1

This is in the handwriting of Jefferson up to this point, thence to the end it is in Hamilton’s writing. In Hamilton’s Works of Hamilton the whole is claimed to have been drafted by him.

1

Sent to the President with the following undated letter:

“Th: Jefferson has the honor to enclose to the President his letter of Aug. 7. to mr. Hammond, which was confined to the special cases of the three vessels therein named. The object of mr. Hammond’s letter of Aug. 30. is to obtain from the government a declaration that the principle of those special cases shall be extended to all captures made within our waters or by the proscribed vessels, whether before or after the 7th of Aug. and to establish, as a general rule, restitution, or compensation. The forming a general rule requires great caution. Th: J in preparing a draught of an answer to mr. Hammond, has endeavoured to establish what he thinks the true grounds on which a general rule should be formed. But, if the President approves of it, he would wish to send the draught to the Secretaries of the Treasury and war, and Atty Genl. for their consideration and amendments, or to meet the subject, when an answer to the latter part of the letter might also be agreed on.”

1

A letter of the same tenor, but omitting the last paragraph, was sent to the Dutch Minister.

1

Cashier of the United States Bank.

1

Evidently prepared for the press, but never used. It refers to the paper printed in vol. i., p. 282.

1

For Secretary of State.

2

Ru[tledge], L[ivingston], and McL[urg].

1

In Jefferson’s draft of this letter is found at the end a paragraph queried and struck out, as follows:

“With respect to the British ship William taken on the 3d of May last, the testimony as to the place of seizure varies from 2 to 5, miles from the sea shore. The information of a certain Peter Dalton stated in the paper inclosed in your letter of Oct. 19. extends the distance from 14. to 16. miles. But his evidence not having been given before a magistrate legally qualified to place him under the solemnity of an oath bound to cross examine him, I am to desire that his evidence, if it is to be insisted on may be taken in legal form, and forwarded for the consideration of the President.”

1

An identical letter, omitting the last paragraph, was sent to Van Berckel and Viar Jaudenes. On the draft, Jefferson has written: “These two drafts were shown to the Atty Genl. approved without alterations. The fair copies were shown to Colo. Hamilton Genl. Knox before dinner at Bocken’s inn, Germantown approved.”

1

An officer in the Bank of the United States. From the original in the possession of the editor.

1

From the original in the possession of the Virginia Historical Society.

1

From S. N. Randolph’s Domestic Life of Jefferson, page 224.

1

“Th: Jefferson presents his respects to the President incloses him some letters just received.

“Mr. Pinckney’s and Mr. Morris’s information relative to the doing undoing the decrees of the National assembly, in the case of the ship Laurence and some other expressions in Mr. Morris’s letter seem to render it proper to lower the expression in the message purporting the just ready redress of wrongs on the high sea afforded by that government, which Th: J. will accordingly attend to.

“Nov. 30, 1793.”

1

Before this paragraph was altered, in accordance with the preceding letter, it read as follows: “The several Representative Executive bodies in France have uniformly manifested the most friendly attachment to this country, have shewn particular favor to our commerce navigation and as far as yet appears, have given just and ready redress of the wrongs to our citizens their property irregularly taken on the high seas, carried into their ports.”

1

Transmitted to Congress in the following letter:

Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
December 16, 1793
Sir,

According to the pleasure of the House of Representatives, expressed in their resolution of February 23, 1791, I now lay before them a report on the privileges and restrictions on the commerce of the United States in foreign countries. In order to keep the subject within those bounds which I supposed to be under the contemplation of the House, I have restrained my statements to those countries only with which we carry on a commerce of some importance, and to those articles also of our produce which are of sensible weight in the scale of our exports; and even these articles are sometimes grouped together, according to the degree of favor or restriction with which they are received in each country, and that degree expressed in general terms without detailing the exact duty levied on each article. To have gone fully into these minutiæ, would have been to copy the tariffs and books of rates of the different countries, and to have hidden, under a mass of details, those general and important truths, the extraction of which, in a simple form, I conceived would best answer the inquiries of the House, by condensing material information within those limits of time and attention, which this portion of their duties may justly claim. The plan, indeed, of minute details which have been impracticable with some countries, for want of information.

“Since preparing this report, which was put into its present form in time to have been given in to the last session of Congress alterations of the conditions of our commerce with some foreign nations have taken place—some of them independent of war; some arising out of it.

“France has proposed to enter into a new treaty of commerce with us, on liberal principles; and has, in the meantime, relaxed some of the restraints mentioned in the report. Spain has, by an ordinance of June last, established New Orleans, Pensacola, and St. Augustine into free ports, for the vessels of friendly nations having treaties of commerce with her, provided they touch for a permit at Corcubion in Gallicia, or at Alicant; and our rice is, by the same ordinance, excluded from that country. The circumstances of war have necessarily given us freer access to the West Indian islands, whilst they have also drawn on our navigation vexations and depredations of a most serious nature.

“To have endeavored to describe all these, would have been as impracticable as useless, since the scenes would have been shifting while under description. I therefore think it best to leave the report as it was formed, being adapted to a particular point of time, when things were in their settled order, that is to say, to the summer of 1792. I have the honor to be, c.

To the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America,

See VII., pp. 234, 240, 243, and 246.

1

April 12, 1792.— T. J.

1

From the original in the possession of the Virginia Historical Society.

1

Probably an allusion to Jaudenes and Viar, the Commissioners from Spain.

1

These rough notes are without date, but the paper is watermarked 1794.

2

On the margin is written the following:

“The legislature to provide for having periodical returns to them of the qualified electors of every county, to wit, every man of full age who pays taxes to govrnt. or is of militia. From the whole number of qualified electors in the state, an Unit of representation to be obtained, and every county to send a representative for every Unit or fraction exceeding an half Unit which actually votes at the election. If a county has not an half Unit, add its votes to another.

“The Unit to be taken from time to time that the Legislature may consist of not less than 150 nor more than 300.

“The legislature to be divided weekly by lot into 2 chambers, so that the representatives of every county may be as equally divided between the chambers as integral odd numbers will admit.

“The two chambers to proceed as distinct branches of the Legislature.”

1

From a copy courteously furnished by Col. C. C. Jones, of Augusta, Ga.

1

From the original in the possession of the Virginia Historical Society.

2

Patrick Henry.

1

See Vol. V., 3.

1

Italics are cipher numbers in original.

1

“Wines to be procured shipped by Mr. Fenwick from Bordeaux if it should be found advantageous to remit mr. Derieux’ money in that way. They will come at my risk.

250 bottles of the best vin rouge ordinaire used at the good tables of Bordeaux, such as mr. Fenwick sent me before.

125 bottles of Sauterne, old ready for use.

60 bottles of Fontignan.

60 bottles of white Hermitage of the first quality, old ready for use.”

1

The letters of “Curtius” were written by Noah Webster, except numbers 6-7, which were from the pen of James Kent.

1

The true date of this letter is ten years previous to this, Jefferson having written 1795 in place of 1785, and owing to this error, it was not included in its correct place in the present work. As the letter is of singular interest, the editor has thought it best to include it, even though out of its proper place.

1

“Extract of a lre. dated Richmd. Nov. 22. 1795.

“Mann Page’s motion for a resolution approving the conduct of the minority in the national senate was warmly agitated three whole days, Wednesday Thursd. Friday. It was much less ably defended than opposed. John Marshal it was once apprehended would make a great number of converts by an argument which cannot be considered in any other light than an uncandid artifice. To prevent what would be a virtual censure of the President’s conduct he maintained that the treaty in all its commercial parts was still under the power of the H. of R. He contended that it was more in the spirit of the constitution for it to be rendered nugatory after it received the sanction of the P. S. by the H. of R. refusing it their support, than for its existence to be prevented, for it to be stifled in embryo by their declaring upon application from the P. to know their sentiment before he had given it his signature, that they would withhold that support. He compared the relation of the Executive to the Legislative department to that between the states and the Congress under the old confederation. The old Congress might have given up the right of laying discriminating duties in favor of any nation by treaty: it would never have thought of taking beforehand the assent of each state thereto. Yet no one would have pretended to deny the power of the states to lay such. This doctrine, I believe, is all that is original in his argument. The sophisms of Camillus, the nice distinctions of the Examiner made up the rest. It is clear that it was brought forward for the purpose of gaining over the unwary wavering. It has never been admitted by the writers in favor of the treaty to the northward. Its author was disappointed however. Upon a division the vote stood 100 to 50. After the question Charles Lee brought forward a motion of compliment to the P. It was of most uncommon length which was undoubtedly intended to puzzle: the word ‘wisdom’ in expressing the confidence of the House in the P. was so artfully introduced that if the fraudulent design had not been detected in time the vote of the House, as to its effect upon the P. would have been entirely done away. A resolution so worded as to acquit the P. of all evil intention, but at the same time silently censuring his error, was passed by a majority of 33. 89 to 56.

“Some of the warmest of the victorious party talk of bringing forward a motion for a vote of applause to S. T. Mason. But the more moderate say their triumph is sufficient, it is supposed this will be dropped.”

1

From the original in the Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

1

From a copy courteously furnished by Dr. J. S. H. Fogg, of Boston.

1

Undated, but probably written late in 1795. Christoph Daniel Ebeling was at this time preparing his Biography and History of North America.

1

From the original in the possession of the Virginia Historical Society.

1

Edmund Randolph.

2

Mann Page.

1

From this point begins the extract which is known as the “Mazzei letter.” It originally appeared in a Florentine paper, from the Italian text was translated into French and printed in the Moniteur, and from that was retranslated into English, first appearing in America in The Minerva of May 14, 1797, as follows:

Translated for the Minerva, from the Paris Monitor, of January 25.

Florence, January 1, 1797.

“From Mr. Jefferson, late Minister of the United States in France, and Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, to a Citizen of Virginia.

“This letter literally translated is addressed to M. Mazzei, author of Researches, historical and political, upon the United States of America, now resident in Tuscany.

‘Our political situation is prodigiously changed since you left us. Instead of that noble love of liberty, and that republican government, which carried us triumphantly thro the dangers of the war, an Anglo-Monarchio-Aristocratic party has arisen. Their avowed object is to impose on us the substance, as they have already given us the form, of the British government. Nevertheless, the principal body of our citizens remain faithful to republican principles. All our proprietors of lands are friendly to those principles, as also the mass of men of talents. We have against us (republicans) the Executive Power, the Judiciary Power, (two of the three branches of our government) all the officers of government, all who are seeking offices, all timid men who prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty, the British merchants and the Americans who trade on British capitals, the speculators, persons interested in the bank and the public funds. [Establishments invented with views of corruption, and to assimilate us to the British model in its corrupt parts.

‘I should give you a fever, if I should name the apostates who have embraced these heresies; men who were Solomons in council, and Samsons in combat, but whose hair has been cut off by the whore England. [In the original, par la catin Angleterre, probably alluding to the woman’s cutting off the hair of Sampson and his loss of strength thereby.]

‘They would wrest from us the liberty which we have obtained by so much labor and peril; but we shall preserve it. Our mass of weight and riches is so powerful, that we have nothing to fear from any attempt against us by force. It is sufficient that we guard ourselves, and that we break the lilliputian ties by which they have bound us, in the first slumbers which succeeded our labors. It suffices that we arrest the progress of that system of ingratitude and injustice towards France, from which they would alienate us, to bring us under British influence, c.’

“Thus far the letter; to which are subjoined, in the French paper, the following remarks:

‘This interesting letter from one of the most virtuous and enlightened citizens of the United States, explains the conduct of the Americans in regard to France. It is certain that of all the neutral and friendly powers, there is none from which France had a right to expect more interest and succours than from the United States. She is their true mother country, since she has assured to them their liberty and independence. Ungrateful children, instead of abandoning her, they ought to have armed in her defense. But if imperious circumstances had prevented them from openly declaring for the Republic of France, they ought at least to have made demonstrations and excited apprehensions in England, that at some moment or other they should declare themselves. This fear alone would have been sufficient to force the cabinet of London to make peace. It is clear that a war with the United States would strike a terrible blow at the commerce of the English, would give them uneasiness for the preservation of their possessions on the American continent, and deprive them of the means of conquering the French and Dutch colonies.

‘Equally ungrateful and impolitic, the Congress hastens to encourage the English, that they might pursue in tranquility their war of extermination against France and to invade the Colonies and the commerce of England. * They sent to London, a minister, Mr. Jay known by his attachment to England, and his personal relations to Lord Grenville, and he conducted suddenly a treaty of Commerce which united them with Great Britain, more than a treaty of alliance.

‘Such a treaty, under all the peculiar circumstances, and by the consequences which it must produce, is an act of hostility against France. The French government in short has testified the resentment of the French nation, by breaking off communication with an ungrateful and faithless ally, until she shall return to a more just and benevolent conduct. Justice and sound policy equally approve this measure of the French government. There is no doubt it will give rise, in the United States, to discussions which may afford a triumph to the party of good republicans, the friends of France.

‘Some writers in disapprobation of this wise and necessary measure of the directory, maintain that in the United States, the French have for partizans only certain demagogues who aim to overthrow the existing government. But their imprudent falsehoods convince no one, and prove only what is too evident, that they use the liberty of the press, to serve the enemies of France.’

“[The foregoing letter wears all the external marks of authenticity. And yet it seems hardly possible an American could be capable of writing such a letter. As the letter is circulating in Europe, we deem it just, if a forgery, to give Mr. Jefferson an opportunity to disavow it.]”

Upon this publication in America, and Jefferson’s failure to repudiate it, he was savagely attacked by the Federal press. He attempted no public explanation or palliation, but to his friends (see post., letter to Madison, June 3, 1797), he sought to blame the translation for the stronger expressions, and many years later, in his letter to Van Buren (June 24, 1824), he tried to explain away the apparent allusions to Washington, even becoming insincere in his endeavors to prove that his references did not allude to his former chief. So far as this point is concerned, it is only necessary to note that the criticism on Washington in this letter is far less severe than Jefferson was writing to others in these years, and that Washington himself took the references so wholly to himself, that from the publication of this letter he ceased all correspondence and intercourse with his former secretary. Nor is it probable that Jefferson’s attempt to discredit the public version at the time was so much a repudiation of what he had written, as it was a political desire to avoid the unpopularity of being known as the critic of one whom he had himself to acknowledge had such personal popularity “that the people will support him in whatever he will do or will not do, without appealing to their own reason or to anything but their feelings toward him.”

*

There seems to be a mistake in the original in this passage, or we mistake the construction.—Translator.

1

Here, in the margin of the copy, is written, apparently at a later date, “General H. Lee.”

1

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

1

Statement by memory, of a letter I wrote to John Adams; copy omitted to be retained.

Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
Dec. 28, 1796
Monticello
Dear Sir,

The public, the public papers, have been much occupied lately in placing us in a point of opposition to each other. I confidently trust we have felt less of it ourselves. In the retired canton where I live, we know little of what is passing. Pamphlets I see none: papers very few, the fewer the happier. Our last information from Philada is of the 16th inst. At that date the issue of the late election seems not to have been known as a matter of fact. With me, however, its issue was never doubted. I knew the impossibility of your losing a single vote North of the Delaware; and even if you should lose that of Pennsylva in the mass, you would get enough South of that to make your election sure. I never for a single moment expected any other issue; tho’ I shall not be believed, yet it is not the less true, that I never wished any other. My neighbors, as my compurgators, could aver this fact, as seeing my occupations my attachment to them. It is possible, indeed, that even you may be cheated of your succession by a trick worthy the subtlety of your arch friend of New York, who has been able to make of your real friends tools for defeating their your just wishes. Probably, however, he will be disappointed as to you; and my inclinations put me out of his reach. I leave to others the sublime delights of riding in the storm, better pleased with sound sleep a warmer berth below it, encircled with the society of my neighbors, friends, fellow laborers of the earth, rather than with spies sycophants. Still, I shall value highly the share I may have had in the late vote, as a measure of the share I hold in the esteem of my fellow citizens. In this point of view, a few votes less are but little sensible, while a few more would have been in their effect very sensible oppressive to me. I have no ambition to govern men. It is a painful and thankless office. And never since the day you signed the treaty of Paris, has our horizon been so overcast. I devoutly wish you may be able to shun for us this war, which will destroy our agriculture, commerce, credit. If you do, the glory will be all your own. And that your administration maybe filled with glory happiness to yourself, advantage to us, is the sincere prayer of one, who, tho’ in the course of our voyage, various little incidents have happened or been contrived to separate us, yet retains for you the solid esteem of the times when we were working for our independence, and sentiments of sincere respect attachment.

1

Statement from memory, of a letter I wrote to James Madison: copy omitted to be retained.

Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
Jan. 1, 97
Monticello

Yours of Dec. 19 is safely received. I never entertained a doubt of the event of the election. I knew that the eastern troops were trained in the schools of their town meetings to sacrifice little differences of opinion to the solid advantages of operating in phalanx, and that the more free and moral agency of the other States would fully supply their deficiency. I had no expectation, indeed, that the vote would have approached so near an equality. It is difficult to obtain full credit to declarations of disinclination to honors, and most so with those who still remain in the world. But never was there a more solid unwillingness, founded on rigorous calculation, formed in the mind of any man, short of peremptory refusal. No arguments, therefore, were necessary to reconcile me to a relinquishment of the first office, or acceptance of the second. No motive could have induced me to undertake the first, but that of putting our vessel upon her republican tack, and preventing her being driven too far to leeward of her true principles. And the second is the only office in the world about which I cannot decide in my own mind, whether I had rather have it or not have it. Pride does not enter into the estimate. For I think with the Romans of old, that the General of to-day should be a common soldier to-morrow, if necessary. But as to Mr. Adams, particularly, I could have no feelings which would revolt at being placed in a secondary station to him. I am his junior in life, I was his junior in Congress, his junior in the diplomatic line, and lately his junior in our civil government. I had written him the enclosed letter before the receipt of yours. I had intended it for some time, but had put it off, from time to time, from the discouragement of despair to make him believe me sincere. As the information by the last post does not make it necessary to change anything in the letter, I enclose it open for your perusal, as well that you may be possessed of the true state of dispositions between us, as that if there be any circumstance which might render its delivery ineligible, you may return it to me. If Mr. Adams could be induced to administer the government on its true principles, quitting his bias for an English constitution, it would be worthy consideration whether it would not be for the public good, to come to a good understanding with him as to his future elections. He is the only sure barrier against Hamilton’s getting in. . . .

The Political Progress is a work of value and of a singular complexion. The author’s eye seems to be a natural achromatic, divesting every object of the glare of color. The former work of the same title possessed the same kind of merit. They disgust one, indeed, by opening to his view the ulcerated state of the human mind. But to cure an ulcer you must go to the bottom of it, which no author does more radically than this. The reflections into which it leads us are not very flattering to the human species. In the whole animal kingdom I recollect no family but man, steadily and systematically employed in the destruction of itself. Nor does what is called civilization produce any other effect, than to teach him to pursue the principle of the bellum omnium in omnia on a greater scale, and instead of the little contest between tribe and tribe, to comprehend all the quarters of the earth in the same work of destruction. If to this we add, that as to other animals, the lions and tigers are mere lambs compared with man as a destroyer, we must conclude that nature has been able to find in man alone a sufficient barrier against the too great multiplication of other animals and of man himself, an equilibrating power against the fecundity of generation. While in making these observations, my situation points my attention to the welfare of man in the physical world, yours may perhaps present him as equally warring in the moral one. Adieu. Yours affectionately.

1

From the original in the possession of the Virginia Historical Society.

1

Adams wrote to Tristam Dalton on Jan. 19, 1797:

“P. S. Mr. Jefferson’s Letters and Declarations are no surprise to me. We laboured together in high friendship in Congress in 1776 and have lived and acted together very frequently since that time. His Talent and Information I know very well, and have everbelieved in his honour, Integrity, his love of Country, and his friends. I may say to you that his Patronage of Paine and Freneau, and his entanglements with Characters and Politicks which have been pernicious, are and have long been a Source of Inquietude and anxiety to me, as they have been to you. But I hope and believe that his advancement and his Situation in the Senate, an excellent School, will correct him. He will have too many French friends about him to flatter him: but I hope we can keep him steady. This is entre nous. J. A.”

1

The following is the last paragraph in the draft of this letter, afterwards stricken out and changed as in the print:

“I shall never forget the prediction of the count de Vergennes that we shall exhibit the singular phænomenon of a fruit rotten before it is ripe, nor cease to join in the wish of Silas Deane that there were an ocean of fire between us the old world. Indeed my dear friend I am so disgusted with this entire subjection to a foreign power that if it were in the end to appear to be the wish of the body of my countrymen to remain in that vassalege I should feel my unfitness to be an agent in their affairs, and seek in retirement that personal independence without which this world has nothing I value. I am confident you set the same store by it which I do: but perhaps your situation may not give you the same conviction of its existence.”

1

Endorsed: “No copy retained. The above is the sum.”

1

See letters to Madison, Mercer, and Monroe, post, pp. 331, 338, and 339.

1

Dissertation on Slavery.

1

Scipio was Uriah Tracy, and the letters were afterwards collected in book form.

1

On the margin of the press copy Jefferson has noted in pencil “Mr. Adams.”

1

Other letters to Burr on this subject are as follows:

Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
May 26th. 98
Philadelphia
Dear Sir,

I received yesterday your favor of the 24th. The other notes delivered by Mr. Burwell to Mr. Ludlow belonged three of them to Dr Currie, the rest to himself. To wit

Dr. Currie’s Doll.
John Nicholson’s note to Rob. Morris dated Nov. 18. 94 for 3500 payable in 3 years
John Nicholson’s note to Rob. Morris dated Nov. 18. 94 3500 payable in 3 years
John Nicholson’s note to Rob. Morris dated Nov. 18. 94 4000 payable in 3 years
11.000
Mr. Burwell’s
John Nicholson’s note to Rob. Morris dated Nov. 20. 94 for 4000 payable in 3 years
John Nicholson’s note to Rob. Morris dated Nov. 20. 94 4000 payable in 3 years
John Nicholson’s note to Rob. Morris dated Jan. 15. 95 2500 payable in 3 years
John Nicholson’s note to Rob. Morris dated Mar. 1. 95 4000 payable in 3 years
14,500

This last one of Mr. Burwell’s was not delivered to mr. Ludlow, but will be handed to him by mr. Barnes by this day’s post. You will therefore be pleased to proceed in the name of Dr. James Currie for the three first notes, amounting to 11,000 Dollars. You mention that discretionary powers must be given to some person in N. York in order that you may be able to associate these gentlemen in a general compromise with some others for whom you will obtain judgment in July. Dr. Currie has given me full powers to act for him, I hereby give you full discretionary powers to do for him whatever you may think for his interest. I enclose you one of his letters to me sufficiently evidencing his committing the matter to me. Mr. Barnes is authorized by mr. Burwell to take the same steps for him which I do for Dr. Currie. He will therefore write to you this day. Dr. Currie has another claim by judgment recovered here against Griffin Morris which may be the subject of a future letter to you. Perhaps, after I shall have seen Mr. Ingersoll his attorney (now absent from town).

If Congress mean to adjourn at all (which I doubt) I shall stay here till they adjourn. If they do not, after passing the land tax, I shall consider it as evidence they mean to make their sessions permanent, shall then go home for the season. I am with great sincere esteem, Dear Sir, your friend servant.

Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
June 16. 98
Philadelphia
Dear Sir,

In my letter of May 26. I mentioned to you that Dr. Currie had another demand by judgment against John Tayloe Griffin as principal, Robert Morris garnishee, which should be the subject of a future letter to you. I now enclose you a transcript by the record of the Supreme Court of this state. It seems by this (I have not examined the record with minute attention) that the court have considered Robert Morris as holding property of Griffin’s to the amount of £4305 Pensva currency = 11480 Dolls not due, as stated on interrogatory, till Dec. 3. 1800. But that interest at 5 per cent must have been payable annually, as he confesses judgment for £959-8-8 interest on that sum to Dec. 3, 95. which was paid to mr. Ingersoll, a scire facias issued for the interest of the year 1796 being £215-5 has been issued since. On this last, nothing has been done, as no effects here can be got at. This interest therefore for the year 1796. now also for the year 1797, is due immediately recoverable as to the principal. I know not how the laws may be with you: but in Virginia, where we have courts of Chancery on the principles of that of England, tho’ in a court of law the principal could not be demanded before due, yet the Chancery, in consideration of the hazard in which it is placed by the change of circumstances of Rob. Morris would either oblige him to give security or sequester any property of his which the plaintiff would point out. If it be so with you, then we may hope that the principal may be secured so as to be received in 1800, the interest for 96. 97. immediately recovered. I will pray you however to have done for Dr. Currie both as to principal interest whatever your laws will authorize for the best. I enclose you a letter from him referring you to me, I hereby give you as full powers to act herein as he has given to me. I leave this place in the morning of the 20th. would thank you to be informed what prospect you think there is of these several matters. If I am gone, the letter will follow find me at home. I am with great esteem dear sir your friend servant.

Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
Nov. 12. 1798
Monticello
Dear Sir,

Dr. Currie, on whose behalf I troubled you last summer, being anxious to learn something of the prospect he may have of recovering from Robert Morris, I take the liberty of asking a line directed to me at this place where I shall still be long enough to receive it. I should not have troubled you but that you expected early in the summer to be able to judge what could be done. I am aware at the same time that the fever at New York may have disturbed all legal proceedings.

I did not mean to say a word on politics, but it occurs that I have seen in the New York papers a calumny which I suppose will run through the union, that I had written by Doctr. Logan letters to Merlin Taleyrand. On retiring from the Secretary of state’s office, I determined to drop all correspondence with France, knowing the base calumnies which would be built on the most innocent correspondence. I have not therefore written a single letter to that country, within that period except to Mr. Short on his own affairs merely which are under my direction, and once or twice to Colo. Monroe. By Logan I did not write even a letter to Mr. Short, nor to any other person whatever. I thought this notice of the matter due to my friends, though I do not go into the newspapers with a formal declaration of it. I am c.

1

On outside of letter.

1

Since this letter to Taylor was printed, Prof. W. P. Trent has called my attention to a note by George Tucker, in the Southern Literary Messenger for May, 1838 (iv. 344), in which the expression imputed to Taylor that “it is not unwise now to estimate the separate mass of Virginia and North Carolina” is stated to have been an error due to the fading of the letter-press copy, the true reading being “it is not usual now.” This correction was made at the suggestion of a descendant of Taylor’s, and no proof is produced beyond the mere assertion of Mr. Tucker. What is more, the letter-press copy was one of those destroyed before the Jefferson papers were purchased by the government, so it is now impossible to verify the facts. The correction, however, is so material, that it seems necessary to note the assertion.

1

From the original in the possession of the Virginia Historical Society.

1

“See his letter of Oct. 4. 98. to which this is an answer. Copy of a letter time not permitting a press copy this was immediately written from recollection is nearly verbal.”— T. J.

1

See letters to Madison of October 26, 1798, and to John Taylor of November 26, 1798.

1

This clause is struck out in MS.

1

The text in the first column is from the rough draft, and that in the second from a fair copy. The facsimile is the text actually moved by Breckenridge, adopted by the Kentucky legislature, and sent to the other state legislatures.

As early as April 26, 1798 (see ante. p. 411) Jefferson was predicting and disapproving of possible Alien and Sedition bills, and from that time his letters express the strongest dislike to those acts. Thoroughly opposed to disunion (see letter to John Taylor, VII, p. 430) yet believing these Federalist measures only initial steps towards a dictatorship or monarchy, Jefferson cast about him for some means of checking the project, and finally hit upon the now famous doctrine of nullification of Federal statutes by means of resolutions of state legislatures. No one better realized the hazard of such a doctrine than its inventor, as is indicated not merely by the guarded phrasing, (done with purpose as is shown by his letters to Madison, Taylor, and Nicholas, post, ) but quite as much by the absolute secrecy with which his share in the whole attempt was kept for many years.

The resolutions were originally prepared for North Carolina, and their destination changed for reasons given in the letter to Nicholas, ante, p. 449.

Jefferson wrote to Madison:

Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
November 17, 1798
Monticello
James Madison
Madison, James

“I enclose you a copy of the draught of the Kentucky resolves. I think we should distinctly affirm all the important principles they contain, so as to hold to that ground in future, and leave the matter in such a train as that we may not be committed to push matters to extremities, yet may be free to push as far as events will render prudent.”

To Taylor he wrote:

Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
Nov. 26, 1798
Monticello
John Taylor
Taylor, John

“For the present I should be for resolving the alien sedition laws to be against the constitution merely void, and for addressing the other States to obtain similar declarations; and I would not do anything at this moment which should commit us further, but reserve ourselves to shape our future measures or no measures, by the events which may happen.”

The history of the resolutions Jefferson stated in a letter to John Cabel Breckenridge:

Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson, Thomas
December 11, 1821
Monticello
John Cabel
Cabel, John
Dear Sir,

Your letter of December 19th places me under a dilemma which I cannot solve but by an exposition of the naked truth. I would have wished this rather to have remained as hitherto, without inquiry, but your inquiries have a right to be answered. I will do it as exactly as the great lapse of time and a waning memory will enable me. I may misremember indifferent circumstances, but can be right in substance. At the time when the Republicans of our country were so much alarmed at the proceedings of the Federal ascendancy in Congress, in the Executive and the Judiciary departments, it became a matter of serious consideration how head could be made against their enterprises on the Constitution. The leading republicans in Congress found themselves of no use there, browbeaten as they were by a bold and overwhelming majority. They concluded to retire from that field, take a stand in their state legislatures, and endeavor there to arrest their progress. The Alien and Sedition laws furnished the particular occasion. The sympathy between Virginia and Kentucky was more cordial and more intimately confidential than between any other two States of republican policy. Mr. Madison came into the Virginia legislature. I was then in the Vice-Presidency, and could not leave my station; but your father, Colonel W. C. Nicholas, and myself, happening to be together, the engaging the co-operation of Kentucky in an energetic protestation against the constitutionality of those laws became a subject of consultation. Those gentlemen pressed me strongly to sketch resolutions for that purpose, your father undertaking to introduce them to that legislature, with a solemn assurance, which I strictly required, that it should not be known from what quarter they came. I drew and delivered them to him, and in keeping their origin secret he fulfilled his pledge of honor. Some years after this, Colonel Nicholas asked me if I had any objection to it being known that I had drawn them. I pointedly enjoined that it should not. Whether he had unguardedly intimated before to any one I know not, but I afterwards observed in the papers repeated imputations of them to me, on which, as has been my practice on all occasions of imputation, I have observed entire silence. The question, indeed, has never before been put to me, nor should I answer it to any other than yourself, seeing no good end to be proposed by it, and the desire of tranquility inducing with me a wish to be withdrawn from public notice. Your father’s zeal and talents were too well known to desire any additional distinction from the penning these resolutions. That circumstance surely was of far less merit than the proposing and carrying them through the legislature of his state. The only fact in this statement on which my memory is not distinct, is the time and occasion of the consultation with your father and Mr. Nicholas. It took place here I know, but whether any other person was present or communicated with is my doubt. I think Mr. Madison was either with us or consulted, but my memory is uncertain as to minor details. I fear, dear sir, we are now in such another crisis, with this difference only, that the judiciary branch is alone and singlehanded in the present assaults on the Constitution; but its assaults are more sure and deadly, as from an agent seemingly passive and unassuming. May you and your contemporaries meet them with the same determination and effect as your father and his did the ‘alien and sedition’ laws and preserve inviolate a constitution which, cherished in all its chastity and purity, will prove in the end a blessing to all the nations of the earth. With these prayers, accept those for your own happiness and prosperity.”

The resolutions, with those of Virginia of 1798 and 1799, produced an extensive pamphlet literature at the time, a bibliography of which is a distinct desideratum, and has since then been the cause of many publications. The most interesting arguments on the questions involved are those of Story, Calhoun, Van Holst, and Johnston, and minute histories of the Kentucky resolutions have been written by R. T. Durrett ( Southern Bivouac, 1, 577, 658, 760), and by E. D. Warfield (New York: 1887).