100£ at a compound interest of 6 per cent makes at the end of 19 years an aggregate of principal and interest of £252.14 the interest of which is a £12°°. 12″. 7 d which is nearly 12″ p r . cent on the first capital of £100.
Jefferson also sent a copy of this letter to Dr. Gem, writing him further:
“The hurry in which I wrote my letter to Mr. Madison which is in your hands, occasioned an inattention to the difference between generations succeeding each other at fixed epochs, and generations renewed daily and hourly. It is true that in the former case the generation, when at 21. years of age, may contract a debt for 34. years, because a majority of them will live so long. But a generation consisting of all ages, which legislates by all it’s members above the age of 21. years, cannot contract for so long a time, because their majority will be dead much sooner. Buffon gives us a table of 23,994 deaths, stating the ages at which they happened. To draw from these the result I have occasion for, I suppose a society in which 23,994 persons are born every year and live to the ages stated in Buffon’s table. Then the following inferences may be drawn. Such a society will consist constantly of 617,703 persons of all ages. Of those living at any one instant of time, one half will be dead in 24. years 8. months. In such a society, 10,675 will arrive every year at the age of 21. years complete. It will constantly have 348.417 persons of all ages above 21. years, the half of those of 21. years upwards living at any one instant of time will be dead in 18. years 8. months, or say 19. years.
Then, the contracts, constitutions laws of every such society become void in 19. years from their date.”
In the letter as sent “new constitution” takes the place of “it.” See Southern Bivouac, ii., 430.
In reply to an address presented to Jefferson while on his way to New York.
From the Southern Bivouac, ii., 430.
Now his son-in-law, having married Martha Jefferson at Monticello on February 28, 1790.
The President. See ante, page 37.
Italic is cipher in original.
This relates to the beginning of the “Yazoo” imbroglio.
The son of Jefferson’s cousin, George Jefferson.
Jefferson sent this to the President, with the following note:
“Th: Jefferson had a conference yesterday with Mr. Madison on the subject recommended by the President. He has the honor of inclosing him some considerations thereon, in all of which he believes Mr. Madison concurred. He has sketched the heads only, as the President’s mind will readily furnish the development of each. He will wait on the President at one o’clock on some other business, and then and at all other times be ready to enter more into the details of any part of the subject the President may chuse.
July 12, 1790.”
The complete series of documents relating to this episode are given in Mr. Worthington C. Ford’s The United States and Spain in 1790. Brooklyn: 1890.
Among the Jefferson MSS. is a single sheet, containing what is evidently the first, or rough draft of this paper. As it varies in several respects, it is included here for purposes of comparison.
Heads of consideration on the conduct we are to observe in the war between Spain and Gr. Britain, and particularly should the latter attempt the conquest of Louisiana and the Floridas.
The danger to us shd. G. B. possess herself of Louisiana and the Floridas.
Beyond the Missi. a territory equal to half ours.
She would reduce our Cis-Missi. possessions.
Because N. Orleans will draw to it the dependence of all those waters.
By her language, laws, religion, manners, govnt., commerce, capitals.
By the markets she can offer them in the gulph of Mexico.
She would then have a territory the double of ours.
She would take away the markets of the Atlantic States,
By furnishing the same articles cheaper, tobo., rice, indigo, bread, lumber, fur.
She would encircle us completely, her possessions forming a line on our land boards, her fleets on our sea board. Instead of two neighbors balancing each other, we should have one with ye strength of both.
Would the prevention of this be worth a War?
Consider our abilities to make a war.
Our operations would be by land only.
How many men would it need to employ?—their cost?
Our resources by taxation and credit equal to this.
Weigh the evil of this new accumulation of debt.
Against the loss of market and eternal danger and expence of such a neighbor.
But no need to take a part as yet. We may choose our own time for that.
Delay gives us many chances to avoid it altogether.
They may not single out that object.
They may fail in it.
France and Spain may recover it.
The difference between prevention and retaking, overbaled. by benefits of delay.
Enables us to be better prepared.
To stipulate with Spain and France advantages for our assistance.
Suppose these our ultimate views, what is to be done at this time?
1. As to Spain.
If she be as sensible as we are, that she cannot save Louisiana and the Floridas, might she not prefer their Independce. to their Subjectn. to Gr. Br.?
Can we not take advantage of Ct. D’Estaing’s propos’n to communicate thro’ the court of France our ideas on this subject and our readiness to join them in guarantee?
This might save us from a war, if Gr. Br. respects our weight in a war.
If she does not, it would place the war on popular ground.
2. As to England, say to B.
That as to a treaty of commerce we hd. never desired it but on terms of perfect reciprocity.
That therefore we never thought to give any price for it but itself.
That we had wished for it to avoid giving mutual bonds to the commerce of both nations.
But that we have the measures in our own power which may save us from loss.
That as to the alliance they propose, it would involve us against France and Spain.
And considered even in a moral view, no price could repay such an abandonmt. of character.
That we are truly disposed to remain strictly neutral. Tho’ we must confess yt. we shd. view in a very serious light attempts to extend themselves along our frontier, and destroy all balance in our neighborhood.
[The latter sentiment it might be advantageous to express, because if there be any difference of op’n in her councils whether to bend their force agt. North or South America (and certainly there is room for difference) and if these operations be nearly balanced, the possibility of drawing an enemy the more on themselves, might determine the balance.]
At a later period, upon reviewing this opinion, the following note was appended by Jefferson: “Unless with the consent or default of the other contracting party. It may well be doubted, too, and perhaps denied that the treaty power can control a law. The question here proposed was then of the first impression. Subsequent investigations have proved that the contrary position is the more general truth.”
See infra page 129.
In the Jefferson MSS. is a first draft of this, which varies enough from the above to make comparison interesting. It is as follows:
We have a right to the Navig’n of the Missi.
1. by Nature.
2. by Treaty.
It is necessary to us
More than half the territory of the U. S. is on the waters of that river.
200,000 of their citizens are seated on them.
These have no other outlet for their tob o ., rice, corn, hemp, lumber, house-timber, ship-timber, etc.
We have hitherto borne the indecision of Spain, Because we wish peace. because our Western citizens have had vent at home for their productions.
A surplus of production begins now to demand foreign markets.
Whenever they shall say ‘We cannot, we will not, be longer shut up,’ the U. S. will soon be reduced to the following dilemma:
1. to force them to acquiescence.
2. to separate from them, rather than take part in a war against Spain.
3. or to preserve them in our Union, by joining them in the war.
The 1st is neither in our principles nor our power.
2. A multitude of reasons decide against the 2d.
One only shall be spoken out: the Nation that gives up half its territory, rather than engage in a just war to preserve it, will not keep the other half long.
3. the third is the only alternative we must necessarily adopt.
How are we to obtain that navigation?
A. By Force.
I. Acting separately.
that we can Effect this with certainty and promptitude all circumstances decide.
Obj. We cannot retain N. Orleans, for instance, were we to take it.
Ans. A moderate force may be so secured so as to hold out till succoured. Our succours can be prompt and effectual.
Suppose after taking it, we withdraw our force.
If Spain retakes it by an expedition, we can recover it by a counter-exped’n, and so, as often as the case shall happen.
Their expeditions will be slow, expensive, and lead to catastrophe.
Ours sudden, economical, and a check can have no consequences.
We should associate the country to our union, the inhabitants wish this.
they are not disposed to be of the Spanish government.
It is idle in Spain to suppose our Western habitants will submit to their gov’m’t.
they could be quiet but a short time under a gov’m’t so repugnant to their feelings. Were they to come under it for present purposes, it w d . be with a view to throw it off soon. Should they remain they would communicate a spirit of independence to those with whom they should be mixed.
II. Acting in conjunction with Gr. Br. with a view to partition, the Floridas (includ g . N. Orleans) would be assigned to us.
Louisiana (or all the country on the West n . waters of y e Missi.) to them.
We confess that such an Alliance is not what we would wish;
because it may eventually lead us into embarrassing situations as to our best friend, and put the power of two n’bors into y e hands of one.
L d . Lansdowne has declared he gave the Floridas to Spain rather than to the U. S. as a bone of discord with the H. of Bourbon, and of reunion with Gr. Br. Connolly’s attempt (as well as other facts) proves they keep it in view.
B. By Negociation.
I. What must Spain do of necessity?
The conduct of Spain has proved the occlusion of the Missi. is system with her; if she opens it now, it will be because forced by imperious circumstances. She will consequently shut it again when these circumstances cease.
Treaty will be no obstacle.
irregularities, real and pretended, in our navigators, will furnish colour enough, perpetual broils, and finally war will ensue.
prudence, and even necessity, imposes on us the law of settling the matter now, finally, and not by halves. With experience of the past, and prospect of the future, it w d . be imbecility in us to accept y e . naked navigation. With that, we must have what will secure its continuance: that is, a port near the mouth, to receive our vessels, and protect the navigation.
But even this will not secure the Floridas and Louisiana against Gr. Brit.
if we are neutral, she will wrest those possessions from Spain.
the inhabitants (French, English, Scotch, Americans) would prefer Engl d . to Spain.
II. What then had Spain better do of choice?
Cede to us all territory on our side the Mississippi.
on condition that we guarantee all her poss’ns on the western waters of that river, she agreeing further to subsidize us, if the guarantee brings us into war.
Should Gr. Br. possess herself of the Floridas and Louisiana, her governing principles are Conquest, Colonization, Commerce, Monopoly.
She will establish powerful colonies in them.
these can be poured into the gulph of Mexico, for any sudden enterprise there.
or invade Mexico their next neighbor by land; whilst a fleet cooperates along shore, and cuts off relief.
and proceed successively from colony to colony.
With respect to us, if Gr. Br. establishes herself on our whole land board, our lot will be
bloody and eternal war
or indissoluble confederacy.
Which ought we to choose?
What will be the lot of the Span. colonies in the jaws of such a confederacy?
What will secure the Ocean against Monopoly?
Safer for Spain that we should be her neighbor, than England.
Conquest not in our principles: inconsistent with our govm’t.
Not our interest to cross the Mississippi for ages.
And will never be our interest to remain united with those who do.
Intermediate chances save the trouble of calculating so far forward.
Consequences of this cession, and guarantee.
1. Every subject of difference will be removed from between Spain and the U. S.
2. Our interest w ll . be strongly engaged in her retaining her American possessions.
3. Spain will be quieted as to Louisiana and her territories west of that.
4. She may employ her whole force in defence of her islands and Southern possessions.
5. If we preserve our neutrality, it will be a very partial one to her.
6. If we are forced into the war, it will be, as we wish, on the side of the H. of Bourbon.
7. Our privateers will commit formidable depred’n on y e Brit. trade, and occupy much of their force.
8. By withold’g supplies of provision, as well as by concurring in exped’ns, y e . Brit isl ds . will be in imminent danger.
9. Their expences of precaution, both for their continental and insular poss’ns will be so augmented, as to give a hope of running their credit down.
In fine, for a narrow strip of barren, detached, and expensive country, Spain secures the rest of her territory, and makes an ally where she might have a dangerous enemy.
Washington had written Jefferson:
“Provided the dispute between Great Britain and Spain should come to the decision of arms, from a variety of circumstances (individually unimportant and inconclusive, but very much the reverse when compared and combined), there is no doubt in my mind, that New Orleans, and the Spanish posts above it on the Mississippi, will be among the first attempts of the former; and that the reduction of them will be undertaken by a combined operation from Detroit.
“The consequences of having so formidable and enterprizing a people as the British on both our flanks and rear, with their navy in front, as they respect our western settlements which may be seduced thereby, as they regard the security of the Union and its commerce with the West Indies, are too obvious to need enumeration.
“What then should be the answer of the Executive of the United States to Lord Dorchester, in case he should apply for permission to march troops through the territory of the said States from Detroit to the Mississippi?
“What notice ought to be taken of the measure, if it should be undertaken without leave, which is the most probable proceeding of the two?
“The opinion of the Secretary of State is requested in writing upon the above statements.”
Probably a reference to a new constitution for Virginia.
Patrick Henry.
In Webster’s Essays, Boston: 1790, a section had been devoted to discussing Jefferson’s arguments for a bill of rights, and to his chapter in the Notes on Virginia on the constitution of that state.
See Annals, ii, 1730, for these paragraphs in the message as transmitted to Congress.
The original letter of Otto’s, as well as this report of Jefferson’s as transmitted to Congress, are in the State Papers (Foreign Relations, 1, 109). Jefferson submitted this report to Hamilton, with the following letter:
—I inclose you copies of the printed papers you desired: also a letter I received last night. This paper I will thank you to return by the bearer when you shall have perused it, as it is yet to be translated communicated to the President. It is evident that this matter will become serious, tho’ I am pointedly against admitting the French construction of the treaty; yet I think it essential to work up some favour which may ensure the continuance of the good dispositions they have towards us. A nation which takes one third of our tobacco, more than half our fish oil two thirds of our fish, say one half of the amount of these great staples and a great deal of rice, from whom we take nothing in return but hard money to carry directly over and pour into the coffers of their enemies, such a customer, I say, deserves some menagemens. I would thank you sincerely to suggest any thing better than I had thought of. I am dear Sir your’s affectionately respectfully.”
See two very interesting letters of Hamilton on this report in Hamilton’s Works, Federal edition, IV, 345, 347. The editor, Mr. Lodge, adds two foot-notes to them, stating:
“This refers undoubtedly to our treaty with France. What the precise exemption was which was sought is not clear, although indicated in this and the next letter. There is no evidence that this ‘intended’ report was ever made; at least it is not found in Jefferson’s works nor in those of Washington.
Although the precise point involved is lost, the general purport of this and the preceding letter is clear. Jefferson was considering whether to recommend some treaty construction favorable to France. Hamilton civilly disagreed on being consulted, and the matter appears to have been dropped.”
Jefferson also consulted Madison concerning this, writing him:
“I intended to have called last night left with you the enclosed draught of a lre to Otto but it was so cold I could not give up my hack. I received yours soon after I came home. Of the two constructions I observe you lean more to the 2d. and I more to the 1st. on account of the consequences to which the 2d may be pursued—My first idea was to write this lre to Otto and previously communicate it to the President he perhaps to the Senate. But I have concluded to throw it into the form of a report to the President, to be submitted to the Senate. This will permit me to speak without reserve, to admit the force of 2d construction, to enforce the proposition I suggest in the close, by showing what valuable branches of our commerce hang on the will of the French nation. I shall see you at dinner be glad to exchange further thought on the subject which is an important one.”
By an official paper from the Bureau of the balance of commerce of France, we find that of the ships which entered the ports of France from the U. S. in the year 1789. only 13. amounting to 2105. tons were French, 163. making 24,173 tons were American.— T. J.
Abstract of the produce of the Fisheries exported from the United States from August 20th. 1789 to August 14th. 1790. in which is omitted one quarter’s exportations from Boston, Plymouth, Dighton, Penobscot, Frenchman’s Bay, Machias, and New York, of which the returns are not received.— T. J.
cod fishery | whale fishery | both fisheries | |
---|---|---|---|
France and the french West Indies | 586.167 doll rs . | 131.906 doll rs . | 718.073.doll rs . |
The rest of the World | 307.097 | 101.306 | 408.403 |
—————— | —————— | —————— | |
Whole produce | 893.264 | 233.212 | 1.126.476 |
Cf. with Annals, ii., 1752, where this resolution, in slightly modified form, was introduced by Langdon.
This proposed bill was drafted by Jefferson, and introduced into the House of Representatives Feb. 7, 1791, by White ( Annals, ii, 1937). No further action was taken on it in this Congress. In the next Congress it was again introduced ( Annals, iii, 741) and, after debate and amendment, was finally passed. The act as adopted is in the Statutes at Large, and varies considerably from Jefferson’s draft.
“For Sale. The lands called Elk-hill on James river the Byrd estate, adjacent to Elk-island in Goochland, containing 669 acres consisting of two parcels, the one of 307 acres of low ground highlands both of the first quality, the other of 362 acres of good grain land, mostly well timbered. The two parcels are 250 yards apart, a public road passing through that interval are cultivated as one plantation. On the former and in a very handsome position is a commodious dwelling house, built by the late Reuben Skelton for his own residence, having 4 rooms below 2 above, with good out houses erected since his time. The price is 40/ sterling the acre, payable by instalments in the years 1793.4.5.6. with interest from the delivery of the lands. Real security will be required. Capt. Henry Mullins, who lives adjoining to these lands will shew them to any person wishing to purchase, the subscriber in Albemarle has full authority to conclude the sale.”
The message as sent is in the Annals, ii, 1757.
Here follows a paragraph that is struck out, as follows:
For your further and more particular information, I lay before you the instructions I gave to Mr. Gouverneur Morris (the person whom I employed as being on the spot, without giving him any public character) and those”
Though the Constitution controls the laws of Mortmain so far as to permit Congress itself to hold land for certain purposes, yet not so far as to permit them to communicate a similar right to other corporate bodies.— T. J.
The address of this letter is absolutely illegible, but Smith had been requested by Congress to deliver an oration on Franklin, and in the oration as published he includes some of these facts.
See Journals of the Executive Proceedings of the Senate, I, 80.
This is merely a cipher paragraph in an otherwise formal routine letter.
From S. N. Randolph’s Domestic Life of Jefferson, p. 194.
From a copy courteously furnished by Colonel C. C. Jones, of Augusta, Georgia.
See ante, page 175 for the Report on this dispute.
From S. N. Randolph’s Domestic Life of Jefferson, p. 196.
Cipher numbers in original.
From S. N. Randolph’s Domestic Life of Jefferson, p. 199.
From S. N. Randolph’s Domestic Life of Jefferson.
An Account of the . . . Lands . . . in North America and particularly the Lands . . . known by the name of the Genisee Tract. [n. p.]. 1791, written according to Ludewig by Dr. Myles Cooper, but more probably written by W. T. Franklin. The title is in Sabin, 26926.
From the original in the Historical Society of Pennsylvania.
Inclosed with this, is the following memorandum:
“The capital stock of the bank, ten millions of dollars, divided into 25,000 shares.
Shares. | |
---|---|
to be subscribed by the President | 5,000 |
already subscribed—Boston | 4,000 |
already subscribed—New York | 6,400 |
will be subscribed by Philada | 5,000 |
already subscribed, Baltimore | 2,400 |
already subscribed, Charleston | 700 |
—————— | |
23,500 | |
remains to be subscribed | 1,500 |
—————— | |
25,000” |
Publicola was generally supposed to be John Adams but the printer of the Centinel denied this. The letters under that name were written by John Quincy Adams.
This note, which was printed in most of the American editions of the Age of Reason, was as follows:
“After some prefatory remarks, the Secretary of State, Mr. Jefferson, in a note to a Printer in Philadelphia, accompanying a copy of this Pamphlet for republication, observes:
‘I am extremely pleased to find it will be reprinted here, and that something is at length to be publickly said against the political heresies which have sprung up among us.
‘I have no doubt our citizens will rally a second time round the standard of Common Sense.’ ”
Tench Coxe, for Controller, the office made vacant by the death of Eveleigh.
The printer of the French edition of the Notes on Virginia.
At this point a series of cipher numbers is written on the margin, which, translated, reads:
“Adams, Jay, Hamilton, Knox. Many of the Cincinnati. The second says nothing. The third is open. Both are dangerous. They pant after union with England as the power which is to support their projects, and are most determined Anti-gallicans. It is prognosticated that our republic is to end with the President’s life. But I believe they will find themselves all head and no body.”
This paragraph is in cipher in original.
Observations upon the Government of the United States . . . Boston: mdccxci.
From the original in the Historical Society of Pennsylvania.
Banneker’s letter, with this reply, was printed in pamphlet form, as follows:
Copy of a letter from Benjamin Banneker to the Secretary of State, with his answer. Philadelphia, Daniel Lawrence. mdccxcii. 4to pp. 15.
In the first draft of this letter, the conclusion read:
“and that they will take measures for making these payments in their just value, avoiding all benefit from depreciation, and desiring on their part to be guarded against any unjust loss from the circumstances of mere exchange.”
In this state it was submitted to Hamilton who wrote:
“Mr. Hamilton presents his compliments to the Secretary of State. He would think the turn of expression on the whole safer, if instead of what follows the words ‘depreciated medium’ the following was substituted—‘and that in the final liquidation of the payments, which shall have been made, due regard will be had for an equitable allowance for the circumstance of depreciation.’ ”
Both the draft and Hamilton’s reply are misdated August, 1792, in Hamilton’s Writings.
“A provision for the sale of the vacant lands of the United States is particularly urged by the important considerations that they are pledged as a fund for reimbursing the public debt; that, if timely and judiciously applied they may save the necessity of burthening our citizens with new taxes for the extinguishment of the principal; and that being free to pay annually but a limited proportion of that principal, time lost in beginning the payments cannot be recovered however productive the resource may prove in event.”
All but the date is in cipher in original.
This whole paragraph struck out in original.
See I, 207 and “Questions to be considered of” (page 337). A first draft of this paper is as follows:
“It is to be understood however that either party may lay duties on productions or manufactures provided they do not exceed per cent. ad valorem on manufactures per cent, ad valorem on raw materials, nor what shall be paid by any other the most favored nation, the value to be estimated as at the port of shipment.
No premium shall be given directly or indirectly on the manufactures or productions of either country carried into the other. To be considered of—prodns. of the sea e: gr.
‘And saving also that the duties whether of their own soil, or raised by them from the sea, as well as those raised from the sea as from the soil, payable on the productions or manufactures of the domns. of either country imported into those of the other may remain as at present where they do not exceed per cent. on the value of the article at the port of exportn in which case of excess they are hereby ipso facto reduced to that measure and where they shall be hereafter reduced by either party on any article in favor of any other nation, they shall stand ipso facto reduced on the same article in favor of the other party; yielding the like equivalent only where the reduction has been for an equivalent.’
And in order that the beneficial restraint of duties may not be defeated by premiums, it is agreed that every premium for any production or manufacture of either country shall be extended by the party to the like production or manufacture of the other party complyg with the same condns.”
In the Jefferson MSS. is also a paper in Jefferson’s writing, giving Hamilton’s scheme for a treaty, which as it has not been printed, is here added, to elucidate the slowly developing cabinet dissensions:
“10 per cent. on manuf. of flax, hemp, wool, cotton, silk, furs or mixtures of ym.
Solid silver, copper, brass, iron, steel, tin, pewter, flour, salted beef, pork pot, oils.
Except, bar iron, bar lead, nails, steel wrought cables, cordage, yarn, twine, pack thread.
15 do—on Porcelain, glass, stone, earthen wares.
50 do—On Spirits distilled from fruits.
25 do—On Wines.
Free in out—Grains, peas, other vegetables.
Live cattle
Pitch, tar, turpentine
Unmanufactured wood
Indigo, pot peach ash
Flax, hemp, cotton, silk, wool
Free out—all raw materials.
5 out—Brown clayed sugars.
Gentis amicissimæ—All non enumerated articles.
Reciprocal—Charges on vessels, cargoes, merchts. not within scope of above articles.
No bounties—on goods to be exported to countries of others.
Nor on it’s own ships, or things imported in them.
No prohib’s.—of any article of the other.
Favors to others—to be common, on same condn.
No reduction of duty in favr of other nations but same condns. of this.
The above contains Hamilton’s tariff of the duties which cannot be receded from in treaty with France, spoken of in my private note of March 11, 92.”
Endorsed: “From the Secretary of State, 26th Novr., 1791. Questions to be considered of, in the Negotiations with the French British Ministers.”
These were sent to Senator Butler with the following note:
“Th: Jefferson presents his compliments to Mr. Butler, and incloses him the rough draughts of resolutions believing Mr. Butler can better settle according to his own mind the manner of furnishing the money either from his own reflection or on consultation with the Secy of the Treasury.”
The resolutions were not adopted, however, the only action the Senate took being recorded in the Executive Journal, I, 123.
See post, pages 356, 381.
A Maryland Loyalist who later styled himself a chief of the Creek Indians. See Ford’s Writings of Washington, XII, 159, and Maryland Loyalist, 33.
See under May 29th, 1792, in this collection.
This was enclosed to the President with the following note.
“Th. Jefferson presents his respects to the President and sends a sketch of such a message as he thinks might accompany the statement from the Secretary at war. That an estimate of the next years operations should accompany it. But he thinks it a proper occasion to bring forward the preparations for the next year, and that it forms the safest ground for making the present communication.”
From Senate Executive Journal, I., 95.
See pages 361 and 362 for a correction to these tables.
See letter of Jan. 26, 1792, and ante, p. 342.
Endorsed “not sent.” There is a first or rough draft of this paper, also, which is somewhat fuller and quotes from the Constitution. The message was probably prepared in consequence of the Senate resolution of Dec. 30, 1791: “ Resolved, That the Senate do not possess evidence sufficient to convince them that it will be for the interest of the United States to appoint Ministers Plenipotentiary to reside permanently at foreign Courts.” The contest led to an interview between a Senate Committee and Jefferson (see I, 186), after which the Senate rescinded their resolution, and confirmed the appointments. This message was in consequence unnecessary. Cf. with Opinion, ante, p. 49.
All in cipher. From the Southern Bivouac, II, 433.
See Vol. I, 186.
From the Southern Bivouac, II, 434.
From S. N. Randolph’s Domestic Life of Jefferson.
Jefferson sent this to Washington, with a note:
“Th: Jefferson presents his respects to the President of the U. S. and subjoins what he supposes might form a proper introduction to the statement prepared by the Secretary at War. The occasion is so new, that however short the letter proposed, he has no doubt it will need correction both as to the matter manner.”
Washington submitted the draft to Hamilton, who commented as follows:
“Mr. Hamilton presents his respects to the President submits the following Alterations in the letter—
Instead of ‘I shall be glad’ to say ‘it is my desire’ or ‘it appears advisable’ that you prepare c.
Instead of ‘when our Constituents c.’ say ‘When the Community are called upon for considerable exertions, to relieve a part, which is suffering under the hand of an enemy, it is desirable to manifest that due pains have been taken by those entrusted with the administration of their Affairs to avoid the evil.’
It is a doubt whether our Constituents be a proper phrase to be used by the President in addressing a subordinate officer.”
A written copy of the paper (D. S. MSS.) has all these changes embodied, written in pencil in Washington’s handwriting.
See ante, pp. 342, 356.
This refers to Washington’s private letter to Morris of Jan. 28, 1792, printed in Ford’s Writings of Washington, XII., 96.
Italic in cipher translation.
The above is verbatim, as nearly as I can recollect, the diction of a note I wrote to the President this morning, I forgot to take a copy of it before it went out of my hands. But I think there will be found scarcely a word of difference, except perhaps in the quotation, the substance of which alone can be answered for. T. J.
This is the copy submitted to the President, the perfected paper being printed under March 18, 1792. Jefferson submitted a rough draft of this to Hamilton, for suggestion, previously to sending it to the President, some time before March 5, and Hamilton made the following notes upon it, on which Jefferson commented as indicated:
Notes by A. Hamilton on T. J’s Report of instructions for the Commissioners to treat at Madrid.
The general tenor of the report appears solid proper. The following observations however, on hasty perusal, occur.
Answers by Th. J.
Page 2d. Is it to put our resolution on the true, or the best footing to say that the circumstances which obliged us to discontinue our foreign magistrate, brought upon us the war ? Did not the war previously exist bring on the discontinuance ? Was it not rather the cause than the effect ?
The report is amended in conformity with this observation.
Is it accurate to say that France aided us in capturing the whole Army of the enemy? Does this not imply, that there was no other enemy army in the country, though there were in fact two others, one in New York, another in S. Carolina? This last is a mere criticism as to the occurrences of expression. The sense is clear enough.
The capture of the Army struck out.
Page 11. Are ‘naval victories’ the essential mean of conquest of a water as seems to be implied? Is not the conquest of a water an incident to that territory? If this idea is not sound, that combined with it is, namely, that in no event could Spain be considered as having conquered the river against the U. S. with whom she not only had no war but was an associate.
No conquest of the territory was made to it of the islands of N. Orleans on the one side or Louisiana on the other, as both had belonged to Spain before the war, therefore no change in the right to the water as incident to the territory. This circumstance however is inserted in the report to make the reasoning the clearer.
Page 12. May it not be inferred from what is said here that though the U. S. would not wish to insert or express stipulation against other nations, yet they may be prevailed on to do it? Would such a stipulation be consistent with the right which Gr. Britain reserved to herself in the treaty with us? If the inference alluded to is intended to be excluded, will it not be advisable to vary the term of expression so as to render the intention more unequivocal?
The word chuse substituted for wish. However England could hold that right of commerce in the water only as incident to Florida which she then held. When she conveyed Florida to Spain the incident passed by the same conveyance, and she can never have a claim against us or a stipulation, the benefit of which she had conveyed to another.
Page 23. Are there conclusive reasons to make it a sine qua non that no phrase shall be admitted which shall express or imply a grant? Could the negociation with propriety be broken off on such a point? Is it not rather one to be endeavored to be avoided, than the avoiding of it to be made a sine qua non?
Report altered in conformity to this.
Page 25. Is it true that the U. S. have no right to alienate an inch of the territory in question, except in the case of necessity intimated in another place? Or will it be useful to avow the denial of such a right? It is apprehended that the doctrine which restricts the alienation of territory to cases of extreme necessity, is applicable rather to peopled territory, than to waste uninhabited districts. Positions restraining the right of the U. States to accomodate to exigencies which may arise, ought ever to be advanced with great caution.
The power to alienate the unpeopled territories of any state, is not among the enumerated powers given by the constitution to the general government, if we may go out of that instrument acomodate to exigencies which may arise by alienating the unpeopled territory of a state, we may accomodate ourselves a little more by alienating that which is peopled, still a little more by selling the people themselves. A shade or two more in the degree of exigency is all that will be requisite, and of that degree we shall ourselves be the judges.—However, may it not be hoped that these questions are forever laid to rest by the 12 th . Amendment once made a part of the Constitution, declaring expressly that “the powers not delegated to the U. S. by the Constitution are reserved to the States respectively”? And if the general government has no power to alienate the territory of a State, it is too irresistable an argument, to deny ourselves the use of it on the present occasion.
Page 28. Is it true that the stipulation with France respecting the reception of prises is exclusive incommunicable ? It is doubtless so as against France, but why is it so as against other nations? It is however a stipulation very inconvenient even dangerous to the U. S. one which ought by all means to be excluded.
It is certainly impossible for any nation to have stipulation of this kind extent with two others at the same time. However he can judge if the Report is made more correct conformable to the words of the French treaty.
Will it not be necessary to add an instruction that the usual stipulation respecting the ratification of the treaty of the U. S. be varied so as to be adapted to the participation of the Senate?
It seems sufficient to stipulate that the treaty shall be ratified, without saying by what body, or by what individuals it is to be. An instruction however is inserted to allow 16 months for the exchange of ratifions.
Last page, the words “nor in assentive to their rights,” have a pencil line drawn thro’ them. ’Tis certainly best to obliterate them. The less commitment the better.
This had been decided before.
In addition Hamilton wrote on the same sheets, the following note (omitted in both editions of Hamilton’s Writings ):
“Though a treaty of commerce like that contemplated in the Report ought not to be rejected, if desired by Spain, coupled with a satisfactory adjustment of the boundary navigation, yet ought not something more to be attempted, if it were only to give satisfaction to other parts of the union? Some positive favourable stipulations respecting our grain, flour, fish, even in the European dominions of Spain, would be of great consequence, would justify reciprocal advantages to some of her commodities (say wines brandies).”
To this Jefferson replied by letter, as follows:
“Th: Jefferson will be glad if the Secretary of the Treasury will state the specific proposition he would have made to Spain, on the subject of our fish, grain, flour; to wit what he would ask, what propose as an equivalent. The following considerations will of course occur to him.
1st. If we quit the ground of the most favored nation, as to certain articles for our convenience, Spain may insist on doing the same for other articles for her convenience, and I apprehend that our Commissioners might soon be out of their depth in the details of commerce.
2nd. If we grant favor to the wines of Spain; Portugal France will demand the same, may create the equivalent, the former by laying duties on our fish grain, the latter by a prohibition of our whale oils; the removal of which will be proposed as the equivalent.”
From the original in the Virginia Historical Society.
Cf. with “Heads of Consideration” ( ante, pp. 90, 123), and with the first state of this paper on page 391.
The prominence given in this edition to all papers concerning the moot question with Spain is due to the immense importance it had, in a national sense, by its influence upon the whole tide of Western development; by its being the true unifying influence throughout the South, which gave the Democratic party its enduring support from that quarter; and, finally, by its personal bearing on Jefferson’s political career.
The question had been from its very origin sectional, being, in truth, the only one which drew a distinct line of cleavage between North and South in the period between 1783 and 1792. Jefferson, in his alienation of Northern sentiment, by his attitude towards the capital, the bank, and general financial policy of the government, had lost all apparent support from that section of the country. And in the South, Patrick Henry, Jefferson’s greatest political foe, had constituted himself the champion of the almost united Southern and Western demand for the freedom of the river, certain to end the political career of any aspirant to national office (as Jay’s practically had been) who should show any lukewarmness in pressing the claim of the right of Americans to the free use of that river. Only by realizing the importance of this matter, veiled as it was in the actual party conflicts of the day, is it possible to understand the constant recurrence of the question, till triumphantly ended by the purchase of Louisiana.
Mr. Short is desired to purchase this book at Amsterdam, or Paris, as he may not find it at Madrid, when it shall have answered the purposes of this Mission, let it be sent here for the use of the Secretary of State’s office. T. J.
Translations of passages in the Instructions of Mar 18. 1792. to Carm. Short.
‘Flumina publica c.’ rivers belonging to the public, that is to say to the Roman people.
‘Riparum c.’
‘The use of the banks belongs also to the public, by the law of nations, as the use of the river itself does, therefore every one is free to moor his vessel to the bank, to fasten his cables to the trees growing on it, to deposit the cargo of his vessel in those places: in like manner as every one is free to navigate the river itself.’
‘Litorum c.’
‘The use of the shores also belongs to the public, or is under the law of nations, as is that of the sea itself, therefore it is that those who chuse have a right to build huts there, into which they may betake themselves.’
‘Nemo c.’
‘Nobody therefore is prohibited from landing on the sea-shore, walking there, or mooring their vessel there, so nevertheless that they keep out of the villas, that is, the habitations, monuments public buildings erected there, and do them no injury.’
‘Gentis amicissimæ.’ ‘The most favored nation.’ T. J.
Transmitted to the President with the following note:
“The Secretary of state having had under consideration the expediency extent of a Convention with Spain to be established with respect to fugitives from the United States to their adjoining provinces, or from those provinces to the United States, Reports to the President of the United States the inclosed Analytical view of the motives principles which should govern such a convention, and the Project of a convention adapted thereto, which he is of opinion should be forwarded to Mess rs . Carmichael Short, with powers to treat conclude thereon.”
To this Washington replied:
“The President of the United States has attentively considered the ‘Project of a Convention with the Spanish’ which was submitted to him by the Secretary of State, and informs the Secretary, that the same meets with his approbation. The President, however, thinks it proper to observe, that in perusing the before-mentioned Project, some doubts arose in his mind as to the expediency of two points mentioned therein,—the one relative to instituting a civil, instead of a criminal process against forgers, who generally, if not always, are possessed of little property; the other respecting the unlimited time in which a person may be liable to an action.
By expressing these queries, the President would not be understood as objecting to the points touched upon; he only wishes to draw the Secretary’s further attention to them; and if he upon reconsideration think it right for them to stand upon the present footing, the President acquiesces therein.”
This is the completed project of the foregoing paper, and was sent to the U. S. Commissioners to Spain with the following letter:
—My letter of Mar. 18, conveyed to you full powers for treating with Spain on the subjects therein expressed. Since that our attention has been drawn to the case of fugitive debtors criminals whereon it is always well that coterminous states should understand one another as far as their ideas on the rightful powers of government can be made to go together. Where they separate the cases may be left unprovided for. The inclosed paper, approved by the President, will explain to you how far we can go in an agreement with Spain for her territories bordering on us; and the plan of a convention is there stated. You are desired to propose the matter to that court, and establish with them so much of it as they approve, filling up the blank for the manner of the demand by us compliance by them, in such a way as their laws the organization of their government may require. But recollect that they bound on us between two three thousand miles, and consequently that they should authorize a delivery by some description of officers to be found on every inhabited part of their border. We have thought it best to agree specially the manner of proceeding in our country on a demand of theirs, because the convention will in that way execute itself, without the necessity of a new law for the purpose. Your general powers being comprehensive enough to take in this subject, no new ones are issued.”
From S. N. Randolph’s Domestic Life of Jefferson.
Hamilton’s and Randolph’s Opinions are printed in Hamilton’s Writings of Hamilton, IV., 207; as also a summary of the three by Jefferson.
See Vol. I, 205, 216. By a curious error this is printed in Hamilton’s Works of Hamilton as a letter to Hamilton.
For command of army: See Vol. I, 203.
The letter to Hammond of May 29, 1792.
Washington embodied the objections that follow in a letter to Hamilton (Ford’s Writings of Washington, XII., 147), and Hamilton commented upon them in a paper sent to Washington Aug. 18, 1792. Hamilton’s Writings of Hamilton, IV., 248.