may thence strengthen objections in certain quarters to the treaty with France.

With a tacit allusion to profit, ‘is yet well’ may be struck out and ‘may be the more worthy’ inserted.

The last sentence in this P. may be omitted, if the reason applied to a former one be thought good.

(5) ‘Must also be expected’ better perhaps ‘are also to be apprehended’ for ‘both’ ‘all’ or ‘the’ belligerent c. Holland already makes more than two.

After ‘cover of our flag’ substitute ‘for vessels not entitled to, infecting thereby with suspicion the property of the real American and committing us to the risk of war to redress wrongs not our own.’ Instead of ‘to expect from every nation,’ which does not follow well the antecedent ‘endeavor’ may be inserted ‘to exact, to draw.’

This member of the sentence may indeed be dispensed with, being comprehended in the ensuing member, viz. ‘maintain the character of an independent one c.’

‘Maintain’ being repeated several times within a small compass, ‘pursue this course,’ may be preferable.

(6) For this conclusion, is offered for consideration the following ‘for the possibility of failure in these reasonable expectations, it will rest with the wisdom of Congress to consider how far and in what form, provision may be properly made, for suspensions of intercourse when it cannot be maintained on principles of justice and self-respect,’ or ‘and therewith prevented, the necessity of remedial provisions on the part of the U. States.’

(7) for ‘unconcerned in’—‘and from.’

On Oct. 3d, the President wrote to Gallatin:

Th. Jefferson asks the favor of Mr. Gallatin to examine with rigor the enclosed project of the message to Congress, and to note on a separate paper the alterations he thinks advantageous. As it is to go through the hands of the other gentlemen of the Cabinet, his immediate attention to it is desirable. He also asks the favor of Mr. Gallatin to meet the heads of Department here to-morrow at ten o’clock.

He further wrote him on Oct. 17th:

Will you be so good as to enable me this morning to fill up the blank in the following passage of the message.

An account of the receipts expenditures of the year ending the 30th of Sep. last, with the estimates for the ensuing year, will be laid before you by the Secy. of the Treasy so soon as the receipts of the last quarter shall be returned from the more distant states. It is already ascertained that the amount paid into the Treasury for that year will exceed that the revenue accrued during the same term, exceeds the sum counted on as sufficient for our current expenses, and to extinguish the public debt within the period heretofore proposed.

1

On the subject of Louisiana, Jefferson further wrote to Gallatin:

Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
Nov. 9, 1803
Gallatin
Gallatin

The memoranda you inclosed me from Mr. Clarke deserve great attention. Such articles of them as depend on the executive shall be arranged for the next post. The following articles belong to the legislature.

The administration of justice to be prompt. Perhaps the judges should be obliged to hold their courts weekly, at least for some time to come.

The ships of resident owners to be naturalized, and in general the laws of the U. S., respecting navigation, importation, exportation c., to be extended to the ports of the ceded territory.

The hospital to be provided for.

Slaves not to be imported, except from such of the U. S. as prohibit importation.

Without looking at the old territorial ordinance, I had imagined it best to found a government for the territory or territories of lower Louisiana on that basis. But on examining it, I find it will not do at all; that it would turn all their laws topsy turvy. Still I believe it best to appoint a governor three judges, with legislative powers; only providing that the judges shall form the laws, the governor have a negative only, subject further to the negative of a national legislature. The existing laws of the country being now in force, the new legislature will of course introduce the trial by jury in criminal cases, first; the habeas corpus, the freedom of the press, freedom of religion, c., as soon as can be, and in general draw their laws and organization to the mould of ours by degrees as they find practicable without exciting too much discontent. In proportion as we find the people there riper for receiving these first principles of freedom, congress may from session to session confirm their enjoyment of them.

As you have so many more opportunities than I have of free confidence with individual members, perhaps you may be able to give them these hints to make what use of them they please. Affectionate salutations.

P. S. My idea that upper Louisiana should be continued under its present form of government, only making it subordinate to the national government, and independent of lower Louisiana. No other government can protect it from intruders.

1

Endorsed in Jefferson’s hand: “This rough paper contains what was agreed upon.”

1

November 8. It is now said that it did not take place on the 3d, but will this day.— T. J.

1

Jefferson had already written to Joseph Scott:

Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
Mar. 9, 04
Washington
Joseph Scott
Scott, Joseph
Sir,

—I have duly received your favor of the 5th inst, and I hasten to assure you that neither Doctr Leib nor Mr. Duane have ever given the least hint to me that yourself or your associates of the St. Patrick’s society meditated joining a third party; or schismatizing in any way from the great body of republicans. That the rudiments of such a 3d party were formed in Pennsylvania New York has been said in the newspapers, but not proved. Altho’ I shall learn it with concern whenever it does happen, and think it possibly may happen that we shall divide among ourselves whenever federalism is compleatly eradicated, yet I think it the duty of every republican to make great sacrifices of opinion to put off the evil day, and that yourself and associates have as much disposition to do this as any portion of our body I have never seen reason to doubt. Recommending therefore sincerely a mutual indulgence, and candor among brethren and that we be content to obtain the best measures we can get, if we cannot get all we would wish, I tender you my salutations and respects.

1

This letter, as it shows, was written in reply to one of condolence upon the death of Jefferson’s daughter, Mrs. Eppes. In answer to the writer’s reference to Adams’ “midnight” appointments, Mrs. Adams replied with a tu quoque, by mentioning Jefferson’s patronage of Callender. This called forth the following letter from Jefferson:

Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
July 22, 04
Washington
Mrs. Adams
Mrs. Adams
Dear Madam,

—Your favor of the 1st inst. was duly received, and I would not have again intruded on you, but to rectify certain facts which seem not to have been presented to you under their true aspect. My charities to Callender are considered as rewards for his calumnies. As early, I think, as 1796, I was told in Philadelphia that Callender, the author of the Political progress of Britain, was in that city, a fugitive from persecution for having written that book, and in distress. I had read and approved the book: I considered him as a man of genius, unjustly persecuted. I knew nothing of his private character, and immediately expressed my readiness to contribute to his relief, to serve him. It was a considerable time after, that, on application from a person who thought of him as I did, I contributed to his relief, and afterwards repeated the contribution. Himself I did not see till long after, nor ever more than two or three times. When he first began to write, he told some useful truths in his coarse way; but nobody sooner disapproved of his writing than I did, or wished more that he would be silent. My charities to him were no more meant as encouragements to his scurrilities, than those I give to the beggar at my door are meant as rewards for the vices of his life, to make them chargeable to myself. In truth, they would have been greater to him, had he never written a word after the work for which he fled from Britain. With respect to the calumnies and falsehoods which writers and printers at large published against Mr. Adams, I was as far from stooping to any concern or approbation of them, as Mr. Adams was respecting those of Porcupine, Fenno, or Russell, who published volumes against me for every sentence vended by their opponents against Mr. Adams. But I never supposed Mr. Adams had any participation in the atrocities of these editors, or their writers. I knew myself incapable of that base warfare, believed him to be so. On the contrary, whatever I may have thought of the acts of the administration of that day, I have ever borne testimony to Mr. Adams’ personal worth; nor was it ever impeached in my presence without a just vindication of it on my part. I never supposed that any person who knew either of us, could believe that either of us meddled in that dirty work. But another fact is, that I ‘liberated a wretch who was suffering for a libel against Mr. Adams.’ I do not know who was the particular wretch alluded to; but I discharged every person under punishment or prosecution under the sedition law, because I considered, now consider, that law to be a nullity, as absolute and as palpable as if Congress had ordered us to fall down and worship a golden image; and that it was as much my duty to arrest its execution in every stage, as it would have been to have rescued from the fiery furnace those who should have been cast into it for refusing to worship their image. It was accordingly done in every instance, without asking what the offenders had done, or against whom they had offended, but whether the pains they were suffering were inflicted under the pretended sedition law. It was certainly possible that my motives for contributing to the relief of Callender, and liberating sufferers under the sedition law, might have been to protect, encourage, and reward slander; but they may also have been those which inspire ordinary charities to objects of distress, meritorious or not, or the obligations of an oath to protect the Constitution, violated by an unauthorized act of Congress. Which of these were my motives, must be decided by a regard to the general tenor of 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 knolege of them, and not on the testimony of Porcupine or Fenno.

You observe, there has been one other act of my administration personally unkind, and suppose it will readily suggest itself to me. I declare on my honor, Madam, I have not the least conception what act is alluded to. I never did a single one with an unkind intention. My sole object in this letter being to place before your attention, that the acts imputed to me are either such as are falsely imputed, or as might flow from good as well as bad motives, I shall make no other addition, than the assurance of my continued wishes for the health and happiness of yourself and Mr. Adams.

Once again Mrs. Adams answered, and to this Jefferson replied:

Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
Sep 11, 04
Monticello
Mrs. Adams
Mrs. Adams

Your letter, Madam, of the 18th of Aug has been some days received, but a press of business has prevented the acknolegment of it: perhaps, indeed, I may have already trespassed too far on your attention. With those who wish to think amiss of me, I have learned to be perfectly indifferent; but where I know a mind to be ingenuous, to need only truth to set it to rights, I cannot be as passive. The act of personal unkindness alluded to in your former letter, is said in your last to have been the removal of your eldest son from some office to which the judges had appointed him. I conclude then he must have been a commissioner of bankruptcy. But I declare to you, on my honor, that this is the first knolege I have ever had that he was so. It may be thought, perhaps, that I ought to have inquired who were such, before I appointed others. But it is to be observed, that the former law permitted the judges to name commissioners occasionally only, for every case as it arose, not to make them permanent officers. Nobody, therefore, being in office, there could be no removal. The judges, you well know, have been considered as highly federal; and it was noted that they confined their nominations exclusively to federalists. The Legislature, dissatisfied with this, transferred the nomination to the President, and made the officers permanent. The very object in passing the law was, that he should correct, not confirm, what was deemed the partiality of the judges. I thought it therefore proper to inquire, not whom they had employed, but whom I ought to appoint to fulfil the intentions of the law. In making these appointments, I put in a proportion of federalists, equal, I believe, to the proportion they bear in numbers through the Union generally. Had I known that your son had acted, it would have been a real pleasure to me to have preferred him to some who were named in Boston, in what was deemed the same line of politics. To this I should have been led by my knolege of his integrity, as well as my sincere dispositions towards yourself Mr. Adams.

You seem to think it devolved on the judges to decide on the validity of the sedition law. But nothing in the Constitution has given them a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. Both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them. The judges, believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment; because that power was placed in their hands by the Constitution. But the Executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, was bound to remit the execution of it; because that power has been confided to him by the Constitution. That instrument meant that its co-ordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature Executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch. Nor does the opinion of the unconstitutionality, consequent nullity of that law, remove all restraint from the overwhelming torrent of slander, which is confounding all vice and virtue, all truth falsehood, in the U. S. The power to do that is fully possessed by the several State Legislatures. It was reserved to them, was denied to the General Government, by the Constitution, according to our construction of it. While we deny that Congress have a right to control the 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 them, made provisions for punishing slander, which those who have time and inclination, resort to for the vindication of their characters. In general, the State laws appear to have made the presses responsible for slander as far as is consistent with its useful freedom. In those States where they do not admit even the truth of allegations to protect the printer, they have gone too far.

The candor manifested in your letter, which I ever believed you to possess, has alone inspired the desire of calling your attention, once more, to those circumstances of fact and motive by which I claim to be judged. I hope you will see these intrusions on your time to be, what they really are, proofs of my great respect for you. I tolerate with the utmost latitude the right of others to differ from me in opinion without imputing to them criminality. I know too well the weakness uncertainty of human reason to wonder at it’s different results. Both of our political parties, at least the honest portion of them, agree conscientiously in the same object—the public good; but they differ essentially in what they deem the means of promoting that good. One side believes it best done by one composition of the governing powers; the other, by a different one. One fears most the ignorance of the people; the other, the selfishness of rulers independent of them. Which is right, time and experience will prove. We think that one side of this experiment has been long enough tried, and proved not to promote the good of the many; that the other has not been fairly and sufficiently tried. Our opponents think the reverse. With whichever opinion the body of the nation concurs, that must prevail. My anxieties on the subject will never carry me beyond the use of fair honorable means, of truth and reason; nor have they ever lessened my esteem for moral worth, nor alienated my affections from a single friend, who did not first withdraw himself. Whenever this has happened, I confess I have not been insensible to it; yet have ever kept myself open to a return of their justice. I conclude with sincere prayers for your health happiness, that yourself Mr. Adams may long enjoy the tranquillity you desire and merit, and see in the prosperity of your family what is the consummation of the last and warmest of human wishes.

1

On the following day, Jefferson wrote to Madison:

In conversation with Mr. Gallatin yesterday as to what might be deemed the result of our Tuesday’s conferences, he seemed to have understood the former opinion as not changed, to wit, that for the Floridas East of the Perdido might be given not only the 2. millions of dollars and a margin to remain unsettled, but an absolute relinquishment from the North river to the Bay of St. Bernard and Colorado river. This however I think should be the last part of the price yielded, and only for an entire cession of the Floridas, not for a part only.

1

Relative to this message Gallatin wrote to Jefferson on Oct. 29, 1804:

Gallatin
Gallatin
Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
Dear Sir,

—I return your message with such remarks as occurred. It was not received till Saturday, which must be my apology for not returning it sooner.

The Register being absent, I have been obliged to go myself through all the minutiæ of calculations, instead of only marking the outlines and revising the work. The complete materials for your financial paragraph will not for that reason be completed till tomorrow. In the meanwhile the following sketch is correct, except for the amount of principal public debt redeemed, which is not yet ascertained.

(a) of which payments, about 3,600,000 for principal.
Balance in Treasury, 30th Septr, 1803 5,860,981.54
Receipts during the year vizt impost 10,729,708.54
Lands, repayments, arrears taxes excise c. 844,502.50 11,574,211.04
17,435,192.58
Expended during the year vizt
Current expenses civil military, foreign domestic 3,727,081.31
Instalment to Great Britain 888,000
Payments for intr. principal pub. debt (a) 7,937,886.16 12,552,967.47
Balance in Treasury 30th Septr 1804. 4,882,225.11
17,435,192.58

Gallatin’s “remarks” on the message were as follows:

Irregularities in American seas in our harbours. As it is wished that Congress would make provision on two points immediately connected with the captures near S. Domingo, and with the aggressions at New York, by restraining the arming of our vessels and by enabling the Executive to enforce the jurisdiction of the U. States in our ports against foreign vessels; and as the expression of that wish would evince the disposition of the Executive equally to restrain the irregularities of our own people and to repel the insulting aggressions of the belligerent powers on our coast; would there be any objection to introduce at the end of this paragraph a recommendation to that effect?

Spanish objections to the ratification of the Convention.

1. The public mind is altogether unprepared for a declaration that the terms object of the Mobile act had been misunderstood by Spain; for every writer, without a single exception, who has written on the subject, seems to have understood the act as Spain did: it has been justified by our friends on that ground; and the declaration in the message, without some short explanation, may be distorted into an avowal of some humiliating concession to Spain by the Executive. Might not, to obviate this, some words be introduced where speaking of the misconceptions of Spain, which would state that Spain had erroneously supposed, that it was intended to organize a custom house, within territories still in her possession, and claimed by her, before possession had been obtained by ourselves?

2. This may lead to say something of the yet unascertained boundaries of Louisiana, a subject of sufficient importance to excite animadversion if it was altogether omitted in the message, especially as the ensuing paragraph announces, in an unqualified manner, the acquiescence of Spain in the validity of our title to Louisiana. Perhaps the ensuing paragraph might be transposed so as to precede that entitled ‘Spanish differences’ qualifying it by adding, that Spain however does not yet acknowledge our title to the full extent of our rightful claim: and then the subject of the misconception of the Mobile act would follow of course, the intention of the Executive, not to abandon the claim in any degree but to abstain from exercising jurisdiction or taking forcible possession till all other means were exhausted, be fully understood.

3. The total omission of the other impediment to the ratification of the convention vizt. what relates to the 6th article appears perfectly proper as it relates to Spain itself, inasmuch as it avoids commitment on our part and leaves them free, without wounding their pride, to receive ratify whilst they may understand the Tunis paragraph as perfectly applicable to themselves. But that omission, as it relates to Congress, may be animadverted, as a concealment from that body of an important part of the whole ground. Perhaps, without expressly mentioning the whole article some general expressions might be introduced, at the same time alluding to other objections of Spain, and stating the expectation that the explanation on the Mobile act would also remove them.

Delivery of stock. The words ‘discharge of our obligations’ seem too strong general, as they might be construed to imply a discharge of our obligation to pay. The obligation from which we are discharged is that of delivering the stock within three months after the ratification of the Convention as had been provided by that instrument, a provision which embarrassed us at the time on account of the proposed ‘bien entendu’ which Pichon wanted to insert in the exchange of ratification on account of the delays in taking possession of New Orleans which delayed the delivery of the stock till the last week of the three months. The legal delivery of the stock consisted in delivering it to Lieut. Leonard, whose receipt together with a letter from Mr. Pichon acknowledging that act to be a full execution of the Convention, are filed in the Register’s office as the evidence of the delivery; and that letter of Pichon is the only discharge which we have received, at the Treasury, from the government of France. Mr. Livingston, says, however, that he has sent to the Department of State receipts for the delivery of the stock in France: these I have not seen, and as we consider the transaction, so far as there was any obligation on our part, closed by the delivery here, I have never applied for them: indeed I believe that they are merely personal so far as they come from the French government, must be a receipt not for the stock, but for the bills of Hope Baring which had been deposited with him which he delivered to the French government. The whole transaction is so complex that I think the best way will be generally to say that the stock was timely delivered in conformity to the provisions of the Convention, without giving copies of the documents which are numerous, lengthy and uninteresting. Add to this that it is not convenient, unless necessary, to bring into view the contract of Baring Hope with the French govt., for the Louisiana stock, as they gave but 16/ in the pound for it: which may excite animadversions on the state of our credit on the conduct of the negotiators of the treaty.

Barbary powers. Quere. Whether the late accounts from the Mediterranean fully justify the expectations arising from the energy of all the officers?

Upper Louisiana. I do not understand what is meant by the appointment of commandants in the forms of the Constitution. The expressions in the 12th sect. of the act of 26th March 1804, are ‘except the commanding officer, who shall be appointed by the President. ’ The same words precisely are used in the 2d 3d sect, of the act ‘to provide for the erecting and repairing of arsenals and magazines and for other purposes’ past April 2d, 1794, in relation to the appointment of superintendant master armorer of the armories, and of superintendant of military stores: and in these cases the power to appoint has uniformly been considered exercised as vested in the President alone. From which I infer that the authority to appoint commandants in Upper Louisiana is also vested in the President alone. But if it was not, it is perhaps as well not to allude to the principle, because there have been some instances of newly created offices which the President has, from the necessity of the case, filled during the recess of the Senate, though no special authority had been given to that effect. I remember the first collectors of Bristol (R. I.) Michillimakinac being appointed in that way in 1801.

Gunboats. The object of these vessels, as a substitute to fortification agt. naval enterprise, and for supporting the authority of the laws within harbours, is correctly defined. Nor, provided that the expenditure shall be kept within due bounds, is there any plausible objection except that, after providing such as are wanted for the last mentioned purpose, those which are wanted for the first, may in the case of war be so speedily built, that it is not necessary to provide for them beforehand; as the expense of keeping them in repair of the men to watch them will cost more in two years than the mere building expense. This, however, may be provided for hereafter; and I would only wish to have a true estimate of the expense of building keeping either in actual service or ordinary, and to know the number intended to be built to be kept in service. But so far as relates to the message, I much fear that the efforts made in federal papers to impress the idea that this establisht. is intended as a substitute to the navy have so far succeeded that some distortion of the President’s recommendation will take place.

Repairs to our frigates. This must certainly be done; but it seems questionable whether it should make part of the message. It is true that it ought to be considered as an evidence of the attention paid by the President to the navy; but so much has been said on the subject of the ships rotting in the eastern branch, as if the waters of that creek had a peculiarly corrosive quality, that not only the federalists but also the inhabts. of other seaports will eagerly seize the opportunity to disseminate the opinion that their predictions are fulfilled. If the message shall be silent on that head, nothing more will be necessary than for the Secy. of the Navy to include the item for that object in the annual estimates; and it will probably be voted without any observations. Should it, however, provoke an inquiry, the Secy. of the Navy may then make a special report which may be framed so as to meet or anticipate objections and cavils.

Acceptance of volunteers. Is this really wanted? And may it not always be timely provided for by Congress whenever an emergency shall require it? The application for a general provision is liable to objections of an intrinsic nature, and will be artfully compounded with the system of volunteer corps under Mr. Adams’ administration in 1798.

“ADDITIONAL REMARKS.”

It does not seem that the French aggressions in N. York, if they exist, should be embraced in the same sentence with the British. Even if the reports be true, their conduct has been generally unexceptionable there; and a single departure cannot be compared with the unremitted insults blockade by the British.

With the nations of Europe in general our friendship is undisturbed. Does not this embrace Spain is it not therefore too general?

From the other powers on the same coast ( Barbary ) we have every mark of the continuance of their friendship c. Do not the last accounts from Morocco contradict this report?

Territory of Orleans. Is it not to be apprehended that the persons appointed members of the council, or a majority, will refuse to serve?

Indians of Louisiana. Said to be friendly so far as we have yet learned. Have not some murders been committed at St. Louis?

Endorsed “(Received Oct. 29, 04)”

1

The following is the bill alluded to:

An act for the more effectual preservation of the peace in the harbors and waters of the U. S. on board vessels.

Foreign armed vessels within the harbours committing breaches of law. C. line 4. after ‘felony’ insert ‘infraction of revenue law or other Statute.’ I had rather extend the provision to cases cognizable by the authority of individual States, but if this be objectionable the cases cognizable by the authority of the U. S. should be defined. Was the impressment in N.Y. harbour a case cognizable by the authority of the U. S.? And, why, supposing it was should outrages against the public peace affecting the personal property of citizens, but exclusively punishable by State authority, remain unprovided against?

See for similar powers Act 5, June 94. § 7. 8. pa. 91–93 vol. 3. and act 28 Feb. 95. § 2. 9. pa. 189–191 vol. 3.

The objects of 94. June 5. are, 1. Takg. or issuing commissions in foreign service. 2. Enlisting in do. within U. S. 3. Arm ships to serve foreign power. 4. Set. on foot within U. S. expedn. agt. foreign power. 5. Capture of a vessel within waters of U. S. Resistance of process by armed vessel. In these cases the President may use force. The 6th case vaguely looks towards the objects of this 1st section.

Exclusion of foreign armed vessels from our harbours; and regulation of their conduct while in them.

After ‘they’ insert ‘are entitled to said privilege by virtue of any treaty or when they’

A. G.

Dele ‘customs at the place’ and insert ‘district.’

A. G.

Qu. are not armed vessels of some nations exempted from making report and entry by virtue of treaties?

Foreign armed vessels refusing to depart.

Be it enacted c. that whensoever any treason, felony, misprision, misdemean, breach of the peace or of the revenue laws shall have been committed within the jurisdiction of the U. S. and in a case cognisable by the authority thereof and the person committing the same shall be on board of any foreign armed vessel in any harbour of the U. S. or in the waters within their jurisdiction, and the ordinary posse comitatus shall be deemed insufficient to enable the officer of the U. S. charged with the process of law, to serve the same, it shall be lawful for him to apply to any officer having command of militia, of regular troops or of armed vessels of the U. S. in the vicinity to aid him in the execution of the process with which he is so charged, which officer conforming himself in all things to the instructions he shall receive, or shall have received from the President of the U. S. or other person duly authorized by him, shall first demand a surrender of the person charged in the said process, and if delivery be not made, or if he be obstructed from making the demand, he shall use all the means in his power by force of arms to arrest and seize the said person, and all those who are with him giving him aid or countenance, and the same to convey and deliver under safe custody to the civil authority to be dealt with according to law, and if death ensues on either side it shall be justifiable or punishable as in cases of homicide in resisting a civil officer.

And in order to prevent insults to the authority of the laws within the said harbours and waters, and thereby endangering our peace with foreign nations, be it further enacted that it shall be lawful for the President of the U. S. to interdict the entrance of the harbours waters under the jurisdiction of the U. S. to all armed vessels belonging to any foreign nation and by force to repel remove them from the same except where they shall be forced in by distress, by the dangers of the sea, or by pursuit of any enemy, or where they shall be charged with dispatches or business from the government to which they belong to that of the U. S., in which cases as also in all others where they shall be voluntarily permitted to enter the officer commanding such vessel shall immediately report his vessel to the Collector of the district stating the causes object of his entering the harbour or waters, shall take such position in the harbour or waters as shall be assigned to him by such Collector shall conform himself, his vessel people to such regulations respecting health, repairs, supplies, stay, intercourse departure as shall be signified to him by the said Collector, under the authority and instructions of the President of the U. S. and not conforming thereto shall be compelled to depart the U. S.

And be it further enacted that whensoever any armed vessel of a foreign nation, entering the waters within the jurisdiction of the U. S. and required to depart therefrom, shall fail so to do, it shall be lawful for the President of the U. S. in order to avoid unnecessary recurrence to force, to forbid all intercourse with such vessel and with every armed vessel of the same nation the people thereto belonging; to prohibit all supplies and aids from being furnished them and also to instruct the Collector of the district where such armed vessel shall be of any or every other district of the U. S. to refuse permission to any vessel belonging to the same nation or its people to make entry or unlade so long as the said armed vessel shall, in defiance of the public authority remain within the harbours or waters of the U. S. and all persons offending herein shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by fine imprisonment and shall moreover be liable to be bound to the good behavior according to law.

Oct. 1804.

1

In the Jefferson MSS. is the following outline:

NOTES OF A DRAFT FOR A SECOND INAUGURAL ADDRESS.

The former one was an exposition of the principles on which I thought it my duty to administer the government. The second then should naturally be a conte rendu, or a statement of facts, shewing that I have conformed to those principles. The former was promise: this is performance. Yet the nature of the occasion requires that details should be avoided, that, the most prominent heads only should be selected and these placed in a strong light but in as few words as possible. These heads are Foreign affairs; Domestic do., viz. Taxes, Debts, Louisiana, Religion, Indians, The Press. None of these heads need any commentary but that of the Indians. This is a proper topic not only to promote the work of humanizing our citizens towards these people, but to conciliate to us the good opinion of Europe on the subject of the Indians. This, however, might have been done in half the compass it here occupies. But every respector of science, every friend to political reformation must have observed with indignation the hue cry raised against philosophy the rights of man; and it really seems as if they would be overborne barbarism, biogtry despotism would recover the ground they have lost by the advance of the public understanding. I have thought the occasion justified some discountenance of these anti-social doctrines, some testimony against them, but not to commit myself in direct warfare on them, I have thought it best to say what is directly applied to the Indians only, but admits by inference a more general extension.

There are also two papers, as follows:

MADISON’S MEMORANDUM.

Insert

Thro’ the transactions of a portion of our citizens whose intelligence arrangements best shield them agst the abuses, as well as inconveniences incident to the collection.

substitute

Religion. As religious exercises, could therefore be neither controuled nor prescribed by us. They have accordingly been left as the Constitution found them, under the direction discipline acknowledged within the several states.

Indians

“No desire” instead of “nothing to desire.”

substitute

Who feeling themselves in the present order of things and fearing to become nothing in any other, inculcate a blind attachment to the customs of their fathers in opposition to every light example which wd conduct them into a more improved state of existence. But the day I hope is not far distant when their prejudices will yield to their true interests they will take their stand c.

Press—strike out from “their own affairs.”

Last page—Alter to “views become manifest to them.”

This is endorsed “Dept. State recd Feb. 8, 05 Inaugural.”

The second paper reads:

MADISON’S MEMORANDUM.

Is the fact certain that the amt of the internal taxes not objectionable in their nature would not have paid the collectors?

What is the amendment alluded to as necessary to a repartition of liberated revenue amg. the states in time of peace?

Page 3—‘in any view’ may be better than ‘in any event’ that phrase having but just preceded.

Instead of ‘acts of religious exercise suited to it (religion)’ ‘exercises suited to it’ or some equivalent variation is suggested.

Dept. State recd Feb. 21, 05 Inaugural.

1

This refers to Avenia; or, A Tragical Poem on the Oppression of the Human Species, an anti-slavery work printed in Philadelphia in 1805.

1

On this political schism in Pennsylvania, Jefferson presently wrote to Leib:

Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
Aug. 12, 05
Monticello
Leib
Leib
Dear Sir,

—A journey southwardly from hence has prevented my sooner acknoleging the receipt of your favor of July 22. I see with extreme concern the acrimonious dissensions into which our friends in Pennsylvania have fallen, but have long since made up my mind on the propriety of the general government’s taking no side in state quarrels. And with respect to myself particularly, after eight thirty years of uniform action in harmony with those now constituting the republican party, without one single instant of alienation from them, it cannot be but my most earnest desire to carry into retirement with me their undivided approbation esteem. I retain therefore a cordial friendship for both the sections now so unhappily dividing your state. You mention that ‘Doctr. Logan had informed the person that he had just received a letter from you exhorting him to use all his influence to procure the reelection of Govr. McKean, for that to displace him would be extremely injurious to the republican cause.’ Whatever may be the personal esteem I entertain for Govr. McKean and the harmony with which we acted when members of the same body, I never conceived that that would justify my taking sides against Mr. Snyder, or endeavouring in any way to influence the free choice of the state. I therefore have never written any such letter, nor a letter of such import to any mortal. And further, my long intimate acquaintance with Doctr. Logan my knolege of his strict honor leaves the fullest conviction in my mind that there has been some mistake in the hearing, understanding or quoting his words. I the more readily believe that there has been error somewhere when I consider how far opposite passions have the power of tingeing objects seen by men equally honest, of presenting them under aspects totally different, and of perverting their understandings of the same expressions. My confidence in Doctr. Logan’s truth is so entire that I dare affirm that he will declare to anyone that he never received such a letter from me. No, sir, so far from taking a side in this distressing quarrel that I look upon both with undiminished affection, would do anything in my power to assuage reconcile them. Finally, my dear sir, when you recollect the bitter hostility of the common enemy towards me, the unrelenting perseverance with which they torture, mutilate pervert every sentence which falls from my pen, you will excuse me in beseeching that nothing of this letter may get into the public prints. Accept my friendly salutations assurances of great esteem respect.

1

The following paper appears to have been drafted by Jefferson at this time:

RESOLUTION

Resolved that the President of the U. S. ought to be authorized by law to employ the armed vessels of the U. S. which may be in commission, for restraining as well the irregularities and oppressions of our commerce, not amounting to piracy, as those of that degree, which shall be committed by private armed vessels within the Gulf stream, in the Gulf itself, or among the islands bordering thereon, that a bill be brought in for that purpose.

1

Another paper, undated, relating to this matter is as follows:

Saturday, December the 31st, 1780, eight o’clock a.m. Received first intelligence that twenty-seven sail were, on the morning of December the 29th, just below Willoughby’s Point. Sent off General Nelson with full powers.

1781. January the 1st. No intelligence.

January the 2d, ten o’clock a.m. Information from N. Burwell, that their advance was at Warrasqueak Bay. Gave orders for militia, a quarter from some, and half from other counties. Assembly rose.

Wednesday, January the 3d, eight o’clock, p.m. Received a letter from E. Archer, Swan’s Point, that at twelve o’clock that day they were at anchor a little below Jamestown. At five o’clock p.m., of the same day, I had received a letter from R. Andrews for General Nelson, that they were at Jamestown the evening of the 2d.

Thursday, January the 4th, five o’clock, a.m. Mr. Eppes and family, c., came and informed me from the Speaker, that they had passed Kennon’s and Hood’s the evening before; the tide having made for them at one o’clock, p.m., of the 3d, and the wind shifted to the east strong. They had not, however, passed Hood’s, but anchored at Kennon’s. Called whole militia from adjacent counties. I was then anxious to know whether they would pass Westover, or not, as that would show the side they would land.

Five o’clock, p.m. Learned by Captain De Ponthiere, that at two o’clock, p.m., they were drawn up at Westover. Then ordered arms, and stores, c., (which till then had been carrying to Westham,) to be thrown across the river at Richmond; and at half-past seven o’clock, p.m., set out to the foundry and Westham, and set Captain Brush, Captain Irish, and Mr. Hylton, to see everything wagoned from the magazine and laboratory to Westham, and there thrown over; to work all night. The enemy encamped at Four-Mile Creek. I went to Tuckahoe and lodged.

January the 5th. Went early over the river with my family; sent them up to Fine Creek; went myself to Westham; gave orders for withdrawing ammunition and arms (which lay exposed on the bank to the effect of artillery from opposite shore), behind a point. Then went to Manchester; had a view of the enemy. My horse sunk under me with fatigue; borrowed one, went to Chetwood’s, appointed by Baron Steuben as a rendezvous and head-quarters; but finding him not there, and understanding he would go to Colonel Henry’s, I proceeded there for quarters. The enemy arrived in Richmond at one o’clock, p.m. One regiment of infantry and thirty horse proceeded, without stopping, to the foundry; burned that and the magazine and Ballendine’s house, and went as far as Westham. They returned that evening to Richmond. Sent me a proposition to compound for property. Refused.

January the 6th. In the morning they burned certain houses and stores, and at twelve o’clock of that day left Richmond, and encamped at Four-Mile Creek. I went to Westham, ordered books and papers particularly from magazine. In the evening I went up to Fine Creek.

January the 7th. I returned to Westham, and then came down to Manchester, where I lodged. The enemy encamped at Westover and Berkley. It had rained excessively the preceding night, and continued to do so till about noon. Gibson has one thousand; Steuben, eight hundred; Davis, two hundred; Nelson, two hundred and fifty.

January the 8th at half-past seven o’clock, a.m. I returned to Richmond. The wind gets about this time to north-west; a good gale; in the afternoon becomes easterly. The enemy remain in their last encampment. General Nelson at Charles City C. N. Colonel Nicholas with three hundred men at the Forest.

January the 9th, eleven o’clock. The wind is south-east, but almost nothing. The enemy remain in their last encampment, except embarking their horse.

January the 10th, at one o’clock, p.m. They embark infantry and fall down the river, the wind having shifted a little north of west, and pretty fresh. Baron Steuben gets to Bland’s Mills to-night, nine miles short of Hood’s.

January the 11th, eight o’clock, a.m. The wind due west, and strong.

LOSS SUSTAINED BY THE PUBLIC.

The papers and books of the Council since the revolution. The papers of the auditors, but not their books. Five brass field-pieces, four-pounders, which had been sunk in the river, but were weighed by the enemy. About one hundred and fifty arms in the Capitol loft. About one hundred and fifty in a wagon on the Brook road. About five tons of powder, and some made ammunition at Magazine. Some small proportion of the linens, cloths, c., in the public store. Some quarter-master’s stores; the principal articles was one hundred and twenty sides of leather. Some of the tools in the artificers’ shops. Foundry, magazine, four artificers’ shops, public store, quartermaster’s store, one artificer’s shop, three wagons.

The legislature was sitting when the entrance of the enemy into James river was made known. They were informed, without reserve, of the measures adopted. Every suggestion from the members was welcomed and weighed, and their adjournment on the second of January furnished the most immediate and confidential means of calling for the militia of their several counties. They accordingly became the bearers of those calls, and they were witnesses themselves, that every preparation was making which the exhausted and harassed state of the country admitted.

They met again at Richmond in May, and adjourned to Charlottesville, where they made a house on the 28th. My office of Governor expired on the 2d of June, being the fifth day of the session; and no successor had been appointed, when an enterprise on the 4th by Tarleton’s cavalry drove them thence, and they met again at Staunton on the 7th. Some members attended there who had not been at Richmond at the time of Arnold’s enterprise. One of these, George Nicholas, a very honest and able man, then, however, young and ardent, supposing there had been some remissness in the measures of the Executive on that occasion, moved for an inquiry into them, to be made at the succeeding session. The members who had been present and privy to the transactions, courted the inquiry on behalf of the executive. Mr. Nicholas, as a candid and honorable man, sent me, through a friend, a copy of the topics of inquiry he proposed to go into; and I communicated to him, with the same frankness, the justifications I should offer, that he might be prepared to refute them if not founded in fact. The following is a copy of both:—

1st Objection. That General Washington’s information was, that an embarcation was taking place, destined for this State.

Answer. His information was, that it was destined for the Southward as was given out at New York. Had similar information from General Washington, and Congress, been considered as sufficient ground at all times for calling the militia into the field, there would have been a standing army of militia kept up; because there has never been a time, since the invasion expected in December, 1779, but what we have had those intimations hanging over our heads. The truth is, that General Washington always considered as his duty to convey every rumor of an embarkation; but we (for some time past, at least) never thought anything but actual invasion should induce us to the expense and harrassment of calling the militia into the field; except in the case of December, 1779, when it was thought proper to do this in order to convince the French of our disposition to protect their ships. Inattention to this necessary economy, in the beginning, went far towards that ruin of our finances which followed.

2d Objection. Where were the post-riders, established last summer?

Answer. They were established at Continental expense, to convey speedy information to Congress of the arrival of the French fleet, then expected here. When that arrived at Rhode Island, these expenses were discontinued. They were again established on the invasion in October, and discontinued when that ceased. And again on the first intimation of the invasion of December. But it will be asked, why were they not established on General Washington’s letters? Because those letters were no more than we had received upon many former occasions, and would have led to a perpetual establishment of postriders.

3d Objection. If a proper number of men had been put into motion on Monday, for the relief of the lower country, and ordered to march to Williamsburg, that they would at least have been in the neighborhood of Richmond on Thursday.

Answer. The order could not be till Tuesday, because we then received our first certain information. Half the militia of the counties round about Richmond were then ordered out, and the whole of them on the 4th, and ordered not to wait to come in a body but in detachments as they could assemble. Yet they were not on Friday more than two hundred collected, and they were principally of the town of Richmond.

4th Objection. That we had not the signals.

Answer. This, though a favorite plan of some gentlemen, and perhaps a practicable one, has hitherto been thought too difficult.

5th Objection. That we had not look-outs.

Answer. There had been no cause to order look-outs more than has been ever existing. This is only in fact asking why we do not always keep look-outs.

6th Objection. That we had not heavy artillery on travelling carriages.

Answer. The gentlemen who acted as members of the Board of War a twelvemonth can answer this question, by giving the character of the artificers whom, during that time, they could never get to mount the heavy artillery. The same reason prevented their being mounted from May 1780, to December. We have even been unable to get these heavy cannon moved from Cumberland by the whole energy of government. A like difficulty which occurred in the removal of those at South Quay, in their day, will convince them of the possibility of this.

7th Objection. That there was not a body of militia thrown into Portsmouth, the great bridge, Suffolk.

Answer. In the summer of 1780, we asked the favor of General Nelson, to call together the County Lieutenants of the lower counties, and concert the general measures which should be taken for instant opposition, on any invasion, until aid could be ordered by the Executive; and the County Lieutenants were ordered to obey his call; he did so the first moment, to wit, on Saturday, December the 31st, at 8 o’clock a. m., of our receiving information of the appearance of a fleet in the bay. We asked the favor of General Nelson to go down, which he did, with full powers to call together the militia of any counties he thought proper, to call on the keepers of any public arms or stores, and to adopt for the instant such measures as exigencies required, till we could be better informed.

Query. Why were not General Nelson, and the brave officers with him, particularly mentioned?

Answer. What should have been said of them? The enemy did not land, nor give them an opprotunity of doing what nobody doubts they would have done; that is, something worthy of being minutely recited.

Query. Why publish Arnold’s letter without General Nelson’s answer?

Answer. Ask the printer. He got neither from the Executive.

Objection. As to the calling out a few militia, and that late.

Answer. It is denied that they were few or late. Forty thousand and seven hundred men (the number required by Baron Steuben) were called out the moment an invasion was known to have taken place, that is on Tuesday, January 2d.

Objections. The abandonment of York and Portsmouth fortifications.

Answer. How can they be kept without regulars, on the large scale on which they were formed? Would it be approved of to harass the militia with garrisoning them?

To place me on equal grounds for meeting the inquiry, one of the representatives of my county resigned his seat, and I was unanimously elected in his place. Mr. Nicholas, however, before the day, became better satisfied as to what had been done, and did not appear to bring forward the inquiry; and in a publication, several years after, he made honorable acknowledgment of the erroneous views he had entertained on those transactions. I therefore read in my place the inquiries he had proposed to make, and stated the justifications of the Executive. And nearly every member present having been a witness to their truth, and conscious all was done which could have been done, concurred at once in the following resolution:

‘The following resolution was unanimously agreed to by both houses of the General Assembly of Virginia, December the 19th, 1781.

‘Resolved, That the sincere thanks of the General Assembly be given to our former Governor, Thomas Jefferson, Esquire, for his impartial, upright, and attentive administration whilst in office. The Assembly wish in the strongest manner to declare the high opinion they entertained of Mr. Jefferson’s ability, rectitude, and integrity as Chief Magistrate of this Commonwealth, and mean, by thus publicly avowing their opinion, to obviate and to remove all unmerited censure.’

And here it is but proper to notice the parody of these transactions which General Lee has given as their history. He was in a distant State at the time, and seems to have made up a random account from the rumors which were afloat where he then was. It is a tissue of errors from beginning to end.

The nonsense which has been uttered on the coup de main of Tarleton on Charlottesville is really so ridiculous, that it is almost ridiculous seriously to notice it. I will briefly, however, notice facts and dates. It has been said before, that the legislature was driven from Charlottesville by an incursion of the enemy’s cavalry. Since the adjournment from Richmond, their force in this country had been greatly augmented by reinforcements under Lord Cornwallis and General Phillips; and they had advanced up into the country as far as Elk Island, and the Fork of James river. Learning that the legislature was in session in Charlottesville, they detached Colonel Tarleton with his legion of horse to surprise them. As he was passing through Louisa on the evening of the 3d of June, he was observed by a Mr. Gouett, who, suspecting the object, set out immediately for Charlottesville, and knowing the byways of the neighborhood, passed the enemy’s encampment, rode all night, and before sunrise of the 4th, called at Monticello with notice of what he had seen, and passed on to Charlottesville to notify the members of the legislature. The Speakers of the two houses, and some other members were lodging with us. I ordered a carriage to be ready to carry off my family; we breakfasted at leisure with our guests, and after breakfast they had gone to Charlottesville; when a neighbor rode up full speed to inform me that a troop of horse was then ascending the hill to the house. I instantly sent off my family, and after a short delay for some pressing arrangements, I mounted my horse; and knowing that in the public road I should be liable to fall in with the enemy, I went through the woods, and joined my family at the house of a friend, where we dined. Would it be believed, were it not known, that this flight from a troop of horse, whose whole legion, too, was within supporting distance, has been the subject, with party writers, of volumes of reproach on me, serious or sarcastic? That it has been sung in verse, and said in humble prose, that forgetting the noble example of the hero of La Mancha, and his wind-mills, I decline a combat against a troop, in which victory would have been so glorious? Forgetting, themselves, at the same time, that I was not provided with the enchanted arms of the Knight, nor even with his helmet of Mambrino. These closet heroes, forsooth, would have disdained the shelter of a wood, even singly and unarmed, against a legion of armed enemies.

Here, too, I must note another instance of the want of that correctness in writing history, without which it becomes romance. General Lee says that Tarleton, in another enterprise some time after, penetrated up the south side of James river to New London, in Bedford county. To that neighborhood precisely, where I had a possession, I had carried my family, and was confined there several weeks by the effects of a fall from my horse; and I can assure the readers of General Lee’s history, that no enemy ever came within forty miles of New London.

1

Three days later, he wrote to Madison:

Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
Aug. 7, 1805
Monticello
Madison
Madison
Dear Sir,

—On a view of our affairs with Spain, presented me in a letter from C. Pinckney, I wrote you on the 23d of July, that I thought that we should offer them the status quo, but immediately propose provisional alliance with England. I have not yet received the whole correspondence. But the portion of the papers now enclosed to you, confirm me in the opinion of the expediency of a treaty with England, but make the offer of the status quo more doubtful. The correspondence will probably throw light on that question; from the papers already received I infer a confident reliance on the part of Spain on the omnipotence of Bonaparte, but a desire of procrastination till peace in Europe shall leave us without an ally. General Dearborn has seen all the papers. I will ask the favor of you to communicate them to Mr. Gallatin Mr. Smith. From Mr. Gallatin I shall ask his first opinion, preparatory to the stating formal questions for our ultimate decision. I am in hopes you can make it convenient on your return to see consult with Mr. Smith Gen. Dearborn, unless the latter should be come on here where I can do it myself. On the receipt of your own ideas, Mr. Smith’s and the other gentlemen, I shall be able to form points for our final consideration determination.

I enclose you some communications from the Mediterranean. They shew Barron’s understanding in a very favorable view. When you shall have perused them, be so good as to enclose them to the Secretary of the Navy. Accept my fervent wishes for the speedy recovery of Mrs. Madison, and your speedy visit to this quarter.

1

On October 23d, Jefferson wrote to Madison:

Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
Oct. 23, 05
Washington
Madison
Madison
Dear Sir,

—Yours of the 20th came to hand last night. I sincerely regret that Mrs. Madison is not likely to be able to come on so soon as had been hoped. The probability of an extensive war on the continent of Europe strengthening every day for some time past, is now almost certain. This gives us our great desideratum, time. In truth, it places us quite at our ease. We are certain of one year of campaigning at least, and one other year of negotiation for their peace arrangements. Should we be now forced into war, it is become much more questionable than it was whether we should not pursue it unembarrassed by any alliance free to retire from it whenever we can obtain our separate terms. It gives us time too to make another effort for peaceable settlement. Where should this be done? Not at Madrid certainly. At Paris; through Armstrong, or Armstrong Monroe as negotiators, France as the mediator, the price of the Floridas as the means. We need not care who gets that: and an enlargement of the sum we had thought of may be the bait to France, while the Guadaloupe as the western boundary may be the soother of Spain, providing for our spoliated citizens in some effectual way. We may announce to France that determined not to ask justice of Spain again, yet desirous of making one other effort to preserve peace, we are willing to see whether her interposition can obtain it on terms which we think just; that no delay however can be admitted, that in the meantime should Spain attempt to change the status quo, we shall repel force by force, without undertaking other active hostilities till we see what may be the issue of her interference. I hazard my own ideas merely for your consideration. The present state of things does not so far press as to render it necessary for you to do violence to your feelings by prematurely leaving Mrs. Madison. Accept for her yourself my affectionate salutations.

P. S. Let Mr. Smith know as you pass thro’ Baltimore, he will come on.

One day later, Jefferson wrote to the Secretary of the Navy:

Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
Oct. 24, 05
Washington
Dear Sir,

—Understanding from Mr. Madison that he would be here by the last of the week, I wrote to desire him to give you notice of his passing thro’ Baltimore: but by a letter received yesterday it is probable he will have set out before my letter reaches him.

The almost certainty which now appears of an extensive continental war in Europe changes our situation most advantageously, inasmuch as it ensures us another year’s continuance at least of that war. Consequently we need be in no hurry to make any propositions to England, but may proceed at once to make another last effort to bring Spain to a settlement; and even if we fail, it is now much more questionable than it was whether we had not better enter the war unembarrassed by any alliance, that we may withdraw separately as soon as our separate terms can be obtained. How where to open new conferences is the question? Not in Spain certainly, nor with Spain. Will it not be better to make a friendly appeal to France, letting them understand it is a last effort for peace, settle through them a reasonable price for the Floridas, part money, part concession towards the Rio bravo, but securing from Spain the indemnification for spoliations by hypothecation until she pays principal interest. We in the meantime paying our merchants their interest guaranteeing the principal, so that they may sell the debt as stock for present relief. I hazard these new thoughts produced by the new circumstances, for consideration consultation as soon as we can meet. Then also I wish to consult you on a plan of a regular naval militia to be composed of all our seafaring citizens, to enable us to man a fleet speedily by supplying voluntary enlistments by calls on that militia. Affectionate salutations.

1

Here the MS. reads, “Guadaloupe, if to be obtd, Colorado if not,” and then the words are struck out.

1

The following are papers relating to this message. The first is endorsed “Dept. of State recd Oct. 25 Message.”

MADISON’S MEMORANDUM.

( a ) And which have been increased by peculiar circumstances in the W. Indn. seas, yet in the more distant channels, at least of our trade.

( b ) The act authorizes c. provisionally at least—a port c. without the limits of the U. S. the words in ( ) may be left out.

( c ) (On the part of Spain).

( d ) (Proper to suspend) will accord better with the case—as the 6th. atr. is also made a ground of suspension.

( e ) May reasonably be expected to replace the Spanish govt. in the disposition which originally concurred in the Convention.

( f ) (Manifestations).

( g ) (On proper) quer. if the last circumstance may not be omitted in so general a paragraph and left to be included in some particular message or taken up on informal suggestion.

( h ) Quer here as above.

( i ) (Effectual) is it not too strong?

On Nov. 24, Jefferson wrote to Madison:

How will it do to amend the passage respecting England to read as follows?

‘New principles too have been interpolated into the Law of Nations, founded neither in justice, nor the usage or acknolegement of nations. According to these a belligerent takes to itself a commerce with it’s own enemy, which it denies to a neutral on the ground of it’s aiding that enemy. But reason revolts at such an inconsistency. And the neutral having equal rights with the belligerent to decide the question, the interests of our constituents the duty of maintaining the authority of reason, the only umpire between just nations impose on us the obligation of providing an effectual and determined opposition to a doctrine’ (so injurious to peaceable nations).

Will you give me your opinion on the above immediately, as I wish to send the paper to Mr. Gallatin? Should we not lay before Congress the act of parl. proving the British take the trade to themselves, the order of council proving they deny it to neutrals?

In Madison’s hand, on the same sheet is written:

Although it is strictly true as here applied that reason is the sole umpire, yet as G. B. abuses the idea, in order to get rid of the instituted L. of nations, and as it may not be amiss to invite the attention of other neutrals, suppose there be added after a doctrine ‘as alarming to all peaceable nations as it is illegal (against all law) in itself,’ or some similar expression. This however is merely for consideration. The passage as it stands has a good countenance and is made of good stuff.

Madison also drew up some notes (indorsed: “Received Nov. 24, 05, Message”) as follows:

( a ) After ‘others’ the insertion of ‘with commissions,’ seems necessary, as others refer to the armed vessels, not to commissns.

( b ) Instead of ‘under the controul’ it may be well to insert some such phrase as ‘unreached by any controul’ in order not to sanction a plea agst. indemnification, drawn from an acknowledgment on our part that the enormities were uncontroullable.

( c ) ‘As unprofitable as immoral.’ Seems to be applicable to both parties. Some such substitute as the following is suggested. ‘As painful on one side as immoral on the other.’

( d ) It is suggested whether naming the ages, particularly that of 18 years may not be too specific, and perhaps incur premature objections. It might be generalized in some such manner as this, ‘From the last Census it may be deduced that upwards of 300,000 able-bodied men will be found within the ages answering that character. These will give time for raising regular forces after the necessity of them shall become certain, and the reducing to the early period of life all its active service, cannot but be desirable to our younger citizens of all kinds, inasmuch as it engages to them in more advanced stages an undisturbed repose in the bosom of their families.’

A second series of notes by Madison (indorsed “received Nov. 27, 05, Message”) was:

( a ) ‘Will become more able to regulate with effect their respective functions in these departments’ instead of what is between the first ( )

At this point, Jefferson interlined this:

Will become able to regulate with effect their respective functions in these departments. The burthen of quarantines is felt at home as well as abroad. Their efficacy merits examination. Although the health laws of the states should not at this moment be found to require a particular revisal by Congress, yet commerce claims that their attention be ever awake to them.

Madison’s notes continue:

( b ) Omit what is between the 2d ( )

( a ) The first alteration is suggested on the ground that an executive definition of the constitutional power of an Indept Branch of Govt may be liable to criticism.

( b ) The 2d on the ground that it takes, apparently, side with the sect of Infectionists. If ‘really infected’ be struck out after vessels, ‘in a state dangerous to health’ were substituted or some other neutral phrase, the objection would be taken away.

The pencilled words have reference to the idea anxiety of some that the state laws should be revised.

Yet a third of Madison’s notes (indorsed: “Received Nov. 28, 05. Resolns Spain”) reads:

Resol 1. (Substitute within any part of the former Louisiana comprehend in the delivery of possession thereof to the U. S.)

2. (Omit)—(substitute as may consist with the honor of the U. States) this change will look less towards advances by the U. S. to effect the adjustment.

4. (Omit, as embarrassing and inefficacious).

5. (Quer. if not unnecessary and provided for by the succedg resol.)

6. (Omit, on the idea that with this specification amicable expense of adjustmt will be in fact authorized, with an apparent reference to the use of force previously authorized).

The difficulty lies in covering an application of money to a new purchase of territory. As a means of adjustment it will be covered; but by a construction probably not entering into the views of Congs.

To Gallatin, Jefferson had written:

Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
November 20, 1805
Gallatin
Gallatin

Th. J. to Mr. Gallatin.

Can you be so good as to let me have the financial paragraph this morning, as there is not much more than time enough to submit the message successively to the different gentlemen for correction and then to have copies?

Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
November 24, 1805
Mr. Gallatin
Mr. Gallatin

Th. J. to Mr. Gallatin.

I send you the message to ask a scrupulous revisal, and as early an one as you can, because there does not remain more than time enough to submit it successively to the other gentlemen for their corrections, to make copies, c. On reviewing what has been prepared as to Great Britain and Spain, I found it too soft towards the former compared with the latter, and that so temperate a notice of the greater enormity might lessen the effect which the strong language towards Spain was meant to produce at the Tuileries. I have, therefore, given more force to the strictures on Britain.

Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
November 26, 1805
Mr. Gallatin
Mr. Gallatin

Th. J. to Mr. Gallatin.

1. The concessions to Renault. As to those in the Territory of Indiana, that country having been claimed by England at all times, conquered in the war of 1755, and confirmed to her in 1763; conquered by the United States, and confirmed to them in 1783; and all ancient titles there settled and done with by authority of the United States; these claims of Renault are certainly at an end.

2. As to those in Louisiana; I believe it has been a law as well as invariable usage with the Spanish government in that country to consider all concessions void which were not settled within one, two, or three years, which condition was often expressed in the grant, and understood where not expressed. O’Reilly’s Ordinance is evidence of this policy and practice. But independently of positive law, prescription is a law of reason: if Renault ever took possession which does not appear, he has abandoned that possession more than sixty or seventy years, as appears by Austin’s statement, which is that so long ago as 1738 these mines were considered as public property.

3. As to the concessions in 1797 to Winter and others, exclusive of the fraud and illegality so obvious on their face, they bore the express condition of becoming void if not settled in a year.

However, the commissioners of Congress (I believe) are to report titles for the ultimate decision of Congress. Whether it would be proper for us in the mean time to express sentiments which might discourage speculations is to be considered of.

I have been sensible the passage on the yellow fever appeared bald, for want of a practical application. The real object being to bring important facts before foreign governments, an ostensible one was necessary to cover the reality. I have endeavored at it in the enclosed, as well as some other supplements suggested by you, of which I ask your consideration. Affectionate salutations.

1

In margin and marked in pencil “not to be copied”: “Forty thousand stand of arms four hundred thousand; one hundred gunboats three hundred thousand; towards building a seventy four to supply the Philada. Greene three hundred thousand.”

1

Transmitted to Congress with the following letter:

Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
Dec. 6th 1805
Sir,

—In order to give to Congress the details necessary for their full information of the state of things between Spain the U. S. I send them the communication documents now enclosed. Although stated to be confidential, that term is not meant to be extended to all the documents; the greater part of which are proper for the public eye. It is applied only to the message itself, to the letters from our own foreign ministers, which, if disclosed, might throw additional difficulties in the way of accommodation. These alone, therefore, are delivered to the legislature in confidence that they will be kept secret.

Dec. 6th, 1805.

A paper in Jefferson’s handwriting, entitled “Notes for Message,” follows:

Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
Dec. 2, 1805

As we omit in the 2d message to enumerate the aggressions of Spain refer for them to the documents, we must furnish the documents for every Act, particularly

1. The capture of the Huntress.

2. The carrying our gun boats into Algerinas.

5—3. The late depredations on our commerce in Europe. Extracts from Pinckney’s letters.

5—4. Oppressions on our commerce at Mobile.

5—5. Delays in the evacuation of N. Orleans.

5—6. Dissemination of rumours of the probable restoration of Louisiana to Spain.

7. The new post taken on the bay of St. Bernard.

8. The reinforcement of Nacogdoches.

9. The robbery near Apelousa.

10. That at Bayou Pierre.

11. The Pattroles established on this side Sabine.

5—12. The aggression on the Missisipi territory in the case of the Kempers.

5—13. The subsequent one in the case of Flanagan and his wife.

5—14. The negociation at Madrid.

No. 1. 2. from the Navy department.

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. from the War office.

4. 5. 6. from the offices both of War and State.

3. 12. 13. 14. from the office of State.

[Endorsed]: “President’s list of documents for 1st session of Congress of 1805.”

On the subject of Spain, Jefferson drew up the following paper for cabinet consideration:

Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas

For consideration and correction. Th. J.

1. Resolved, that no armed men, not being citizens of the United States ought to be permitted to enter or remain, nor any authority to be exercised but under the laws of the United States, within the former colony or province of Louisiana in the extent in which it was in the hands of Spain.

2. Resolved, that as to the residue of the said ‘former colony or province of Louisiana, in the extent it had when France possessed it,’ a peaceable adjustment of that extent is most reasonable and desirable, so far as it can be effected consistently with the honor of the United States.

3. Resolved, that pending measures for such peaceable adjustment, neither party ought to take new posts therein, nor to strengthen those they held before the 1st day of October, 1800, and, that any proceeding to the contrary on the part of Spain ought to be opposed by force, and by taking possession of such posts as may be necessary to maintain the rights of the United States.

4. Resolved, that the subjects of Spain still on the Mississippi and its waters ought to be allowed an innocent passage, free from all imposts, along that part of the river which passes through the territory of the United States. And the citizens of the United States on the Mobile and its waters ought to be allowed an innocent passage, free from all imposts, along that part of the river below them which passes through the territory still held by Spain, but claimed by both parties;

Or that imposts should be levied for and by the United States on the navigation of the Mississippi by Spanish subjects, countervailing those which may be levied for and by Spain on the navigation of the Mobile by citizens of the United States.

And that the navigation of the Mississippi by Spanish subjects should be prohibited whensoever that of the Mobile by citizens of the United States shall be prohibited.

5. Resolved, that in support of these resolutions, and of the consequences which may proceed from them, the citizens of the United States, by their Senate and Representatives in Congress assembled, do pledge their lives and fortunes; and that the execution of these resolutions be vested with the President of the United States.

6. Resolved, that for carrying these resolutions into effect, whether amicably or by the use of force, the President be authorized to apply any moneys in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated.

7. Resolved, that the President of the United States ought to be authorized by law to employ the armed vessels of the United States which may be in commission, for restraining the irregularities and oppressions of our commerce, other than those which amount to piracy, by privateers cruising within the Gulf Stream, in the Gulf itself, or among the islands bordering on it, and that a bill be brought in for that purpose.

After consideration, he sent a revision to Gallatin, with the following letter:

Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
December 4, 1805
Mr. Gallatin
Mr. Gallatin

Th. J. to Mr. Gallatin.

Enclosed is a revised edition of the Spanish resolutions, in which you will find most of your ideas conformed to. That respecting money is omitted; that it may be provided in the way you suggest. In the message, also, I have adopted all your amendments except the last, which respected merely the arrangement of the phrases, and could not be satisfactorily altered.

The enclosure was:

1. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States, that the indemnities for which Spain is answerable to citizens of the United States for spoliations and wrongs committed in violation of the law of nations or of treaty, are objects too just and important not to be pursued to effect by the United States.

2. Resolved, that no armed men, subjects of any foreign power, ought to be permitted to enter or remain, nor any authority but of the United States to be exercised, within the former colony or province of Louisiana, in the extent in which it was delivered by Spain under the Treaty of St. Ildefonso.

3. Resolved that as to the residue of the said former colony or province of Louisiana, and provisions necessary to avoid future collisions and controversies, an equitable adjustment is most reasonable.

4. Resolved, that pending any measures for such adjustment neither party ought to take new posts therein, nor to strengthen those they held before the 1st day of October, 1800, and that any proceeding to the contrary on the part of Spain ought to be opposed by force, and by taking possession of such posts as may be necessary to maintain the rights of the United States.

5. Resolved c., that the subjects of Spain still on the Mississippi and its waters ought to be allowed an innocent passage, free from all imposts, along that part of the river below them which passes through the territory of the United States and the citizens of the United States on the Mobile and its waters ought to be allowed an innocent passage, free from all imposts along that part of the river below them which passes through the territory still held by Spain, but claimed by both parties.

6. Resolved, that a copy of these resolutions be presented to the President of the United States for his approbation, with an assurance that he will receive from the Legislature the support necessary for carrying them into execution.

Still later, on this matter, he wrote to Gallatin:

Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
December 7, 1805
Gallatin
Gallatin

J. Randolph has just called to ask a conversation with me, for which purpose he will be with me tomorrow morning; everything therefore had better be suspended till that is over.

1

A first draft of this bill, dated Sept 2 d . was as follows:

A Bill for Establishing a Naval Militia.

Be it enacted etc. that every free able-bodied, white male citizen of the U. S. of the age of 18. years under the age of 45. years, whose principal occupation is on the high sea or on the tide-waters within the U. S. shall be of the militia for the naval service of the U S. and shall be exempt from the services of the land Militia.

The persons so to constitute the said naval militia shall be enrolled in the several ports, harbours, or towns thereto adjacent, to which they belong or are most convenient by their names, ages, places of birth abode, personal descriptions, with the date of their enrollment shall be formed into companies each to be commanded by a Lieutenant to be appointed by the authority of the state to which such company belongs.

It shall be the duty of the Lieu t of each port, harbour, or town thereto adjacent to enrol in a book to be kept by him for that purpose all persons who by this act are made naval militiamen, belonging to his said port or harbour, or within the limits assigned as most convenient to the same, registering in a distinct page or part of his book those of every different year of age from 45. down to 18 and whenever a person enrolled in one port of the U S. shall remove to another, the enrolling officer of the latter port shall immediately enter him on his book, noting the date place of his former enrollment, in addition to the other circumstances before prescribed.

In deciding on the ages of persons to be enrolled, the officer shall make up his judgment from the information of the party himself, from such other information as he can obtain from his own inspection.

Every person enrolled shall be entitled to receive from the officer possessing the book of enrollment, an authenticated transcript from the same of the entry respecting himself on paiment of 25 cents, to have the same renewed on the same condition from time to time when lost or destroyed, which shall exempt him from discipline duties at the port of his former enrollment, and from the duties of the land militia; shall be considered otherwise as instead of the certificate of citizenship heretofore given by the Collectors of the Customs; which certificates shall here-after cease to be given.

Every enrolling officer shall, on, or immediately after the 1st day of October in every year make a return of his roll to the Secretary of the Navy of the U S. according to it’s actual state as affected since the last return by age, discharge, death removal, new enrollments or otherwise.

It shall be the duty of the sd. officers, on 6 days of every year to discipline the men under their command who may be within their limits at the time to the use of artillery or the maneuvring of gun-boats or other armed vessels assigned to the defence of their port or confided to their use, and all acts of disobedience or failure in duty herein, in either officers or men, shall be liable to the same pains, penalties coercion to trial by a court martial consisting of three commissioned officers at least of the Naval Militia as are provided in the corresponding cases, by the laws for the government of the land Militia of the U S.

In cases of insurrection, of opposition to the civil authority, or of sudden attack by an enemy happening in any port, harbour or town on the tide-waters, or on the coasts in their vicinities, all persons then there being who make a part of the sd. Naval Militia, whether of the same or of any other place, shall be liable to be called on to do duty with artillery or on board any armed vessels, for the special occasion of quelling the insurrection, enforcing obedience to the civil authority or resisting the attack. And in time of war, either actual or imminent, all under [35] years of age, wheresoever they shall happen to be within the jurisdiction of the U S. shall be liable to be called on in such proportion of their whole number as circumstances may require, to perform tours of duty not exceeding one year in any [two] on board of any of the public armed vessels of the US. in which the sd. militia officers, in subordination to the regular officers of the US. of equal or superior grade shall have the immediate command care of them. And if any person so called on shall refuse or unnecessarily delay to enter on duty he shall be arrested as a deserter either by the civil or military authority, delivered to the proper military officer either punished as a deserter or compelled to perform his tour of duty: but any person so called on may commute his personal service by tendering an able bodied free white man a citizen of the US. fit for the service in the Judgment of the officer who is to command him, and willing to engage therein. And all persons while engaged in the performance of a tour of duty, shall have the pay rations allowed in the navy of the US. be subject to the rules regulations and articles provided for the government of the same.

Concerning this, and the following bills, Jefferson wrote:

Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
November 3, 1805
Mr. Gallatin
Mr. Gallatin

Th. J. to Mr. Gallatin.

I wish for an à peu près of the number of seamen we call ours. I suppose the best way of estimating will be by our tonnage, including coasters, bay and river craft, and everything employed on the tidewaters. Can you assist me with the materials for such an estimate? It is of some importance for my bill for a naval militia; that and the one for the land militia I will send you for consideration as soon as you can assist me as above.

These notes of Jefferson seem to be the basis of the bills:

The best ground for estimating the number of seamen of the United States to be enrolled under the Act for establishing a naval militia is the tonnage of our vessels. The latest return of tonnage states it to have been on the 31st. of December, 1803, as follows.

tons
Registered tonnage employed in foreign trade 585,909
In the whale-fisheries, 12,389
Cod-fisheries, 50,969
63,358
In the coasting trade, 267,787
917,054

We are supposed to employ usually in navigating our vessels about 6 men to every 100 tons. But allowing for those who are not free white citizens within the military age, we may estimate 5 to the 100 tons. 5 ——— 45,852

To these should be added the seamen then in our navy, and those employed on the tide-waters within the United States, which we may safely state as making the whole number amount to 50,000

An Estimate of the Land Militia of the United States.

The census of 1800 gave us of free white males of

16 and under 26 384,554
of 26 and under 45 423,836

Our military age excluding those under 18, we must from the number 384,554

deduct those in their 17th and 18th years, which, by Buffon’s tables, will be 80,405 ———

Remain of the age of 18 and under 45, to wit, the minor and junior classes, 304,149

Our census of 1790 and 1800 having showed our increase to be in a geometrical ratio of 3⅓ per cent. per annum, the increase from 1800 to 1805 is 54,184 ———

leaving our whole number of free white males from 18 to 26 in 1805 358,333

From these are to be deducted the naval militia-men, but far the greater part of those employed in the foreign trade and whale-fisheries being always absent, it is believed that not half of them were included in the census. Those supposed included, then, are 35,000, of which, according to Buffon, those of 18 and under 26 will be only 11,711 ———

leaving of free white landsmen from 18 to 26 in 1805 346,622

From these are still to be deducted those not able-bodied: suppose them 1 to 10, 34,662 ———

leaving of free, white, able-bodied landsmen of 18 and under 26 311,960

To find what proportions of these will be of the minor and what of the junior class, we are to inquire, of 311,960 persons of 18 and under 26 years of age, how many will there be of each different year of age? Buffon’s tables resolve them as follows: As 84,589 in Buffon from 18 to 26: to 311,960 in the United States of the same age: so are 11,014 in Buffon in their 19th year: to x, the number in the United States in their 19th year; then

x = 311,960/84,589 × 11,014 = 3.69 × 11,014. Consequently those in their

Buffon’s Nos. in U.S.
19th year will be 3.69 × 11,014 = 40,619
20th “ “ “ × 10,919 = 42,267 = 120,598 of the minor class
21st “ “ “ × 10,768 = 39,712
22d year will be 3.69 × 10,675 = 39,368
23d “ “ “ × 10,514 = 38,775
24th “ “ “ × 10,380 = 38,281
25th “ “ “ × 10,259 = 37,834 = 191,358
26th “ “ “ × 10,060 = 37,100 of the 311,956 junior class
311,956

To obtain the respective numbers of the middle and senior classes, the census of 1800 gave for both 423,836

Add the increase from 1800 to 1805, 75,506 ——— 499,342

from which are to be deducted seamen from 26 to 45, 23,289 ——— 476,053

deduct those also not able-bodied, suppose 1 in 10, 47,605 ———

leaves free, white, able-bodied landsmen from 26 to 45, 428,448

Buffon’s tables make the numbers of 26 and under

35 = 84,182, and those of 35 and under 45 = 84,018. These are so nearly equal that we may consider the middle class one-half, to wit, 214,224

and the senior class one half, to wit 214,224

Recapitulation.
Naval militia, 50,000
Land militia, minor class, 120,598
junior class, 191,358
middle class, 214,224
senior class, 214,224 740,404
790,404
Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
Dearborn
Dearborn

On Dec. 31, 1805, Jefferson wrote to Dearborn:

Considering that the important thing is to get the militia classes so that we may get at the young for a year’s service at a time, and that training may be supplied after they are called out, I think we may give up every part of the bill which respects training arming. Let us once get possession of the principle, future Congresses will train arm. In this way we get rid of all those enemies to the bill to whom different details would be objectionable. I send you the bill thus modified, I have thrown in a few words in the clause beginning with the words ‘The junior class shall be liable c.’ in order that the law may execute itself without waiting for any legislature. Will you be so good as to communicate it to General Varnum Mr. Bidwell? The sooner the better.

1

Endorsed: “(Not sent).”

1

From Daveiss’s View of the President’s Conduct, Frankfort, 1806, p. 15.

1

The following papers presumably relate to this matter:

Sketches of parts of a bill for encouraging settlers in the territory of Orleans.

It shall be lawful for the Pr. of the U. S. to grant in fee simple a bounty of one quarter section of 160 a of any lands of the U. S. on the Western side of the Missisipi in the territory of Orleans when the same shall have been surveyed to every free able-bodied white male citizen of the U. S. who shall actually settle on the same in person within a time not exceeding one year to be prescribed by the Pr. U. S. who shall continue to reside on the same for the space of 7 years the next ensuing if he so long lives and who shall engage that if called on within the same term of 7 years he will render two years of military service as a regular souldier of the U. S. within the territory of Orleans or Misipi. or in the countries on their southern and western borders and on the regular conditions emolumnts. of the regular souldiers of the U. S. Provided that the number of lots to be so granted shall not exceed [ ] thousand and provided also that on failure of any individual to perform substantially the conditions aforesaid his grant shall be forfeited.

It shall be the duty of the Surveyor General of lands of that territory to proceed forthwith to lay off such parts of the same as the Pr. U. S. shall direct into townships, and every other township alternately into sections quarter sections; and every person entitled as aforesaid shall be free to chuse any one of the sd. quarter sections for his bounty as aforesaid to be granted to himself and to be in his immediate possession such choice to be made by the said persons in the order in which they shall have personally presented themselves at the office of the Surveyor Genl. on their arrival in the sd. territory, of which an entry shall be made and a certificate given to the party specifying the particular number which his entry bears in the numerical order from the first to the last presentment.

It shall be lawful for the Pr. U. S. to employ proper persons in different parts of the U. S. to engage settlers as aforesaid and after they shall be inspected received by the proper officer app d for y e purpose the same to conduct to the sd. territory of Orleans at the public expence on such allowance as is usually made for conducting the regular troops of the U. S. And to grant a premium to the persons so employed in engaging conducting the same at the rate of one section of 640 acres of lands for every 100 men actually passed by the Inspector and entered at the Office of the Surveyor General.

And be it further enacted c that there shall be granted a bounty of one quarter section containing 160 acres of any lands of the U. S. on the western side of the Missisipi in the territory of Orleans, in fee simple, to each of the said volunteers, being a free able bodied white male citizen, of some one of the States of the Union, of the age of 18 and under that of 35 years and accepted as such by an officer to be appointed for that purpose, who in addition to his engagement as a Volunteer shall undertake to settle on the said lands in person, within a term of months not exceeding twelve, to be prescribed by the President of the U. S. shall actually settle and continue to reside thereon for the space of seven years then next ensuing, if so long he shall live, on the condition of forfeiture if he shall fail so to do. And every person so engaging shall be free to locate any quarter section not already located, of the said lands surveyed or to be surveyed, for his bounty aforesaid, to be granted to himself, to be in his immediate occupation; such location to be made by the said persons in the order in which they shall have personally presented themselves at the office of the surveyor on their arrival in the sd. territory; of which an entry shall be made and a certificate given to the party specifying the particular number which his entry bears in the numerical order from the first to the last of those presented.

Notes on the Bill for the defence of Orleans.

A. §. 1. l. 10 two millions of acres will only provide for 6250 men if the alternate quarter sections be reserved. We ought to have 30,000 men at least there. That territory will never be invaded by an army of less than 15, or 20,000 men.

B. §. 2. l. 3. 4. δ ‘other than those of surveying expences office fees’ many a man can carry an able body there (which is all we want) who could not carry surveying expences.

C. §. 2, l. 6. 7. 8. δ ‘and who was not c —to Missisipi’ and instead thereof line 5, after ‘citizen’ insert ‘of some one.’ We should not weaken any of the territories; nor should we tempt the Creoles of Louisiana to remove to the lower government. They would strengthen the wrong party.

D. §. 2. l. 13. δ ‘and c ’—to the end of the section. I suggest this on the advice of others who say that the bug bear of military tenure will defeat the bill. If so let us have the men as mere militia, which they will be of course, without saying anything about it. I am doubtful.

E. §. 3. had not the whole of this section better be omitted. The people will certainly build themselves houses to live in clear lands to make bread if they actually reside there. Unnecessary restrictions and forfeitures have a discouraging aspect.

§. 5. δ the Proviso l. 11. this depends on amendment D.

F. §. 6. the utility of this section should be well considered. To permit a transfer to an able bodied man will often strengthen the settlement in no case can weaken it. Interchanges which might gratify and benefit both parties would always be innocent.

§. 7. l. 2. δ ‘the military services or.’ these depend on amendment D. l. 15. δ ‘in case c ’—to ‘on his part’ l. 23

§. 12. l. 5. δ ‘such applicant c ’—to ‘lands’ l. 11. a consequence of amendment B.

1

The following undated resolutions, drafted by Jefferson, belong to this period:

Resolutions

1. Resolved by the Senate H. of R. of the U. S. of A. that the indemnities for which Spain is answerable to citizens of the U. S. for spoliations and wrongs committed in violation of the law of nations or of treaty, are objects too just and important not to be pursued to effect by the U. S.

2. Resolved that no armed men, subjects of any foreign power, ought to be permitted to enter or remain, nor any authority but the U. S to be exercised within the former colony or province of Louisiana, in the extent in which it was delivered by Spain under the treaty of St. Ildefonso.

3. Resolved that as to the residue of the sd. former colony or province of Louisiana, and provisions necessary to avoid future collisions and controversies, an equitable adjustment is most reasonable.

4. Resolved that pending any measures for such adjustment neither party ought to take new posts therein, nor to strengthen those they held before the 1st day of October 1800. And that any proceeding to the contrary on the part of Spain ought to be opposed by force and by taking possession of such posts as may be necessary to maintain the rights of the U. S.

5. Resolved c. that the subjects of Spain still on the Mississippi and its waters, ought to be allowed an innocent passage, free from all imposts, along that part of the river below them which passes through the territory of the U. S.: and the citizens of the U. S. on the Mobile and its waters ought to be allowed an innocent passage free from all imposts, along that part of the river below them, which passes through the territory still held by Spain, but claimed by both parties.

6. Resolved that a copy of these resolutions be presented to the President of the U. S. for his approbation, with an assurance that he will receive from the legislature the support necessary for carrying them into execution.

1

On this subject, Jefferson wrote further to Nicholas:

Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
Apr. 13, 06
Washington
Nicholas
Nicholas
Dear Sir,

—The situation of your affairs certainly furnishes good cause for your not acceding to my proposition of a special mission to Europe. My only hope had been, that they could have gone on one summer without you. An unjust hostility against Genl Armstrong will, I am afraid, shew itself whenever any treaty made by him shall be offered for ratification. I wished, therefore, to provide against this, by joining a person who would have united the confidence of the whole Senate. Genl Smith was so prominent in the opposition to Armstrong, that it would be impossible for them to act together. We conclude, therefore, to leave the matter with Armstrong Bowdoin. Indeed, my dear Sir, I wish sincerely you were back in the Senate; that you would take the necessary measures to get yourself there. Perhaps, as a preliminary, you should go to our Legislature. Giles’ absence has been a most serious misfortune. A majority of the Senate means well. But Tracy Bayard are too dexterous for them have very much influenced their proceedings. Tracy has been of nearly every committee during the session, for the most part the chairman, of course drawer of the reports. 7. federalists voting always in phalanx, and joined by some discontented republicans, some oblique ones, some capricious, have so often made a majority as to produce very serious embarrassment to the public operations, and very much do I dread the submitting to them, at the next session, any treaty which can be made with either England or Spain, when I consider that 5. joining the federalists, can defeat a friendly settlement of our affairs. The H of R is as well disposed as I ever saw one. The defection of so prominent a leader, threw them into dismay confusion for a moment; but they soon rallied to their own principles, let him go off with 5. or 6. followers only. One half of these are from Virginia. His late declaration of perpetual opposition to this administration, drew off a few others who at first had joined him, supposing his opposition occasional only, not systematic. The alarm the House has had from this schism, has produced a rallying together a harmony, which carelessness security had begun to endanger. On the whole, this little trial of the firmness of our representatives in their principles, that of the people also, which is declaring itself in support of their public functionaries, has added much to my confidence in the stability of our government; and to my conviction, that, should things go wrong at any time, the people will set them to rights by the peaceable exercise of their elective rights. To explain to you the character of this schism, it’s objects and combinations, can only be done in conversation; must be deferred till I see you at Monticello, where I shall probably be 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.

1

Council of Massachusetts.

1

From a copy courteously furnished by the Hon. C. H. Bell, of Exeter, N. H. It relates to a dispute in Congress with John Randolph.

1

Endorsed: “Not sent.”

1

Here the letter ends.

1

From Daveiss’s View of the President’s Conduct, Frankfort, 1806, p. 25.

1

“Decius” was the signature used by John Randolph to a series of papers in the Richmond Examiner.

1

From a copy courteously furnished by Mr. George Plumner Smith, of Philadelphia. On June 26, 1822, Jefferson wrote to Mrs. Katharine Duane Morgan:

I have duly received, dear Madam, your favor of the 10th with the eloquent circular and address to your patriotic and fair companions in good works. I well recollect our acquaintance with yourself personally in Washington, valued for your own merit as well as for that of your esteemed father. Your connection too with the family of the late Colo. Morgan is an additional title to my grateful recollections. He first gave us notice of the mad project of that day, which if suffered to proceed, might have brought afflicting consequences on persons whose subsequent lives have proved their integrity and loyalty to their country.

The effort which is the subject of your letter is truly laudable, and, if generally followed as an example, or practised as a duty, will change very advantageously the condition of our fellow citizens, do just honor to those who shall have taken the lead in it. No one has been more sensible than myself of the advantages of placing the consumer by the side of the producer, nor more disposed to promote it by example. But these are among the matters which I must now leave to them. Time, which wears all things, does not spare the energies either of body or mind of a presque Octogenaire. While I could, I did what I could, and now acquiesce cheerfully in the law of nature which, by unfitting us for action, warns us to retire and leave to the generation of the day the direction of its own affairs. The prayers of an old man are the only contributions left in his power. Mine are offered sincerely for the success of your patriotic efforts, and particularly for your own individual happiness and prosperity.

On the same day that Jefferson wrote to George Morgan, he also wrote to John Nicholson:

Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
Sep. 19, 06
Monticello
Mrs. Katharine
Mrs. Katharine
Sir,

—I thank you for the information contained in your letter of the 6th inst. which merits attention the more as it coincides with information received from other quarters. It is certainly very interesting that we keep our eye on the proceedings of the persons who are the subjects of your letter, and should you be able to obtain any further information respecting them or their measures, besides fulfilling the duties of a patriotic citizen, you will confer an obligation on me, by communications from time to time of what you may learn. They shall be made no further use of than what you shall prescribe. Accept my salutations assurances of respect.

1

On Nov. 14, 1806, Jefferson wrote to Gallatin:

1. As to the 500 cavalry. If we have peace with Spain, we shall not want them; if war, all our plans must be new moulded. It is, therefore, only during the present unsettled state. This cannot exceed six months from October 1, about which time they probably went into service. This will cost 100,000 D. The proposing to Congress to establish them during the present unsettled state of things is merely to show Spain, that we seriously mean to take justice if she will not do it. The men are in service under a previous law. This is the only extra expense I contemplate to meet the present state. Mr. Smith proposes to ask only the ordinary annual appropriation.

2. As to the salt tax. If that and the Mediterranean fund, continued to the end of 1808, will pay the Florida purchase, suppose the act of commutation lets the salt tax run to the end of 1807,—will not its amount for 1808 be made up by the increase of impost and land sales beyond calculation, and the sweepings of the Treasury? or if they still leave a deficit, would not the perpetuity of the Mediterranean fund enable us to anticipate enough for the deficit?

3. The university. This proposition will pass all the States in the winter of 1807–8, and Congress will not meet, and consequently cannot act on it, till the winter of 1808–9. The Florida debt will therefore be paid off before the university can call for anything.

The only difficulty in the whole, then, seems to be the amount of the salt tax for 1808, which I am in hopes will not be insuperable.

Other papers relating to this message are as follows:

Madison’s Memoranda. (Indorsed: “Received Nov. 16, 06, Message.”)

Foreign Relations. Insert ‘since’ before ‘taken place’ at the beginning of line 11. The preceding delay did not altogether proceed from events independent of the will of one of the parties, and those who are chargeable with it, ought not to be acquitted of the consequences. Perhaps the following change of the whole sentence would answer. ‘The delays which have since taken place in our negotiations with the British govt appear to have proceeded from causes which leave me in expectation that c.’

Spain. Instead of Spain has ‘consented’ c., it might be better to say Spain has taken steps preparatory to the negotiation at Paris in which our ministers are authorized to meet her. The term used may seem to imply a proposition from the U. S. wch was consented to.

In the penult line of p. 1. For ‘hope of friendly settlement’ perhaps ‘course of friendly negotiation’ might be a more suitable expression. Such a change however cannot be material if proper.

The last instructions to Wilkinson do not assume the Sabine as the essential line of separation for the troops. They authorize him to settle a provisional line, and in no event to pass himself beyond that river. It may be well therefore to vary the sentence on that point so as to run ‘in that quarter to maintain a temporary line, separating the troops of the two nations to permit no new settlement or post to be taken eastward of the Sabine river.’

Would it not be well to allude to a continuance of our friendly standing with France, the other belligerent nations, or generally with other nations of Europe?

New Orleans. Instead of ‘to secure that point by all the means in our power ’—‘to provide for that point a more adequate security.’

Insurrections. This paragraph suggests several legal questions; such as whether in strictness any preventive measures are consistent with our principles except security for the peace good behavior. Whether this remedy is not already applicable to the case in question, where a preparation of force justifies a suspicion of criminal intention, and whether the existing provision for the case of an enterprise meditated vs. a foreign nation is not rather penal agst a crime actually committed by the preparation of means with such an intention, than preventive of the actual commission of a crime. To guard agst the criticisms which may be founded on these questions, some such change as the following is suggested for consideration:

‘For those crimes when actually committed the laws make provision. Would it not moreover be salutary to provide for cases where the means of force are prepared only for a meditated enterprise agst the U. S. as has been done for cases where the enterprise is meditated by private individuals against a foreign nation? It merits consideration also whether the preventive process of binding to the observance of the peace and good behaviour ought not to be expressly extended to acts without the limits of the U. S. in cases where the acts are contrary to law and there is sufficient ground for suspecting the intention to commit them.’

This change is suggested on the supposition that the occasion requires a paragraph should be addressed to Congress; manifestly alluding to the late information c. Perhaps the question may be decided with the advantage of new lights from the westward in time for the message.

Barbary. ‘The late mission’ may be equivocal or obscure. ‘With Tunis alone some uncertainty remains’ would perhaps be sufficient.

Missouri. The tenor of this paragraph ought to be such as to give as little topic as possible for foreign jealousy or complaint; especially as we are not prepared to say that the expedition did not enter limits within which Spain has real or plausible claims. It is certain that it will be presented to Spain as a measure at which she has a right to take offence. The paragraph might better parry the inconvenience, by being made less particular by avoiding any allusion to the uses to which the Pacific country may be applied.

Red River. ‘Nearly as far as the French establishments c’ has the advantage of suggesting a plausible reason for not going on: but may it not also imply that those establishments were the limit to our claim?

Mississippi. The survey of the Mississippi furnished, certainly, a very apt occasion for bringing into view our legitimate boundaries in the latitude 49; but as the mere assertion by ourselves will not strengthen our title, and may excite British sensations unseasonably, it may be doubted whether that much of the paragraph had not as well be omitted.

University c. The denounciation of standing armies, navies, fortifications cannot be better expressed, if there be no room to apprehend that so emphatic a one may not at the present juncture embolden the presumption in foreign nations that an insuperable aversion to those objects guarantees the infinity of their insults and aggressions.

‘Arts, Manufactures other objects of public improvement,’ seem to give latitude nearly equivalent to ‘general welfare’ afterwards suggested to be too dangerous to remain a part of the Constitution. ‘ other objects of public improvement which it may be thought proper to specify’ would avoid the inconsistency.

After ‘the present state of our country’ might be added ‘and with the aid of the sale of public lands would be adequate to Roads Canals also.’

Instead of ‘sweep away all restraints c.’—‘demolish the essential barriers between the General the State Govts.’

Conclusion ‘as far as they are capable of defence’ suggests a disagreeable and impolitic idea. ‘Preparations for the defence c.’ without that expression, will suffice. This member of the sentence ought to be separated from the succeeding ones, which do not c., not being like these without expense till called into actual use.

It does not seem correct to say that war is forced on us by vain appeals to the justice of other nations. In spite of appeals c., or some such turn to the expression would obviate the criticism.

The Secretary of War in answer to a letter from the President of Nov. 17, wrote:

H. Dearborn has looked over considered the inclosed, without observing anything that he can consider as a defect, or requiring alteration.

Gallatin’s Notes. (Indorsed: “Received Nov. 16, 06, Message.”)

1st page. Foreign Relations ‘could leave no imputation on either our moderation or forbearance.’ The plan determining the Spanish differences by the purchase of Florida, will, if successful, prove highly advantageous to the United States, but is ill relished by Spain and in case of failure will not alone afford proofs of moderation or forbearance. These must be found in the contingent instructions given to our ministers in case they should fail in the principal object. What have these been? And do they fully justify the assertion? I have not seen them mention this merely for consideration. [The ultimatum of our instructions is, 1. satisfaction for spoliations, 2. silence as to limits, leaving each party to pursue it’s own course as to these. Insert by T. J. ]

England. ‘Whether this ( issue ) will be such as c. must depend on that issue.’ There is some inaccuracy in the construction of that sentence, the meaning of which is that the necessity of the repeal or reinforcement c. depends on the issue of the negotiations.

Spain. ‘has consented to meet us c.’ Is the fact positively asserted by Mr. Armstrong? Mr. Erving in his last letter denies it.

2d page. ‘and to permit no new settlement or post to be taken within it.’ The last instructions permit as an ultimatum under certain circumstances the maintenance of the increased force at Bayou pierre. But the whole of this paragraph will probably require some modification if the intelligence of an arrangement between Wilkinson and Herrada proves true.

Army. Might not the words ‘in other respects our,’ or some to that effect be substituted to ‘our regular.’ For it seems to me that the continuance of a corps of cavalry by voluntary enlistment for the term stated in the preceding paragraph is to all intents an increase of regular force as contradistinguished from militia or volunteers.

New Orleans. I would omit the words ‘perhaps the present fort of Plaquemine.’ 1st. In order to avoid unnecessary commitment of opinion. 2dly. Because Plaquemine is not, I believe, below all the firm lands. Observe also that the approaches by Lake Ponchartrain must be defended as well as those by the Mississippi.

3d page. Fortifications. Substitute a for some; as this last expression may be construed into an evidence of disregard for that mode of defence. And considering the lively interest felt in a certain quarter on that question and the use made of it, is it necessary to speak of that object in terms as decisive as those used at the end of page 78? Might not these last be omitted or modified?

4th page. Insurrection. If the information received is not sufficiently decisive to affix criminality to certain individuals, the word ‘are’ at the end of 4th line may be omitted; but if the proofs received, without being legal evidence, are sufficient to impress a conviction that the object was of an internal nature, the word should remain.

‘Where an enterprise is meditated c.’ The following paragraph shews that there are cases in which the powers of prevention given by the laws are not sufficient against enterprises meditated against foreign nations. On that account, because it appears important, considering the Miranda’s expedition, not to impress too forcibly the opinion that those powers are really sufficient, I would suggest not only to substitute another word to ‘meditated,’ but to place the defect of the existing laws in that respect in a more prominent point of view than is done by the following paragraph. This may perhaps be affected by making that subject a distinct head instead of mentioning it incidentally and by indicating it in more general terms. For pointing out a single particular defect seems to diminish its importance. Quere Whether some more direct allusion to Miranda’s expedition would not be politick practicable?

Indians. ‘We have nothing to fear from that quarter.’ The assurance seems too positive as danger may arise from causes not under our controul, such as the intrigues of Spanish agents to the south of British traders on the northwest.

5th and 6th pages. Red River. Mississippi. The details seem comparatively too long, both in relation to the other parts of the message generally to the Missouri expedition. But I would, at all events avoid a commitment respecting the northern boundary of either Louisiana or the U. States. The boundary fixed by the Treaty of Utrecht might be probably was intended for Canada rather than for Louisiana; and Crozat’s charter expressly limits the last province to the 45th degree of latitude. As to the U. States, we have conceded that a parallel westwdly from the Lake of the Woods was not our necessary boundary, and have agreed heretofore to a straight line from that lake to the source of the Mississippi.

7th page. Salt tax. This has never amounted to 600,000 dollars averages about 550,000. The Mediterranean fund at present whilst the European war continues is worth almost a million. The words ‘not materially different in amount’ are not therefore correct. Observe also that 2/5 of the salt tax, 8 cents per bushel, expire on 3d March, 1811. We may dispense with the whole of it from the present time, or say from 1 July next, provided the Medit fund be continued only for 2 years longer or till 1 Jany. 1809. If circumstances should then render a further continuation necessary it may then be again extended. I would, on the whole, propose to suppress the words ‘not materially different in amount,’ and that the next line should read ‘by continuing for a limited time the Medit fund.’

University. ‘They cannot then be applied to the extinguishment c.’ I would wish that between the words then the the following should be inserted ‘without a modification assented to by the public creditors.’ Or that the idea should be inserted in some other way in the paragraph. It will be consistent with the opinion expressed that the extinguishment c. liberation c. are the most desirable of all objects, and Congress have now under consideration a plan for the purpose which I submitted last session was postponed because reported too late by the Comee of Ways Means.

On Fortifications c. This is the paragraph which I think might without injury to the sense be omitted.

8th page. ‘To be partitioned among the States in a federal just ratio.’ Would it not be best to omit these words, as neither improvements nor education can ever in practice be exactly partitioned in that manner? And the suggestion might embarrass or defeat the amendment when before the House.

The surplusses indeed which will arise c. ’ It may be observed on whatever relates to the connection between those surplusses the proposed improvements university, 1st that, war excepted, the surplusses will, certainly under any circumstance, even while the debt will be in a course of payment, be after 1 January 180 sufficient for any possible improvement. I have no doubt that they will amount to at least 2 millions a year and if no modification in the debt takes place to nearly five. 2dly. That it will take at least the two intervening years to obtain an amendment, pass the laws designating improvements and make the arrangements preparatory to any large expense. 3rdly. That the existing surplusses are at this moment sufficient for any university or national institute. But the whole of this part of the message rests on the supposition that a longer time must elapse before we are ready for any considerable expenditure for improvements, and that we would not be able to meet even that for the University before the time which must elapse in obtaining an amendment. The general scope of this part of the message seems also to give a preference to the University over general improvements; and it must not be forgotten, apart from any consideration of their relative importance, that the last proposition may probably be popular that the other, for university, will certainly be unpopular. I think indeed that the only chance of its adoption arises from the ease with which funds in public lands may be granted. It appears to me therefore that the whole of that part from the words above quoted ‘the surplusses indeed c’ to the words ‘to which our funds may become equal’ should undergo a revisal; introducing in the same place the substance of the last paragraph of the 9th page respecting a donation of lands, which seems to be misplaced where it now stands. If a total revision is not approved, the following alterations are suggested.

Erase from ‘the surplusses’ in 15th line to ‘first’ inclusively in 18th line; and insert ‘the surplusses are already at this moment adequate to’ or words to that effect.

Erase from ‘to such’ in 8th line from bottom to the end of the page and insert, ‘But whether our views be restrained.’

9th. page. To the word ‘may’ in 2d line substitute ‘will soon,’ and in 3d line between ‘equal’ ‘I’ substitute a comma to a full stop.

Would it not be better to stop, when speaking of the amendment at the words ‘to be applied’ 7th line? It would avoid a discussion on the words ‘general welfare’: And it must be observed that if even those words had the greatest extent in the constittn of which they are susceptible vixt that Congress had power to raise taxes c for every purpose, which they might consider producive of public welfare, yet that would not give them the power to open roads, canals through the several states. The first reason given that the objects now recommended are not among those enumerated c. is conclusive and seems sufficient. At all events I would suppress the paragraph which suggests an amendment to erase from the constitution those words as questionable in its nature because the proposition seems to acknowledge that the words are susceptible of a very dangerous meaning.

Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
November 23, 1806
Gallatin
Gallatin

Gallatin to Jefferson.

The words ‘ere long’ and ‘systems of fortifications’ were omitted by oversight in correcting the copy I sent you yesterday. I had made both these amendments in the original. But I have struck out the passage about fortifications altogether, for the principle that where there is a difference of opinion it is better to say too little than too much. Affectionate salutations.

Madison’s Notes. (Indorsed: “Received Nov. 29, 06. Message.”)

that whilst the public force was acting strictly on the defensive, merely to protect our citizens from aggression, the criminal attempts of private individuals to decide for their country the question of peace or war, by commencing active and unauthorized hostilities ought to be promptly and effectually suppressed.

1

In the Jefferson papers is the following draft:

Madison’s Notes. (Indorsed: “Message British. Rec. Nov. 27”)

I have the satisfaction to inform you that the negotiation on foot between the U. States the govt of G. B. is proceeding in a spirit of friendship accommodation which promises a result of mutual advantage. The delays which have taken place are to be regretted; but as they were occasioned by the long illness which ended in the death of the British Minister charged with that duty, they could not have been foreseen nor taken into calculation: and it appears that the commissioners appointed to resume the negotiation, have shown every disposition to hasten its progress. Under these circumstances our special ministers recommend a suspension of the acts prohibiting certain importations the commencement of which was postponed till the 15th of last month when it went into operation, and assured us that such a mark of candor and confidence in the temper views with which they have been met in the negotiation will have a happy effect on the course of it; whilst a disregard of that friendly consideration may have a different tendency. Considering that justice conciliation have been the real objects of all our measures, and that whatever will promote them will be most conformable to our wishes our interests, I cannot but join in the recommendation that the operation of the act be suspended for such additional term as may be deemed reasonable. It is not known here c.

1

Endorsed: “This was not issued, the Cambrian having gone off.” On this proclamation, Jefferson wrote to Madison on Dec. 19:

I send you the draft of a Proclamation, dated for tomorrow. I think all the letters orders, to the effect already agreed on, should be instantaneously got ready, and I ask the heads of departments to meet here tomorrow at 11 o’clock to consider what additional measures can be taken for forcing the Cambrian off, and for preventing her entering any other port of the U. S. Would it not be proper to ask Mr. Erskine to see you immediately to shew him the letter of Newton report of the officer, to let him know the measures we will take tomorrow. He may by tonight’s post reinforce his advice to those officers.

He had also written to Gallatin on Dec. 18:

I inclose a draught of a Proclamation with an amendment proposed by Mr. Madison. Before I make any alteration I shall be glad of your opinion on the matter. I return the two draughts of letters with an alteration or two proposed to me of them for your consideration. Mr. Erskine promised to write to Commodore Douglas yesterday on the subject of the Cambrian. He says she is reported as having sprung her bowsprit, put in on that account. Consequently we must let the matter lie till we hear from the Collector. I have made it a rule not to give up letters of accusation, or copies of them, in any case. It is true that Davies would probably care very little about a copy of his letter being sent to Briggs; yet I should think it sufficient that the heads of accusation have been already furnished to Mr. Briggs. Affectionate salutations.

1

Endorsed by Jefferson: “This letter was left to be finished on the 21st, but the mail went off at 2 a.m., which was earlier than I expected: so it was not sent. It is kept, as containing the sum of what was agreed upon at a meeting of heads of Departments, (except Mr. Gallatin who was not present) on the 19th of Dec. 1806.”

1

On Feb. 3, 1807, Jefferson wrote Wilkinson:

Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
Wilkinson
Wilkinson
Sir,

—A returning express gives me an opportunity of acknowledging the receipt of your letters of Nov. 12, Dec. 9, 14, 18, 25, 26, and Jan. 2. I wrote to you Jan. 3, and through Mr. Briggs, Jan. 10. The former being written while the Secretary at War was unable to attend to business, gave you the state of the information we then possessed as to Burr’s conspiracy. I now enclose you a message, containing a complete history of it from the commencement down to the eve of his departure from Nashville; two subsequent messages shewed that he began his descent of the Mississippi Jany 1, with 10 boats, from 80 to 100 men of his party, navigated by 60 oarsmen not at all of his party. This, I think, is fully the force with which he will be able to meet your gun-boats; and as I think he was uninformed of your proceedings, could not get the information till he would reach Natchez, I am in hopes that before this date he is in your possession. Although we at no time believed he could carry any formidable force out of the Ohio, yet we thought it safest that you should be prepared to receive him with all the force which could be assembled, and with that view our orders were given; and we were pleased to see that without waiting for them, you adopted nearly the same plan yourself, and acted on it with promptitude; the difference between yours ours proceeding from your expecting an attack by sea, which we knew was impossible, either by England or by a fleet under Truxton, who was at home; or by our own navy, which was under our own eye. Your belief that Burr would really descend with 6. or 7000 men, was no doubt founded on what you know of the numbers which could be raised in the Western country for an expedition to Mexico, under the authority of the government; but you probably did not calculate that the want of that authority would take from him every honest man, leave him only the desperadoes of his party, which in no part of the Ud S can ever be a numerous body. In approving, therefore, as we do approve, of the defensive operations for N Orleans, we are obliged to estimate them, not according to our own view of the danger, but to place ourselves in your situation, only with your information. Your sending here Swartwout Bollman, and adding to them Burr, Blennerhasset, Tyler, should they fall into your hands, will be supported by the public opinion. As to Alexander, who is arrived, and Ogden expected, the evidence yet received will not be sufficient to commit them. I hope, however you will not extend this deportation to persons against whom there is only suspicion, or shades of offence not strongly marked. In that case, I fear the public sentiment would desert you; because, seeing no danger here, violations of law are felt with strength. I have thought it just to give you these views of the sentiments sensations here, as they may enlighten your path. I am thoroughly sensible of the painful difficulties of your situation, expecting an attack from an overwhelming force, unversed in law, surrounded by suspected persons, in a nation tender as to everything infringing liberty, especially from the military. You have doubtless seen a good deal of malicious insinuation in the papers against you. This, of course, begot suspicion and distrust in those unacquainted with the line of your conduct. We, who knew it have not failed to strengthen the public confidence in you; and I can assure you that your conduct, as now known, has placed you on ground extremely favorable with the public. Burr and his emissaries found it convenient to sow a distrust in your mind of our dispositions towards you; but be assured that you will be cordially supported in the line of your duties. I pray you to send me D.’s original letter, communicated through Briggs, by the first entirely safe conveyance. Accept my friendly salutations assurances of esteem respect.