The MS. ends here; the balance is from the works of Madison (Congressional Edition).
The omitted portions relate to finding a successor to Fulwar Skipwith, Consul at Paris, and the state of public opinion in the United States.
See Belsham Memoirs, Smollet’s continuation, vol. 3, p. 130; also Journals House of Commons.
Erskine wrote the Secretary of State, Robert Smith, as follows:
I have the Honour of informing you, that His Majesty, having been persuaded that the honourable Reparation which he had caused to be tendered for the unauthorized attack upon the American Frigate Chesapeake, would be accepted by the Government of the United States, in the same Spirit of conciliation, with which it was proposed, has instructed me, to express His Satisfaction, should such a happy Termination of that affair take Place—not only as having removed a painful cause of Difference, but as affording a fair Prospect of a complete and cordial understanding, being reestablished between the two Countries.
The favourable Change in the Relations of His Majesty with the United States, which has been produced by the Act, (usually termed the Non-Intercourse Act,) passed in the last Session of Congress, was also anticipated by His Majesty, and has encouraged a further Hope, that a Reconsideration of the existing Differences may lead to their satisfactory adjustment.
On these Grounds and Expectations, I am instructed to communicate to the American Government, His Majesty’s Determination of sending to the United States, an Envoy extraordinary invested with full Powers to conclude a treaty on all the Points of the Relations between the two Countries.
In the mean Time, with a View to contribute to the attainment of so desirable an object, His Majesty would be willing to withdraw His orders in Council of January and November, 1807, so far as respects the United States, in the Persuasion, that the President would issue a Proclamation for the Renewal of the Intercourse with Great Britain, and that whatever Differences of Opinion should arise in the Interpretation of the Terms of such an agreement, will be removed in the proposed negotiation.
I have the Honour to be, c.
The next day he wrote again.
In consequence of the Acceptance by the President, as stated in your Letter, dated the 18th Instant, of the Proposals, made by me on the Part of His Majesty, in my Letter of the same Day, for the Renewal of the Intercourse between the respective Countries, I am authorized to declare, that His Majesty’s orders in Council of January and November, 1807, will have been withdrawn as respects the United States on the 10 th Day of June next.
I have the honor, c.— D. of S. MSS. Notes.
From the original kindly loaned by John Boyd Thacher, Esq.
The order revoked the old orders except so far as a blockade would accomplish their object. The blockade extended from Ems on the north and included the northern ports of Italy, but opened to neutral commerce all ports not actually French. Erskine wrote to Secretary Smith:
“I have the Honor to inclose a Copy of an Order of His Majesty in Council, issued on the 26th of April last.
“In consequence of official Communications sent to me from His Majesty’s Government, since the Adoption of that measure, I am enabled to assure you that it has no Connection whatever with the Overtures, which I have been authorized to make to the Government of the United States, and that I am persuaded that the Terms of the Agreement so happily concluded by the recent Negotiation, will be strictly fulfilled on the part of His Majesty.
“The internal Evidence of the Order itself, would fully justify the foregoing Construction and moreover, it will not have escaped your Notice that the Repeal has not thereby been made of the Order of the 7th of January 1807, which according to the Engagement I have entered into, on the part of His Majesty, is to be abrogated with the other Orders, in consequence of the Adjustment of Differences between the two Countries, and the confidence entertained of a further conciliatory understanding.
“I have the Honor,” c.— D. of S. MSS. Notes.
Erskine wrote to Secretary Smith:
“I have the Honor to inclose to you a Copy of an Order, which was passed by His Majesty in Council on the 24 th of May last.
“In communicating this Order, it is with the deepest Regret that I have to inform you that His Majesty has not thought proper to confirm the late provisional Agreement which I had entered into with you on the part of our respective Governments.
“Neither the present time, nor the occasion will afford me a favourable Opportunity for explaining to you the Grounds and Reasons upon which I conceived I had conformed to His Majesty’s Wishes; and to the Spirit, at least, of my Instructions upon that Subject—nor, indeed, would any vindication of my Conduct, (whatever I may have to offer) be of any Importance further than as it might tend to shew that no Intention existed on my part to practice any Deception towards the Government of the United States.
“I have the Satisfaction, however, to call your Attention to that part of the inclosed Order, which protects the Commerce and Shipping of the United States, from the Injury and Inconveniences, which might have arisen to American Citizens from a reliance on the provisional Agreement beforementioned; and I cannot but cherish a Hope that no further bad Consequences may result from an Arrangement, which I had fully believed would have met with His Majesty’s Approbation, and would have led to a complete and cordial Understanding, between the two Countries.
“With Sentiments of the highest Respect and Consideration,
“I have the honor” c.— D. of S. MSS. Notes.
From Memoirs and Letters of Dolly Madison (1886), p. 67. The letter is there dated August 17, which is obviously an error. The correct date must be August 7th.
While there he issued his proclamation of Aug. 9, withdrawing the proclamation of April 19:
“Whereas it is now officially made known to me that the said orders in council have not been withdrawn agreeably to the communication and declaration aforesaid,
“I do hereby proclaim the same, and, consequently, that the trade renewable on the event of the said orders, being withdrawn, is to be considered as under the operation of the several acts by which such trade was suspended.”
Berent Gardenier, of New York, a federalist of the extreme type.
Only an extract of Pinkney’s chief letter was sent to Congress. It may be seen in Am. State Papers, For. Affs., III., 303, and Annals of Cong., 11 th Cong., 2 d Sess., Part 2, p. 2074, and is indicated in the complete letter which follows by an asterisk at the beginning and end of the extract. The closing sentence of Secretary Smith’s letter of April 17 th (written by Madison) to Erskine, to which Canning took exception, was as follows:
“But I have it in express charge from the President to state that, while he forbears to insist on a further punishment of the offending officer [Berkeley], he is not the less sensible of the justice and utility of such an example, nor the less persuaded that it would best comport with what is due His Britannic Majesty to his own honor.”
Pinkney’s letter to Smith was as follows:
“I had an Interview yesterday with Mr. Canning, of which I will trouble you with a very brief account.
“As the orders in Council of the 24 th . of May did not extend to the Dutch Settlement of Batavia, and as an American Trade with that Settlement was supposed to be affected by the order of the 26 th . of April, I suggested to Mr. Canning the propriety of a supplemental order on that point. His Idea was that the omission of Batavia in the order of the 24 th of May must have been an oversight, and that it would be set to rights as I proposed. Of course he could not speak positively on such a Subject.
“American Vessels, taking Cargoes to Holland, are not allowed by the order of May to clear out from that Country, with Return Cargoes, after the 1st of July. I supposed that the homeward Voyage ought, upon every principle, to have been placed upon the same Footing with the outward, and that both should have been considered as forming one Transaction and equally resting upon the Faith of Mr. Erskine’s arrangement. Mr. Canning did not appear to be convinced that this was a correct View of the Case, but he took a Note of what I said upon it for Consideration. The Importance of this alteration will depend upon the Manner in which our Vessels may be received treated in Holland. This is still doubtful, but I hope to be able in a few Days to give you precise Information on that point.
“It seemed to be desirable that, before Mr. Jackson’s Departure this Government should determine to avoid the Error of taking formal Exception to your letter of the 17th of April to Mr. Erskine; and, accordingly, I availed myself of this occasion to enter very fully into that subject. I need not state in Detail the Grounds upon which I recommended that Mr. Jackson should not be directed or even permitted to attribute to that Letter in his official Discussions with you any thing of that Harshness which had at first been supposed to belong to it. I ought to say, however, that I thought myself bound to contrast the Spirit and Terms of your Letter with the strong Imputations contained in the introductory part of Mr. Canning’s Instructions to Mr. Erskine of the 23 of January, which introductory part, as well as the Body of the Instructions, Mr. Erskine was authorized, without any apparent necessity, to communicate to you, and which has, moreover been lately published to the World, with still less of the Appearance of Necessity, through the House of Commons; and that I dwelt, with the same object upon Mr. Canning’s official reply to my Letter of the 23d of August last, and pointed out in as conciliatory a Way as possible but nevertheless with great Explicitness the Course of Recrimination which a Complaint by the British Government of the Temper imputed to your Letter would inevitably produce, and how perniciously it might affect the Relations of the two Countries without any Chance of doing Good.
“It was not necessary, or perhaps proper, that I should make many Comments upon your Letter; and I added, in fact, very little to a confident Denial that it was written in any other than a just and friendly Spirit or that it was liable to the Charge of Harshness. The last Sentence of it has been felt with some Sensibility here; but I am inclined to think that no Stress will now be laid upon it. It would be obviously unjust as well as injudicious to do so and although I am quite sure that you would meet, with that Moderation by which national Dignity is best supported, a Disposition on the part of this Government to press this Punctilio into Notice, it certainly is not to be wished that any thing of the Sort should be attempted.
“* In conversing upon the first of the conditions, upon the obtaining of which M r . Erskine was to promise the Repeal of the British orders in Council and a special Mission, I collected, from what was said by M r . Canning, that the Exemption of Holland from the Effect of our Embargo non-Intercourse would not have been much objected to by the British Government, if the Government of the United States had been willing to concede the first condition subject to that Exemption. M r . Canning observed that the Expedient of an actual Blockade of Holland had occurred to them as being capable of meeting that Exemption; but that M r . Erskine had obtained no Pledge, express or implied, or in any Form, that we would enforce our non-Intercourse System against France and her Dependencies—that our mutual System would, if not re-enacted or continued as to France, terminate with the present Session of Congress—that, for aught that appeared to the contrary in your correspondence with M r . Erskine or in the President’s proclamation, the Embargo and non Intercourse Laws might be suffered without any Breach of Faith to expire, or might even be repealed immediately, notwithstanding the Perseverance of France in her Berlin and other Edicts—and that M r . Erskine had in Truth secured nothing more, as the Consideration of the Recall of the orders in Council, than the Renewal of American Intercourse with Great Britain.
“Upon the second of the Conditions mentioned in M r . Erskine’s Instructions I made several Remarks. I stated that it had no necessary connection with the principal subject—that it had lost its Importance to Great Britain by the Reduction of almost all the Colonies of her Enemies—that Batavia was understood not to be affected by it—that it could not apply to Guadaloupe (the only other unconquered colony) since it was admitted that we were not excluded from a Trade with Guadaloupe in Peace—that I did not know what the Government of the United States would, upon sufficient Inducements, consent to do upon this point; but that it could scarcely be expected to give the implied Sanction, which this Condition called upon it to give, to the Rules of the War of 1756, without any equivlaent or reciprocal Stipulation whatsoever.—M r . Canning admitted that the second condition had no necessary connection with the orders in Council, and he intimated that they would have been content to leave the Subject of it to future Discussion and arrangement. He added that this condition was inserted in M r . Erskine’s Instructions because it had appeared from his own Report of Conversations with official persons at Washington that there would be no difficulty in agreeing to it.
“Upon the third Condition I said a very few Words. I restated what I had thrown out upon the matter of it in an informal Conversation in January—and expressed my regret that it should have been misapprehended. M r . Canning immediately said that he was himself of opinion that the Idea upon which that condition turns could not well find its way into a stipulation—that he had, nevertheless, believed it to be proper to propose the condition to the United States—that he should have been satisfied with the Rejection of it—and that the Consequence would have been that they should have intercepted the Commerce to which it referred, if any such commerce should be attempted.*
“In conclusion I urged the Importance of sending out M r . Jackson as promptly as possible, with such liberal Instructions as would be likely, if acted upon as they ought to be, to conduct the two countries to peace and Friendship. I was told that Mr. Jackson would probably sail in ten days, and I had much Reason to hope that his orders would not be such as to render adjustment impracticable.
“I shall commit this letter to Mr. Jackson’s care. It is rather a prevailing notion here that this Gentleman’s conduct will not and cannot be what we all wish, and that a better choice might have been made. I trust, however, that you will find him anxious to reestablish a good understanding with us, and that with some small occasional allowances he will do very well. It must be granted, however, that the Crisis seems to require a minister of mild Deportment, studious to soften asperities, and incapable, from Temperament, of being betrayed into an offensive manner of discharging his Duty.”— D. of S. MSS. Despatches.
From the original among the family papers of the late J. Henley Smith, Esq., of Washington. The letter is undated, but was written in 1809.
From the Writings of Madison (Congressional Edition).
September 23, 1809, Pinkney wrote to Smith:
“Mr. George Joy has gone to Denmark with the view of being useful, as the agent of the parties, in obtaining the Liberation of the American vessels and cargoes captured by the Cruizers of that nation. He wished Instructions from me, so as to give an official air to his Interposition. I declined giving any Instructions both because I was not authorized and did not think it at all necessary to do so. I wrote him a Letter, however, giving as much countenance to his object as I could, which Letter he is to make as much use of as he thinks fit.”— D. of S. MSS. Despatches.
From Wheaton’s Life, Writings, and Speeches of William Pinkney, p. 437.
The bill was introduced in the House Dec. 19, 1809, by Macon from the Committee on Foreign Relations, and prohibited public vessels of France or England or private vessels owned by subjects of either power from entering American ports; forbade the importation of goods from either country or its colonies; and provided that whenever either country should revoke or modify her edicts so that they would cease to violate the neutral commerce of the U. S. the President should issue a proclamation announcing the cessation of the prohibitions of the act towards the revoking power. He afterwards moved an amendment to make the act expire with the present session of Congress, when by its terms it would not go into effect till April 15, his object being to make it useless. It finally passed by the unsatisfactory vote of 73 to 52. The Senate amended it by striking out all but the sections prohibiting British and French public vessels from entering American ports and limiting the act to the next session of Congress. The House refused to recede and the bill was lost. On April 8, 1810, Macon brought in another bill providing that if France or Great Britain should revoke her edicts before March 3 next the President should proclaim the fact, and if within three months thereafter the other nation did not repeal her edicts the non-intercourse regulations should be effective against her. This bill after undergoing various amendments passed the House April 19, by a vote of 61 to 40. It was sent back to the Senate with further amendments and finally passed on the last day of the session, May 1st, being approved on the same day.
In the Senate, approving the President’s course towards Jackson.
See ante, p. 70, n.
From Wheaton’s Life, Writings, and Speeches of William Pinkney, p. 441.
From the Works of James Madison (Congressional Edition).
Communicated to Congress November 29, 1809, February 19 and May 1, 1810. Annals of Cong., 11th Cong., 2d Session, p. 2124.
Given in the case of Dempsey, assignee of Brown, v. The Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania. The case was argued twice, in 1807 and 1808, before the High Court of Errors and Appeals of Pennsylvania, and Judge Cooper’s opinion is discussed in Calhoun v. The Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania ( 1 Binney, 293 ). See also Maryland Insurance Co. v. Woods, 6 Cranch, 29. Ch. Justice Marshall rendered the opinion.
See ante Vol. III., 197, n., for the text of the plan.
Afterwards found. (Madison’s note.)
David Holmes, appointed Governor of Mississippi Territory in 1809.
Robert K. Lowry, of Maryland, left for La Guayra, Caracas, towards the end of July, but no regular commission was issued to him until Feb. 3, 1812, when he was appointed Consul at that place. From Baltimore, July 10, 1810, he wrote Secretary Smith: “In the course of conversation two days since, Mr. Bolivar informed me that a considerable order for muskets has been received by him for the Govt. of Caraccas.
“Mr. De Orca, the other deputy, who sailed for Laguayra this morning, has related to me an interview which took place between him Mr. Jackson last week in Philad a . Don Onis, the Span. Consul, Ex Governor of Caraccas being present. The impression left on his mind is that the British govt. will not be so friendly to them as was expected, especially if, as they appeared to anticipate, the revolution ends in the total rejection of the authority of Ferdinand the 7th.”— Dept. of State MSS., Consular Letters.
He was then Minister to Russia, having been appointed the year before.
Gideon Granger was Postmaster-General at the time. Levi Lincoln was appointed January 7, 1811, but he declined on account of failing eyesight; on February 22 John Quincy Adams was appointed, but he preferred to remain in Russia, finally, November 18th, Joseph Story was appointed. On the subject of Granger Madison wrote to Jefferson Dec. 7, 1810. “Granger has stirred up recommendations throughout the Eastern States. The means by which this has been done are easily conjectured, and outweigh the recommendations themselves. The soundest Republicans of N. England are working hard ag st . him as infected with Yazooism, and intrigue. They wish for J. Q. Adams as honest, able, independent, untainted with such objections. There are others however in the view of the Southern Republicans, tho perhaps less formidable to them, than Yazooism on the Supreme Bench If there be other Candidates they are disqualified either politically, morally or intellectually. Such is the prospect before me which your experience will make you readily understand”— Mad. MSS.
February 24, 1804, Congress passed a law extending the customs regulations over Louisiana and authorizing the President, whenever he should deem it expedient to do so, to make the bay and river Mobile a separate district. Jefferson deemed it inexpedient to put this part of the law into effect. In the summer of 1810 a revolution broke out among the people of the region and West Florida was declared independent and asked annexation to the United States. As the United States had already asserted the territory to be hers, the opportunity to extend her authority over it was not to be resisted. See Henry Adams, v., 306.
The original of this letter is at Rokeby, General Armstrong’s country seat on the Hudson River.
The proclamation was dated November 2. It recited the terms of the Act of May 1, 1810, and proceeded: “And, Whereas it has been officially made known to this Government that the edicts of France violating the neutral commerce of the United States have been so revoked as to cease to have effect on the 1st of the present month,
“Now, therefore, I, James Madison, President of the United States, do hereby proclaim the said edicts of France have been so revoked as that they ceased on the said 1st day of the present month to violate the neutral commerce of the United States, and that from the date of these presents all the restrictions imposed by the aforesaid act shall cease and be discontinued to France and their dependencies.”
From the Works of Madison (Congressional Edition). The letter is also printed in part in Wheaton’s Life, Writings, and Speeches of William Pinkney, 449. Pinkney’s letter was dated August 14th. Lord Wellesley’s letter to him of July 22d contained but two sentences: “I think it may be difficult to enter upon the subject of your last note, (respecting the diplomatic rank of our minister in America,) in any official form.
“But I have no difficulty in assuring you, that it is my intention immediately to recommend the appointment of an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary from the king to the United States.”— American Archives, iii., Foreign Affairs, 363.
David Bailie Warden was appointed Consul at Paris, March 3, 1811, and held the office for many years.
Madison caused Richard Brent, Senator from Virginia, to write to Monroe and ask him if he would accept the Secretaryship of State. March 18th Monroe replied favorably. ( Writings of Monroe, v., 178.) Madison wrote to Jefferson April 1: “You will have inferred the change which is taking place in the Dep t . of State. Col. Monroe agrees to succeed Mr. Smith, who declines however the mission to Russia, at first not unfavorably looked at. I was willing, notwithstanding many trying circumstances, to have smoothed the transaction as much as possible, but it will be pretty sure to end in secret hostility, if not open warfare. On account of my great esteem regard for common friends such a result is truly painful to me. For the rest, I feel myself on firm ground, as well in the public opinion as in my own consciousness.
Endorsed by Madison: “(Quere: if necessary to become public?) Memorandum as to R. Smith.” It was not made public.
A newspaper controversy arose and Smith’s friends became Madison’s enemies. Madison wrote to Jefferson from Washington, July 8, 1811: “You will have noticed in the Nat. Intelligencer that the wicked publication of Mr. Smith is not to escape with impunity. It is impossible however that the whole turpitude of his conduct can be understood without disclosures to be made by myself alone, and of course, as he knows, not to be made at all.”— Mad. MSS.
See Jefferson’s correspondence with and concerning Duane in Writings of Jefferson (Ford), ix., 310 et seq.
May 16 Commodore John Rodgers with The President engaged the British corvette Little Belt.
The State now had a Republican majority and Timothy Pickering was retired from the Senate, Joseph B. Varnum being elected to succeed him.
John Quincy Adams wrote to Madison June 3, 1811, from St. Petersburg, declining the commission sent him as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. The study of law had never been congenial to him, and he had formerly declined a similar appointment in Massachusetts. He recommended in his place John Davis, of Massachusetts.— Chicago Hist. Soc. Mss.
November 1, the British Minister wrote to Monroe formally disavowing Admiral Berkeley’s act and offering to restore the men taken from the Chesapeake to that vessel and make compensation for their injuries. The two surviving seamen were accordingly brought from Halifax, where they were in jail, and restored to the deck of the Chesapeake in Boston Harbor.— Henry Adams, vi., 122.
Joel Barlow was appointed consul at Algiers March 3, 1797, and Minister to France, February 27, 1811, and left for Paris July, 1811, arriving in Paris Sept. 19th.
The address was drawn up by Charles Pinckney and an advance copy sent by him to Monroe for the President December 15. It praised Madison and promised him the support of South Carolina.— D. of S. Mss. Miscellaneous Letters.
The act of January 11th provided for raising immediately ten regiments of infantry, two of artillery and one of light dragoons for five years unless sooner discharged. The act of February 6th authorized the President to accept volunteers to the number of 50,000, to do duty whenever he should deem proper and to be bound to remain in the service for twelve months after arriving at a rendezvous. They were to retain their own officers and receive the same pay and allowances as regular troops.— Annals of Cong. 12th Cong., Part 2, 2230 et seq.
James Wilkinson was Senior Brigadier-General in the army. He was tried by court-martial September 2d to December 25th on eight charges—being a pensioner of Spain, treasonable projects for the dismemberment of the United States, conspiracy with Aaron Burr, connivance at treasonable designs, conspiracy against a friendly nation, disobedience of orders, neglect of duty, misapplication and waste of public funds. His acquittal was because there was not sufficient evidence to convict. February 14th, Madison approved the finding with this memorandum:
“I have examined and considered the foregoing proceedings of the General Court Martial, held at Fredericktown, for the trial of Brigadier General Wilkinson—and although I have observed in those proceedings, with regret, that there are instances in the conduct of the court as well as of the officer on trial, which are evidently and justly objectionable, his acquittal of the several charges, exhibited against him, is approved and his sword is accordingly ordered to be restored.”— Annals of Congress, 12th Cong., Part 2, p. 2125.
Nevertheless, Barlow brought the subject before the French government and submitted the full draft of a commercial treaty. Barlow to Monroe, December 31, 1811.— D. of. S. MSS. Despatches.
The vote was 56 to 34, passed Mar. 4 th ..— Annals of Cong, 12 th Cong, Part 1, p. 1155.
This was the famous Henry correspondence which showed that a secret agent of the British government had been engaged in reporting the extent of the disaffection towards the government in the New England States. The correspondence may be read in the Annals of Cong., 12 th Cong., Part 1, p. 1162. For an account of the whole transaction see Henry Adams, v., 14 and 86, and vi., 176, et seq.
The anonymous letters cannot be found. Jonathan Dayton was a revolutionary veteran, Senator from New Jersey 1799 to 1805, speaker of the House of Representatives 1795 to 1799. He was arrested for alleged conspiracy with Aaron Burr, but never tried.
On April 1 Madison sent the following message to Congress: “Considering it expedient under existing circumstances and prospects, that a general embargo be laid on all vessels now in port, or hereafter arriving, for the period of sixty days, I recommend the immediate passage of a law to that effect.” ( Annals of Cong., 12 th Cong., Part 2, p. 1587.) He intended it as a war measure, but the Senate, in altering the period to ninety days, made it rather a measure of negotiation.
The allusion is to Barlow’s efforts to negotiate a full commercial convention. April 23, Monroe wrote to him: “I will observe generally that the project is thought to be liable to objections which would delay if it did not defeat here, a Treaty corresponding with it. A formal Treaty was not contemplated by your instructions. The objects contemplated by them were 1 st , The admission of our productions into France on beneficial terms. 2 nd , security for our neutral and national rights on the high seas, and 3 dly , provision for the Rambouillet and other spoliations; and these objects it was expected might be obtained by Decrees or Acts of the French Government adopted separately and independently by itself.”— D. of S. MSS. Instr.
The instructions were to take possession of East Florida, if the Spanish governor was disposed to surrender it. If a foreign power should attempt to take possession he was to take effective measures for its occupation.— Annals of Cong., 12 th Cong., Part 2, p. 1687. Matthews, however, organized a force and took possession of Amelia Island. See Henry Adams, vi, 237, et seq.
J. G. Jackson, a Representative from Virginia, a connection by marriage of Madison’s, wrote to him from Clarksburg, Va., March 30, 1812, that the hostility of the opposition was inveterate, and that the damning proof of British perfidy submitted in the Henry correspondence had not moved them. “My voice is for war,” he added. Elbridge Gerry, Governor of Massachusetts, wrote confidentially April 12, that three division commanders of Massachusetts troops and three brigadiers were friends of the national government. He had been obliged to appoint officers who were federalists because he could not find others, but he thought they would do their duty and the Major-Generals could be depended upon to correct them if they were guilty of misconduct. On May 19, he wrote again to say that the opposition increased with delay and that war would help matters. “By war we shall be purified as by fire,” he said.— Mad. MSS. These are only examples of many letters to the same effect received by Madison at this time.
“More than six months had passed since Congress met, and the question of actual war was still in suspense. At length, after private conference, a deputation of Members of Congress, with Mr. Clay at their head, waited upon the President, and upon the representations of the readiness of a majority of Congress to vote the war if recommended, the Pres dnt , on the first Monday in June, transmitted to Congress his message submitting that question to their decision.”—Joseph Gale’s account, Am. Hist. Rev., xiii, 309. Here is the true account of the visit to Madison, which has been so often represented as the occasion when he was promised a renomination for the Presidency if he would send Congress a war message. See Hildreth, vi., 298; McMaster, iii., 445; Von Holst, i., 230; Gay’s Madison, 308. The message being referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House, John C. Calhoun brought in the famous war manifesto June 3, but this paper had really been written by James Monroe. See Joseph Gales on the “War Manifesto of 1812,” Am Hist. Rev., xiii, 303.
This is endorsed: Instructions for private armed vessels, drawn up by President Madison. It is in Madison’s hand and is among the War of 1812 MSS., Letters of Marque.
He had been appointed Senior Major-General in the army, January 27, and assigned to the command of the northern department.
William Hull, appointed to command the northwestern army, surrendered on August 16.
May 12, which followed his of May 2. They are printed in part in State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. iii., 602.
September 4, 1812, Richard Rush wrote to Madison, from Washington, that the effect of Hull’s defeat had been disastrous. Would Monroe consent to lead the army? Would Jefferson emerge from his retirement and lend the administration the weight of his counsels?— Chic. Hist. Soc. MSS.
The Diverting History of John Bull and Brother Jonathan, New York, 1812, is referred to. It was by James Kirke Paulding, not by Washington Irving; but Paulding and Irving had been collaborating in their Salmagundi and the mistake was a natural one.
Governor of Vermont, a Republican, now serving his second term. Vermont was the only New England State which cast its vote for Madison for President at this time. By the following year, however, it became Federalist.
Eustis’s retirement as Secretary of War was probably voluntary, he himself recognizing that Congress had no confidence in his ability to cope with the situation. Monroe was appointed Secretary of War pro tempore January 1, 1813, and served till February 4.
Hamilton’s resignation was probably on a hint from Madison. On January 12, 1813, William Jones, of Pennsylvania, succeeded him.
The circular of the British Government dated November 9, 1812, transmitting the Order in Council of October 26, to the Lieutenant-Governor of the Bermudas, contained this paragraph:
“Whatever importations are proposed to be made under the order, from the United States of America, should be by your licenses confined to the ports in the Eastern States exclusively, unless you have reason to suppose that the object of the order would not be fulfilled if licenses are not also granted for importations from other ports in the United States”— Annals of Cong, 12 th Cong., 2 d Sess, p. 1119.
Madison had been re-elected by a vote of 128 to 89 for DeWitt Clinton, of New York. Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia voted for him; Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island against.
Offered by Dashkoff, the Russian Chargé at Washington, March 8.
Jonathan Russell was nominated May 29 to be Minister Plenipotentiary to Sweden. On June 14 the Senate “Resolved, that the nomination of Jonathan Russell, and the motion of Mr. Goldsborough, on the subject, together with the message of the President of the United States, of the 7th instant, with the communications therein mentioned, be referred to a committee, with instructions respectfully to confer with the President of the United States, upon the subject of the said nomination, and report thereon.”— Executive Journal of the Senate, ii., 354.
On April 17 Gallatin was appointed Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary with John Quincy Adams and James A. Bayard, but it was intended that his post as Secretary of the Treasury should be kept open for him. He left Washington April 21 and the Senate rejected the nomination July 19. On February 9, 1814, it declared his seat as Secretary of the Treasury vacant, because he was absent from it, and on the same day he was nominated to be Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to England. Jones, Secretary of the Navy, served as Secretary of the Treasury ad interim from April 21, but on July 24 he wrote to Madison that a continuance of the double service was absolutely impracticable. Nevertheless, he continued to serve till George W. Campbell was appointed February 9, 1814.
Italics for cypher.
In the letter of July 24 from Utica Dearborn said he intended to retire to his family near Boston and asked that an inquiry be made into his conduct.— Mad. MSS. The request was denied; but, ostensibly because of his ill-health, he was relieved of his active command and transferred to New York, considered an important post. Madison to Armstrong, Sept. 8, 1813.— Madison ’s Works (Cong. Ed.).
Governor of Kentucky.
The letter appeared in the Federal Republican of Georgetown. It was dated June 14, 1809, and started out: “The federal government is going to settle all its differences with Great Britain, and to make a treaty of amity, of commerce and of navigation with that power.” Turreau then proceeded to point out the undesirability from France’s point of view of a treaty with the United States and recited the wrongs committed by the United States upon France. The manner as well as the matter of the letter made it one which the United States could not have received without dismissing Turreau. On August 31, Graham wrote the Federal Republican, saying the letter was one which he had translated for Secretary Smith when it was received, but that it had been withdrawn by Turreau. Both letters may be found in Niles’s Weekly Register, v., 37.
Mr. Erskine.
Mr. Pichon.
From the Works of Madison (Cong. Ed.).
From a copy kindly furnished by Mrs. Susan P. Brown, of Spring Hill, Tenn.
By the act of March 24, Congress authorized a loan of $25,000,000. Campbell wrote to Madison, May 4, saying he had disposed of $10,000,000 of the loan “at $88 in money for $100 in 6 per cent. stocks: the government agreeing that if any part of the 25 millions authorized to be borrowed for the present year should be given on terms more favorable to the lenders, the benefit of such terms should be extended to the persons then holding the stock issued for the present year. . . . A considerable portion of it has been offered by public institutions and individuals of whose ability there is no reason to doubt. There is, however, a large sum (5 millions) taken by or in the name of one man, Mr. Barker; who at an early day put in his proposal for that amount on the foregoing terms. It is presumed he acts in conjunction with others, or is supported by some public institutions which will enable him to comply with his proposal.”— Mad. MSS.
From a copy kindly furnished by Mrs. Susan P. Brown, of Spring Hill, Tenn.
From the copy made by Madison’s direction for the statement he prepared in 1824 in reply to General Armstrong’s communication printed in 1821 in the Literary and Scientific Repository. (See Post, January, 1824.)
The plan of defense of Washington and Baltimore was decided upon in Cabinet July 1st and the following estimate of force was made. It is found among the copies made by Madison’s direction for the statement he prepared in 1824 in reply to General Armstrong’s communication printed in 1821 in the Literary and Scientific Repository. The letter is from the same source.
Cavalry City of Washington | 120 |
Ditto, from Carlisle say | 200 |
Regular infantry | 1,000 |
District ditto | 1,000 |
Marines | 120 |
District artillery | 200 |
2,640 | |
Of Barney’s corps | 500 |
3,140 |
10,000 militia to be designated held in readiness 10,000 Arms and Camp equipage to be brought forward for use. Survey of the grounds c.
See Jefferson’s correspondence with Genet. Madison’s Note.
Monroe went on a reconnoissance August 20, but August 21 reported that he had been unable to discover anything of consequence.— Writings of Monroe v., 290.
The papers of the State Department had been moved the day before, Monroe having notified the clerks in his office to make the best disposition possible of them. They were taken first to a grist mill belonging to Edgar Patterson on the Virginia side of the Potomac a short distance from the Chain Bridge; but this place being deemed unsafe were moved to Leesburg and placed in an empty house, where they remained for some weeks, until the British fleet had left the Chesapeake. See letter of S. Pleasanton, August 7, 1848, to W. H. Winder in A Sketch of the Events which Preceded the Capture of Washington, by E. D. Ingraham.
From the original kindly loaned by Fred’k D. McGuire, Esq., of Washington.
On the night of August 22d the President received the following note from Monroe: “The enemy are advancing six miles on the road to the Wood-Yard and our troops retiring. Our troops were on the march to meet them, but too small a body to engage. General Winder proposes to retire until he can collect them in a body. The enemy are in full march for Washington. Have the materials prepared to destroy the bridges.
“Tuesday, 9 o’clock.”
He then went out with his Cabinet to the camp, where he spent the night, and returned to the White House the evening of the 23d.
The memorandum was evidently written contemporaneously with the events it describes. It was copied by Madison’s direction in 1824 for the Armstrong statement (see ante p. 280 n. ), the portions in brackets being then inserted.
It was about two o’clock in the afternoon, when the President and Rush started for Washington. As they rode along slowly, the stream of flying militiamen and civilians poured past them, and they realized what had happened. The President reached the White House about three o’clock, and at six crossed the river in a boat, taking a carriage on the Virginia shore, accompanied by Secretary Jones and Attorney General Rush, and drove to a house a few miles above the Little Falls of the Potomac, where he passed the night. The next morning, August 25th, he went on further for six miles to an inn, where he found Mrs. Madison awaiting him. There he remained all day and part of the night, and was insulted by some of the refugees, who held him responsible for their misfortunes. In the dead of night a report came that the enemy was approaching, and the President left the inn, going to a hovel deeper in the woods, where he spent the rest of the night. The next day he crossed the river and went to Montgomery Court House, Maryland, and then on to Brookville, a Quaker settlement, whence he sent notes to his Cabinet to rejoin him at Washington, the enemy having left the city. He himself reached the city at five o’clock, having been absent three days. The White House having been burned and partially destroyed by the enemy, he went to his sister-in-law, Mrs. Anna Cutts’s, house on F street about a block from the Treasury Department, where he remained for a month, when he moved into the Octagon House belonging to Col. John Tayloe, at the corner of New York Avenue and Nineteenth Street.— Hunt’s Life of Madison, 331 et seq.
From A Sketch of the Events which preceded the Capture of Washington, by Edward D. Ingraham, Philadelphia, 1849. Ingraham probably obtained the letter from William H. Winder, of Philadelphia, General Winder’s son.
Madison and his party had just arrived at Brookville and he was staying at Mrs. Bently’s. “Just at bedtime the Presd. had arrived and all hands went to work to prepare supper and lodgings for him, his companions and guards—beds were spread in the parlour, the house was filled and guards placed round the house during the night. . . . All the villagers, gentlemen and ladies, young and old, throng’d to see the President. He was tranquil as usual, and tho’ much distressed by the dreadful event, which had taken place not dispirited.”—Mrs. Samuel Harrison Smith to her sister. The First Forty Years of Washington Society, p. 108.
The Mayor of Washington, James H. Blake, wrote to Madison the evening of Aug. 26th, but could find neither horse nor rider to carry the message and sent him a message Saturday morning at 7 o’clock that everything was perfectly quiet and a few of the citizens returning.— D. of S. MSS. Miscl. Lets.
John Mason of Analostan Island. He and Rush were continuously with the President from the time of the flight.— The First Forty Years of Washington Society, p. 105.
From the family papers of the late J. Henley Smith, Esq., of Washington.
See ante, p. 280 n.
He had repaired to Fredericktown, the place appointed for the rendezvous of the Executive in the event of their being driven from the city. The turn which things took after his departure prevented the other members from joining him. ( Madison’s note. )
See the instructions to him on the 13th day of August 1814. ( Madison’s note. )
Tompkins was at that time Governor of New York. Upon Armstrong’s dismissal Monroe became Secretary of War ad interim from August 30th to September 30th. He was nominated for the office of Secretary of War September 26th, confirmed September 27th, qualified October 1st, 1814, and served to February 28th, 1815, when he was again commissioned Secretary of State. Mosher’s Executive Register of the United States, 83, 84. Tompkins declined on the ground that he was more useful in his present situation. Madison to Tompkins, October 18, 1814.— Mad. MSS.
The library was bought for $23,950 by act of January 30, 1815.— History of the Library of Congress, i., 68, et seq.
September 24th. See also his letter of October 15th ( Writings, 14, 488, 489), to which Madison replied October 23d: “I find that the variance in our ideas relates 1. to the probable quantity of circulating medium. 2 to the effect of an annual augmentation of it. I cannot persuade myself that in the present stagnation of private dealings, the proposed limitation of taxes, the two great absorbents of money, the circulating sum would amount even to 20 mill s . But be this amount what it may, every emission beyond it, must either enter into circulation and depreciate the whole mass; or it must be locked up. If it bear an interest it may be locked up for the sake of the interest, in which case it is a loan, both in substance in form, and implies a capacity to lend, in other words a disposable capital, in the Country. If it does not bear an interest, it could not be locked up, but on the supposition that the terms on which it is rec d are such as to promise indemnity at least for the intermediate loss of interest, by its value at a future day; but this both involves the substance of a loan, to the amount of the value locked up, and implies a depreciation differing only from the career of the old continental currency, by a gradual return from a certain point of depression to its original level. If this view of the subject be in any measure correct, I am aware of the gloomy inferences from it. I trust however that our case is not altogether without remedy. To a certain extent paper in some form or other, will as a circulating medium, answer the purpose your plan contemplates. The increase of taxes will have the double operation of widening the channel of circulation, and of pumping the medium out of it. And I cannot but think that a domestic capital existing under various shapes, and disposable to the public, may still be obtained on terms tho’ hard, not intolerable; and that it will not be very long before the money market abroad, will not be entirely shut ag st us; a market however ineligible in some respects, not to be declined under our circumstances.”— Mad. MSS.
See State Papers, vol. iii., Foreign Relations, p. 695.
From a copy kindly furnished by Mrs. Susan P. Brown, of Spring Hill, Tenn. Campbell wrote to Madison September 26th that his health was so bad it was imperative for him to retire from public life for a time.— Mad. MSS.
The committee was appointed September 23d and reported November 29th. The full report may be found in Annals of Cong., 13th Cong., vol. 3, p. 1518.
From Mass. Hist. Collections, 7th Series, vol. i., p. 212. The Jefferson Papers, Coolidge Collection. Nicholas was then serving as Governor of Virginia.
The feeling in New England is illustrated by a letter Madison received from Jedediah Morse, a pupil of Jonathan Edwards, pastor of the church at Charlestown, Mass., written from Woodstock, Conn., November 23d. He said he was an old man, 89 years of age, and that it was a “cruel, unnecessary, unjust war; esteemed so by thousands of good people of the United States and the expenses of it, too heavy and grievous to be born.”— Mad. MSS.
On April 25th, 1814, Jones wrote to Madison that he must resign, as peace had come and he had only expected to serve during the war. On September 11th, alluding to this letter, he asked to be relieved on December 1st. He must go to work to make money, he said, as he had debts to meet.— Mad. MSS. On November 24th Madison wrote to Commodore John Rodgers asking him to be Secretary of the Navy; but, having been advised by the Attorney-General that a naval officer could not lawfully serve, he withdrew the offer December 4th.— Chicago Hist. Soc. MSS. On December 26th Crowninshield replied declining Madison’s offer, but December 28th wrote accepting “at the special request of my political friends the permission of my family.”— Mad. MSS. He entered upon his duties January 16 th , 1815.— Ex. Reg. U. S., 85.
Extract of a letter from J. Q. Adams to his father, dated Ghent, October 27 th , 1814:
“The whole compass of the diplomatic skill employed by the British Government in this negotiation has consisted in consuming time, without coming to any conclusion. Mr. Clay and Mr. Russell arrived at Gottenburg the 11th of April. The negotiations had been proposed by Lord Castlereagh in November; had been acceded to by the President in the beginning of January. The British Government were informed in February of the appointment of American Plenipotentiaries. Their first dilatory proceeding was to defer the appointment of their Commissioners until official notification should be given them, by the American Ministers themselves, that they were at the place of meeting which had been agreed upon. One full month was gained by this. The next device was, to propose the transfer of the negotiation to Ghent, which absorbed six weeks more; and then they left us from the 24th of June to the 6th of August waiting here for the appearance of their Plenipotentiaries.”
On June 27 th , 1874, the American Commissioners at Ghent were instructed to abandon the question of impressment as a sine qua non in making a treaty of peace. The treaty was signed December 24th, and sent to the Senate February 15th.
Dearborn was nominated March 1st and the nomination withdrawn March 2d. On the same day William H. Crawford, of Georgia, was nominated and confirmed the next day.— Ex. Reg. U. S., 84.
“An Exposition of the causes and character of the War.” It may be found in Annals of Cong., 13th Cong., vol. iii., p. 1416.
Charles Bagot presented his credentials as British Minister March 21, 1816.
Bagot asked for an interview on May 22.
Following instructions Adams informed the British government that the United States wished to reach an agreement in regard to the naval armaments on the Lakes, and on July 26, 1816, Bagot wrote to Monroe that he had received Lord Castlereagh’s instructions to say Great Britain would cheerfully adopt any reasonable system.—Bagot to Monroe, July 26, 1816, Dept. of State MSS. Notes.
Dallas was nominated to be Secretary of the Treasury October 5, 1814; confirmed at once and entered upon his duties October 14. He resigned April 8, 1816, and served to October 21, when William H. Crawford succeeded him. On April 9, Madison wrote to Dallas:
“I have rec d . your letter of yesterday communicating your purpose of resigning the Dep t . of the Treasury. I need not express to you the regret at such an event which will be inspired by my recollection of the distinguished ability and unwearied zeal, with which you have filled a station at all times deeply responsible in its duties, through a period rendering them particularly arduous laborious.
“Should the intention you have formed be nowise open to reconsideration, I can only avail myself of your consent to prolong your functions to the date and for the object which your letter intimates. It cannot but be advantageous that the important measure in which you have had so material an agency, should be put into its active state by the same hands.
“Be assured Sir, that whatever may be the time of your leaving the Department, you will carry from it, my testimony of the invaluable services you have rendered to your Country, my thankfulness for the aid they have afforded in my discharge of the Executive trust, and my best wishes for your prosperity happiness.”— Mad. MSS.
On January 8 Calhoun reported the bill to incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States, which was passed and approved by Madison April 10. Madison’s argument against the constitutionality of a federal bank may be found ante, Vol. VI., p. 27, et seq.
George W. Erving, of Massachusetts was commissioned as Minister to Spain August 10, 1814, but the Spanish government refused to receive him until the spring of 1816.
On July 3 Onis wrote to the State Department remonstrating against the arming of certain vessels against Spanish commerce in the United States.— D. of S. MSS. Notes.
The argument of the United States was put forward by Monroe June 10, 1816, in a long note to Onis.— See Am. State Papers, For. Rels., Vol. IV., 429.
From the original in the New York Public Library (Lenox).
In his note of April 27, 1816, to Adams, Lord Castlereagh said: “By the Act for the abolition of the Slave trade and the consequent order in Council (of which copies are inclosed for the information of the American Minister) all negroes captured at Sea are condemned as prize to His Majesty and the disposal of them after condemnation is specially limited to their enlistment into the army or navy by which they at once by Law acquire the Rights of freemen, or to their being bound for a limited time as free apprentices to persons capable of teaching them some Trade or Handicraft.”— D. of S. MSS. Despatches.
July 29 Bagot wrote a private letter to Monroe saying he had just received information from the Commander-in-Chief in Canada that a very hostile spirit had been manifested towards the United States by the Indian tribes, “in consequence, as it seems, of the American Government having signified their intention of erecting Forts within their land during the course of the summer.”— D. of S. MSS. Notes.
Under date of May 18, 1816, Adams reported that Shaler, the Consul at Algiers, had informed him that Lord Exmouth had arrived in the Bay of Algiers and that immediately peace between Algiers and the Kingdoms of Naples and Sardinia had ensued; and that difficulties between the Dey and the United States had begun as soon as Lord Exmouth departed. Adams went on to say that Lord Castlereagh had sent for him and assured him Lord Exmouth had not been engaged in any operations against the United States. Adams urged Lord Castlereagh to compel Algiers to cease the practice of making slaves of Christian prisoners of war, and promised that the United States would help him. “Lord Castlereagh declared that it was the earnest wish of the British Government, that all the Barbary Powers should abandon altogether this mode of warfare; but he thought that mild and moderate measures, and persuasion would be better calculated to produce this effect, than force . . . that Great Britain, with all her exertions had not been able to obtain the abolition of the African Slave trade by Spain and Portugal, and as she would not have felt justified in resorting to War, to compel them to it, so she could not make War upon the Barbary States to force them to renounce the practice of making slaves of Christians, so long as they never applied it to her Subjects, or had given her any cause of offence. . . . She had for herself no complaint against the Barbary States to make. She had often found them useful friends; and especially during the late War in the Peninsula, which it would have been impossible for her to have carried through, successfully, without the supplies, which her troops had received from the Coast of Barbary, from which they had almost all their fresh provisions.” Adams rejoined: “If, however Great Britain should not incline to assume the task of putting an end to Barbary Piracy, if she should leave them in our hands, I believed we should be able to give a good account of them. The experience of last year had proved that they were not very formidable antagonists upon the Ocean, and if we had to deal with them alone, I had no doubt that our navy would be competent to the protection of our Commerce against them.”— D. of S. MSS. Despatches.
From the original in the New York Public Library (Lenox).
“Mr. Bagot offered to secure us the rights in question on the Labrador shore, between Mount Joli and the bay of Esquniaux, near the entrance of the strait of Belleisle.” This being objected to he then offered “an alternative on the shore of the island of Newfoundland, to commence at Cape Ray, and extend, east, to the Ramea islands.” Monroe to Adams, August 13, 1816.— D. of S. MSS. Instructions. See the correspondence in American State Papers, vol. iv., Foreign Relations, p. 348 et seq.
William Shaler continued at his post. Joel R. Poinsett, of South Carolina, was not appointed in the diplomatic service till the following administration, when he went as minister to Mexico.
Dallas wrote August 8 that he had conferred with Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York bankers on the resumption of specie payment. On August 11 he wrote that he was solicitous concerning the conduct of the State banks, the National bank, and the state of the currency.
August 31 he wrote: “The National bank grows in the public confidence. I believe its immediate uses will be as great as was anticipated by its most strenuous advocates. Under a prudent and skilfull director acting in concert with the government, it will restore the national currency, and destroy the artificial differences of exchange. But I look with peculiar pleasure to the establishment, as furnishing a machinery to frustrate the usurpation of the state banks, and to retrieve the constitutional powers of the Government over the coin and currency of the nation.”— Mad. MSS.
From the original in the New York Public Library (Lenox).
De Neuville’s letter was dated “Near Brunswick, N. Jersey,” July 21. He said he was familiar with the liberty of the press in America and that the government often had not the power to check its license; but when officers attached to the federal government permitted themselves to forget that his Majesty Louis XVIII. was King of France and Navarre; when a public functionary outraged impudently the brother of Louis XVI at a public fête, his duty required him to call attention to it. Mr. J. S. Skinner at the 4th of July celebration in Baltimore had given this volunteer toast: “The generals of France in exile; the glory of their native land—not to be dishonored by the proscriptions of an imbecile tyrant.” Skinner was postmaster at Baltimore. Therefore he demanded reparation officially, and said a dismissal would be meted out to a French official if he perpetrated such an outrage in France.— D. of S. MSS. Notes.
On August 15 Monroe answered that the government had no responsibility “for any effusion of sentiment which may be displayed at a public feast, in regard to foreign powers, in which the character of the officer, especially of inferior grade, is lost in that of the citizen.” The high consideration for His Most Christian Majesty which this government entertained was well known. This note proving unsatisfactory de Neuville wrote again, and on September 10 Monroe said: “The President has seen with regret the demand which you have thought proper to make. The manner of it, too, has excited not less surprise, for in dictating the reparation claimed, which you say must be immediate, all deliberation on the subject, all freedom of action in this Government, are evidently intended to be precluded.” He concluded by saying the correspondence had been sent to the American plenipotentiary at Paris to make proper representations to the French government.— D. of S. MSS. Instructions.
Kosloff, Russian consul at Philadelphia, was arrested and thrown into prison on the charge of having committed rape upon a girl twelve years of age, a servant in his family. The Chief-Justice of Pennsylvania, in hearing the application for a writ of habeas corpus, expressed the opinion that the evidence produced was not sufficient to convict; but he was, nevertheless, indicted. The jurisdiction of the local court was denied, and the case sent to the federal court. There, however, he could not be tried because rape was an offence at common law, “of which description of offences the courts of the United States do not take cognizance,” and no statute covering the crime had ever been passed. Monroe to Levett Harris, Chargé d’Affaires at St. Petersburg, July 31, 1816.— D. of S. MSS. Instructions. Monroe wrote to Count de Nesselrode, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Russia, under date of September 12, 1816, making a full explanation of the matter. It had been misrepresented in St. Petersburg and the American Chargé had been forbidden to attend the court.
From the original in the New York Public Library (Lenox).
The instruction is dated September 10. It followed the same ground as the note to de Neuville and said: “The case admitted of no compromise; a discussion on it, therefore, seemed to be useless even from the commencement, and after the last letter from the French Minister it would have been evidently highly improper, since it must have turned, on points which no government, entertaining a proper respect for itself, can ever bring into discussion with a Foreign Minister.”— D. of S. MSS. Instructions. De Neuville was not recalled, but served till 1822.
On September 27 Crawford informed Jackson of the reported intended Spanish invasion and on the same day asked the Secretary of the Navy to send a ship to the Gulf of Mexico to co-operate with the land forces.— Mad. MSS.
From the original in the New York Public Library (Lenox). September 20 Crawford wrote to Madison asking his decision on the claim of Whitman Knaggs to pay and emoluments when he was a deputy Indian agent in 1812 and was captured.— Mad. MSS.
From The Works of Madison (Cong. Ed.).
To be Secretary of War. William Lowndes of South Carolina also declined, and no one was appointed, George Graham, the Chief Clerk, serving ad interim to the close of the administration.— Ex. Register of U. S., 84.
From the original in the New York Public Library (Lenox).
Applying for a clerkship for Mr. Armistead.— Mad. MSS.
The bill was drawn up by John C. Calhoun, who was much surprised when Madison vetoed it. It provided that the bonus and dividends of the United States from the United States Bank should constitute a fund for internal improvements.
This letter, probably handed to Graham just before Madison left the Presidency, was one of the few letters of recommendation for office written by Madison. Soon after his return to Montpelier he had the following circular letter printed:
The friendship which has long subsisted between the President of the United States and myself gave me reason to expect, on my retirement from office, that I might often receive applications to interpose with him on behalf of persons desiring appointments. Such an abuse of his dispositions towards me would necessarily lead to the loss of them, and to the transforming me from the character of a friend to that of an unreasonable and troublesome solicitant. It therefore became necessary for me to lay down as a law for my future conduct never to interpose in any case, either with him or the Heads of Departments (from whom it must go to him) in any case whatever for office To this rule I must scrupulously adhere; for were I to depart from it in a single instance, I could no longer plead it with truth to my friends in excuse for my not complying with their requests. I hope therefore that the declining it in the present, as in every other case, will be ascribed to its true cause, the obligation of this general law, and not to any disinclination existing in this particular case; and still less to an unwillingness to be useful to my friends on all occasions not forbidden by a special impropriety.— D. of S. MSS. Applications for Office.
From the Works of Madison (Cong. Ed.).
Rush was serving as Secretary of State ad interim until John Quincy Adams entered upon his duties September 22, 1817
José Correa da Serra, Minister Plenipotentiary of Portugal from July 22, 1816, to November 9, 1820, was a noted figure in Washington society. He was the author of the saying that Washington was a “city of magnificent distances.” The difficulty alluded to in this letter arose from a publication in the National Intelligencer of May 22, by the Legation, of the blockade of the port of Pernambuco and adjacent coasts. On May 24 Rush wrote the Minister to ask if the publication was authoritative, and, being informed that it was, on May 28 addressed him a stiff note, saying he should have addressed his information to the government and not to the public.— D. of S. MSS. Notes.
See Hamilton’s corresponding opinion in his Arg. for the Bank power, published in his works in 3 vols.—( Madison’s Note. )
Now the Secretary of State.
Jeremy Bentham sent a long letter of forty-one pages to Madison, October 30, 1811, offering to draw up “a complete body of law; in one word, a pannomian, or as much of it as the life and health of a man, whose age wanted little of four and sixty, might allow of” for the United States or for any of the states. This letter was not answered till Adams went to London as minister, when Madison gave him a reply to deliver to Bentham dated May 8, 1816, in which he politely expressed doubt of the feasibility of the scheme. In the course of the letter he said: “With respect to the unwritten law, it may not be improper to observe, that the extent of it has been not a little abridged, in this Country, by successive events. A certain portion of it was dropped by our emigrant forefathers as contrary to their principles, or inapplicable to their new situation. The Colonial Statutes had a further effect in amending and diminishing the mass. The revolution from Colonies to Independent States, capped off other portions. And the changes which have been constantly going on since this last event, have everywhere made, and are daily making further reductions.” Under date of June, 1817, Bentham wrote a circular letter to the Governor of each of the states enclosing a copy of his letter of Oct. 30, 1811, to Madison. All the correspondence was published in London in 1817, under the title, Papers Relative to Codification and Public Instruction: Including Correspondence with the Russian Emperor, and Divers Constituted Authorities in the American United States.
Published in 1819. See ante, Vol. III, p. 14.
Tucker’s report was submitted to the House December 15th.— Annals of Cong., 15th Cong., 1st Sess., vol. i., p. 415.
Ingersoll had been a warm supporter of the war from the beginning. The work he was undertaking appeared in four volumes (Philadelphia, 1845-’52) under the title Historical Sketch of the Second War between the United States and Great Britain.
See ante, Vol. V., pp. 54, 55, n. Gideon inclosed a list of the numbers of the Federalist and requested Madison to give the names of the author of each. Madison wrote to him on February 20th:
I have rec d . your letter of the 12th. Your are welcome to the Copy of the Federalist sent you. If you refer to it in your proposed Edition it will be more proper to note the fact that the numbers with my name prefixed were published from a Copy containing corrections in my hand, than to use the phrase “revised corrected by J. M.” which would imply a more careful professed revisal, than is warranted by strict truth.
You seem not rightly to have understood my remark on the circumstance of including in an Edition of the Federalist a pamphlet written by one of its authors, which had been answered in one written by another. My object was to suggest for your consideration how far it w d . be proper to insert in your Edition the former; not to suggest the insertion of both. The occasion, the plan, and the object of the Federalist, essentially distinguish it from the two pamphlets; and there may be a double incongruity in putting into the same Publication a work in which the two writers co-operated, and productions at once unconnected with it, and in which they are so pointedly opposed to each other.
That the motive to these observations may not be misconceived, it will not be amiss to say, that altho’ I cannot at this day but be sensible that in the pamphlet under the name of Helvidius a tone is indulged which must seek an apology in impressions of the moment, and altho’ in other respects it may be liable to criticisms for which the occasions are increased by the particular haste in which the several papers were written, to say nothing of inaccuracies in transcribing them for the press, yet I see no ground to be dissatisfied with the constitutional doctrine espoused, or the general scope of the reasoning used in support of it.— Mad. MSS.
On the same subject Madison wrote to Richard Cutts March 14:
As it appears from your letter of the 5th that Mr. Gideon adheres to his plan of publishing the 2 pamphlets in the same volumes with the Federalist, and desires a corrected Copy of the one written by me, I have thought it best to send one. Be so good as to let it be put into his hands. I have limited the corrections to errors of the press, and of the transcriber; and a few cases in which the addition of a word or two seemed to render the meaning more explicit. There are passages to which a turn a little different might have been conveniently given; particularly that speaking of treaties as laws, which might have been better guarded ag st a charge of inconsistency with the doctrine maintained on another occasion; and which probably w d . have been so guarded, after the accurate investigation of the Constitutional doctrine occasioned by Mr. Jay’s Treaty. The reasoning however in the pamphlet is not affected by the question of consistency, and as the Author of Pacificus is charged with the want of it, I have chosen rather, to let the passage stand as it was first published, than to give it what might be considered a retrospective meaning. Intelligent readers will be sensible that the scope of the argument did not lead to a critical attention to Constitutional doctrines properly called forth on other occasions. If you think it worth while you may give Mr. Gideon a hint of these observations.— Mad. MSS.
The two pamphlets are those of Pacificus (Hamilton) and Helvidius (Madison). (See ante, Vol. VI, p. 138, n. ) Gideon’s edition was. “The Federalist, or the New Constitution, Written in the Year 1788, by Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Madison, and Mr. Jay with an Appendix, containing the Letters of Pacificus and Helvidius, on the Proclamation of Neutrality of 1793; also, the Original Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution of the United States, with the Amendments made thereto. A New Edition. The Numbers Written by Mr. Madison Corrected by Himself. City of Washington. Printed and Published by Jacob Gideon, Jun. 1818.”
I return your Copy of Gideon’s Edition of the Federalist, with the memorandums requested in your note of the 16th. I shall take a pleasure in adding any other circumstances which you may wish to know, and I may be able to communicate.
The following memorandum complies with Mr. Paulding’s request of the 16th instant:
The papers under the title of “Federalist,” and signature of “Publius” were written by A. H., J. M. J. J. in the latter part of the year 1787. the former part of the year 1788. The immediate object of them was to vindicate recommend the new Constitution to the State of N. Y. whose ratification of the instrument, was doubtful, as well as important. The undertaking was proposed by A. H. (who had probably consulted Mr. Jay others) to J. M., who agreed to take a part in it. The papers were originally addressed to the people of N. Y. under the signature of a “Citizen of N. Y.” This was changed for that of “Publius” the first name of Valerius Publicola. A reason for the change was that one of the writers was not a Citizen of that State, another that the publication had diffused itself among most of the other States. The papers were first publish d at N. Y. in a Newspaper printed by Francis Childs, at the rate during great part of the time at least of four numbers a week; and notwithstanding this exertion, they were not compleated till a large proportion of the States had decided on the Constitution. They were edited as soon as possible in two small vol s the preface to the 1 st . vol. drawn up by Mr. H., bearing date N. York Mar. 1788. In a publication at N. Y. in 1810, entitled “the Works of A. H.” is comprized an Edition of the Fed list in which the names of the writers are erroneously prefixed to a number of the papers. These errors are corrected in this Edition by Jacob Gideon, Jr., w ch assigns to the several Authors of the papers their respective shares in them.
I have duly rec d . your letter of the 15 th . inst. with the handsome copy of your edition of the “Federalist.” As this replaces the Copy sent you, there is the less occasion for a return of the latter. It may be proper perhaps to observe that it is not the [only] one containing the names of the writers Correctly prefixed to their respective papers. I had a considerable time ago, at the request of particular friends, given the same advantage to their copies.
I have not yet been able to look over the passages corrected by me; but from the care you bestowed on the Edition I cannot doubt that in that instance as well as others, it is free from errors.
Noah’s letter said that the Jews of America owed many of the blessings they enjoyed to Madison and his colleagues. He hoped that the impression that his recall from the foreign service was due to irregularity in his accounts might be removed and that it might be attributed to his religion.— Mad. MSS. Madison had appointed him consul at Riga, Russia, June 4, 1811, but he declined. He accepted the appointment of Consul at Tunis made March 20, 1813.
The convention concluded between the United States and England October 20, 1818, provided in Article IV. for the continuance of the Commercial Convention of 1815.
See ante Vol. III., pp. xv and 209, n. On June 27, 1819, Madison wrote to Adams again:
I return the list of yeas nays in the Convention, with the blanks filled according to your request, as far as I could do it, by tracing the order of the yeas nays their coincidences with those belonging to successive questions in my papers. In some instances, the yeas nays in the list, corresponding with those on more questions than one, did not designate the particular question on which they were taken, and of course did not enable me to fill the blanks. In other instances, as you will find by the paper formerly sent you, there are questions noted by me, for which the list does not contain yeas nays. I have taken the liberty as you will see, of correcting one or two slips in the original list or in the copy; and I have distinguished the days on which the several votes passed.— Mad. MSS.
Communicated to Congress, March 26, 1818, relating to illegal armaments and the occupation of Amelia Island. See Am. State Papers, For. Affs., iv., 183.
Florida affairs and the Seminole Campaign were taken up by the House December 14, 1818.
From Madison’s Works (Cong. Ed.)
He had a plan to take Amelia Island and then the Floridas. See Am. State Papers, For. Offs., iv., p. 603.
An Address before the Philadelphia Society for Promoting Agriculture, Philadelphia, 1819.
On May 12, 1818, Madison delivered an address on Agriculture before the Agricultural Society of Albemarle, which was printed by order of the Society. It may be found in Madison’s Works (Cong. Ed.) iii., p. 97.
The reference is to the treaty of 1818, negotiated by Gallatin and Rush on the part of the United States.— Treaties and Conventions (1873), p. 350.
See ante, Vol. III., p. 182.
Evans wrote that he was convinced the time had arrived for adopting a plan of eventual emancipation.— Mad. MSS. He was the author of certain newspaper articles printed over the name of Benjamin Rush.
Roane sent Madison on August 22 d . his articles in The Richmond Inquirer under the name Algernon Sidney in which he asserted the doctrine of state supremacy. For the full text of the momentous opinion of Chief Justice Marshall see 4 Wheaton, 600.
Coles was Madison’s secretary from 1810 to 1816 and in 1819 went to Edwardsville, Ill., where he freed all his slaves, giving to each man 160 acres of land. He was governor of Illinois from 1823 to 1826. See Sketch of Edward Coles, Second Governor of Illinois, by Elihu B. Washburne, Chicago, 1882.