Each volume will contain the portion of this for the period covered by the dates of its contents.
No Jefferson was ever secretary of the Virginia Company, but John Jefferson was a member of the company. He came to Virginia in the Bona Nova, in 1619.
This was Capt. Thomas Jefferson, son of Thomas and Mary (Branch) Jefferson, of Henrico Co. He married Mary Field.
In Albemarle County. The house lot of 400 acres was purchased from William Randolph by “Henry Weatherbourne’s biggest bowl of arrack punch.”
Engraved and printed on four sheets in London, in 1751, by Thomas Jeffreys. The name Shadwell which it contains is even then one of the most western of settlements.
In Colonel Peter Jefferson’s Prayer Book in the handwriting of Thomas Jefferson, are the following entries:
births | marriages | deaths | |
---|---|---|---|
Jane Jefferson | 1740, June 17 | — | 1765 Oct 1 |
Mary | 1741, Oct 1 | 1760 June 24 | — |
Thomas | 1743, Apr 2 | 1772 Jan 1 | — |
Elizabeth | 1744, Nov. 4 | — | 1773 Jan 1 |
Martha | 1746, May 29 | 1765 July 20 | — |
Peter Field | 1748, Oct 16 | — | 1748 Nov. 29 |
A son | 1750, March 9 | — | 1750 Mar. 9 |
Lucy | 1752, Oct 10 | 1769 Sept. 12 | — |
Anna Scott Randolph | 1755, Oct 1 | 1788, October | — |
The Rev. William Douglas, of St. James, Northam Parish, Goochland.
Rev. James Maury, of Fredericksville, Louisa Co., “an ingenious young man, who tho’ born of French parents, has lived with them in this country of Virginia since he was a very young child. He has been educated at our College.”— James Blair to Bishop of London, 1742
Under the act of 2d George II., no slave was to be set “free upon any pretence whatsoever, except for some meritorious services, to be adjudged and allowed by the Governor and Council.”— Acts of the Assembly, 1769. No trace of this “effort” is recorded in the Journal of the House of Burgesses.
Patrick Henry. Cf. post, sketch of Patrick Henry, under 1814.
May 8th.
May 16th.
A public room sometimes called the “long room” in the tavern. There is a picture of it in The Century Magazine for November, 1875.
This was the famous “Gaspee” inquiry, the date being a slip for 1772.
Dabney Carr. He married Martha Jefferson.
“Mr. Jefferson and Charles Lee may be said to have originated a fast to electrify the people from the pulpit. . . . Those gentlemen, knowing that Robert Carter Nicholas, the chairman of the committee of religion, was no less zealous than themselves against the attempt to starve thousands of American people into a subservience to the ministry, easily persuaded him to put forth the strength of his character, on an occasion which he thought to be pious, and move a fast, to be observed on the first day of June.—Edmund Randolph’s (MS.) History of Virginia, p. 24.
Printed in Force’s Archives, 4th, 1, 350.
Robert Carter Nicholas.
“It (the fast) was spoke of by some as a Schem calculated to inflame and excite an enthusiastic zeal in the Minds of the People under a Cloak of Religion, than which nothing could be more calumnious and unjust . . . The Resolution was not Smuggled, but proposed in a very full House, not above one Dissentient appearing amongst near an hundred members.”—R. C. Nicholas’ Considerations on the Present State of Virginia Examined, p. 40.
Printed in Rind’s Virginia Gazette for May 26, 1774. It was signed by eighty-nine members.
May 27, 1774.
This was in a separate resolution, adopted May 30th, by “all the members that were then in town.” It was not to “elect deputies” but merely a reference of the consideration of important papers to such “late members of the House of Burgesses” who should then gather.
By the original invitation, printed herein under June, 1774, it will be seen that the call was for June 23d, instead of the 1st.
There are several errors in this statement, which are treated in the note on the pamphlet. See post, 1774.
Rev. John Hurt.
It is hardly necessary to state that this so-called bill was a myth, which had no basis in fact. But at the time when these leaders were risking such a proscription, it was the current belief, both in England and America, that steps would be taken against them, and it is not strange that, in the absence of the proof to the contrary which we now possess, it was believed in.
See Girardin’s History of Virginia, Appendix No. 12, note.— T. J.
March 27, 1775. See Force’s Archives, 4th, ii, 172.
It had already been referred to the Congress by New Jersey, May 20th, 1775.
See post, under June 12, 1775.
Cf. note on Jefferson’s draft, post, under July 6, 1775.
“Scarcely I believe altering one” struck out in MS. by author.
See post, under July 31, 1775.
Printed in Force’s Archives, 5th, vi, 461.
Here, in the original manuscript, commence the “two preceding sheets” referred to by Mr. Jefferson, as containing “notes” taken by him “whilst these things were going on.” They are easily distinguished from the body of the MS. in which they were inserted by him, being of a paper very different in size, quality, and color from that on which the latter is written.
Introduced by Richard Henry Lee. His autograph resolution is reproduced in Etting’s Memorials of 1776, p. 4.
“The Congress sat till 7 o’clock this evening in consequence of a motion of R. H. Lee’s rendering ourselves free and independent States. The sensible part of the House opposed the Motion—they had no objection to forming a Scheme of a Treaty which they would send to France by proper Persons uniting this Continent by a Confederacy; they saw no wisdom in a Declaration of Independence, nor any other Purpose to be enforced by it, but placing ourselves in the power of those with whom we mean to treat, giving our Enemy Notice of our Intentions before we had taken any steps to execute them. The event, however, was that the Question was postponed; it is to be renewed on Monday when I mean to move that it should be postponed for 3 Weeks or Months. In the mean Time the plan of Confederation the Scheme of Treaty may go on. I don’t know whether I shall succeed in this Motion; I think not, it is at least doubtful. However I must do what is right in my own Eyes, Consequences must take Care of themselves. I wish you had been here—the whole Argument was sustained on one side by R. Livingston, Wilson, Dickenson, myself, by the Power of all N. England, Virginia Georgia at the other.”— E. Rutledge to John Jay, June 8, 1776.
What “every kind of authority under the said crown should be totally suppressed” and “to adopt such government as shall . . . best conduce to the happiness and safety of their constituents.”— Journal of Congress, ii., 166, 174. Duane, in a letter to Jay, dated May 16th, states that: “it has occasioned a great alarm here [Philadelphia], and the cautious folks are very fearful of its being attended with many ill consequences.”
“Had not yet advanced to” struck out in MS. by author.
June 10, 1776.
A different account is given of this by John Adams, as follows:
“The committee had several meetings, in which were proposed the articles of which the declaration was to consist, and minutes made of them. The committee then appointed Mr. Jefferson and me to draw them up in form, and clothe them in a proper dress. The sub-committee met, and considered the minutes, making such observations on them as then occurred, when Mr. Jefferson desired me to take them to my lodgings, and make the draught. This I declined, and gave several reasons for declining. 1. That he was a Virginian, and I a Massachusettensian. 2. That he was a southern man, and I a northern one. 3. That I had been so obnoxious for my early and constant zeal in promoting the measure, that any draught of mine would undergo a more severe scrutiny and criticism in Congress, than one of his composition. 4. And lastly, and that would be reason enough if there were no other, I had a great opinion of the elegance of his pen, and none at all of my own. I therefore insisted that no hesitation should be made on his part. He accordingly took the minutes, and in a day or two produced to me his draught. Whether I made or suggested any correction, I remember not. The report was made to the committee of five, by them examined, but, whether altered or corrected in any thing, I cannot recollect. But, in substance at least, it was reported to Congress, where, after a severe criticism, and striking out several of the most oratorical paragraphs, it was adopted on the fourth of July, 1776, and published to the world.”— Autobiography of John Adams.
“You inquire why so young a man as Mr. Jefferson was placed at the head of the Committee for preparing a Declaration of Independence? I answer: it was the Frankfort advice, to place Virginia at the head of every thing. Mr. Richard Henry Lee might be gone to Virgina, to his sick family, for aught I know, but that was not the reason of Mr. Jefferson’s appointment. There were three committees appointed at the same time. One for the Declaration of Independence, another for preparing the articles of Confederation, another for preparing a treaty to be proposed to France. Mr. Lee was chosen for the committee of Confederation, and it was not thought convenient that the same person should be upon both. Mr. Jefferson came into Congress, in June, 1775, and brought with him a reputation for literature, science, and a happy talent of composition. Writings of his were handed about, remarkable for the peculiar felicity of expression. Though a silent member in Congress, he was so prompt, frank, explicit, and decisive upon committees and in conversation, not even Samuel Adams was more so, that he soon seized upon my heart and upon this occasion I gave him my vote, and did all in my power to procure the votes of others. I think he had one more vote than any other, and that placed him at the head of the committee. I had the next highest number, and that placed me the second. The committee met, discussed the subject, and then appointed Mr. Jefferson and me to make the draft, I suppose because we were the two first on the list.
“The sub-committee met. Jefferson proposed to me to make the draft. I said: ‘I will not.’ ‘You should do it.’ ‘Oh! no.’ ‘Why will you not? You ought to do it.’ ‘I will not.’ ‘Why?’ ‘Reasons enough.’ ‘What can be your reasons?’ ‘Reason first—You are a Virginian, and a Virginian ought to appear at the head of this business. Reason second—I am obnoxious, suspected, and unpopular. You are very much otherwise. Reason third—You can write ten times better than I can.’ ‘Well,’ said Jefferson, ‘If you are decided, I will do as well as I can.’ ‘Very well. When you have drawn it up, we will have a meeting.’
“A meeting we accordingly had, and conned the paper over. I was delighted with its high tone and the flights of oratory with which it abounded, especially that concerning negro slavery, which, though I knew his Southern brethren would never suffer to pass in Congress, I certainly never would oppose. There were other expressions which I would not have inserted, if I had drawn it up, particularly that which called the King tyrant. I thought this too personal; for I never believed George to be a tyrant in disposition and in nature; I always believed him to be deceived by his courtiers on both sides of the Atlantic, and in his official capacity only, cruel. I thought the expression too passionate, and too much like scolding, for so grave and solemn a document; but as Franklin and Sherman were to inspect it afterwards, I thought it would not become me to strike it out. I consented to report it, and do not now remember that I made or suggested a single alteration.
“We reported it to the committee of five. It was read, and I do not remember that Franklin or Sherman criticised any thing. We were all in haste. Congress was impatient, and the instrument was reported, as I believe, in Jefferson’s handwriting, as he first drew it. Congress cut off about a quarter of it, as I expected they would; but they obliterated some of the best of it, and left all that was exceptionable, if anything in it was. I have long wondered that the original draught has not been published. I suppose the reason is, the vehement philippic against negro slavery.”— John Adams to Timothy Pickering, Aug. 22, 1822.
To this Jefferson replied:
“You have doubtless seen Timothy Pickering’s fourth of July observations on the Declaration of Independence. If his principles and prejudices, personal and political, gave us no reason to doubt whether he had truly quoted the information he alleges to have received from Mr. Adams, I should then say, that in some of the particulars, Mr. Adams’ memory has led him into unquestionable error. At the age of eighty-eight, and forty-seven years after the transactions of Independence, this is not wonderful. Nor should I, at the age of eighty, on the small advantage of that difference only, venture to oppose my memory to his, were it not supported by written notes, taken by myself at the moment and on the spot. He says ‘the committee of five, to wit, Doctor Franklin, Sherman, Livingston and ourselves, met, discussed the subject, and then appointed him and myself to make the draught; that we, as a sub-committee, met, and after the urgencies of each on the other, I consented to undertake the task, that the draught being made, we, the sub-committee, met, and conned the paper over, and he does not remember that he made or suggested a single alteration.’ Now these details are quite incorrect. The committee of five met; no such thing as a sub-committee was proposed, but they unanimously pressed on myself alone to undertake the draught. I consented; I drew it; but before I reported it to the committee, I communicated it separately to Doctor Franklin and Mr. Adams, requesting their corrections because they were the two members of whose judgments and amendments I wished most to have the benefit, before presenting it to the committee: and you have seen the original paper now in my hands, with the corrections of Doctor Franklin and Mr. Adams interlined in their own handwritings. Their alterations were two or three only, and merely verbal. I then wrote a fair copy, reported it to the committee, and from them unaltered, to Congress. This personal communication and consultation with Mr. Adams, he has misremembered into the actings of a sub-committee. Pickering’s observations, and Mr. Adams’ in addition, ‘that it contained no new ideas, that it is a common place compilation, its sentiments hacknied in Congress for two years before, and its essence contained in Otis’ pamphlet,’ may all be true. Of that I am not to be the judge. Richard Henry Lee charged it as copied from Locke’s treatise on government. Otis’ pamphlet I never saw, and whether I had gathered my ideas from reading or reflection I do not know. I know only that I turned to neither book nor pamphlet while writing it. I did not consider it as any part of my charge to invent new ideas altogether, and to offer no sentiment which had ever been expressed before.”— Letter to J. Madison, Aug. 30, 1823.
George Read (opposing) and Thomas McKean.
Cæsar Rodney.
Dickinson and Robert Morris did not attend, Wilson changed his vote, and with Franklin and Morton, outvoted Willing and Humphreys.
July 9th.
Monday, July 1st. No sitting was held on Saturday.
The “Resolution” for independence was under discussion on the 1st of July. The declaration on July 2d, 3d, and 4th.
The question whether the declaration was signed on the 4th of July, as well as on the 2d of August, has been a much vexed one, but a careful study of it must make almost certain that it was not. The MS. Journal of Congress (that printed by order of Congress being fabricated and altered) merely required its “authentication,” which we know from other cases was by the signatures of the president and secretary; who accordingly signed it “by order and in behalf of the Congress,” and the printed copies at once sent out had only these signatures. It is also certain that several of the members then in Congress would have refused to sign it on that day, and that the Congress therefore had good cause to postpone the signing till certain of the delegations should receive new instructions, or be changed; and also till its first effect on the people might be seen. For these reasons the declaration was not even entered in the journal, though a blank was left for it, and when it was inserted at a later period, the list of signers was taken from the engrossed copy, though had there been one signed on the 4th of July it would certainly have been the one printed from, as including the men who were in Congress on that day and who voted on the question, instead of one signed by a number of men who were neither present nor members when the declaration was adopted. Moreover, though the printed journal afterwards led John Adams to believe and state that the declaration was signed on the 4th, we have his contemporary statement, on July 9th, that “as soon as an American seal is prepared, I conjecture the Declaration will be subscribed by all the members.” And we have the positive denial of McKean that “no person signed it on that day,” and this statement is substantiated by the later action of Congress in specially permitting him to sign what he certainly would have already done on the 4th, had there been the opportunity. Opposed to these direct statements and probabilities, we have Jefferson’s positive statement, three times repeated, that such a signing took place, but as he follows his nearly contemporary one with the statements that it was “signed by every member present except Mr. Dickinson,” when we have proof positive that all the New York delegates refused to even vote, much less sign, and that Dickinson was not even present in Congress on that day, it is evident that this narrative is not wholly trustworthy.
“I expected you had in the Preamble to our form of Government, exhausted the subject of complaint agt Geo. 3d was at a loss to discover what Congress would do for one to their Declaration of Independence without copying, but find you have acquitted your selves very well on that score.”— E. Pendleton to Jefferson, July 22.
“I am also obliged by ye Original Declaration of Independence, which I find your brethren have treated as they did ye Manifesto last summer—altered it much for the worse; their hopes of a Reconciliation might restrain them from plain truths then, but what could cramp them now?”— E. Pendleton to Jefferson, Aug. 10, 1776.
This is printed just as Jefferson prepared it for the press. By comparing it with the text as printed post, under July 4, 1776, it will be seen that he took the liberty of somewhat changing and even expunging portions.
This is an interlineation made at a later period—apparently after the question as to the signing of the declaration was raised. Jefferson has also written the following on a slip and pasted it on the sheet:
“Some erroneous statements of the proceedings on the declaration of independence having got before the public in latter times, Mr. Samuel A. Wells asked explanations of me, which are given in my letter to him of May 12. 19. before and now again referred to. I took notes in my place while these things were going on, and at their close wrote them out in form and with correctness and from 1 to 7 of the two preceding sheets are the originals then written; as the two following are of the earlier debates on the Confederation, which I took in like manner.”
In the Works of John Adams (ii., 492) are printed his memoranda of the debates on the confederation, wherein he has recorded the following sentences from Jefferson’s speeches on that subject: Article 14. “The limits of the Southern Colonies are fixed. Moves an amendment, that all purchases of lands, not within the boundaries of any Colony, shall be made by Congress of the Indians in a great Council.” Article 15. “What are reasonable limits? What security have we, that the Congress will not curtail the present settlements of the States? I have no doubt that the colonies will limit themselves.” Article 16. “Thinks the Congress will have a short meeting in the Fall and another in the Spring.” Article 17. “Explains it to mean the Indians who live in the Colony. These are subject to the laws in some degree. . . . I protest against the right of Congress to decide upon the right of Virginia. Virginia has released all claims to lands settled by Maryland, c.”
Robert Treat Paine.
“He therefore proposed” struck out in MS. by author.
“Seconded the proposition” struck out in MS. by author.
“So far going beyond Mr. Chase’s proposition,” struck out in MS. by author.
Here end the notes which Jefferson states were taken “while these things were going on, and at their close” were “written out in form and with correctness.” Much of their value depends on the date of their writing, but there is nothing to show this, except negative evidence. The sheets were all written at the same time, which makes the writing after Aug. 1, 1776; while the misstatements as to the signing, and as to Dickinson’s presence, would seem almost impossible unless greater time even than this had elapsed between the occurrence and the notes. The MS. is, moreover, considerably corrected and interlined, which would hardly be the case if merely a transcript of rough notes.
Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a bill For the establishment of courts of justice within this Commonwealth, and that Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Smith, Mr. Bullitt, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Watts, Mr. Williams, Mr. Gray, Mr. Bland, Mr. Braxton, and Mr. Curle do prepare and bring in the same.— Journal of the House of Delegates, 1776, p. 12.
This is erroneously stated. After the committee was formed they were directed by the House of Delegates to “divide the subject thereof into five distinct bills.” Three of these. (“Appeals,” “Chancery,” and “Assize”) were introduced by Jefferson Nov. 25, 1776, and the other two (“Admiralty” and “County”) Dec. 4, 1776. All but the “Admiralty” (which was promptly passed) encountered bitter opposition, (see note to: Bill for suspending execution for debt, Dec. 6, 1776), and none were acted upon at this session, nor at the succeeding one. On Oct. 30, 1777, fresh leave was granted to introduce bills establishing Courts of Appeals, “General Court and Court of Assize” and Chancery. The latter two were passed at this session, and the first passed at the first session in 1778. They are all printed in A Collection of the Public Acts of Virginia. Richmond, 1785, pp. 66, 70, 84.
See post, Oct. 12, 1776.
This was one of the five bills into which the committee by order of the House of Delegates divided the law for the establishment of courts of justice (see Journal of the House of Delegates, p. 69). But the original draft of the bill (which is not in Jefferson’s handwriting) in the Virginia State Archives contains only the clause concerning juries in the bill as passed, which was to the effect that by mutual agreement of the parties the case could be submitted to the judge, without the calling of a jury, but otherwise a jury trial should be given; such having been the law before the extinction of the courts by the revolutionary conflict. Moreover, with the rough draft of the bill already alluded to, is a separate paper, in Pendleton’s handwriting, containing his amendments to the bill, which does not alter in any way the jury system in the original bill.
This is erroneously stated. The earliest step towards this limitation was the permission of the House of Delegates, Nov. 8, 1777, to John Henry and Starke to introduce a bill “to prohibit the importation of slaves.” On Nov. 22d, Henry introduced a bill which was read for a first and second time on that day, and then postponed from time to time till the end of the session. In the next session, the matter was taken up de novo, on Oct. 15, 1778, by the House of Delegates ordering the committee of trade to prepare a new bill. It was introduced by Kella as chairman of the committee on Oct. 15th, passed on Oct. 22d, amended by the Senate on the 23d, and finally concurred in by the House, Oct. 27, 1778. Jefferson thus clearly had nothing to do with the first bill, and, as he did not take his seat at the second session till Nov. 30th, it is equally certain he had nothing to do with the one which was adopted.—See Journal of the House of Delegates for 1777, pp. 17, 40; for 1778, pp. 11, 13, 19, 23. The original draft of the bill, now in the Virginia State Archives, is not in Jefferson’s handwriting.
An error. These petitions were invariably referred to the “Committee of Religion” consisting of nineteen members (including Jefferson) appointed Oct. 11, 1776. See Journal of the House of Delegates, pp. 7, 24, 26, 35, 47. On Nov. 9th, however, that committee was “discharged” of this question and it was referred to the “Committee of the Whole House upon the State of the Country.”
Entitled: “An Act for exempting the different societies of dissenters from contributing to the support and maintenance of the church as by law established, and its ministers, and for other purposes therein mentioned.” Passed by the House of Delegates, Dec. 5th. Concurred in by the Senate Dec. 9th. Re-enacted Jan. 1, 1778. It is printed in A Collection of Public Acts of Virginia, Richmond, 1785, p. 39.
This was moved as early as 1761, and only failed by a vote of 35 to 36. A second attempt was made Feb. 10, 1772.— Journal of the House of Burgesses. Cf. post, Oct. 14, 1776.
Printed in the Report of the Committee of Revisors, p. 41.
Oct. 12th. Cf. note on this revision, post, under June 18, 1779.
See Correspondence of James Madison, i., 199, 203, 207, 212; iii., 532, 580, 583, 612.
Printed in this edition under June 18, 1779.
“We went on slowly but successfully till we arrived at the bill concerning crimes and punishments. Here the adversaries of the Code exerted their whole force, which, being abetted by the impatience of its friends in an advanced stage of the session, so far prevailed that the farther prosecution of the work was postponed till the next session.”— Madison to Jefferson, January 22, 1786. “After being altered so as to remove most of the objections, as was thought [it] was lost by a single vote. The rage against Horse-stealers had a great influence on the fate of the bill. Our old bloody code is by this event fully restored.”— Madison to Jefferson, February 15, 1787. “In the changes made in the penal law, the Revisors were unfortunately misled into some of the specious errors of — [Beccaria] then in the zenith of his fame as a philosophical legislator.”— Madison to Grimke, January 15, 1828.
Printed in this edition under June 18, 1779.
Printed in this edition under June 18, 1779.
Cf. post, with Notes on Virginia in this edition.
Cf. post, with Notes on Virginia in this edition.
An error. He was appointed Sept. 26th.— Secret Journals of Congress, ii., 31.
His ostensible character was to be that of a merchant, his real one that of agent for military supplies, and also for sounding the dispositions of the government of France, and seeing how far they would favor us, either secretly or openly. His appointment had been by the Committee of Foreign Correspondence, March, 1776.— T. J.
By the Secret Journal of Congress it was June 14th.
Diplomatic Correspondence, xii., 81.
Printed in this edition under 1784.
April 14, 1784. Journal of Congress, ix., 127. Cf. post, under Jan. 30, 1784, Jefferson’s report on the committee of the States.
Cf. post, under Jan., 1784.
On motion of Williamson, seconded by Jefferson.
Arthur Lee, Delegate from Virginia.
Jacob Read.
Vattel, L. 2, § 156. L. 4, § 77. 1. Mably Droit D’Europe, 86.— T. J.
John F. Mercer.
Printed in this edition under that date.
The 4th of January, 1784, was Sunday, so Congress did not sit.
See Jefferson’s report on European treaties, post, under 1784.
Martha Jefferson, afterwards Mrs. Thomas Mann Randolph.
Cf. post, note on Notes on Virginia under 1782.
William Stephens Smith.
In Lewis and Clarke’s Travels.
The Crimea.— T. J.
In Washington’s edition of Jefferson’s Writings (ix., 313) a journal of this tour is printed.
Sir James Harris.
lre to Jay Aug. 6. 87.— T. J.
My lre Sep. 22. 87.— T. J.
My lre to J. Jay Sep. 24.— T. J.
lre to Carm. Dec. 15.— T. J.
My lre to Jay Nov. 3. lre to J. Adams, Nov. 13.— T. J.
This is an evident error. On September 4th, the committee of eleven reported a clause making the term four years, which was adopted by the convention on the 6th, and not altered thereafter.
In the impeachment of judge Pickering of New Hampshire, a habitual maniac drunkard, no defence was made. Had there been, the party vote of more than one third of the Senate would have acquitted him.— T. J.
Adams returned to America before his election as Vice President.
A journal of this tour, kept by Jefferson, is printed in Washington’s edition of his writings, ix., 373.
Among the Jefferson MSS. in the Department of State are printed copies of both the consular conventions negotiated by Franklin and Jefferson, and the original draft of the latter, in Jefferson’s handwriting.
Thomas Mann Randolph.
It was printed in that edition.
Neither this expression, nor any of Lord North’s, were given in Franklin’s narrative. Cf. Bigelow’s Writings of Franklin, v. 440.
The so-called Anas are the only portion of Jefferson’s writings besides his Autobiography, which do not allow of chronological arrangement. Though commencing in 1791 and extending to 1806, with an “Explanation” or preface added in 1818, they were intended by the author to constitute a unit. They are therefore appended to the Autobiography, to which they are practically a continuation, as the most satisfactory position they could be given under the chronological arrangement of this edition. With these “loose scraps” Jefferson (by his above explanation) evidently intended that certain of his official opinions, reports, and cabinet papers should be printed; but in the rebinding of his papers, his arrangement was so changed, that it is no longer possible to print these papers as he intended. The portion here printed is therefore limited to his unofficial notes and memoranda of interviews and meetings, the remainder being placed with other papers of the same nature in their chronological position.
In many cases the several different days and notes are recorded on the same sheet, showing that they were either copied, or written out from memory.
This refers to Marshall’s Life of Washington, which was a pet bête noir of Jefferson’s. In Washington’s edition (ix., 478) are some notes in answer to it.
See his lre., Apr. 8, 84. T. J.
This is an error. The abolition of the hereditary principle was proposed, but never adopted.
This cannot be so, as Washington did not leave Philadelphia till after May 16th, and Jefferson left Annapolis for France on May 11th.
Printed post under 1786.
No evidence whatever has been found to confirm Jefferson’s account of this convention. And as it assembled to consider the commercial condition of the States, and the delegates (excepting those from New Jersey) were strictly limited to that question by their commissions, it is hardly likely that their discussions extended to the “question of a republican or kingly government.”
It is hardly necessary to state that Hamilton left the convention, because by the secession of his two colleagues from New York, his State was no longer able to vote. His return, and signing of the Constitution, as an individual act, met with the gravest criticism within his own State.
According to Maclay’s Journal (179) and to Jackson’s speech ( Annals, 1, 1163) these expresses and vessels were despatched, immediately after the presentation of Hamilton’s Report (Jan 14th), and long before his recommendations were embodied in a bill. A résumé of his report was printed in Fenno’s Gazette for Jan. 20th, and in full in the issue for Jan. 27th, and these were extensively copied in the country press. It was therefore in the period gained by these expresses over the regular mail that the certificates were “filched”; but it should be borne in mind that from the Memorials of the public creditors of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, the resolution of the House of Representatives and the Address of Washington, (all of which had had extensive circulation), the public were already aware of the probable payment of these certificates, which is further shown by the steady rise in their value, even before Hamilton’s Report was presented.
Jefferson has here made the curious errors of separating the funding and assumption act, and of supposing the latter “was over” before he reached New York. Hamilton’s Report was debated in the House of Representatives from February to April, and it was not till May 6th that the funding bill was presented, the section relating to assumption having been negatived in committee. This bill passed the House on June 2d, and in the Senate had the assumption section restored. Not till Aug. 4th did the bill so altered become a law.
In the margin Jefferson has written, and then struck out, the following: “I do not know that any member from S. Carolina engaged in this infamous business, except William Smith, whom I think it a duty to name therefore, to relieve the others from imputation.”
Alexander White and Richard Bland Lee, Congressmen from Virginia. Daniel Carroll, of Md., also changed his vote.
See note of Oct 1, 1792. T. J.
Henry Lee, better known as Light-horse Harry.
A series of newspaper essays in the Massachusetts Sentinel, written by John Quincy Adams.
A series of essays published in the Gazette of the United States.
This refers to the apportionment bill. The Senate amended it and returned it to the House. They refused to concur, and sent it back as originally drawn. On the motion to recede from the Senate’s amendment (Dec. 15th) King voted yea, but five days later, on a motion to adhere to the Senate amendment, he again voted yea.
Mr. Madison nevertheless opposed a reference to me to report ways and means for the Western expedition, and combated, on principle, the propriety of such references. He well knew that if he prevailed a certain consequence was my resignation. . . . To accomplish this point an effectual train, as was supposed, was laid. Besides those who ordinarily acted under Mr. Madison’s banners, several who had general acted with me, from various motives—vanity, self importance, etc, etc—were enlisted. My overthrow was anticipated as certain, and Mr Madison, laying aside his wonted caution, boldly led his troops, as he imagined, to a certain victory. He was disappointed. Though late, I was apprised of the danger. Measures of counteraction were adopted, and when the question was called, Mr Madison was confounded to find characters voting against him whom he had counted upon as certain.”— Hamilton to Carrington, May 26, 1792.
Rev. Samuel Kirkland, an Indian missionary, who was on a special mission from the U. S. to N. W. Indians.
See Brymner’s Report on Canadian Archives, 1890, 153.
Cf. post, page 209.
Thomas Pinckney, Minister at London.
Compare this with “Washington’s Opinion of his General Officers,” in the Magazine of American History, iii., 81.
Cf. ante, page 201.
Cf. ante, page 198.
Apr. 4, 1791.
The ordinance of 1784, for the temporary government of the Western territory.
May 23, 1792.
The president was to be ineligible for all time, and the two-thirds vote was for navigation acts only.
This is an error. By the Resolutions of August 6, 1787, Congress was distinctly forbidden to either tax or prohibit the importation of slaves.
This committee was appointed Sept. 9th. On the following day this clause was discussed at length in convention. On the 11th the convention adjourned as soon as met, and on the 12th the revised constitution was reported, with a clause identical in this particular with that finally adopted. The events here recorded therefore could not have taken place.
George Augustine Washington, overseer of Mount Vernon.
American State Papers, foreign relations, i., 139. From the commissioners of Spain relative to Spanish interference in the execution of the treaty between the U. S. and the Creek Indians, and to the boundary between the Spanish and U. S. settlements. It was communicated to Congress Nov. 7, 1792.
In Nov., 1792, Jean Baptiste Ternant, the French Minister, applied for money to relieve the Island of St. Domingo. Cf. Hamilton’s Works of Hamilton, iv., 174, 328, and Jefferson’s letter to Ternant, Nov. 20, 1792.
There had been a previous consultation at the President’s (about the 1st week in Nov.) on the expediency of suspending paiments to France under her present situation. I had admitted that the late constitution was dissolved by the dethronement of the king, and the management of affairs surviving to the National assembly only this was not an integral legislature, and therefore not competent to give a legitimate discharge for our payments: that I thought consequently, that none should be made till some legitimate body came into place, that I should consider the National convention called, but not met as we had yet heard, to be a legitimate body. Hamilton doubted whether it would be a legitimate body, and whether, if the king should be reestablished, he might not disallow such paiments on good grounds. Knox, for once, dared to differ from Hamilton, and to express, very submissively, an opinion, that a convention named by the whole body of the nation, would be competent to do anything. It ended by agreeing, that I should write to G. Morris to suspend paiment generally, till further orders. T. J.
A pamphlet written in 1776 to oppose American Independence. It was certainly not written by Hamilton. Cf. Pa. Mag. of History and Biography, xii., 421.
John Graves Simcoe, Governor of Upper Canada.
This relates to the charges against Hamilton, to which he replied in his Observations on Certain Documents.
Jan. 7, 1793.
Washington arrived in New York on April 23d, and immediately after his inauguration, April 30th, announced that he should receive the public on Tuesdays and Fridays, between two and three. The first of these levees was held on May 5th.
In relation to the treaty with the northwest Indians.
Gazette of the United States, Feb. 23, 1793.
This refers to the ceremony and oath for Washington’s second term. The official opinions are printed in Hamilton’s Works of Alexander Hamilton, iv., 442.
The resolutions, moved in the House of Representatives on February 28th, against Hamilton. They were negatived by a majority ranging between 40 to 33, to a minority varying from 15 to 7. Cf. note on Jefferson’s draft of these resolutions, post, under Mar. 2, 1793.
Mar. 25. Beckley says he has this day discovered that Benson is a stockholder. Also Borne of R. I. and Key. T. J.
These are known to Beckley. T. J.
These avowed it in the presence of Th. J. T. J.
These are known to Beckley. T. J.
These are known to Beckley. T. J.
“It is likely that if I had landed directly at Philadelphia, I would not have been at once recognised. Everything was in readiness to crush the first outbreak of enthusiasm on the part of the Americans . . . but my journey in the Southern States has made these designs abortive.”— Genet to Minister of Foreign Affairs, June 19, 1793.
“The friend, the councillor of Lafayette, responded to my open and loyal advances only in a diplomatic language which contained nothing I thought worthy of being transmitted to you. He spoke to me only of the desire that, according to him, the United States had, of living in peace and good harmony with all the Powers, and particularly with France; and he avoided touching upon anything that could have a relation with either our revolution, or the war we alone wage upon the enemies of the liberty of the people.”— Genet to Minister of Foreign Affairs, Oct. 7, 1793.
William Duer, who had failed for a large amount, lost by speculation and was now in jail.
Printed in Ford’s Writings of Washington, xii., 280, and Hamilton’s Works of Hamilton, iv., 359, with the Cabinet opinion on the same.
Though the question whether this treaty was not terminated by the French Revolution was discussed in the Cabinet, it was unanimously agreed that it was still in force. Jefferson is therefore in error in stating that Hamilton declared it void, as all he argued for was whether it “ought not to be deemed temporarily and provisionally suspended.” Cf. Hamilton’s Works of Hamilton, iv., 362, 282.
This was Hamilton’s Letter of Instructions to Collectors, which was considerably modified before it was issued, Aug. 4, 1793. Cf. Hamilton’s Works of Hamilton, iii., 574; iv., 392, 394.
The proclamation of neutrality.
Immediately on Genet’s landing at Charleston, he began to commission privateers, which captured English ships and brought them into American ports.
A reference to the French treaty.
“It is Mr. Jefferson, who has signed these complaints, but as he himself avows to me, we should consider him in this transaction only as the passive instrument of the President.”— Genet to Minister of Foreign Affairs, Oct. 7, 1793.
M. P. for Thirsk, by which he was first elected in 1784. Cf. Annual Register, xlvii., 459.
Impossible as to Hamilton; he was far above that. T. J.
This is interlined by Jefferson.
The first public ball was on May 4, 1789, or some three weeks before Mrs. Washington joined the President in New York; and far from Washington sitting apart on a dias, he was one of the dancers.
Jacob Clingman, who was concerned in the Hamilton-Raynolds affair. Andrew G. Fraunces made the matter of this certificate public in a pamphlet entitled, An Appeal to the Legislature of the U. S., which occasioned a Congressional investigation, which reported that the charge against Hamilton was “wholly illiberal and groundless.” Cf. Journals for Feb. 19, 1794, Bibliotheca Hamiltoniana, 43, and Hamilton’s Observations on Certain Documents, p. 7.
Presumably intended for William Irvine, a clerk in the Controller’s Office.
The first number appeared in Freneau’s National Gazette of June 12, 1793, and was answered in subsequent issues by “A Friend to Peace.” Genet was at this time writing to the French Minister of Foreign Affairs: “Jefferson, Secretary of State, appeared to me in the beginning better disposed to second our views. . . . He has published in the newspapers, over the name of Veritas, three letters against the system of these gentlemen.”
A vessel then in the Delaware River, which was re-named Le Petit Democrat.
It was decided August 5th that there was no ground for an order in this case.
André Michaux, who was appointed by Genet to organize a force to seize Louisiana for the French, on Spain’s declaring war against that nation. He apparently never went further in the attempt. Cf. Gayarre’s History of La., Spanish Domination, 341.
Jefferson’s rough draft of this paper was retained by him in the Anas, but as it is abbreviated to an extent that renders it almost unintelligible I have printed it here from the fair copy given to Washington. Cf. Jefferson’s Cabinet opinion, post, under July 8, 1793.
There are two copies, slightly varying, of this paper in the Jefferson MSS. Series 4: I. and III.
This is committed to writing the morning of the 13th of July. i. e. the whole page. T. J.
Cf. with p. 279.
Henry Brockholst Livingston.
“Jefferson, Secretary of State, appeared to me in the beginning better disposed to second our views. He gave me some useful ideas regarding the men in office, and did not conceal from me that Senator Morris and the Secretary of the Treasury Hamilton, attached to the interests of England, exerted the greatest influence on the mind of the President, and it was only with the greatest difficulty that he counteracted their efforts.”— Genet to Minister of Foreign Affairs, July 31, 1793.
Benjamin Franklin Bache, publisher of the General Advertiser.
Noailles and Talon were agents from the French royalists.
These are the basis of the rules adopted August 3d. Cf. Cabinet opinion of that date, Hamilton’s Works of Hamilton, iv., p. 457.
Jefferson struck out the portion here printed in brackets.
He said that Mr. Morris, taking a family dinner with him the other day went largely of his own accord into this subject; advised this appeal and promised if the President adopted it that he would support it himself, engage for all his connections. The President repeated this twice and with an air of importance. Now Mr. Morris has no family connections. He engaged then for his political friends. This shows that the President has not confidence enough in the virtue good sense of mankind to confide in a government bottomed on them, and thinks other props necessary. T. J.
James Wilson, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
He asked me whether I could not arrange my affairs by going home. I told him I did not think the public business would admit of it; that there was never a day now in which the absence of the Secretary of state would not be inconvenient to the public.— T. J.
Edward Telfair.
Printed in American State Papers, Indian Affairs, ii., 370.
A refugee from the revolution in St. Domingo, who was antagonized by Genet, and eventually fled to Canada.
See Hamilton’s Works of Hamilton, iv., 486.
Jay and King had united in a published statement that Genet had threatened to appeal to the people of the U. S. against the action of the executive. Genet denied this in the newspapers, and wrote to the Attorney-General requesting him to prosecute them, which the latter declined to do.
Jefferson retired from the Cabinet January 1, 1794, and remained in retirement at Monticello till elected Vice-President in 1797.
Yrujo, the Spanish Minister.
1798. Mar. He now denies it in the public papers tho it can be proved by several members.— T. J.
He observed, that 8. or 10. years ago he gave only 50 D. to a common labourer for his farm, finding him food lodging. Now he gives 150 D. and even 200 D. to one.— T. J.
This was “Hail Columbia.”
Eustis.
John.
This was the removal which led to such criticism.
Minister to England.
On the resignation of Truxton, J. Barron is retained, and on that of Preble, Campbell is retained: he is a S. Carolinian by birth.— T. J.
In command of the Mediterranean fleet.
W. P. Van Ness’ Examination of the various charges exhibited against Aaron Burr.
Mirales.
Ouisconsin, otherwise Wisconsin.
These notes refer to the boundaries of Florida and Texas, then in dispute between the United States and Spain.
Neustra Señora de los Adaes, seven leagues from Natchitoches.
Cordero, the Spanish governor.
Mobile.
MS. cut out.
Blank in MS. This note is not in the Jefferson MSS.
George W. Erving, chargé d’affaires and acting minister at Madrid.
British cruisers.
A shot fired by the Leander across the bows of an American ship had killed a man on a sloop.
Van Ness’ pamphlet. See ante, p. 376.
The British Minister.
Madison desired his recall.
Burr’s Conspiracy.
The British Minister.
For all armedEnglish vessels to leave the ports of the United States, occasioned by the Chesapeake-Leopard incident.
The disputed levee at New Orleans.
The exploring expedition, sent out by the government under the command of Capt. Zebulon Pike.
See note of Dec. 1, 1808, post.
From a copy courteously furnished by Dr. J. S. H. Fogg, of Boston. Harvey was Jefferson’s guardian.
This, and the seven following letters to Page, are printed from Tucker’s Life of Jefferson.
This was a portrait of Rebecca Burwell, a daughter of Lewis Burwell, President of the Virginia Council, and sister of Lewis Burwell, Jr., then a collegian in William and Mary. Jefferson in the following letters to disguise the reference sometimes writes of her in the masculine gender, or mentions her as “Belinda,” or as “campana in die” (that is: bell in day ), and occasionally spells Belinda backwards, making it “adnileb,” which is sometimes as well written in Greek characters. The end of this youthful penchant is recorded in his letter to Fleming of March 20th, 1764, post.
Probably the Jacquelin Ambler mentioned, post.
From the Southern Literary Messenger, iii., 305.
Probably written while on his way to Williamsburg, late in September of that year.
Sukey Potter.
The College.
A playful name for Williamsburg.
Fanny Burwell, sister of Jefferson’s flame.
From the Southern Literary Messenger, iii., 305.
Jenny Taliaferro.
See page 451.
This is printed in the appendix of Jefferson’s Reports of Cases Determined in the General Court of Virginia, in the preface of which he states: “I have added also a Disquisition of my own on the most remarkable instance of Judicial legislation that has ever occurred in English jurisprudence or perhaps in any other. It is that of the adoption in mass of the whole code of another nation, and its incorporation into the legitimate system by usurpation of the Judges alone, without a particle of legislative will having ever been called on, or exercised towards its introduction or confirmation.”
It is not dated, but in his letter to Thomas Cooper of Feb. 10, 1814, Jefferson, in enclosing an abbreviated and somewhat altered copy, as an “extract from his Common Place Book, 873,” writes of it:
“In my letter of January 16, I promised you a sample from my commonplace book, of the pious disposition of the English judges, to connive at the frauds of the clergy, a disposition which has often rendered them faithful allies in practice. When I was a student of the law, now half a century ago, after getting through Coke Littleton, whose matter cannot be abridged, I was in the habit of abridging and common-placing what I read meriting it, and of sometimes mixing my own reflections on the subject. I now enclose you the extract from these entries which I promised. They were written at a time of life when I was bold in the pursuit of knowledge, never fearing to follow truth and reason to whatever results they led, and bearding every authority which stood in their way. This must be the apology if you find the conclusions bolder than historical facts and principles will warrant. Accept with them the assurances of my great esteem and respect.”
In the already alluded to copy of this, sent to Thomas Cooper in 1814, the remainder of this, by what is clearly a long subsequent interpolation, is made to read as follows:
“In doing this, too, they have not even used the Connecticut caution of declaring, as is done in their blue laws, that the laws of God shall be the laws of their land, except where their own contradict them; but they swallow the yea and nay together. Finally, in answer to Fortescue Aland’s question why the ten commandments should not be a part of the common law of England? we may say they are not because they never were made so by legislative authority, the document which has imposed that doubt on him being a manifest forgery.”
From the original in the possession of Dr. Thomas Addis Emmet, of New York.
This application met with no success, Rev. Thomas Price being continued in office.
From the Journal of the House of Burgesses for 1769, p. 4. It is the first of Jefferson’s public papers, and in a letter to Wirt (Aug. 5, 1815) he writes of it: “On receiving the Governor’s [Botetourt] speech it was usual to move resolutions as heads to an address. Mr. Pendleton asked me to draw the resolutions which I did. They were accepted by the House, and Pendleton, Nicholas, myself and some others were appointed a committee to prepare the address. The committee desired me to do it, but when presented it was thought to pursue too strictly the diction of the resolutions, and that their subjects were not amplified. Mr. Nicholas chiefly objected to it, and was desired by the committee to draw one more at large, which he did with amplification enough, and it was accepted. Being a young man as well as a young member, it made on me an impression proportioned to the sensibility of that time of life.”
Probably Mr. William Fontaine, of Hanover County.
By this term, he no doubt designated Mr. Dabney Carr, his brother-in-law.
This, and Jefferson’s argument in the case of Godwin et al. vs. Lunan, printed herein under Oct., 1771, are the only legal arguments of his, while still a practising lawyer, that are extant, if we except a paper among the Jefferson manuscripts in the Department of State, being an “opinion” endorsed “On the Power of the General Court to established Fees.—E. Pendleton and T. Jefferson, May 4, 1774.” This latter is entirely in the handwriting of Pendleton, leaving it a matter of uncertainty what part was supplied by Jefferson. The two former owe their preservation to their incorporation in a collection of law reports which was prepared for publication by Jefferson some time before his death, and published in 1829 under the title of Reports of Cases Determined in the General Court of Virginia from 1730 to 1740, and from 1768 to 1772. Therein he says of this case:
“This case was referred to the determination of the court, on facts stated by the counsel for both parties, which were, That the plaintiff’s grandmother was a mulatto, begotten of a white woman by a negro man, after the year 1705, and bound by the churchwardens, under the law of that date, to serve to the age of thirty-one. That after the year 1723, but during her servitude, she was delivered of the plaintiff’s mother, who, during her servitude, to wit, in 1742, was delivered of the plaintiff, and he again was sold by the person to whom his grandmother was bound to the defendant, who now claims his service till he shall be thirty-one years of age. . . . Wythe, for the defendant, was about to answer, but the Court interrupted him, and gave judgement in favor of his client.”
This and the following letter are from copies kindly furnished by Miss Sarah N. Randolph.