This is a modern-English version of Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Volume 1, originally written by Jefferson, Thomas.
It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling,
and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If
you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.
Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.

MEMOIR, CORRESPONDENCE, AND MISCELLANIES,
FROM THE PAPERS OF
THOMAS JEFFERSON.
Edited by Thomas Jefferson Randolph.
1829
Volume One
Table of Contents |
Images |
Copy of The Declaration of Independence: | Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 |



EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA: Please be informed that on January 17th, in the fifty-third year of the Independence of the United States, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, from this District, has submitted the title of a book, which he claims ownership of, as follows: “Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, from the Papers of Thomas Jefferson. Edited by Thomas Jefferson Randolph.” In accordance with the act of the Congress of the United States, titled “An act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts, and books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies, during the times mentioned.” RD. JEFFRIES, Clerk of the Eastern District of Virginia. CAMBRIDGE: E. W. Metcalf & Company.
CONTENTS
PREFACE.
MEMOIR.
APPENDIX TO THE MEMOIR.
[NOTE A.] Letter to John Saunderson, Esq.
[NOTE B.] Letter to Samuel A. Wells, Esq.
[NOTE C] August, 1774, Instructions to the first Delegation
[NOTE D.] August, 1774., Instructions for the Deputies
[NOTE E.] Monticello, November 1, 1778. [Re: Crimes and Punishment]
[NOTE F.] Coinage for the United States
[NOTE G.]
[NOTE H.]
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_2__ TO THE MEMOIR.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_3__ Letter to John Saunderson, Esq.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_4__ Letter to Samuel A. Wells, Esq.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_5__ August, 1774, Instructions to the first Delegation
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_6__ August, 1774., Instructions for the Deputies
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_7__ Monticello, November 1, 1778. [Re: Crimes and Punishment]
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_8__ Coinage for the United States
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_9__
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_10__
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_11__
LETTER I. TO DR. WILLIAM SMALL, May 7, 1775
LETTER II. TO JOHN RANDOLPH, August 25,1775
LETTER III. TO JOHN RANDOLPH, November 29, 1775
LETTER IV. TO BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, August 13, 1777
LETTER V. TO PATRICK HENRY, March 27, 1779
LETTER VI. TO JOHN PAGE, January 22, 1779
LETTER VII. TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, June 23, 1779
LETTER VIII. TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, July 17, 1779
LETTER IX. TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, October 1, 1779
LETTER X. TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, October 2, 1779
LETTER XI. TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, Oct. 8, 1779
LETTER XII. TO COLONEL MATHEWS, October, 1779
LETTER XIII. TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, November 28, 1779
LETTER XIV. TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, December 10,1779
LETTER XV. TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, February 10, 1780
LETTER XVI. TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, June 11, 1780
LETTER XVII. TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, July 2, 1780
LETTER XVIII. TO GENERAL EDWARD STEVENS, August 4, 1780
LETTER XIX. TO MAJOR GENERAL GATES, August 15, 1780
LETTER XX. TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, September 8, 1780
LETTER XXI. TO GENERAL EDWARD STEVENS, September 12,1780
LETTER XXII. TO GENERAL EDWARD STEVENS, September 15, 1780
LETTER XXIII. TO MAJOR GENERAL GATES, September 23, 1780
LETTER XXIV. TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, September 23, 1780
LETTER XXV. TO HIS EXCELLENCY GENERAL WASHINGTON, September 26,1780
LETTER XXVI. TO MAJOR GENERAL GATES, October 4, 1780
LETTER XXVII. TO GENERAL GATES, October 15, 1780
LETTER XXVIII. TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, October 22, 1780
LETTER XXIX. TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, October 25,1780
LETTER XXX. TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, October 26, 1780
LETTER XXXI. TO GENERAL GATES, October 28, 1780
LETTER XXXII. TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, November 3,1780
LETTER XXXIII. TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, November 10, 1780
LETTER XXXIV. TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, November 26, 1780
LETTER XXXV. TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, December 15,1780
LETTER XXXVI. TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, January 10, 1781
LETTER XXXVII. TO THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS, Jan. 15, 1781
LETTER XXXVIII. TO THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS, Jan. 15, 1781
LETTER XXXIX. TO THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS, Jan. 17, 1781
LETTER XL. TO THE VIRGINIA DELEGATES IN CONGRESS, Jan. 18, 1781
LETTER XLI. TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, February 8, 1781
LETTER XLII. TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, February 12, 1781
LETTER XLIII. TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, February 17, 1781
LETTER XLIV. TO GENERAL GATES, February 17, 1781
LETTER XLV. TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, February 26,1781
LETTER XLVI. TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, March 8, 1781
LETTER XLVII. TO THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS, March 19,1781
LETTER XLVIII. TO THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS, March 21, 1781
LETTER XLIX. TO THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS, March 26,1781
LETTER L. TO THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS, March 28, 1781
LETTER LI. TO THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS, March 31, 1781
LETTER LII. TO THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS, April 7, 1781
LETTER LIII. TO THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS, April 18, 1781
LETTER LIV. TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, April 23,1781
LETTER LV. TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, May 9, 1781
LETTER LVI. TO THE VIRGINIA DELEGATES IN CONGRESS, May 10, 1781
LETTER LVII. TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, May 28,1781
LETTER, LVIII. TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, April 16, 1784
LETTER LIX. TO COLONEL URIAH FORREST, October 20, 1784
LETTER LX. TO JOHN JAY, May 11, 1785
LETTER LXI. TO GENERAL CHASTELLUX, June 7,1785
LETTER LXII. TO JOHN ADAMS, June 15, 1785
LETTER LXIII. TO THE GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA, June 16, 1785
LETTER LXIV. TO COLONEL MONROE, June 17, 1785
LETTER LXV. TO CHARLES THOMSON, June 21, 1785
LETTER LXVI. TO WILLIAM CARMICHAEL, June 22, 1785
LETTER LXVII. TO JOHN ADAMS, June 23, 1785
LETTER LXVIII. TO COLONEL MONROE, July 5, 1785
LETTER LXIX. TO MRS. SPROWLE, July 5,1785
LETTER LXX. TO JOHN ADAMS, July 7, 1785
LETTER LXXI. TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, July 10, 1785
LETTER LXXII. TO THE GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA, July 11, 1785
LETTER LXXIII. TO THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS, July 12, 1785
LETTER LXXIV. TO THE VIRGINIA DELEGATES IN CONGRESS, July 12,1785
LETTER LXXV. TO JOHN JAY, July 12,1785
LETTER LXXVI. TO MONSIEUR BRIET, July 13, 1785
LETTER LXXVII. TO MESSRS. FRENCH AND NEPHEW, July 13,1785
LETTER LXXVIII. TO DR. STILES, July 17,1785
LETTER LXXIX. TO JOHN ADAMS, July 28, 1785
LETTER LXXX. TO HOGENDORP, July 29, 1785
LETTER LXXXI. TO MESSRS. N. AND J. VAN STAPHORST, July 30, 1785
LETTER LXXXII. TO JOHN ADAMS, July 31, 1785
LETTER LXXXIII. TO M. DE CASTRIES, August 3,1785
LETTER LXXXIV. TO CAPTAIN JOHN PAUL JONES, August 3,1785
LETTER LXXXV. TO JOHN ADAMS, August 6, 1785
LETTER LXXXVI. TO DR. PRICE, August 7,1785
LETTER LXXXVII. TO JOHN ADAMS, August 10,1785
LETTER LXXXVIII. TO MRS. SPROWLE, August 10, 1785
LETTER LXXXIX. TO CAPTAIN JOHN PAUL JONES, August 13, 1785
LETTER XC. TO MESSRS. BUCHANAN AND HAY, August 13, 1785
LETTER XCI. TO JOHN JAY, August 14, 1785
LETTER XCII. TO THE COUNT DE VERGENNES, August 15, 1785
LETTER XCIII. TO CAPTAIN JOHN PAUL JONES, August 17, 1785
LETTER XCIV. TO WILLIAM CARMICHAEL, August 18, 1785
LETTER XCV. TO PETER CARR
LETTER XCVI. TO JOHN PAGE, August 20 1785
LETTER XCVII. TO JOHN JAY, August 23, 1785
LETTER XCVIII. TO COLONEL MONROE, August 28, 1735
LETTER XCIX. TO CAPTAIN JOHN PAUL JONES, August 29,1785
LETTER C. TO JOHN JAY, August 30,1785
LETTER CI. TO JAMES MADISON, September 1,1785
LETTER CII. TO MESSRS. DUMAS AND SHORT, September 1, 1785
LETTER CIII. TO JOHN ADAMS, September 4, 1785
LETTER CIV. TO DAVID HARTLEY, September 5, 1785
LETTER CV. TO BARON GEISMER, September 6, 1785
LETTER CVI. TO JOHN LANGDON, September 11, 1785
LETTER CVII. LISTER ASQUITH, September 14, 1785
LETTER CVIII. TO JOHN ADAMS, September 19, 1785
LETTER CIX. TO JAMES MADISON, September 20, 1785
LETTER CX. TO EDMUND RANDOLPH, September 20,1785
LETTER CXI. TO JOHN ADAMS, September 24, 1785
LETTER CXII. TO JOHN ADAMS, September 24,1785
LETTER CXIII. TO F. HOPKINSON, September 25, 1785
LETTER CXIV. TO LISTER ASQUITH, September 26,1785
LETTER CXV. TO R. IZARD, September 26,1783
LETTER CXVI. TO RICHARD O’BRYAN, September 29, 1785
LETTER CXVII. TO MR. BELLINI, September 30,1785
LETTER CXVIII. JAMES MADISON, October 2, 1785
LETTER CXIX. TO DR. FRANKLIN, October 5,1785
LETTER CXX. TO SAMUEL OSGOOD, October 5, 1785
LETTER CXXI. TO JOHN JAY, October 6, 1785
LETTER CXXII. TO ELBRIDGE GERRY, October 11, 1785
LETTER CXXIII. TO THE COUNT DE VERGENNES, October 11, 1785
LETTER CXXIV. TO JOHN JAY, October 11,1785
LETTER CXXV. TO MESSRS. VAN STAPHORST, October 12, 1785
LETTER CXXVI. TO MONSIEUR DESBORDES, October 12,1785
LETTER CXXVII. TO HOGENDORP, October 13,1785
LETTER CXXVIII. TO J. BANNISTER, JUNIOR, October 15,1785
LETTER CXXIX. TO MR. CARMICHAEL, October 18, 1785
LETTER CXXX. TO MESSRS. VAN STAPHORSTS, October 25,1785
LETTER CXXXI. TO WILLIAM CARMICHAEL, November 4, 1785
LETTER CXXXII. TO RICHARD O’BRYAN, November 4, 1785
LETTER CXXXIII. TO W. W. SEWARD, November 12,1785
LETTER CXXXIV. TO THE COUNT DE VERGENNES, November 14,1785
LETTER CXXXV. TO JOHN ADAMS, November 19, 1785
LETTER CXXXVI. TO THE COUNT DE VERGENNES, November 20, 1785
LETTER CXXXVII. TO LISTER ASQUITH, November 23, 1785
LETTER CXXXVIII. TO JOHN ADAMS, November 27, 1785
LETTER CXXXIX. TO COLONEL HUMPHREYS, December 4,1785
LETTER CXL. TO JOHN ADAMS, December 10, 1785
LETTER CXLI. TO JOHN ADAMS, December 11, 1785
LETTER CXLII. TO THE COUNT DE VERGENNES, December 21, 1785
LETTER CXLIII. TO THE GOVERNOR OF GEORGIA, December 22, 1785
LETTER CXLIV. TO THE GEORGIA DELEGATES IN CONGRESS, Dec. 22, 1785
LETTER CXLV. TO JOHN ADAMS, December 27, 1785
LETTER CXLVI. TO JOHN JAY, January 2,1786
LETTER CXLVII. TO T. HOPKINSON, January 3, 1786
LETTER CXLVIII. TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, January 4, 1786
LETTER CXLIX. TO A. CARY, January 7, 1786
LETTER CL. TO MAJOR GENERAL GREENE, January 12, 1786
LETTER CLI. TO LISTER ASQUITH, January 13, 1786
RE QUESTIONS FOR ECONOMIE POLITIQUE ET DIPLOMATIQUE
ARTICLE BY JEFFERSON: ‘Etats Unis,’ FOR THE Encyclopédie Méthodique
LETTER CLII. TO MR. RITTENHOUSE, January 25,1786
LETTER CLIII. TO A. STEWART, January 25, 1786
LETTER CLIV. TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE TREASURY, January 26, 1786
LETTER CLV. TO MESSRS. BUCHANAN AND HAY, January 26, 1786
LETTER CLVI. TO JOHN ADAMS, February 7, 1786
LETTER CLVII. TO JAMES MADISON, February 8, 1786
LETTER CLVIII. TO THE MARQUIS DE LA FAYETTE, February 9, 1786
LETTER CLIX. TO MONSIEUR HILLIARD d’AUBERTEUIL, Feb. 20, 1786
LETTER CLX. TO THE COUNT DE VERGENNES, February 28,1786
LETTER CLXI. TO MONSIEUR DE REYNEVAL, March 8, 1786
LETTER CLXII. TO JOHN JAY, March 12, 1786
LETTER CLXIII. TO COLONEL HUMPHREYS, March 14, 1786
APPENDIX.
[NOTE A.] TO THE GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA.
IN COUNCIL, June 18, 1779
[NOTE B] IN COUNCIL, September 29, 1779.
[NOTE C] IN COUNCIL, October 8, 1779.
[NOTE D.] FEMALE CONTRIBUTIONS, IN AID OF THE WAR, probably in 1780
[NOTE E.] FROM LORD CORNWALLIS
[NOTE F.] TO LORD CORNWALLIS
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_12__ TO DR. WILLIAM SMALL, May 7, 1775
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_13__ TO JOHN RANDOLPH, August 25,1775
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_14__ TO JOHN RANDOLPH, November 29, 1775
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_15__ TO BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, August 13, 1777
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_16__ TO PATRICK HENRY, March 27, 1779
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_17__ TO JOHN PAGE, January 22, 1779
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_18__ TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, June 23, 1779
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_19__ TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, July 17, 1779
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_20__ TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, October 1, 1779
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_21__ TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, October 2, 1779
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_22__ TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, Oct. 8, 1779
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_23__ TO COLONEL MATHEWS, October, 1779
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_24__ TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, November 28, 1779
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_25__ TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, December 10,1779
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_26__ TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, February 10, 1780
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_27__ TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, June 11, 1780
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_28__ TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, July 2, 1780
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_29__ TO GENERAL EDWARD STEVENS, August 4, 1780
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_30__ TO MAJOR GENERAL GATES, August 15, 1780
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_31__ TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, September 8, 1780
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_32__ TO GENERAL EDWARD STEVENS, September 12,1780
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_33__ TO GENERAL EDWARD STEVENS, September 15, 1780
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_34__ TO MAJOR GENERAL GATES, September 23, 1780
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_35__ TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, September 23, 1780
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_36__ TO HIS EXCELLENCY GENERAL WASHINGTON, September 26,1780
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_37__ TO MAJOR GENERAL GATES, October 4, 1780
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_38__ TO GENERAL GATES, October 15, 1780
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_39__ TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, October 22, 1780
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_40__ TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, October 25,1780
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_41__ TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, October 26, 1780
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_42__ TO GENERAL GATES, October 28, 1780
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_43__ TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, November 3,1780
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_44__ TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, November 10, 1780
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_45__ TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, November 26, 1780
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_46__ TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, December 15,1780
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_47__ TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, January 10, 1781
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_48__ TO THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS, Jan. 15, 1781
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_49__ TO THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS, Jan. 15, 1781
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_50__ TO THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS, Jan. 17, 1781
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_51__ TO THE VIRGINIA DELEGATES IN CONGRESS, Jan. 18, 1781
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_52__ TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, February 8, 1781
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_53__ TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, February 12, 1781
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_54__ TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, February 17, 1781
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_55__ TO GENERAL GATES, February 17, 1781
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_56__ TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, February 26,1781
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_57__ TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, March 8, 1781
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_58__ TO THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS, March 19,1781
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_59__ TO THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS, March 21, 1781
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_60__ TO THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS, March 26,1781
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_61__ TO THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS, March 28, 1781
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_62__ TO THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS, March 31, 1781
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_63__ TO THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS, April 7, 1781
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_64__ TO THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS, April 18, 1781
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_65__ TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, April 23,1781
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_66__ TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, May 9, 1781
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_67__ TO THE VIRGINIA DELEGATES IN CONGRESS, May 10, 1781
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_68__ TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, May 28,1781
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_69__ TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, April 16, 1784
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_70__ TO COLONEL URIAH FORREST, October 20, 1784
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_71__ TO JOHN JAY, May 11, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_72__ TO GENERAL CHASTELLUX, June 7,1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_73__ TO JOHN ADAMS, June 15, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_74__ TO THE GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA, June 16, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_75__ TO COLONEL MONROE, June 17, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_76__ TO CHARLES THOMSON, June 21, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_77__ TO WILLIAM CARMICHAEL, June 22, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_78__ TO JOHN ADAMS, June 23, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_79__ TO COLONEL MONROE, July 5, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_80__ TO MRS. SPROWLE, July 5,1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_81__ TO JOHN ADAMS, July 7, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_82__ TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, July 10, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_83__ TO THE GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA, July 11, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_84__ TO THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS, July 12, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_85__ TO THE VIRGINIA DELEGATES IN CONGRESS, July 12,1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_86__ TO JOHN JAY, July 12,1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_87__ TO MONSIEUR BRIET, July 13, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_88__ TO MESSRS. FRENCH AND NEPHEW, July 13,1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_89__ TO DR. STILES, July 17,1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_90__ TO JOHN ADAMS, July 28, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_91__ TO HOGENDORP, July 29, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_92__ TO MESSRS. N. AND J. VAN STAPHORST, July 30, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_93__ TO JOHN ADAMS, July 31, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_94__ TO M. DE CASTRIES, August 3,1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_95__ TO CAPTAIN JOHN PAUL JONES, August 3,1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_96__ TO JOHN ADAMS, August 6,1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_97__ TO DR. PRICE, August 7,1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_98__ TO JOHN ADAMS, August 10,1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_99__ TO MRS. SPROWLE, August 10,1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_100__ TO CAPTAIN JOHN PAUL JONES, August 13, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_101__ TO MESSRS. BUCHANAN AND HAY, August 13, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_102__ TO JOHN JAY, August 14, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_103__ TO THE COUNT DE VERGENNES, August 15, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_104__ TO CAPTAIN JOHN PAUL JONES, August 17, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_105__ TO WILLIAM CARMICHAEL, August 18, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_106__ TO PETER CARR
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_107__ TO JOHN PAGE, August 20 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_108__ TO JOHN JAY, August 23, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_109__ TO COLONEL MONROE, August 28, 1735
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_110__ TO CAPTAIN JOHN PAUL JONES, August 29,1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_111__ TO JOHN JAY, August 30,1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_112__ TO JAMES MADISON, September 1,1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_113__ TO MESSRS. DUMAS AND SHORT, September 1, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_114__ TO JOHN ADAMS, September 4, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_115__ TO DAVID HARTLEY, September 5, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_116__ TO BARON GEISMER, September 6, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_117__ TO JOHN LANGDON, September 11, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_118__ LISTER ASQUITH, September 14, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_119__ TO JOHN ADAMS, September 19, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_120__ TO JAMES MADISON, September 20, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_121__ TO EDMUND RANDOLPH, September 20,1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_122__ TO JOHN ADAMS, September 24, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_123__ TO JOHN ADAMS, September 24,1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_124__ TO F. HOPKINSON, September 25, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_125__ TO LISTER ASQUITH, September 26,1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_126__ TO R. IZARD, September 26,1783
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_127__ TO RICHARD O’BRYAN, September 29, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_128__ TO MR. BELLINI, September 30,1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_129__ JAMES MADISON, October 2, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_130__ TO DR. FRANKLIN, October 5,1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_131__ TO SAMUEL OSGOOD, October 5, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_132__ TO JOHN JAY, October 6, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_133__ TO ELBRIDGE GERRY, October 11, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_134__ TO THE COUNT DE VERGENNES, October 11, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_135__ TO JOHN JAY, October 11,1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_136__ TO MESSRS. VAN STAPHORST, October 12, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_137__ TO MONSIEUR DESBORDES, October 12,1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_138__ TO HOGENDORP, October 13,1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_139__ TO J. BANNISTER, JUNIOR, October 15,1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_140__ TO MR. CARMICHAEL, October 18, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_141__ TO MESSRS. VAN STAPHORSTS, October 25,1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_142__ TO WILLIAM CARMICHAEL, November 4, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_143__ TO RICHARD O’BRYAN, November 4, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_144__ TO W. W. SEWARD, November 12,1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_145__ TO THE COUNT DE VERGENNES, November 14,1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_146__ TO JOHN ADAMS, November 19, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_147__ TO THE COUNT DE VERGENNES, November 20, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_148__ TO LISTER ASQUITH, November 23, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_149__ TO JOHN ADAMS, November 27, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_150__ TO COLONEL HUMPHREYS, December 4,1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_151__ TO JOHN ADAMS, December 10, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_152__ TO JOHN ADAMS, December 11, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_153__ TO THE COUNT DE VERGENNES, December 21, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_154__ TO THE GOVERNOR OF GEORGIA, December 22, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_155__ TO THE GEORGIA DELEGATES IN CONGRESS, Dec. 22, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_156__ TO JOHN ADAMS, December 27, 1785
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_157__ TO JOHN JAY, January 2,1786
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_158__ TO T. HOPKINSON, January 3, 1786
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_159__ TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, January 4, 1786
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_160__ TO A. CARY, January 7, 1786
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_161__ TO MAJOR GENERAL GREENE, January 12, 1786
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_162__ TO LISTER ASQUITH, January 13, 1786
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_163__ FOR ECONOMIE POLITIQUE ET DIPLOMATIQUE
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_164__ BY JEFFERSON: ‘Etats Unis,’ FOR THE Encyclopédie Méthodique
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_165__ TO MR. RITTENHOUSE, January 25,1786
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_166__ TO A. STEWART, January 25, 1786
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_167__ TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE TREASURY, January 26, 1786
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_168__ TO MESSRS. BUCHANAN AND HAY, January 26, 1786
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_169__ TO JOHN ADAMS, February 7, 1786
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_170__ TO JAMES MADISON, February 8, 1786
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_171__ TO THE MARQUIS DE LA FAYETTE, February 9, 1786
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_172__ TO MONSIEUR HILLIARD d’AUBERTEUIL, Feb. 20, 1786
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_173__ TO THE COUNT DE VERGENNES, February 28,1786
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_174__ TO MONSIEUR DE REYNEVAL, March 8, 1786
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_175__ TO JOHN JAY, March 12, 1786
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_176__ TO COLONEL HUMPHREYS, March 14, 1786
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_177__
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_178__ TO THE GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_179__ June 18, 1779
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_180__ IN COUNCIL, September 29, 1779.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_181__ IN COUNCIL, October 8, 1779.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_182__ FEMALE CONTRIBUTIONS, IN AID OF THE WAR, probably in 1780
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_183__ FROM LORD CORNWALLIS
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_184__ TO LORD CORNWALLIS
List of Illustrations
PREFACE.
The opinion universally entertained of the extraordinary abilities of Thomas Jefferson, and the signal evidence given by his country, of a profound sense of his patriotic services, and of veneration for his memory, have induced the Editor, who is both his Executor and the Legatee of his Manuscript Papers, to believe that an extensive publication from them would be particularly acceptable to the American people.
The widely held view of Thomas Jefferson's remarkable abilities and the strong recognition shown by his country for his patriotic contributions and respect for his memory have led the Editor, who is both his Executor and the Recipient of his Manuscript Papers, to believe that a comprehensive publication of these works would be especially welcomed by the American people.
The Memoir, contained in the first volume, commences with circumstantial notices of his earliest life; and is continued to his arrival in New York, in March, 1790, when he entered on the duties of the Department of State, of which he had been just appointed Secretary.
The Memoir, found in the first volume, starts with detailed accounts of his early life and goes through his arrival in New York in March 1790, when he began his duties at the Department of State, where he had just been appointed Secretary.
From the aspect of the Memoir, it may be presumed that parts of it, at least, had been written for his own and his family’s use only; and in a style without the finish of his revising pen. There is, however, no part of it, minute and personal as it may be, which the Reader would wish to have been passed over by the Editor; whilst not a few parts of that description will, by some, be regarded with a particular interest.
From the perspective of the Memoir, it seems likely that certain sections were written solely for his own and his family's use, and in a style that lacks the polish of his editing. However, there's no part of it, no matter how detailed and personal it may be, that the Reader would wish the Editor had skipped over; in fact, many will find those parts particularly intriguing.
The contents of the Memoir, succeeding the biographical pages, may be designated as follows:
The contents of the Memoir, following the biographical pages, can be labeled as:
I. General facts and anecdotes relating to the origin and early stages of the contest with Great Britain.
I. General facts and stories about the origin and early stages of the conflict with Great Britain.
II. Historical circumstances relating to the Confederation of the States.
II. Historical circumstances related to the Confederation of the States.
III. Facts and anecdotes, local and general, preliminary to the Declaration of Independence.
III. Facts and stories, both local and general, leading up to the Declaration of Independence.
IV. An exact account of the circumstances attending that memorable act, in its preparation and its progress through Congress; with a copy from the original draught, in the hand-writing of the Author; and a parallel column, in the same hand, showing the alterations made in the draught by Congress.
IV. A detailed account of the events surrounding that significant act, including its preparation and its passage through Congress; along with a copy from the original draft, in the author's handwriting; and a parallel column, in the same handwriting, showing the changes made to the draft by Congress.
The Memoir will be considered not a little enriched by the Debates in Congress, on the great question of Independence, as they were taken down by Mr. Jefferson at the time, and which, though in a compressed form, present the substance of what passed on that memorable occasion. This portion of the work derives peculiar value from its perfect authenticity, being all in the hand-writing of that distinguished member of the body; from the certainty that this is the first disclosure to the world of those Debates; and from the probability, or rather certainty, that a like knowledge of them is not to be expected from any other source. The same remarks are applicable to the Debates in the same Congress, preserved in the same manner, on two of the original Articles of Confederation. The first is the Article fixing the rate of assessing the quotas of supply to the common Treasury: the second is the Article which declares, “that in determining questions, each Colony shall have one vote.” The Debates on both are not only interesting in themselves, but curious, also, in relation to like discussions of the same subjects on subsequent occasions.
The Memoir will be significantly enhanced by the debates in Congress about the crucial issue of Independence, as recorded by Mr. Jefferson at that time. Although presented in a condensed format, they capture the essence of what transpired on that historic occasion. This section of the work is particularly valuable due to its complete authenticity, being entirely in the handwriting of that notable member of Congress; it is also the first time these debates are being shared with the public, and it's highly likely—if not certain—that similar insights cannot be found anywhere else. The same points apply to the debates in the same Congress, preserved in the same way, regarding two of the original Articles of Confederation. The first addresses the method for assessing supply quotas for the common Treasury, and the second states, “that in determining questions, each Colony shall have one vote.” The debates on both topics are not only interesting in themselves, but they also offer valuable insights when compared to similar discussions on these subjects in later instances.
V. Views of the connections and transactions of the United States with foreign nations, at different periods; particularly, a narrative, with many details, personal and political, of the causes and early course of the French Revolution, as exhibited to the observation of the Author, during his diplomatic residence at Paris. The narrative, with the intermingled reflections on the character and consequences of that Revolution, fills a considerable space in the Memoir, and forms a very important part of it.
V. Perspectives on the relationships and dealings of the United States with foreign nations over various periods; especially a detailed account, both personal and political, of the reasons behind and the early developments of the French Revolution, as observed by the Author during his time as a diplomat in Paris. This account, along with the reflections on the nature and impact of that Revolution, occupies a significant portion of the Memoir and constitutes a very important aspect of it.
VI. Within the body of the Memoir, or referred to as an appendix, are other papers which were thought well entitled to the place they occupy. Among them, are, 1. A paper drawn up in the year 1774, as “Instructions to our Delegates in Congress.” Though heretofore in print, it will be new to most readers; and will be regarded by all, as the most ample and precise enumeration of British violations that had then appeared, or, perhaps, that has since been presented in a form at once so compact and so complete. 2. A Penal Code, being part of a Revised Code of Laws, prepared by appointment of the Legislature of Virginia, in 1776, with reference to the Republican form of Government, and to the principles of humanity congenial therewith, and with the improving spirit of the age. Annexed to the several articles, are explanatory and other remarks of the Author, worthy of being preserved by the aid of the press. 3. A historical and critical review of the repeal of the laws establishing the Church in Virginia; which was followed by the “Act for establishing religious freedom.” This act, it is well known, was always held by Mr. Jefferson to be one of his best efforts in the cause of liberty, to which he was devoted: and it is certainly the strongest legal barrier that could be erected against a connection between Church and State, so fatal in its tendency to the purity of both. 4. An elaborate paper concerning a Money Unit, prepared in the year 1784, and which laid the foundation of the system adopted by Congress, for a coinage and money of account. For other particulars, not here noted, the Reader is referred to the volume itself.
VI. Within the body of the Memoir, also referred to as an appendix, are other documents that were deemed deserving of their place. Among them are: 1. A document created in 1774, titled “Instructions to our Delegates in Congress.” Although it has been printed before, it will be new to most readers and will be seen by all as the most thorough and detailed list of British violations that had been presented at that time, or perhaps ever presented in such a concise and complete manner since. 2. A Penal Code that is part of a Revised Code of Laws, prepared by order of the Virginia Legislature in 1776, focused on the Republican form of Government and the principles of humanity that go along with it, as well as the progressive spirit of the time. Attached to the various articles are the Author's explanatory notes and other comments, which deserve to be preserved with the help of publishing. 3. A historical and critical review of the repeal of the laws that established the Church in Virginia, which was succeeded by the “Act for establishing religious freedom.” This act was always considered by Mr. Jefferson to be one of his greatest contributions to the cause of liberty, which he was dedicated to; and it certainly serves as the strongest legal safeguard against a union between Church and State, which can be detrimental to the integrity of both. 4. An in-depth document about a Money Unit, prepared in 1784, which laid the groundwork for the system adopted by Congress for coinage and monetary accounting. For more details not mentioned here, the Reader is directed to the volume itself.
The termination of the Memoir, at the date mentioned, by the Author, may be explained by the laborious tasks assumed or not declined by him, on his return to private life; which, with his great age, did not permit him to reduce his materials into a state proper to be embodied in such a work.
The ending of the Memoir, on the date noted, by the Author, can be understood by the demanding responsibilities he took on or didn’t refuse upon returning to private life; these, along with his advanced age, prevented him from organizing his materials in a way that would be suitable for inclusion in such a work.
The other volumes contain, I. Letters from 1775, to his death, addressed to a very great variety of individuals; and comprising a range of information, and, in many instances, regular essays, on subjects of History, Politics, Science, Morals, and Religion. The letters to him are omitted, except in a very few instances, where it was supposed their publication would be generally acceptable, from the important character of the communication, or the general interest in the views of the writer; or where the whole or a part of a letter had been filed for the better understanding of the answer.
The other volumes include, I. Letters from 1775 until his death, sent to a wide variety of individuals; they cover a broad range of information and often contain complete essays on topics like History, Politics, Science, Morals, and Religion. The letters addressed to him are not included, except in a few cases where it was believed their publication would be widely appreciated due to the importance of the communication or the general interest in the writer's perspective; or where all or part of a letter was included to clarify the answer.
In these cases, such letters are inserted in the body of the work, or in an appendix, as their importance, and connection with the subject discussed by the author, rendered advisable. And where inferences from the tenor of the answer, might in any way affect the correspondent, his name does not appear in the copy filed. The historical parts of the letters, and the entire publication, have the rare value of coming from one of the chief actors himself, and of being written, not for the public eye, but in the freedom and confidence of private friendship.
In these situations, such letters are included in the main text or in an appendix, as their significance and relevance to the topic discussed by the author made it necessary. If any inferences from the content of the response could potentially impact the correspondent, their name is not included in the copy kept on file. The historical sections of the letters, along with the whole publication, hold unique value because they come from one of the key participants and were written not for public consumption, but in the trust and openness of personal friendship.
II. Notes of conversations, whilst Secretary of State, with President Washington, and others high in office; and memoranda of Cabinet Councils, committed to paper on the spot, and filed; the whole, with the explanatory and miscellaneous additions, showing the views and tendencies of parties, from the year 1789 to 1800.
II. Notes of conversations while serving as Secretary of State with President Washington and other high-ranking officials, along with memoranda from Cabinet meetings, recorded on the spot and filed; all of it, along with explanatory and miscellaneous additions, reflects the views and trends of political parties from 1789 to 1800.
Appended to the publication, is a ‘Facsimile’ of the rough draught of the Declaration of Independence, in which will be seen the erasures, interlineations, and additions of Dr. Franklin and Mr. Adams, two of the appointed Committee, in the handwriting of each.
Appended to the publication is a 'Facsimile' of the rough draft of the Declaration of Independence, which shows the erasures, changes, and additions made by Dr. Franklin and Mr. Adams, two members of the appointed Committee, in their own handwriting.
The Editor, though he cannot be insensible to the genius, the learning, the philosophic inspiration, the generous devotion to virtue, and the love of country, displayed in the writings now committed to the press, is restrained, not less by his incompetency, than by his relation to the Author, from dwelling on themes which belong to an eloquence that can do justice to the names of illustrious benefactors to their country and to their fellow men.
The Editor, while he can't ignore the talent, knowledge, philosophical inspiration, dedication to virtue, and love for the country shown in the writings now being published, is held back, not only by his lack of ability but also by his relationship with the Author, from discussing topics that deserve an eloquence fitting for the esteemed benefactors of their country and their fellow humans.
Albemarle, Va., January, 1829.
Albemarle, VA, January 1829.

MEMOIR.
January 6, 1821. At the age of 77, I begin to make some memoranda, and state some recollections of dates and facts concerning myself, for my own more ready reference, and for the information of my family.
January 6, 1821. At 77 years old, I start making some notes and recalling dates and events about my life for my own easy reference and to inform my family.
The tradition in my father’s family was, that their ancestor came to this country from Wales, and from near the mountain of Snowden, the highest in Great Britain. I noted once a case from Wales, in the law reports, where a person of our name was either plaintiff or defendant; and one of the same name was secretary to the Virginia Company. These are the only instances in which I have met with the name in that country. I have found it in our early records; but the first particular information I have of any ancestor was of my grandfather, who lived at the place in Chesterfield called Ozborne’s, and owned the lands afterwards the glebe of the parish. He had three sons; Thomas who died young, Field who settled on the waters of Roanoke and left numerous descendants, and Peter, my father, who settled on the lands I still own, called Shadwell, adjoining my present residence. He was born February 29, 1707-8, and intermarried 1739, with Jane Randolph, of the age of 19, daughter of Isham Randolph, one of the seven sons of that name and family settled at Dungeoness in Goochland. They trace their pedigree far back in England and Scotland, to which let every one ascribe the faith and merit he chooses.
The tradition in my father's family is that their ancestor emigrated to this country from Wales, near Mount Snowdon, the highest peak in Great Britain. I once noted a case from Wales in the legal reports where someone with our last name was either a plaintiff or defendant; also, someone with the same name was a secretary for the Virginia Company. These are the only instances where I've come across the name in that country. I've found it in our early records, but the first specific information I have about any ancestor is about my grandfather, who lived in Chesterfield at a place called Ozborne’s and owned the land that later became the parish glebe. He had three sons: Thomas, who died young, Field, who settled on the Roanoke River and left many descendants, and Peter, my father, who settled on the land I still own called Shadwell, next to my current home. He was born on February 29, 1707-08, and married Jane Randolph, who was 19 at the time, in 1739. She was the daughter of Isham Randolph, one of the seven sons of that name and family settled at Dungeoness in Goochland. They can trace their lineage back far in England and Scotland, to which everyone can attribute whatever significance and worth they wish.
My father’s education had been quite neglected; but being of a strong mind, sound judgment, and eager after information, he read much and improved himself, insomuch that he was chosen, with Joshua Fry, professor of Mathematics in William and Mary college, to continue the boundary line between Virginia and North Carolina, which had been begun by Colonel Byrd; and was afterwards employed with the same Mr. Fry, to make the first map of Virginia which had ever been made, that of Captain Smith being merely a conjectural sketch. They possessed excellent materials for so much of the country as is below the Blue Ridge; little being then known beyond that Ridge. He was the third or fourth settler, about the year 1737, of the part of the country in which I live. He died August 17th, 1757, leaving my mother a widow, who lived till 1776, with six daughters and two sons, myself the elder. To my younger brother he left his estate on James river, called Snowden, after the supposed birth-place of the family: to myself, the lands on which I was born and live. He placed me at the English school at five years of age; and at the Latin at nine, where I continued until his death. My teacher, Mr. Douglas, a clergyman from Scotland, with the rudiments of the Latin and Greek languages, taught me the French; and on the death of my father, I went to the Reverend Mr. Maury, a correct classical scholar, with whom I continued two years; and then, to wit, in the spring of 1760, went to William and Mary college, where I continued two years. It was my great good fortune, and what probably fixed the destinies of my life, that Dr. William Small of Scotland was then professor of Mathematics, a man profound in most of the useful branches of science, with a happy talent of communication, correct and gentlemanly manners, and an enlarged and liberal mind. He, most happily for me, became soon attached to me, and made me his daily companion when not engaged in the school; and from his conversation I got my first views of the expansion of science, and of the system of things in which we are placed. Fortunately, the philosophical chair became vacant soon after my arrival at college, and he was appointed to fill it per interim: and he was the first who ever gave, in that college, regular lectures in Ethics, Rhetoric, and Belles lettres. He returned to Europe in 1762, having previously filled up the measure of his goodness to me, by procuring for me, from his most intimate friend George Wythe, a reception as a student of Law, under his direction, and introduced me to the acquaintance and familiar table of Govenor Fauquier, the ablest man who had ever filled that office. With him, and at his table, Dr. Small and Mr. Wythe, his amici omnium horarum, and myself, formed a partie quarrée, and to the habitual conversations on these occasions I owed much instruction. Mr. Wythe continued to be my faithful and beloved Mentor in youth, and my most affectionate friend through life. In 1767, he led me into the practice of the law at the bar of the General Court, at which I continued until the Revolution shut up the courts of justice.*
My father didn’t get much of an education, but he had a strong mind, good judgment, and a thirst for knowledge. He read a lot and educated himself to the point that he was chosen, alongside Joshua Fry, as a professor of Mathematics at William and Mary College to continue the boundary line between Virginia and North Carolina, which Colonel Byrd had started. Later, he worked with Mr. Fry to create the first-ever map of Virginia, since Captain Smith’s map was just a rough sketch. They had great resources for the part of the country below the Blue Ridge; not much was known beyond that point at the time. He was one of the first settlers in my area around 1737. He passed away on August 17, 1757, leaving my mother a widow, who lived until 1776 with six daughters and two sons, me being the oldest. To my younger brother, he left his estate on the James River called Snowden, named after the family’s supposed birthplace; to me, he left the land where I was born and still live. He enrolled me in an English school at five and a Latin school at nine, where I stayed until his death. My teacher, Mr. Douglas, a clergyman from Scotland, not only taught me the basics of Latin and Greek but also French. After my father's death, I went to the Reverend Mr. Maury, a skilled classical scholar, and studied with him for two years. Then, in the spring of 1760, I started at William and Mary College, where I stayed for two years. I was very fortunate that Dr. William Small from Scotland was the professor of Mathematics at that time. He was deeply knowledgeable in many useful sciences, had a great talent for teaching, and was a polite and open-minded person. Luckily for me, he soon became fond of me and made me his daily companion when he wasn’t teaching. Through his conversations, I gained my first insights into the vastness of science and the system we exist in. Soon after I arrived at college, a philosophy position opened up, and he was appointed to fill it temporarily. He was the first to give regular lectures in Ethics, Rhetoric, and Belles Lettres at that college. He returned to Europe in 1762 after having helped me greatly by arranging for me to study Law under his close friend George Wythe and introducing me to Governor Fauquier, the most capable person to ever hold that office. At his table, along with Dr. Small and Mr. Wythe, who were his lifelong friends, I formed a tight-knit group and greatly benefited from our discussions. Mr. Wythe remained my faithful mentor in my youth and a dear friend throughout my life. In 1767, he guided me to begin practicing law at the General Court, where I worked until the Revolution closed the courts of justice.
* For a summary of Mr. Wythe's life and personality, refer to my letter dated August 31, 1820, to Mr. John Saunderson. [See Appendix, note A.]
In 1769, I became a member of the legislature by the choice of the county in which I live, and so continued until it was closed by the Revolution. I made one effort in that body for the permission of the emancipation of slaves, which was rejected: and indeed, during the regal government, nothing liberal could expect success. Our minds were circumscribed within narrow limits, by an habitual belief that it was our duty to be subordinate to the mother country in all matters of government, to direct all our labors in subservience to her interests, and even to observe a bigoted intolerance for all religions but hers. The difficulties with our representatives were of habit and despair, not of reflection and conviction. Experience soon proved that they could bring their minds to rights, on the first summons of their attention. But the King’s Council, which acted as another house of legislature, held their places at will, and were in most humble obedience to that will: the Governor too, who had a negative on our laws, held by the same tenure, and with still greater devotedness to it: and, last of all, the Royal negative closed the last door to every hope of melioration.
In 1769, I became a member of the legislature chosen by the county where I live, and I continued in this role until it ended with the Revolution. I made one attempt in that body to allow for the emancipation of slaves, but it was rejected; indeed, during the royal government, nothing progressive could expect to succeed. Our views were confined by a longstanding belief that it was our duty to be subordinate to the mother country in all government matters, to direct all our efforts to benefit her interests, and even to maintain a narrow-minded intolerance for all religions except hers. The conflicts with our representatives stemmed from habit and hopelessness, not from thought and conviction. Experience quickly showed that they could recognize their rights once their attention was drawn to them. However, the King’s Council, which worked as a second legislative body, held their positions at the King's discretion and were extremely obedient to that authority. The Governor, who had the power to veto our laws, held his position in the same way, with even greater loyalty to it. Finally, the Royal veto shut the last door on any hope for improvement.
On the 1st of January, 1772, I was married to Martha Skelton, widow of Bathurst Skelton, and daughter of John Wayles, then twenty-three years old. Mr. Wayles was a lawyer of much practice, to which he was introduced more by his great industry, punctuality and practical readiness, than by eminence in the science of his profession. He was a most agreeable companion, full of pleasantry and good humor, and welcomed in every society. He acquired a handsome fortune, and died in May, 1773, leaving three daughters: the portion which came on that event to Mrs. Jefferson, after the debts should be paid, which were very considerable, was about equal to my own patrimony, and consequently doubled the ease of our circumstances.
On January 1st, 1772, I married Martha Skelton, the widow of Bathurst Skelton and the daughter of John Wayles, who was then twenty-three years old. Mr. Wayles was a lawyer with a lot of experience, gaining his reputation more from his hard work, punctuality, and practical skills than from any notable achievements in his field. He was a very pleasant person to be around, full of wit and good humor, and was welcomed in every social circle. He built a nice fortune and passed away in May 1773, leaving behind three daughters. The inheritance that came to Mrs. Jefferson after the considerable debts were paid was roughly equal to my own inheritance, which effectively doubled our financial comfort.
When the famous Resolutions of 1765, against the Stamp-act, were proposed, I was yet a student of law in Williamsburg. I attended the debate, however, at the door of the lobby of the House of Burgesses, and heard the splendid display of Mr. Henry’s talents as a popular orator. They were great indeed; such as I have never heard from any other man. He appeared to me, to speak as Homer wrote. Mr. Johnson, a lawyer, and member from the Northern Neck, seconded the resolutions, and by him the learning and logic of the case were chiefly maintained. My recollections of these transactions may be seen page 60 of the “Life of Patrick Henry,” by Wirt, to whom I furnished them.
When the famous Resolutions of 1765 against the Stamp Act were introduced, I was still a law student in Williamsburg. I did, however, attend the debate at the entrance of the lobby of the House of Burgesses and witnessed Mr. Henry’s incredible talent as a public speaker. He was truly remarkable; I’ve never heard anyone else speak like him. He seemed to talk as Homer wrote. Mr. Johnson, a lawyer and representative from the Northern Neck, supported the resolutions, and he primarily upheld the learning and logic of the case. You can find my memories of these events on page 60 of the “Life of Patrick Henry” by Wirt, to whom I provided them.
In May, 1769, a meeting of the General Assembly was called by the Governor, Lord Botetourt. I had then become a member; and to that meeting became known the joint resolutions and address of the Lords and Commons of 1768-9, on the proceedings in Massachusetts. Counter-resolutions, and an address to the King by the House of Burgesses, were agreed to with little opposition, and a spirit manifestly displayed itself of considering the cause of Massachusetts as a common one. The Governor dissolved us: but we met the next day in the Apollo* of the Raleigh tavern, formed ourselves into a voluntary convention, drew up articles of association against the use of any merchandise imported from Great Britain, signed and recommended them to the people, repaired to our several counties, and were re-elected without any other exception than of the very few who had declined assent to our proceedings.
In May 1769, Governor Lord Botetourt called a meeting of the General Assembly. I had just become a member, and during that meeting, the joint resolutions and address from the Lords and Commons of 1768-9 regarding the situation in Massachusetts were presented. The House of Burgesses quickly agreed to counter-resolutions and an address to the King, with minimal opposition, showing a clear sense of unity in support of Massachusetts. The Governor dissolved our assembly, but we reconvened the next day in the Apollo* of the Raleigh tavern, formed a voluntary convention, created articles of association against using any goods imported from Great Britain, signed them, and recommended them to the public. We returned to our counties and were re-elected, with very few exceptions from those who didn’t support our actions.
* The name of a public room in the Raleigh.
Nothing of particular excitement occurring for a considerable time, our countrymen seemed to fall into a state of insensibility to our situation; the duty on tea, not yet repealed, and the declaratory act of a right in the British Parliament, to bind us by their laws in all cases whatsoever, still suspended over us. But a court of inquiry held in Rhode Island in 1762, with a power to send persons to England to be tried for offences committed here, was considered, at our session of the spring of 1773, as demanding attention. Not thinking our old and leading members up to the point of forwardness and zeal which the times required, Mr. Henry, Richard Henry Lee, Francis L. Lee, Mr. Carr, and myself agreed to meet in the evening, in a private room of the Raleigh, to consult on the state of things. There may have been a member or two more whom I do not recollect. We were all sensible that the most urgent of all measures was that of coming to an understanding with all the other colonies, to consider the British claims as a common cause to all, and to produce a unity of action: and for this purpose that a committee of correspondence in each colony would be the best instrument for intercommunication: and that their first measure would probably be, to propose a meeting of deputies from every colony, at some central place, who should be charged with the direction of the measures which should be taken by all. We therefore drew up the resolutions which may be seen in Wirt, page 87. The consulting members proposed to me to move them, but I urged that it should be done by Mr. Carr, my friend and brother-in-law, then a new member, to whom I wished an opportunity should be given of making known to the house his great worth and talents. It was so agreed; he moved them, they were agreed to nem. con. and a committee of correspondence appointed, of whom Peyton Randolph, the speaker, was chairman.
Nothing particularly exciting happened for quite a while, and our fellow countrymen seemed to become numb to our situation; the tea tax, not yet repealed, and the British Parliament’s declaration of a right to impose laws on us in all cases still loomed over us. However, a court of inquiry held in Rhode Island in 1762, which had the power to send people to England for trials over offenses committed here, was viewed, during our spring 1773 session, as needing our attention. Not believing our seasoned and prominent members had the urgency and passion the times demanded, Mr. Henry, Richard Henry Lee, Francis L. Lee, Mr. Carr, and I agreed to meet in the evening in a private room at the Raleigh to discuss the situation. There may have been one or two more members I don’t recall. We all recognized that the most pressing action was to come together with the other colonies to address the British claims as a shared cause and to create a unified response: we thought a committee of correspondence in each colony would be the best way to communicate. Their first step would likely be to propose a meeting of delegates from every colony at a central location, tasked with directing the actions to be taken by all. We then drafted the resolutions found in Wirt, page 87. The members at the meeting suggested I present them, but I insisted that Mr. Carr, my friend and brother-in-law, a new member at the time, should have the chance to showcase his significant abilities. It was agreed; he moved them, they were unanimously approved, and a committee of correspondence was formed, with Peyton Randolph, the speaker, as chair.
The Governor (then Lord Dunmore) dissolved us, but the committee met the next day, prepared a circular letter to the speakers, of the other colonies, inclosing to each a copy of the resolutions, and left it in charge with their chairman to forward them by expresses.
The Governor (then Lord Dunmore) disbanded us, but the committee gathered the next day, drafted a circular letter to the speakers of the other colonies, including a copy of the resolutions, and entrusted their chairman to send them out by express.
The origination of these committees of correspondence between the colonies, has been since claimed for Massachusetts, and Marshall * has given in to this error, although the very note of his appendix to which he refers, shows that their establishment was confined to their own towns. This matter will be seen clearly stated in a letter of Samuel Adams Wells to me of April 2nd, 1819, and my answer of May 12th. I was corrected by the letter of Mr. Wells in the information I had given Mr. Wirt, as stated in his note, page 87, that the messengers of Massachusetts and Virginia crossed each other on the way, bearing similar propositions; for Mr. Wells shows that Massachusetts did not adopt the measure, but on the receipt of our proposition, delivered at their next session. Their message, therefore, which passed ours, must have related to something else, for I well remember Peyton Randolph’s informing me of the crossing of our messengers. **
The origin of these committees of correspondence between the colonies is often credited to Massachusetts, and Marshall has accepted this mistake, even though the note in his appendix that he refers to indicates that their establishment was limited to their own towns. This issue is clearly outlined in a letter from Samuel Adams Wells to me dated April 2, 1819, and my response on May 12. I was corrected by Mr. Wells's letter regarding the information I gave to Mr. Wirt, as noted on page 87, that the messengers from Massachusetts and Virginia crossed paths on their way with similar proposals; Mr. Wells shows that Massachusetts didn’t adopt the measure until they received our proposal during their next session. Therefore, their message, which passed ours, must have been about something else, as I distinctly remember Peyton Randolph telling me about the crossing of our messengers.
* Life of Washington, vol. ii. p. 151. ** See Appendix, note B.
The next event which excited our sympathies for Massachusetts, was the Boston port bill, by which that port was to be shut up on the 1st of June, 1774. This arrived while we were in session in the spring of that year. The lead in the House, on these subjects, being no longer left to the old members, Mr. Henry, R. H. Lee, Fr. L. Lee, three or four other members, whom I do not recollect, and myself, agreeing that we must boldly take an unequivocal stand in the line with Massachusetts, determined to meet and consult on the proper measures, in the council chamber, for the benefit of the library in that room. We were under conviction of the necessity of arousing our people from the lethargy into which they had fallen, as to passing events; and thought that the appointment of a day of general fasting and prayer, would be most likely to call up and alarm their attention. No example of such a solemnity had existed since the days of our distress in the war of ‘55, since which a new generation had grown up. With the help, therefore, of Rushworth, whom we rummaged over for the revolutionary precedents and forms of the Puritans of that day, preserved by him, we cooked up a resolution, somewhat modernizing their phrases, for appointing the 1st day of June, on which the port bill was to commence, for a day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer, to implore Heaven to avert from us the evils of civil war, to inspire us with firmness in support of our rights, and to turn the hearts of the King and Parliament to moderation and justice. To give greater emphasis to our proposition, we agreed to wait the next morning on Mr. Nicholas, whose grave and religious character was more in unison with the tone of our resolution, and to solicit him to move it. We accordingly went to him in the morning. He moved it the same day; the 1st of June was proposed; and it passed without opposition. The Governor dissolved us, as usual. We retired to the Apollo, as before, agreed to an association, and instructed the committee of correspondence to propose to the corresponding committees of the other colonies, to appoint deputies to meet in Congress at such place, annually, as should be convenient, to direct, from time to time, the measures required by the general interest: and we declared that an attack on any one colony should be considered as an attack on the whole. This was in May. We further recommended to the several counties to elect deputies to meet at Williamsburg, the 1st of August ensuing, to consider the state of the colony, and particularly to appoint delegates to a general Congress, should that measure be acceded to by the committees of correspondence generally. It was acceded to; Philadelphia was appointed for the place, and the 5th of September for the time of meeting. We returned home, and in our several counties invited the clergy to meet assemblies of the people on the 1st of June, to perform the ceremonies of the day, and to address to them discourses suited to the occasion. The people met generally, with anxiety and alarm in their countenances, and the effect of the day, through the whole colony, was like a shock of electricity, arousing every man and placing him erect and solidly on his centre. They chose, universally, delegates for the convention. Being elected one for my own county, I prepared a draught of instructions to be given to the delegates whom we should send to the Congress, which I meant to propose at our meeting. [See Appendix, note C.] In this I took the ground that, from the beginning, I had thought the only one orthodox or tenable, which was, that the relation between Great Britain and these colonies was exactly the same as that of England and Scotland, after the accession of James and until the union, and the same as her present relations with Hanover, having the same executive chief, but no other necessary political connection; and that our emigration from England to this country gave her no more rights over us, than the emigrations of the Danes and Saxons gave to the present authorities of the mother country, over England. In this doctrine, however, I had never been able to get any one to agree with me but Mr. Wythe. He concurred in it from the first dawn of the question, What was the political relation between us and England? Our other patriots, Randolph, the Lees, Nicholas, Pendleton, stopped at the half-way house of John Dickinson, who admitted that England had a right to regulate our commerce, and to lay duties on it for the purposes of regulation, but not of raising revenue. But for this ground there was no foundation in compact, in any acknowledged principles of colonization, nor in reason: expatriation being a natural right, and acted on as such, by all nations, in all ages. I set out for Williamsburg some days before that appointed for the meeting, but taken ill of a dysentery on the road, and was unable to proceed, I sent on, therefore, to Williamsburg two copies of my draught, the one under cover to Peyton Randolph, who I knew would be in the of the convention, the other to Patrick Henry. Whether Mr. Henry disapproved the ground taken, or was too lazy to read it (for he was the laziest man in reading I ever knew) I never learned: but he communicated it to nobody. Peyton Randolph informed the convention he had received such a paper from a member, prevented by sickness from offering it in his place, and he laid it on the table for perusal. It was read generally by the members, approved by many, though thought too bold for the present state of things; but they printed it in pamphlet form, under the title of ‘A Summary View of the Rights of British America.’ It found its way to England, was taken up by the opposition, interpolated a little by Mr. Burke so as to make it answer opposition purposes, and in that form ran rapidly through several editions. This information I had from Parson Hurt, who happened at the time to be in London, whither he had gone to receive clerical orders; and I was informed afterwards by Peyton Randolph, that it had procured me the honor of having my name inserted in a long list of proscriptions, enrolled in a bill of attainder commenced in one of the Houses of Parliament, but suppressed in embryo by the hasty step of events, which warned them to be a little cautious. Montague, agent of the House of Burgesses in England, made extracts from the bill, copied the names, and sent them to Peyton Randolph. The names I think were about twenty, which he repeated to me, but I recollect those only of Hancock, the two Adamses, Peyton Randolph himself, Patrick Henry, and myself.* The convention met on the 1st of August, renewed their association, appointed delegates to the Congress, gave them instructions very temperately and properly expressed, both as to style and matter; ** and they repaired to Philadelphia at the time appointed. The splendid proceedings of that Congress, at their first session, belong to general history, are known to every one, and need not therefore be noted here. They terminated their session on the 26th of October, to meet again on the 10th of May ensuing. The convention, at their ensuing session of March ‘75, approved of the proceedings of Congress, thanked their delegates, and reappointed the same persons to represent the colony at the meeting to be held in May: and foreseeing the probability that Peyton Randolph, their president, and speaker also of the House of Burgesses, might be called off, they added me, in that event, to the delegation.
The next event that stirred our support for Massachusetts was the Boston Port Act, which was set to close the port on June 1, 1774. This news reached us while we were in session in the spring of that year. The leadership in the House, no longer in the hands of the old members, included Mr. Henry, R. H. Lee, Fr. L. Lee, a few other members I can't remember, and myself. We agreed that we needed to take a clear and strong stance alongside Massachusetts and decided to meet in the council chamber to discuss the best measures for the benefit of our library. We felt it was crucial to awaken our people from their apathy regarding current events, believing that appointing a day of fasting and prayer would really capture their attention and concern. There hadn’t been an occasion for such a solemn event since the difficulties of the war in ’55, during which a new generation had come of age. With the help of Rushworth, whom we searched for revolutionary precedents and forms from the Puritans of that time, we crafted a resolution, updating their language a bit, to designate June 1, the day the port act would take effect, as a day of fasting, humility, and prayer. We hoped to ask Heaven to protect us from the dangers of civil war, to strengthen us in defending our rights, and to turn the hearts of the King and Parliament towards moderation and justice. To emphasize our proposal, we decided to visit Mr. Nicholas the next morning, whose serious and devout demeanor matched the tone we wanted for our resolution, and asked him to propose it. We went to him that morning, and he proposed it the same day; June 1 was suggested, and it passed without any opposition. As usual, the Governor dissolved us. We went to the Apollo again, formed an association, and instructed the committee of correspondence to invite the corresponding committees of other colonies to send deputies to meet in Congress at a convenient location annually, to coordinate necessary measures for the common good. We declared that an attack against any single colony would be viewed as an attack against all. This was in May. We also recommended that the various counties elect deputies to meet in Williamsburg on August 1 to assess the colony's situation and specifically to appoint delegates for a general Congress, should that course be agreed upon by the correspondence committees. It was accepted; Philadelphia was chosen as the location, and September 5 was set as the meeting date. We returned home and invited the clergy in our counties to gather assemblies of the people on June 1 to carry out the day’s ceremonies and deliver appropriate speeches. The people turned out in large numbers, visibly anxious and alarmed, and the impact of the day sent a shock of electricity through the colony, awakening everyone and firmly establishing their resolve. They unanimously chose delegates for the convention. Elected as a delegate from my own county, I prepared a draft of instructions for the delegates we would send to Congress, which I intended to propose at our meeting. [See Appendix, note C.] In this, I argued that the only reasonable stance from the start was that the relationship between Great Britain and these colonies was exactly like that between England and Scotland after James came to the throne until the union, and the same as its current connection with Hanover, having the same executive head but no other necessary political link; and that our migration from England to this country granted it no more rights over us than the migrations of the Danes and Saxons gave to the current officials in the mother country over England. However, I could never get anyone to agree with me on this doctrine except Mr. Wythe, who had been on board from the beginning of the discussion about our political relationship with England. The other patriots, such as Randolph, the Lees, Nicholas, and Pendleton, stopped short at John Dickinson's halfway position, who accepted that England had the right to regulate our commerce and impose duties for regulatory purposes, but not for raising revenue. However, there was no basis for this position in any agreement, acknowledged principles of colonization, or reason: expatriation is a natural right recognized and practiced by all nations throughout history. I set out for Williamsburg a few days before our scheduled meeting, but fell ill from dysentery on the road and could not proceed. I therefore sent two copies of my draft to Williamsburg—one addressed to Peyton Randolph, knowing he would be at the convention, and the other to Patrick Henry. I never learned whether Mr. Henry disagreed with the viewpoint I presented or just didn’t bother to read it (he was the laziest person I knew when it came to reading); he didn’t share it with anyone. Peyton Randolph informed the convention that he had received such a paper from a member who was unable to present it due to illness, and he laid it on the table for review. It was read widely by the members and approved by many, though considered too bold for the current situation, but they printed it as a pamphlet titled ‘A Summary View of the Rights of British America.’ It made its way to England, was seized upon by the opposition, slightly edited by Mr. Burke to fit opposition agendas, and quickly went through several editions. I learned this from Parson Hurt, who happened to be in London at the time to receive clerical orders; later, Peyton Randolph informed me that it earned me the distinction of having my name added to a long list of proscriptions included in a bill of attainder that began in one of the Houses of Parliament but was quietly suppressed by the swift unfolding of events, which urged caution from them. Montague, the agent for the House of Burgesses in England, extracted names from the bill, copied them, and sent them to Peyton Randolph. I think there were about twenty names he repeated to me, but I only remember Hancock, the two Adamses, Peyton Randolph himself, Patrick Henry, and me.* The convention met on August 1, renewed their association, appointed delegates for Congress, and provided them with well-balanced and appropriately expressed instructions regarding both style and content; ** and they headed to Philadelphia at the set time. The remarkable actions of that Congress during their first session belong to general history, are known to everyone, and therefore don’t need detailing here. They concluded their session on October 26, with plans to reconvene on May 10 of the following year. At their next session in March ‘75, the convention approved the Congress's decisions, thanked their delegates, and reappointed the same individuals to represent the colony at the upcoming May meeting; and foreseeing the possibility that Peyton Randolph, their president and speaker of the House of Burgesses, might be unable to attend, they included me in the delegation as well.
* See Girardin's History of Virginia, Appendix No. 12. note. ** See Appendix, note D.
Mr. Randolph was according to expectation obliged the chair of Congress, to attend the General Assembly summoned by Lord Dunmore, to meet on the 1st day of June,1775. Lord North’s conciliatory propositions, as they were called received by the Governor, and furnished the subject for which this assembly was convened. Mr. Randolph accordingly attended, and the tenor of these propositions being generally known, as having been addressed to all the governors, he was anxious that the answer of our Assembly, likely to be the first, should harmonise with what he knew to be the sentiments and wishes of the body he had recently left. He feared that Mr. Nicholas, whose mind was not yet up to the mark of the times, would undertake the answer, and therefore pressed me to prepare it. I did so, and, with his aid, carried it through the House, with long and doubtful scruples from Mr. Nicholas and James Mercer, and a dash of cold water on it here and there, enfeebling it somewhat, but finally with unanimity, or a vote approaching it. This being passed, I repaired immediately to Philadelphia, and conveyed to Congress the first notice they had of it. It was entirely approved there. I took my seat with them on the 21st of June. On the 24th, a committee which had been appointed to prepare a declaration of the causes of taking up arms, brought in their report (drawn, I believe, by J. Rutledge) which, not being liked, the House recommitted it, on the 26th, and added Mr. Dickinson and myself to the committee. On the rising of the House, the committee having not yet met, I happened to find myself near Governor W. Livingston, and proposed to him to draw the paper. He excused himself and proposed that I should draw it. On my pressing him with urgency, ‘We are as yet but new acquaintances, sir,’ said he, ‘why are you so earnest for my doing it?’ ‘Because,’ said I, ‘I have been informed that you drew the Address to the people of Great Britain, a production, certainly, of the finest pen in America.’ ‘On that,’ says he, ‘perhaps, sir, you may not have been correctly informed.’ I had received the information in Virginia from Colonel Harrison on his return from that Congress. Lee, Livingston, and Jay had been the committee for the draught. The first, prepared by Lee, had been disapproved and recommitted. The second was drawn by Jay, but being presented by Governor Livingston, had led Colonel Harrison into the error. The next morning, walking in the hall of Congress, many members being assembled, but the House formed, I observed Mr. Jay speaking to R. H. Lee, and leading him by the button of his coat to me. ‘I understand, sir,’ said he to me, ‘that this gentleman informed you, that Governor Livingston drew the Address to the people of Great Britain.’ I assured him at once that I had not received that information from Mr. Lee and that not a word had ever passed on the subject between Mr. Lee and myself; and after some explanations the subject was dropped. These gentlemen had had some sparrings in debate before, and continued ever very hostile to each other.
Mr. Randolph was expected to take the chair at Congress and to attend the General Assembly called by Lord Dunmore, scheduled for June 1, 1775. The conciliatory proposals from Lord North, as they were known, were presented by the Governor and served as the basis for the assembly's gathering. Mr. Randolph attended, and since the content of these proposals was generally known to have been directed to all governors, he was eager for our Assembly's response, likely the first, to align with the sentiments and wishes of the group he had recently left. He worried that Mr. Nicholas, whose perspective wasn't quite in tune with the times, would attempt to draft the response, so he urged me to prepare it. I did so, and with his help, we navigated it through the House, facing long and uncertain objections from Mr. Nicholas and James Mercer, along with some reservations here and there that weakened it somewhat, but it ultimately passed with unanimous support, or a vote close to it. Once this was approved, I immediately went to Philadelphia and informed Congress, which welcomed it wholeheartedly. I took my seat with them on June 21. On the 24th, a committee assigned to draft a declaration explaining the reasons for taking up arms presented their report (I believe it was drafted by J. Rutledge). Since it wasn't well-received, the House recommitted it on the 26th and added Mr. Dickinson and me to the committee. As the House adjourned, the committee had yet to meet, and I happened to be near Governor W. Livingston. I suggested he draft the document. He declined and urged me to do it instead. When I pressed him, he said, "We are still just getting to know each other, sir. Why are you so keen for me to do it?" I responded, "Because I've been told you wrote the Address to the People of Great Britain, which was certainly one of the best pieces in America." He replied, "On that, perhaps, sir, you might not have all the facts." I had heard this information from Colonel Harrison when he returned from that Congress in Virginia. Lee, Livingston, and Jay were the committee for the draft. The first draft, prepared by Lee, was disapproved and sent back. The second was written by Jay, but since it was presented by Governor Livingston, Colonel Harrison was misled. The next morning, while walking in the Congress hall where many members were gathered, I saw Mr. Jay talking to R. H. Lee, pulling him by the coat button towards me. "I understand, sir," he said to me, "that this gentleman informed you that Governor Livingston drafted the Address to the People of Great Britain." I immediately assured him that I hadn't received that information from Mr. Lee and that not a word had been exchanged between us on that topic; after some clarification, we dropped the subject. These gentlemen had sparred in previous debates and remained quite hostile to each other.
I prepared a draught of the declaration committed to us. It was too strong for Mr. Dickinson. He still retained the hope of reconciliation with the mother country, and was unwilling it should be lessened by offensive statements. He was so honest a man, and so able a one, that he was greatly indulged even by those who could not feel his scruples. We therefore requested him to take the paper, and put it into a form he could approve. He did so, preparing an entire new statement, and preserving of the former only the last four paragraphs and half of the preceding one. We approved and reported it to Congress, who accepted it. Congress gave a signal proof of their indulgence to Mr. Dickinson, and of their great desire not to go too fast for any respectable part of our body, in permitting him to draw their second petition to the King according to his own ideas, and passing it with scarcely any amendment. The disgust against its humility was general; and Mr. Dickinson’s delight at its passage was the only circumstance which reconciled them to it. The vote being passed, although further observation on it was out of order, he could not refrain from rising and expressing his satisfaction, and concluded by saying, ‘There is but one word, Mr. President, in the paper which I disapprove, and that is the word Congress;’ on which Ben Harrison rose and said, ‘There is but one word in the paper, Mr. President, of which I approve, and that is the word Congress?’
I drafted a version of the declaration we were assigned. It was too intense for Mr. Dickinson. He still held out hope for reconciliation with Britain and didn’t want to weaken it with harsh statements. He was such an honest and capable man that even those who didn’t share his concerns gave him a lot of leeway. So, we asked him to take the document and revise it into a form he would support. He did just that, creating a completely new statement and keeping only the last four paragraphs and half of the one before it from the original. We approved it and presented it to Congress, who accepted it. Congress showed great patience with Mr. Dickinson and their strong desire not to rush any respectable part of our group by allowing him to draft their second petition to the King based on his own views, and passing it with almost no changes. The general feeling was one of discontent with its meekness, but Mr. Dickinson's joy at its approval was the only thing that made them okay with it. Once the vote passed, although further discussion was not in order, he couldn't help but stand up and share his satisfaction, ending with, “There’s just one word, Mr. President, in the document that I disapprove of, and that’s the word Congress;” to which Ben Harrison stood up and said, “There’s just one word in the document, Mr. President, that I approve of, and that’s the word Congress?”
On the 22nd of July, Dr. Franklin, Mr. Adams, R. H. Lee, and myself were appointed a committee to consider and report on Lord North’s conciliatory resolution. The answer of the Virginia Assembly on that subject having been approved, I was requested by the committee to prepare this report, which will account for the similarity of feature in the two instruments.
On July 22nd, Dr. Franklin, Mr. Adams, R. H. Lee, and I were appointed to a committee to look into and report on Lord North’s conciliatory resolution. Once the Virginia Assembly's response on that matter was approved, the committee asked me to prepare this report, which explains the similarities between the two documents.
On the 15th of May, 1776, the convention of Virginia instructed their delegates in Congress, to propose to that body to declare the colonies independent of Great Britain, and appointed a committee to prepare a declaration of rights and plan of government.
On May 15, 1776, the Virginia convention instructed their delegates in Congress to propose that the colonies declare independence from Great Britain and appointed a committee to draft a declaration of rights and a plan for government.
Here, in the original manuscript, begin the 'two preceding sheets' mentioned by Mr. Jefferson, page 21, that include 'notes' he took 'while these things were happening.' They can be easily identified from the main body of the manuscript where he placed them, as they are on paper that is noticeably different in size, quality, and color from that on which the main text is written:
In Congress, Friday, June 7, 1776. The delegates from Virginia moved, in obedience to instructions from their constituents, that the Congress should declare that these United Colonies and of right ought to be, free and independent states, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is and ought to be, totally dissolved; that measures should be immediately taken for procuring the assistance of foreign powers and a confederation be formed to bind the colonial more closely together.
In Congress, Friday, June 7, 1776. The delegates from Virginia proposed, following instructions from their constituents, that Congress should declare that these United Colonies have the right to be free and independent states, that they are free from any allegiance to the British crown, and that all political ties between them and Great Britain are and should be completely dissolved; that steps should be taken right away to seek assistance from foreign powers and to create a confederation to unite the colonies more tightly.
The House being obliged to attend at that time to some other business, the proposition was referred to the next day, when the members were ordered to attend punctually at ten o’clock.
The House had to deal with some other business at that time, so the proposal was postponed to the next day, when the members were instructed to show up on time at ten o'clock.
Saturday, June 8. They proceeded to take it into consideration, and referred it to a committee of the whole, into which they immediately resolved themselves, and passed that day and Monday the 10th in debating on the subject.
Saturday, June 8. They began to consider it and referred it to a committee of the whole, into which they immediately organized themselves, and spent that day and Monday the 10th discussing the matter.
It was argued by Wilson, Robert R. Livingston, E. Rutledge, Dickinson, and others—
It was argued by Wilson, Robert R. Livingston, E. Rutledge, Dickinson, and others—
That, though they were friends to the measures themselves, and saw the impossibility that we should ever again be united with Great Britain, yet they were against adopting them at this time:
That, even though they supported the measures themselves and recognized that it was impossible for us to ever be reunited with Great Britain, they were still against adopting them at this time:
That the conduct we had formerly observed was wise and proper now, of deferring to take any capital step till the voice of the people drove us into it:
That the behavior we used to see was smart and appropriate at this point, by waiting to take any major action until the public pushed us into it:
That they were our power, and without them our declarations could not be carried into effect:
That they were our strength, and without them our statements couldn't be put into action:
That the people of the middle colonies (Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, the Jerseys, and New York) were not yet ripe for bidding adieu to British connection, but that they were fast ripening, and, in a short time, would join in the general voice of America:
That the people of the middle colonies (Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, the Jerseys, and New York) weren’t quite ready to say goodbye to their British connection, but they were quickly coming around, and soon would be joining the general sentiment of America:
That the resolution, entered into by this House on the 15th of May, for suppressing the exercise of all powers derived from the crown, had shown, by the ferment into which it had thrown these middle colonies, that they had not yet accommodated their minds to a separation from the mother country:
That the resolution made by this House on May 15, to stop the exercise of all powers coming from the crown, had shown, through the unrest it caused in these middle colonies, that they had not yet come to terms with a separation from the mother country:
That some of them had expressly forbidden their delegates to consent to such a declaration, and others had given no instructions, and consequently no powers to give such consent:
That some of them had clearly instructed their delegates not to agree to such a declaration, while others had given no instructions at all, and therefore no authority to give that agreement:
That if the delegates of any particular colony had no power to declare such colony independent, certain they were, the others could not declare it for them; the colonies being as yet perfectly independent of each other:
That if the delegates from any specific colony didn't have the authority to declare that colony independent, then it was clear that the other colonies couldn't declare it on their behalf, as the colonies were still completely independent from each other:
That the assembly of Pennsylvania was now sitting above stairs, their convention would sit within a few days, the convention of New York was now sitting, and those of the Jerseys and Delaware counties would meet on the Monday following, and it was probable these bodies would take up the question of Independence, and would declare to their delegates the voice of their state:
That the Pennsylvania assembly was currently meeting upstairs, their convention would convene in a few days, the New York convention was already in session, and those from New Jersey and Delaware would gather the following Monday. It was likely that these groups would address the issue of Independence and tell their delegates the stance of their state:
That if such a declaration should now be agreed to, these delegates must retire, and possibly their colonies might secede from the Union:
That if such a declaration is agreed upon now, these delegates will have to step down, and their colonies might leave the Union:
That such a secession would weaken us more than could be compensated by any foreign alliance:
That such a secession would weaken us more than could be made up for by any foreign alliance:
That in the event of such a division, foreign powers would either refuse to join themselves to our fortunes, or, having us so much in their power as that desperate declaration would place us, they would insist on terms proportionably more hard and prejudicial:
That if such a split occurs, foreign countries would either refuse to align with us or, with us being so vulnerable as that desperate statement would make us, they would demand terms that are significantly harsher and more harmful:
That we had little reason to expect an alliance with those to whom alone, as yet, we had cast our eyes:
That we had little reason to expect an alliance with those whom we had only just begun to consider:
That France and Spain had reason to be jealous of that rising power, which would one day certainly strip them of all their American possessions:
That France and Spain had every reason to be jealous of that rising power, which would eventually take away all their American possessions:
That it was more likely they should form a connection with the British Court, who, if they should find themselves unable otherwise to extricate themselves from their difficulties, would agree to a partition of our territories, restoring Canada to France, and the Floridas to Spain, to accomplish for themselves a recovery of these colonies:
That it was more likely they would connect with the British Court, who, if they found themselves unable to escape their troubles, would agree to divide our territories, giving Canada back to France and Florida back to Spain, in order to reclaim these colonies for themselves:
That it would not be long before we should receive certain information of the disposition of the French court, from the agent whom we had sent to Paris for that purpose:
That it wouldn’t be long before we got news about the attitude of the French court from the agent we had sent to Paris for that reason:
That if this disposition should be favorable, by waiting the event of the present campaign, which we all hoped would be successful, we should have reason to expect an alliance on better terms:
That if this situation turns out well, by waiting to see how the current campaign goes, which we all hope will be successful, we should have reason to expect an alliance on better terms:
That this would in fact work no delay of any effectual aid from such ally, as, from the advance of the season and distance of our situation, it was impossible we could receive any assistance during this campaign:
That this would actually work without any timely help from such an ally, since, due to the time of year and our location, it was impossible for us to receive any support during this campaign:
That it was prudent to fix among ourselves the terms on which we would form alliance, before we declared we would form one at all events:
That it was wise to agree on the terms for our alliance before we announced that we would definitely form one:
And that if these were agreed on, and our Declaration of Independence ready by the time our Ambassador should be prepared to sail, it would be as well, as to go into that Declaration at this day.
And if these were agreed upon and our Declaration of Independence was ready by the time our Ambassador was set to sail, it would be just as good to go into that Declaration today.
On the other side, it was urged by J. Adams, Lee, Wythe and others, that no gentleman had argued against the policy or the right of separation from Britain, nor had supposed it possible we should ever renew our connection; that they had only opposed its being now declared:
On the other side, J. Adams, Lee, Wythe, and others argued that no gentleman had contested the policy or the right to separate from Britain, nor did anyone think it was possible that we would ever reconnect; they had only opposed declaring it now:
That the question was not whether, by a Declaration of Independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
That the issue wasn’t about whether we should create something we aren’t through a Declaration of Independence; it was about whether we should acknowledge a reality that is already present:
That, as to the people or parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them, and that so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, regarding the people or parliament of England, we had always been independent from them, their restrictions on our trade being effective only because we accepted them, not because they had any rights to impose them, and that up until now, our relationship had been purely federal and was now ended due to the start of hostilities:
That, as to the King, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us, a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection; it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:
That, regarding the King, we were bound to him by loyalty, but this bond is now broken by his approval of the recent act of parliament, where he declares us out of his protection, and by his waging war against us, a fact that has long demonstrated we are no longer under his protection; it is a well-established principle in law that loyalty and protection are reciprocal, with one ending when the other is withdrawn:
That James the II. never declared the people of England out of his protection, yet his actions proved it and the parliament declared it:
That James II never officially declared the people of England to be out of his protection, yet his actions showed otherwise, and parliament declared it:
No delegates then can be denied, or ever want, a power of declaring an existent truth:
No delegates can be denied or lack the ability to declare a true statement:
That the delegates from the Delaware counties having declared their constituents ready to join, there are only two colonies, Pennsylvania and Maryland, whose delegates are absolutely tied up, and that these had, by their instructions, only reserved a right of confirming or rejecting the measure:
That the delegates from the Delaware counties have announced their constituents are ready to join, there are only two colonies, Pennsylvania and Maryland, whose delegates are completely tied up, and these, by their instructions, only reserved the right to confirm or reject the measure:
That the instructions from Pennsylvania might be accounted for from the times in which they were drawn, near a twelvemonth ago, since which the face of affairs has totally changed:
That the instructions from Pennsylvania might be understood in the context of when they were created, almost a year ago, since then the situation has completely changed:
That within that time, it had become apparent that Britain was determined to accept nothing less than a carte-blanche, and that the King’s answer to the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council of London, which had come to hand four days ago, must have satisfied every one of this point:
That during that time, it became clear that Britain was committed to accepting nothing less than a carte-blanche, and the King's response to the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council of London, which had arrived four days ago, must have reassured everyone on this matter:
That the people wait for us to lead the way:
That the people are counting on us to show them the way:
That they are in favor of the measure, though the instructions given by some of their representatives are not:
That they support the measure, even though some of their representatives have given different instructions:
That the voice of the representatives is not always consonant with the voice of the people, and that this is remarkably the case in these middle colonies:
That the voice of the representatives doesn’t always match the voice of the people, and this is especially true in these middle colonies:
That the effect of the resolution of the 15th of May has proved this, which, raising the murmurs of some in the colonies of Pennsylvania and Maryland, called forth the opposing voice of the freer part of the people, and proved them to be the majority even in these colonies:
That the impact of the resolution from May 15th has shown this, which, sparking complaints from some in the colonies of Pennsylvania and Maryland, drew out the dissenting voice of the more liberty-minded people, proving them to be the majority even in these colonies:
That the backwardness of these two colonies might be ascribed, partly to the influence of proprietary power and connections, and partly, to their having not yet been attacked by the enemy:
That the slow development of these two colonies could be partly blamed on the influence of proprietary power and connections, and partly because they have not yet been attacked by the enemy:
That these causes were not likely to be soon removed, as there seemed no probability that the enemy would make either of these the seat of this summer’s war:
That these reasons probably wouldn't be resolved anytime soon, since it didn't seem likely that the enemy would choose either of these as the location for this summer's war:
That it would be vain to wait either weeks or months for perfect unanimity, since it was impossible that all men should ever become of one sentiment on any question:
That it would be pointless to wait for weeks or months for complete agreement since it was unrealistic to expect that everyone would ever have the same opinion on any issue:
That the conduct of some colonies, from the beginning of this contest, had given reason to suspect it was their settled policy to keep in the rear of the confederacy, that their particular prospect might be better, even in the worst event:
That the behavior of some colonies, from the start of this conflict, had given cause to suspect it was their fixed strategy to stay behind the confederation, so that their individual situation might improve, even in the worst-case scenario:
That, therefore, it was necessary for those colonies who had thrown themselves forward and hazarded all from the beginning, to come forward now also, and put all again to their own hazard:
That, therefore, it was necessary for those colonies that had stepped up and risked everything from the start to step up again now and put everything at risk once more:
That the history of the Dutch revolution, of whom three states only confederated at first, proved that a secession of some colonies would not be so dangerous as some apprehended:
That the history of the Dutch revolution, which originally involved only three states confederating, showed that a secession of some colonies would not be as risky as some feared:
That a declaration of Independence alone could render it consistent with European delicacy, for European powers to treat with us, or even to receive an Ambassador from us:
That just a declaration of Independence could make it acceptable for European powers to engage with us or even accept an Ambassador from us:
That till this, they would not receive our vessels into their ports, nor acknowledge the adjudications of our courts of admiralty to be legitimate, in cases of capture of British vessels:
That until now, they would not allow our ships to enter their ports, nor would they recognize the judgments of our admiralty courts as legitimate in cases involving the capture of British vessels:
That though France and Spain may be jealous of our rising power, they must think it will be much more formidable with the addition of Great Britain; and will therefore see it their interest to prevent a coalition; but should they refuse, we shall be but where we are; whereas without trying, we shall never know whether they will aid us or not:
That even if France and Spain are envious of our growing power, they must realize it will be much stronger with Great Britain on our side; so they will likely see it in their best interest to avoid a coalition. However, if they choose not to cooperate, we’ll remain in our current position; but if we don’t make an effort, we’ll never know if they might support us or not.
That the present campaign may be unsuccessful, and therefore we had better propose an alliance while our affairs wear a hopeful aspect:
That the current campaign might fail, so it’s better for us to suggest an alliance while things still look promising:
That to wait the event of this campaign will certainly work delay, because, during this summer, France may assist us effectually, by cutting off those supplies of provisions from England and Ireland, on which the enemy’s armies here are to depend; or by setting in motion the great power they have collected in the West Indies, and calling our enemy to the defence of the possessions they have there:
That waiting for the outcome of this campaign will definitely cause delays, because this summer, France could help us significantly by cutting off the supplies of food from England and Ireland that the enemy's armies here rely on; or by mobilizing the great forces they have gathered in the West Indies and forcing our enemy to defend their holdings there:
That it would be idle to lose time in settling the terms of alliance, till we had first determined we would enter into alliance:
That it would be pointless to waste time figuring out the terms of the alliance until we first decided that we would actually enter into one:
That it is necessary to lose no time in opening a trade for our people, who will want clothes, and will want money too, for the payment of taxes:
That we need to act quickly to start a trade for our people, who will need clothing and will also need money to pay taxes:
And that the only misfortune is, that we did not enter into alliance with France six months sooner, as, besides opening her ports for the vent of our last year’s produce, she might have marched an army into Germany, and prevented the petty princes there, from selling their unhappy subjects to subdue us.
And the only unfortunate thing is that we didn't form an alliance with France six months earlier. This would have not only opened her ports for the sale of last year’s produce, but she could have sent an army into Germany to stop the minor princes from selling their unfortunate subjects to defeat us.
It appearing in the course of these debates, that the colonies of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and South Carolina were not yet matured for falling from the parent stem, but that they were fast advancing to that state, it was thought most prudent to wait awhile for them, and to postpone the final decision to July 1st: but, that this might occasion as little delay as possible, a committee was appointed to prepare a Declaration of Independence. The committee were John Adams, Dr. Franklin, Roger Sherman, Robert R. Livingston, and myself. Committees were also appointed, at the same time, to prepare a plan of confederation for the colonies, and to state the terms proper to be proposed for foreign alliance. The committee for drawing the Declaration of Independence, desired me to do it. It was accordingly done, and being approved by them, I reported it to the House on Friday, the 28th of June, when it was read and ordered to lie on the table. On Monday, the 1st of July, the House resolved itself into a committee of the whole, and resumed the consideration of the original motion made by the delegates of Virginia, which, being again debated through the day, was carried in the affirmative by the votes of New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia. South Carolina and Pennsylvania voted against it. Delaware had but two members present, and they were divided. The delegates from New York declared they were for it themselves, and were assured their constituents were for it; but that their instructions having been drawn near a twelvemonth before, when reconciliation was still the general object, they were enjoined by them to do nothing which should impede that object. They therefore thought themselves not justifiable in voting on either side, and asked leave to withdraw from the question; which was given them. The committee rose and reported their resolution to the House. Mr. Edward Rutledge, of South Carolina, then requested the determination might be put off to the next day, as he believed his colleagues, though they disapproved of the resolution, would then join in it for the sake of unanimity. The ultimate question, whether the House would agree to the resolution of the committee, was accordingly postponed to the next day, when it was again moved, and South Carolina concurred in voting for it. In the mean time, a third member had come post from the Delaware counties, and turned the vote of that colony in favor of the resolution. Members of a different sentiment attending that morning from Pennsylvania also, her vote was changed, so that the whole twelve colonies, who were authorized to vote at all, gave their voices for it; and, within a few days, [July 9.] the convention of New York approved of it, and thus supplied the void occasioned by the withdrawing of her delegates from the vote.
It became clear during these discussions that the colonies of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and South Carolina were not quite ready to separate from the parent nation, but they were quickly moving towards that point. It was decided that it would be wise to wait for them and postpone the final decision to July 1st. To minimize any delays, a committee was set up to draft a Declaration of Independence. The committee included John Adams, Dr. Franklin, Roger Sherman, Robert R. Livingston, and me. At the same time, other committees were formed to create a plan for confederation among the colonies and to outline appropriate terms for foreign alliances. The committee responsible for drafting the Declaration of Independence asked me to take care of it. I did so, and after they approved it, I presented it to the House on Friday, June 28, where it was read and set aside for later consideration. On Monday, July 1, the House convened as a committee of the whole and resumed discussion on the original motion made by the delegates from Virginia. After an entire day of debate, the motion was passed with votes from New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia. South Carolina and Pennsylvania voted against it. Delaware had only two members present, and they split their vote. The delegates from New York stated that they personally supported the motion and believed their constituents did as well, but their instructions, drawn up nearly a year earlier when reconciliation was still the goal, mandated them not to do anything that would obstruct that aim. Therefore, they felt they couldn't vote on either side and requested permission to abstain from the question, which was granted. The committee then reported their resolution to the House. Mr. Edward Rutledge from South Carolina requested that the decision be postponed to the next day, believing his colleagues, although initially against the resolution, would then support it for the sake of unity. The final question of whether the House would approve the committee's resolution was deferred to the following day. When it was raised again, South Carolina agreed to vote in favor of it. In the meantime, a third member from Delaware arrived and changed that colony's vote to support the resolution. Additionally, members with a different perspective from Pennsylvania attended that morning, altering their vote as well, so all twelve colonies that were authorized to vote expressed their support. Within a few days, on July 9, the New York convention endorsed it, filling the gap left by its delegates' withdrawal from the vote.
Congress proceeded the same day to consider the Declaration of Independence, which had been reported and laid on the table the Friday preceding, and on Monday referred to a committee of the whole. The pusillanimous idea that we had friends in England worth keeping terms with, still haunted the minds of many. For this reason, those passages which conveyed censures on the people of England were struck out, lest they should give them offence. The clause too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe, felt a little tender under those censures; for though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others. The debates having taken up the greater parts of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th days of July, were, on the evening of the last, closed; the Declaration was reported by the committee, agreed to by the House, and signed by every member present, except Mr. Dickinson. As the sentiments of men are known, not only by what they receive, but what they reject also, I will state the form of the Declaration as originally reported. The parts struck out by Congress shall be distinguished by a black line drawn under them; * and those inserted by them shall be placed in the margin, or in a concurrent column.
Congress met the same day to discuss the Declaration of Independence, which had been presented and put aside the previous Friday, and on Monday was sent to a committee for review. The timid notion that we had friends in England worth maintaining good relations with still lingered in the minds of many. Because of this, the sections that criticized the people of England were removed to avoid offending them. The clause that condemned the enslavement of African inhabitants was also taken out to please South Carolina and Georgia, who had never tried to limit the importation of slaves and wanted to keep it going. I believe our northern brothers felt a bit sensitive about those criticisms too, as even though they had very few slaves themselves, they had been significant traders of them to others. The debates took up most of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th days of July, and by the evening of the last day, they concluded; the Declaration was reported by the committee, approved by the House, and signed by every member present, except for Mr. Dickinson. Since people's opinions are shown not only by what they accept but also by what they dismiss, I will lay out the Declaration as it was originally proposed. The parts removed by Congress will be marked with a black line underneath them;* and those added by them will be shown in the margin or in a corresponding column.






* In this publication, the parts crossed out are printed in Italics and enclosed in brackets— and those added are enclosed in parentheses.
A DECLARATION BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN GENERAL CONGRESS ASSEMBLED.
A DECLARATION BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN GENERAL CONGRESS ASSEMBLED.
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
When, during human affairs, it becomes necessary for one group of people to break the political ties that have connected them with another group and to take on a separate and equal status among the powers of the world that they are entitled to by the natural law and the laws of God, a respectful consideration of the opinions of people requires that they should explain the reasons that drive them to separate.
We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with [inherent and] (certain) inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations [begun at a distinguished period and] pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to [expunge] (alter) their former systems of government. The history of the present king of Great Britain is a history of [unremitting] (repeated) injuries and usurpations, [among which appears no solitary act to contradict the uniform tenor of the rest, but all have] (all having) in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world [for the truth of which we pledge a faith yet unsullied by falsehood.]
We hold these truths to be obvious: that all people are created equal; that they are given certain inalienable rights by their creator; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to protect these rights, governments are set up among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to change or get rid of it and to create a new government, laying its foundation on principles that seem most likely to ensure their safety and happiness. Prudence will indeed suggest that long-established governments should not be changed for trivial reasons; and all experience has shown that people are more inclined to endure while harms are bearable than to fix things by abolishing the familiar forms. But when there is a long history of abuses and usurpations that show a plan to reduce them under absolute tyranny, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new safeguards for their future security. Such has been the patient suffering of these colonies; and such is now the necessity that compels them to alter their previous systems of government. The history of the current king of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all aimed at establishing absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be presented to a fair world, for which we pledge our honor, untarnished by falsehood.
He has refused his assent to laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has refused to approve laws that are essential and beneficial for the public good.
He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and, when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has prohibited his governors from enacting laws that are urgent and important, unless their enforcement is paused until he gives his approval; and, when they are paused, he has completely ignored them.
He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them, and formidable to tyrants only.
He has refused to create other laws to accommodate large groups of people unless those people agree to give up their right to representation in the legislature, a right that is invaluable to them and only intimidating to tyrants.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has summoned legislative bodies to unusual, uncomfortable, and far-off locations, away from their public records, solely to wear them down into accepting his proposals.
He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly [and continually] for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has repeatedly dissolved representative bodies for bravely standing up against his invasions of the people's rights.
He has refused for a long time after such dissolutions to cause others to be elected, whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise, the state remaining, in the mean time, exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without and convulsions within.
He has long refused to help others get elected after such dissolutions, which means the legislative powers, unable to be destroyed, have gone back to the people to use. Meanwhile, the state is left vulnerable to all the dangers of outside invasion and internal conflicts.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners, refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.
He has tried to limit the population of these states by blocking laws for naturalizing foreigners, refusing to pass new laws to encourage their migration here, and increasing the requirements for new land allocations.
He has [suffered] (obstructed) the administration of justice [totally to cease in some of these states] (by) refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.
He has [suffered] (blocked) the administration of justice [completely to stop in some of these states] (by) refusing to agree to laws for establishing judicial powers.
He has made [our] judges dependant on his will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has made [our] judges dependent on his will alone for how long they keep their jobs and how much they get paid.
He has erected a multitude of new offices, [by a self-assumed power] and sent hither swarms of new officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has set up a lot of new offices, [by a self-assumed power] and sent over groups of new officers to bother our people and drain their resources.
He has kept among us in times of peace standing armies [and ships of war] without the consent of our legislatures.
He has maintained standing armies [and warships] among us during peacetime without our legislatures' approval.
He has affected to render the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power.
He has pretended to make the military independent of and more powerful than the civilian authority.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitutions and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation for quartering large bodies of armed troops among us; for protecting them by a mock trial from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states; for cutting off our trade with all parts of the world; for imposing taxes on us without our consent; for depriving us [ ] in many cases of the benefits of trial by jury; for transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences; for abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries, so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these [states] (colonies); for taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments; for suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has teamed up with others to impose a legal system on us that’s foreign to our constitutions and ignored by our laws, approving their actions of fake legislation for housing large groups of armed troops among us; for shielding them with a sham trial from facing consequences for any murders they commit against the people of these states; for cutting off our trade with the entire world; for taxing us without our agreement; for denying us in many cases the benefits of a jury trial; for shipping us overseas to be tried for made-up offenses; for eliminating the free system of English laws in a nearby province, establishing a tyrannical government there, and expanding its borders to serve both as an example and a useful tool for bringing the same absolute rule into these [states] (colonies); for revoking our charters, dismantling our most important laws, and fundamentally changing how our governments work; for suspending our own legislatures, and claiming the power to make laws for us in every situation.
He has abdicated government here [withdrawing his governors, and declaring us out of his allegiance and protection.] (by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.)
He has given up control here [withdrawing his governors, and declaring us out of his allegiance and protection.] (by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.)
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He has pillaged our waters, devastated our shores, burned our towns, and ruined the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy [ ] (scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages and totally) unworthy the head of a civilized nation.
He is currently moving large groups of foreign mercenaries to carry out acts of death, destruction, and tyranny that have already started with levels of cruelty and betrayal [ ] (hardly matched in the most savage times and completely) unworthy of the leader of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.
He has forced our fellow citizens captured on the high seas to fight against their own country, to become the killers of their friends and family, or to die at their own hands.
He has [ ] (excited domestic insurrections amoungst us and has) endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions [of existence.]
He has [ ] (excited domestic uprisings among us and has) tried to bring upon the people living on our borders the ruthless Indian warriors, whose known approach to warfare is complete destruction without regard for age, gender, or circumstances [of existence.]
[He has incited treasonable insurrections of our fellow citizens, with the allurements of forfeiture and confiscation of our property.
He has stirred up rebellious actions among our fellow citizens, enticing them with the threats of losing and having our property seized.
He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and, liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of INFIDEL powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.]
He has waged a brutal war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty for a distant people who never wronged him, capturing them and forcing them into slavery in another continent, or subjecting them to a miserable death during their transport. This piratical warfare, the disgrace of INFIDEL powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep a market open where people can be bought and sold, he has abused his power to prevent any legislative efforts to prohibit or limit this terrible trade. To ensure this collection of horrors lacks no appalling detail, he is now inciting those very people to rise up against us and to reclaim the freedom he has taken from them by murdering the people he forced them upon: thus offsetting previous crimes against the liberties of one group with crimes he pushes them to commit against the lives of another.
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injuries.
In every stage of these oppressions, we've asked for relief in the most humble ways: our repeated requests have only been met with more injuries.
A prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of a [ ] (free) people [who mean to be free. Future ages will scarcely believe that the hardiness of one man adventured, within the short compass of twelve years only, to lay a foundation so broad and so undisguised for tyranny over a people fostered and fixed in principles of freedom.]
A prince whose character is defined by every action typical of a tyrant is unfit to lead a free people who want to remain free. Future generations will hardly believe that one person's boldness attempted, in just twelve short years, to build such a broad and obvious foundation for tyranny over a people raised with strong principles of freedom.
Nor have we been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend [a] (an unwarrantable) jurisdiction over [these our states] (us). We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here, [no one of which could warrant so strange a pretension: that these were effected at the expense of our own blood and treasure, unassisted by the wealth or the strength of Great Britain: that in constituting indeed our several forms of government, we had adopted one common king, thereby laying a foundation for perpetual league and amity with them: but that submission to their parliament was no part of our constitution, nor ever in idea, if history may be credited: and,] we [ ] (have) appealed to their native justice and magnanimity [as well as to] (and we have conjured them by) the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations which [were likely to] (would inevitably) interrupt our connection and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity, [and when occasions have been given them, by the regular course of their laws, of removing from their councils the disturbers of our harmony, they have, by their free election, re-established, them in power. At this very time too, they are permitting their chief magistrate to send over not only soldiers of our common blood, but Scotch and foreign mercenaries to invade and destroy us. These facts have given the last stab to agonizing affection, and manly spirit bids us to renounce for ever these unfeeling brethren. We must endeavor to forget our former love for them, and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends. We might have been a free and a great people together; but a communication of grandeur and of freedom, it seems, is below their dignity. Be it so, since they will have it. The road to happiness and to glory is open to us too. We will tread it apart from them, and] (We must therefore) acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our [eternal] separation [ ]! (and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.)
Nor have we neglected our British brethren. We have occasionally warned them about attempts by their legislature to extend an unjust jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of how we emigrated and settled here, and none of those circumstances could justify such a strange claim: these developments came at the cost of our own blood and resources, without support from the wealth or strength of Great Britain. In forming our governments, we chose one common king, laying the groundwork for a lasting alliance with them; however, submitting to their parliament was never part of our constitution, nor was it ever imagined, if history is to be believed. We have appealed to their sense of justice and nobility, as well as to our shared kinship, to reject these overreaches that would inevitably disrupt our connection and communication. They too have ignored the call of justice and family ties, and when given the chance through their laws to remove the disruptors of our harmony, they have freely elected to keep them in power. Even now, they are allowing their leader to send not only soldiers of our shared blood but also Scottish and foreign mercenaries to invade and destroy us. These actions have dealt a final blow to our struggling affection, and with a manly spirit, we feel compelled to forever renounce these unfeeling brethren. We must try to forget our past love for them and regard them as we do the rest of humanity: enemies in war, and friends in peace. We could have been a free and great nation together, but it seems that sharing greatness and freedom is beneath their dignity. If that is their choice, so be it. The path to happiness and glory is open to us as well. We will pursue it separately from them, and we must therefore accept the necessity of our eternal separation!
[We therefore the representatives of the United States of America in General Congress assembled, do in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these states reject and renounce all allegiance and subjection to the kings of Great Britain and all others who may hereafter claim by, through, or under them; we utterly dissolve all political connection which may heretofore have subsisted between us and, the people or parliament of Great Britain: and finally we do assert and declare these colonies to be free and independent states, and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.
[We, the representatives of the United States of America gathered in General Congress, speaking for the people of these states, hereby reject and renounce all allegiance and submission to the kings of Great Britain and anyone else who may in the future claim authority through them; we completely dissolve any political connection that may have existed between us and the people or parliament of Great Britain. Finally, we assert and declare these colonies to be free and independent states, and as free and independent states, they have the full power to wage war, make peace, form alliances, establish trade, and do all other things that independent states have the right to do.]
And for the support of this declaration, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.]
And to support this statement, we all promise each other our lives, our resources, and our sacred honor.
(We therefore the representatives of the United States of America in General Congress assembled, appealing to the supreme judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.
(We, the representatives of the United States of America in General Congress assembled, appealing to the highest authority in the world for the honesty of our intentions, do in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare that these united colonies are, and have the right to be, free and independent states; that they are released from all loyalty to the British crown, and that all political ties between them and Great Britain are, and should be, completely dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to wage war, make peace, form alliances, establish trade, and do all other acts and things that independent states have the right to do.
And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.)
And to support this declaration, with strong faith in the protection of divine providence, we each promise to one another our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.
The declaration thus signed on the 4th, on paper, was engrossed on parchment, and signed again on the 2nd of August.
The declaration that was signed on the 4th, on paper, was written out on parchment and signed again on August 2nd.
[* Some erroneous statements of the proceedings on the Declaration of Independence having got before the public in latter times, Mr. Samuel A. Wells asked explanations of me, which are given in my letter to him of May 12, ‘19, before and now again referred to. (See Appendix, note B.) I took notes in my place while these things were going on, and at their close wrote them out in form and with correctness, and from 1 to 7 of the two preceding sheets, are the originals then written; as the two following are of the earlier debates on the Confederation, which I took in like manner.]
[* Some incorrect statements about the events surrounding the Declaration of Independence have appeared in public recently. Mr. Samuel A. Wells asked me for clarification, which I provided in my letter to him dated May 12, ‘19, previously mentioned and referenced again. (See Appendix, note B.) I took notes while these events were happening, and after they concluded, I wrote them out accurately. The original notes from 1 to 7 on the two preceding sheets are those I wrote at that time; the following two sheets contain notes from earlier debates on the Confederation, which I recorded in the same way.]
* The author's note is on a slip of paper, stuck at the end of the Declaration. There's also a piece of newspaper sewn into the manuscript containing, under the title 'Declaration of Independence,' a letter from Thomas Mc’Kean to Messrs. William M’Corkle & Son, dated 'Philadelphia, June 16, 1817.' This letter can be found in the Port Folio, Sept. 1817, p. 249.
[The following four images are from engravings taken from the Jefferson’s draft of the Declaration of Independence in his handwriting with some ammendations and changes in the handrwriting of Benjamin Franklin and John Adams--Click on any of these to enlarge the image to full-size.]
[The next four images are engravings from Jefferson’s handwritten draft of the Declaration of Independence, showcasing some edits and changes made by Benjamin Franklin and John Adams—Click on any of these to enlarge the image to full size.]




On Friday, July 12, the committee appointed to draw the articles of Confederation reported them, and on the 22nd, the House resolved themselves into a committee to take them into consideration. On the 30th and 31st of that month, and 1st of the ensuing, those articles were debated which determined the proportion, or quota, of money which each state should furnish to the common treasury, and the manner of voting in Congress. The first of these articles was expressed in the original draught in these words. ‘Art. XI. All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defence, or general welfare, and allowed by the United States assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several colonies in proportion to the number of inhabitants of every age, sex, and quality, except Indians not paying taxes, in each colony, a true account-of which, distinguishing the white inhabitants, shall be triennially taken and transmitted to the Assembly of the United States.’
On Friday, July 12, the committee tasked with drafting the Articles of Confederation reported their work, and on the 22nd, the House decided to form a committee to review them. On the 30th and 31st of that month, and on the 1st of the next month, they debated the articles that outlined how much money each state should contribute to the common treasury, as well as how voting would work in Congress. The first of these articles was originally written as follows: ‘Art. XI. All expenses related to war and any other costs incurred for common defense or general welfare, approved by the United States assembled, will be paid from a common treasury, which will be funded by the various colonies in relation to the total number of inhabitants of every age, gender, and status, except for tax-exempt Indians, in each colony. A true account of this, distinguishing between white inhabitants, will be taken every three years and submitted to the Assembly of the United States.’
Mr. Chase moved that the quotas should be fixed, not by the number of inhabitants of every condition, but by that of the ‘white inhabitants.’ He admitted that taxation should be always in proportion to property; that this was, in theory, the true rule; but that, from a variety of difficulties, it was a rule which could never be adopted in practice. The value of the property in every state, could never be estimated justly and equally. Some other measures for the wealth of the state must therefore be devised, some standard referred to, which would be more simple. He considered the number of inhabitants as a tolerably good criterion of property, and that this might always be obtained. He therefore thought it the best mode which we could adopt, with one exception only: he observed that negroes are property, and as such, cannot be distinguished from the lands or personalities held in those states where there are few slaves; that the surplus of profit which a Northern farmer is able to lay by, he invests in cattle, horses, &c. whereas a Southern farmer lays out the same surplus in slaves. There is no more reason therefore for taxing the Southern states on the farmer’s head, and on his slave’s head, than the Northern ones on their farmers’ heads and the heads of their cattle: that the method proposed would, therefore, tax the Southern states according to their numbers and their wealth conjunctly, while the Northern would be taxed on numbers only; that negroes, in fact, should not be considered as members of the state, more than cattle, and that they have no more interest in it.
Mr. Chase suggested that the quotas should be set based not on the total population of all conditions but specifically on the number of 'white inhabitants.' He acknowledged that taxation should always align with property value; that this was, in theory, the right principle, but due to various complications, it was a principle that could never be implemented in reality. The value of property in each state could never be assessed fairly and uniformly. Therefore, other measures for assessing the state's wealth needed to be developed, some standard that would be simpler. He viewed the population count as a fairly good indicator of property and believed this could always be determined. He thought this was the best method we could use, with one exception: he pointed out that enslaved people are considered property and thus cannot be differentiated from the land or personal property in states where there are few slaves; that the extra profit a Northern farmer saves is typically invested in livestock, while a Southern farmer spends that surplus on slaves. Therefore, there is no more justification for taxing the Southern states based on the farmer’s head and his slave's head than there is for taxing the Northern states based on their farmers' heads and the heads of their livestock: that the proposed method would thus tax the Southern states based on both their numbers and their wealth together, while the Northern states would be taxed solely on numbers; that enslaved people, in fact, should not be regarded as members of the state any more than livestock, and they have no more stake in it.
Mr. John Adams observed, that the numbers of people were taken by this article, as an index of the wealth of the state, and not as subjects of taxation; that, as to this matter, it was of no consequence by what name you called your people, whether by that of freemen or of slaves; that in some countries the laboring poor were called freemen, in others they were called slaves; but that the difference as to the state was imaginary only. What matters it whether a landlord employing ten laborers on his farm, give them annually as much money as will buy them the necessaries of life, or gives them those necessaries at short hand? The ten laborers add as much wealth annually to the state, increase its exports as much, in the one case as the other. Certainly five hundred freemen produce no more profits, no greater surplus for the payment of taxes, than five hundred slaves. Therefore the state in which are the laborers called freemen, should be taxed no more than that in which are those called slaves. Suppose, by an extraordinary operation of nature or of law, one half the laborers of a state could in the course of one night be transformed into slaves; would the state be made the poorer or the less able to pay taxes? That the condition of the laboring poor in most countries, that of the fishermen particularly of the Northern states, is as abject as that of slaves. It is the number of laborers which produces the surplus for taxation, and numbers, therefore, indiscriminately, are the fair index of wealth; that it is the use of the word ‘property’ here, and its application to some of the people of the state, which produces the fallacy. How does the Southern farmer procure slaves? Either by importation or by purchase from his neighbor. If he imports a slave, he adds one to the number of laborers in his country, and proportionably to its profits and abilities to pay-taxes; if he buys from his neighbor, it is only a transfer of a laborer from one farm to another, which does not change the annual produce of the state, and therefore should not change its tax: that if a Northern farmer works ten laborers on his farm, he can, it is true, invest the surplus of ten men’s labor in cattle; but so may the Southern farmer, working ten slaves; that a state of one hundred thousand freemen can maintain no more cattle, than one of one hundred thousand slaves. Therefore, they have no more of that kind of property; that a slave may, indeed, from the custom of speech, be more properly called the wealth of his master, than the free laborer might be called the wealth of his employer: but as to the state, both were equally its wealth, and should therefore equally add to the quota of its tax.
Mr. John Adams noted that the number of people counted in this context reflects the state's wealth, not its tax subjects. It doesn't matter if you call your people freemen or slaves; in some countries, the working poor are labeled as freemen while in others they are labeled as slaves, but that distinction is just imaginary when it comes to the state. What difference does it make if a landlord employs ten workers and pays them enough money each year to buy their basic needs, or if he provides those needs directly? In both cases, those ten workers contribute equally to the state's wealth and exports. Clearly, five hundred freemen produce no more profit or surplus for taxes than five hundred slaves. So, a state with laborers called freemen shouldn't be taxed more than one with those called slaves. Imagine if, through some extraordinary event, half of a state's laborers suddenly became slaves overnight; would the state be poorer or less able to pay taxes? The reality is that the working poor in many countries, especially the fishermen in the Northern states, experience conditions as severe as those of slaves. It's the number of laborers that creates the surplus for taxes, and thus, counting people indiscriminately is a fair way to gauge wealth. The confusion arises from the use of the term 'property' and its application to certain members of the state. How does a Southern farmer acquire slaves? Either by importing them or buying them from a neighbor. If he imports a slave, he increases the number of laborers in his state, which boosts profits and tax capacity; if he buys from his neighbor, it’s just a transfer of one worker from one farm to another, which doesn’t affect the state's total output and thus shouldn't affect the tax. A Northern farmer can use the surplus from ten laborers to invest in cattle, but so can a Southern farmer with ten slaves. A state with a hundred thousand freemen can sustain no more cattle than one with a hundred thousand slaves. Therefore, they possess no more of that kind of property. While a slave might be more accurately described as the wealth of his owner due to language conventions, both the slave and the free laborer should be considered equal contributors to the state's wealth, and thus should equally contribute to its taxes.
Mr. Harrison proposed, as a compromise, that two slaves should be counted as one freeman. He affirmed that slaves did not do as much work as freemen, and doubted if two effected more than one; that this was proved by the price of labor; the hire of a laborer in the Southern colonies being from £8 to £12, while in the Northern it was generally £24.
Mr. Harrison suggested a compromise that two slaves should be counted as one free person. He argued that slaves didn’t work as much as free people and questioned whether two of them really did more work than one. He showed this by the cost of labor; hiring a worker in the Southern colonies ranged from £8 to £12, while in the Northern colonies it was typically £24.
Mr. Wilson said, that if this amendment should take place, the Southern colonies would have all the benefit of slaves, whilst the Northern ones would bear the burthen: that slaves increase the profits of a state, which the Southern states mean to take to themselves; that they also increase the burthen of defence, which would of course fall so much the heavier on the Northern: that slaves occupy the places of freemen and eat their food. Dismiss your slaves, and freemen will take their places. It is our duty to lay every discouragement on the importation of slaves; but this amendment would give the jus trium liberorum to him who would import slaves: that other kinds of property were pretty equally distributed through all the colonies: there were as many cattle, horses, and sheep, in the North as the South, and South as the North; but not so as to slaves: that experience has shown that those colonies have, been always able to pay most, which have the most inhabitants, whether they be black or white: and the practice of the Southern colonies has always been to make every farmer pay poll taxes upon all his laborers, whether they be black or white. He acknowledges indeed, that freemen work the most; but they consume the most also. They do not produce a greater surplus for taxation. The slave is neither fed nor clothed so expensively as a freeman. Again, white women are exempted from labor generally, but negro women are not. In this then the Southern states have an advantage as the article now stands. It has sometimes been said that slavery is necessary, because the commodities they raise would be too dear for market if cultivated by freemen: but now it is said that the labor of the slave is the dearest.
Mr. Wilson said that if this amendment were to happen, the Southern colonies would reap all the benefits from slavery while the Northern ones would bear the burden. He pointed out that slaves boost a state's profits, which the Southern states intend to keep for themselves. They also increase the burden of defense, which would inevitably weigh more heavily on the North. Slaves take the jobs of free workers and consume their resources. If you let go of your slaves, free workers will fill those roles. It's our responsibility to discourage the importation of slaves, but this amendment would grant the jus trium liberorum to anyone who would bring in slaves. Other types of property are fairly evenly distributed across all colonies: there are as many cattle, horses, and sheep in the North as in the South and vice versa; but slaves are not distributed the same way. Experience has shown that colonies with more residents, regardless of their race, tend to pay more taxes. The Southern colonies have always required every farmer to pay poll taxes on all their workers, black or white. He acknowledges that free workers do the most work, but they also consume the most. They do not produce a larger surplus for taxation. Slaves are not fed or clothed as expensively as free people. Additionally, white women are generally not required to work, but Black women are. So, the Southern states have an advantage as things stand. It has sometimes been argued that slavery is necessary because the goods they produce would be too expensive if grown by free workers, but now it is claimed that slave labor is the most costly.
Mr. Payne urged the original resolution of Congress, to proportion the quotas of the states to the number of souls.
Mr. Payne pushed for the original resolution from Congress to adjust the state quotas based on the population.
Dr. Witherspoon was of opinion, that the value of lands and houses was the best estimate of the wealth of a nation, and that it was practicable to obtain such a valuation. This is the true barometer of wealth. The one now proposed is imperfect in itself, and unequal between the states. It has been objected that negroes eat the food of freemen, and therefore should be taxed; horses also eat the food of freemen; therefore they also should be taxed. It has been said too, that in carrying slaves into the estimate of the taxes the state is to pay, we do no more than those states themselves do, who always take slaves into the estimate of the taxes the individual is to pay. But the cases are not parallel. In the Southern colonies slaves pervade the whole colony; but they do not pervade the whole continent. That as to the original resolution of Congress, to proportion the quotas according to the souls, it was temporary only, and related to the monies heretofore emitted; whereas we are now entering into a new compact, and therefore stand on original ground.
Dr. Witherspoon believed that the value of land and houses was the best way to measure a nation's wealth and that it was possible to get an accurate valuation. This is the true measure of wealth. The current proposal is flawed on its own and inconsistent among the states. Some have argued that enslaved people consume the resources meant for free citizens, so they should be taxed; horses also consume resources meant for free citizens, so they should be taxed too. It has also been pointed out that when states include enslaved people in their tax calculations, they're doing the same as other states that include enslaved people in their individual tax estimates. However, these situations aren't the same. In the Southern colonies, enslaved people are widespread throughout the entire colony, but that's not the case across the entire continent. Regarding Congress's original resolution to base quotas on the number of individuals, that was only temporary and referenced the money previously issued; now we are entering a new agreement and are starting from scratch.
August 1. The question being put, the amendment proposed was rejected by the votes of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, against those of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina. Georgia was divided.
August 1. When the question was raised, the proposed amendment was rejected by the votes from New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, opposed to those from Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina. Georgia was split.
The other article was in these words. ‘Art. XVII. In determining questions, each colony shall have one vote.’
The other article said, ‘Art. XVII. When deciding questions, each colony will have one vote.’
July 30, 31, August 1. Present forty-one members. Mr. Chase observed that this article was the most likely to divide us, of any one proposed in the draught then under consideration: that the larger colonies had threatened they would not confederate at all, if their weight in Congress should not be equal to the numbers of people they added to the confederacy; while the smaller ones declared against a union, if they did not retain an equal vote for the protection of their rights. That it was of the utmost consequence to bring the parties together, as, should we sever from each other, either no foreign power will ally with us at all, or the different states will form different alliances, and thus increase the horrors of those scenes of civil war and bloodshed, which in such a state of separation and independence, would render us a miserable people. That our importance, our interests, our peace required that we should confederate, and that mutual sacrifices should be made to effect a compromise of this difficult question. He was of opinion, the smaller colonies would lose their rights, if they were not in some instances allowed an equal vote; and, therefore, that a discrimination should take place among the questions which would come before Congress. That the smaller states should be secured in all questions concerning life or liberty, and the greater ones, in all respecting property. He therefore proposed, that in votes relating to money, the voice of each colony should be proportioned to the number of its inhabitants.
July 30, 31, August 1. Present forty-one members. Mr. Chase noted that this article was the most likely to create divisions among us, more than any other proposed in the draft we were considering: the larger colonies had threatened they wouldn’t join the confederation at all if their representation in Congress wasn’t equal to the number of people they contributed to the confederacy; meanwhile, the smaller ones insisted on maintaining an equal vote to protect their rights. It was crucial to bring both sides together because if we separated, either no foreign power would ally with us, or the different states would form their own alliances, increasing the horrors of civil war and bloodshed, which would leave us a miserable people. Our significance, our interests, and our peace required us to confederate, and mutual sacrifices needed to be made to compromise this complex issue. He believed that the smaller colonies would lose their rights if they weren’t sometimes granted an equal vote; therefore, there should be distinctions among the issues presented to Congress. The smaller states should be guaranteed a voice in all matters concerning life or liberty, while the larger ones should have a say in issues concerning property. He proposed that for votes relating to money, the voice of each colony should be based on its population.
Dr. Franklin thought, that the votes should be so proportioned in all cases. He took notice that the Delaware counties had bound up their delegates to disagree to this article. He thought it a very extraordinary language to be held by any state, that they would not confederate with us, unless we would let them dispose of our money. Certainly, if we vote equally, we ought to pay equally; but the smaller states will hardly purchase the privilege at this price. That had he lived in a state where the representation, originally equal, had become unequal by time and accident, he might have submitted rather than disturb government: but that we should be very wrong to set out in this practice, when it is in our power to establish what is right. That at the time of the Union between England and Scotland, the latter had made the objection which the smaller states now do; but experience had proved that no unfairness had ever been shown them: that their advocates had prognosticated that it would again happen, as in times of old, that the whale would swallow Jonas, but he thought the prediction reversed in event, and that Jonas had swallowed the whale; for the Scotch had in fact got possession of the government, and gave laws to the English. He reprobated the original agreement of Congress to vote by colonies, and, therefore, was for their voting, in all cases, according to the number of taxables.
Dr. Franklin believed that the votes should be proportioned in all cases. He pointed out that the Delaware counties had instructed their delegates to oppose this proposal. He found it unusual for any state to say they wouldn't join us unless we allowed them to control our finances. Clearly, if we vote equally, we should pay equally; but the smaller states are unlikely to agree to that condition. He reflected that if he had lived in a state where representation had originally been equal but became unequal over time, he might have accepted it rather than disrupt the government. However, it would be very wrong to start this practice when we have the ability to establish what is fair. At the time of the Union between England and Scotland, the Scots raised the same concerns that the smaller states do now; but history has shown that they were not treated unfairly. Their supporters had predicted that it would turn out like it did in the past, with the whale swallowing Jonas, but he believed the outcome was the opposite: Jonas ended up swallowing the whale. In reality, the Scots gained control of the government and made laws for the English. He criticized Congress's original agreement to vote by colonies and was therefore in favor of voting on the basis of the number of taxpayers in all cases.
Dr. Witherspoon opposed every alteration of the article. All men admit that a confederacy is necessary. Should the idea get abroad that there is likely to be no union among us, it will damp the minds of the people, diminish the glory of our struggle, and lessen its importance; because it will open to our view future prospects of war and dissension among ourselves. If an equal vote be refused, the smaller states will become vassals to the larger; and all experience has shown that the vassals and subjects of free states are the most enslaved. He instanced the Helots of Sparta, and the provinces of Rome. He observed that foreign powers, discovering this blemish, would make it a handle for disengaging the smaller states from so unequal a confederacy. That the colonies should in fact be considered as individuals; and that, as such, in all disputes, they should have an equal vote; that they are now collected as individuals making a bargain with each other, and, of course, had a right to vote as individuals. That in the East India Company they voted by persons, and not by their proportion of stock. That the Belgic confederacy voted by provinces. That in questions of war the smaller states were as much interested as the larger, and therefore, should vote equally; and indeed, that the larger states were more likely to bring war on the confederacy, in proportion as their frontier was more extensive. He admitted that equality of representation was an excellent principle, but then it must be of things which are co-ordinate; that is of things similar, and of the same nature: that nothing relating to individuals could ever come before Congress; nothing but what would respect colonies. He distinguished between an incorporating and a federal union. The union of England was an incorporating one; yet Scotland had suffered by that union; for that its inhabitants were drawn from it by the hopes of places and employments; nor was it an instance of equality of representation; because, while Scotland was allowed nearly a thirteenth of representation, they were to pay only one fortieth of the land tax. He expressed his hopes, that in the present enlightened state of men’s minds, we might expect a lasting confederacy, if it was founded on fair principles.
Dr. Witherspoon opposed any changes to the article. Everyone agrees that a confederation is essential. If the idea spreads that we might not have a union, it will discourage the people, diminish the glory of our struggle, and reduce its importance; it would expose us to potential future wars and divisions among ourselves. If smaller states are denied an equal vote, they will become subservient to the larger ones, and history has shown that the subjects of free states are often the most oppressed. He mentioned the Helots of Sparta and the provinces of Rome. He pointed out that foreign powers, seeing this flaw, would use it to encourage the smaller states to break away from such an unequal confederation. He argued that the colonies should be viewed as individuals, and as such, should have an equal vote in all disputes; they are currently united as individuals making agreements with each other and therefore have the right to vote as individuals. He noted that in the East India Company, votes were cast by people rather than by their share of stock. He referenced that the Belgian confederacy voted by provinces. He maintained that in matters of war, the smaller states have as much at stake as the larger ones, so they should have equal voting rights; in fact, larger states are more likely to bring war to the confederacy, based on the size of their borders. He acknowledged that equal representation is a great principle, but it must apply to comparable entities; that is, it must involve similar things of the same nature: nothing regarding individuals could ever come before Congress; only matters concerning colonies. He made a distinction between an incorporating union and a federal union. The union of England was an incorporating one; yet Scotland had suffered from that union, as its people were drawn away by the promise of positions and jobs; this was not an example of equal representation, because while Scotland had almost one-thirteenth of representation, it only paid one-fortieth of the land tax. He expressed hope that in the current enlightened state of people's minds, we might anticipate a lasting confederation if it is based on fair principles.
John Adams advocated the voting in proportion to numbers. He said, that we stand here as the representatives of the people; that in some states the people are many, in others they are few; that therefore their vote here should be proportioned to the numbers from whom it comes. Reason, justice, and equity never had weight enough on the face of the earth, to govern the councils of men. It is interest alone which does it, and it is interest alone which can be trusted; that therefore the interests, within doors, should be the mathematical representatives of the interests without doors; that the individuality of the colonies is a mere sound. Does the individuality of a colony increase its wealth or numbers? If it does, pay equally. If it does not add weight in the scale of the confederacy, it cannot add to their rights, nor weigh in argument. A. has £50, B. £500, C. £1000, in partnership. Is it just they should equally dispose of the monies of the partnership? It has been said, we are independent individuals, making a bargain together. The question is not, what we are now, but what we ought to be, when our bargain shall be made. The confederacy is to make us one individual only; it is to form us, like separate parcels of metal, into one common mass. We shall no longer retain our separate individuality, but become a single individual as to all questions submitted to the confederacy. Therefore all those reasons, which prove the justice and expediency of equal representation in other assemblies, hold good here. It has been objected, that a proportional vote will endanger the smaller states. We answer, that an equal vote will endanger the larger. Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, are the three greater colonies. Consider their distance, their difference of produce, of interests, and of manners, and it is apparent they can never have an interest or inclination to combine for the oppression of the smaller; that the smaller will naturally divide on all questions with the larger. Rhode Island, from its relation, similarity, and intercourse, will generally pursue the same objects with Massachusetts; Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland, with Pennsylvania.
John Adams supported voting based on population size. He stated that we are here as the representatives of the people; in some states there are many people, while in others there are few; therefore, their votes should be proportionate to the number of people they represent. Reason, justice, and fairness have never been strong enough to guide men’s decisions. It is self-interest that drives it all, and only self-interest can be relied upon; thus, the interests inside should reflect the interests outside. The individuality of the colonies is just a concept. Does a colony’s individuality increase its wealth or population? If it does, then they should share equally. If it doesn’t add weight to the balance of the confederacy, it can’t add to their rights or hold weight in debates. If A has £50, B has £500, and C has £1000 in a partnership, is it fair for them to have equal say over the partnership money? It’s been said that we are independent individuals making an agreement together. The question is not what we are now, but what we ought to become when our agreement is finalized. The confederacy is meant to unify us into a single entity; it will combine us, like different pieces of metal, into one common mass. We will no longer maintain our separate identities but will become one individual concerning all issues that the confederacy presents. Thus, all the reasons that support the fairness and practicality of equal representation in other assemblies apply here as well. It has been argued that proportional voting will threaten the smaller states. Our response is that equal voting will threaten the larger ones. Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts are the three largest colonies. Considering their distances, differences in production, interests, and cultures, it’s clear they will never have any interest or desire to oppress the smaller ones; the smaller ones will naturally align against the larger ones on many issues. Rhode Island, due to its relationships, similarities, and connections, will usually follow the same objectives as Massachusetts; New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland will align with Pennsylvania.
Dr. Rush took notice, that the decay of the liberties of the Dutch republic proceeded from three causes. 1. The perfect unanimity requisite on all occasions. 2. Their obligation to consult their constituents. 3. Their voting by provinces. This last destroyed the equality of representation, and the liberties of Great Britain also are sinking from the same defect. That a part of our rights is deposited in the hands of our legislatures. There, it was admitted, there should be an equality of representation. Another part of our rights is deposited in the hands of Congress; why is it not equally necessary, there should be an equal representation there? Were it possible to collect the whole body of the people together, they would determine the questions submitted to them by their majority. Why should not the same majority decide, when voting here, by their representatives? The larger colonies are so providentially divided in situation, as to render every fear of their combining visionary. Their interests are different, and their circumstances dissimilar. It is more probable they will become rivals, and leave it in the power of the smaller states to give preponderance to any scale they please. The voting by the number of free inhabitants, will have one excellent effect, that of inducing the colonies to discourage slavery, and to encourage the increase of their free inhabitants.
Dr. Rush noticed that the decline of freedoms in the Dutch republic stemmed from three main issues. 1. The need for complete agreement in all situations. 2. Their duty to consult their constituents. 3. Their voting by provinces. This last point undermined equal representation, and the freedoms of Great Britain are also suffering from the same problem. Part of our rights is held by our legislatures. It was agreed that there should be equal representation there. Another part of our rights is held by Congress; why is it not equally important to have equal representation there? If it were possible to gather everyone together, they would make decisions based on the majority. Why shouldn’t that same majority decide through their representatives when voting? The larger colonies are conveniently situated so that there is little concern about them uniting against others. Their interests vary, and their situations are different. It’s more likely they will become competitors, allowing smaller states to sway any balance as they wish. Voting based on the number of free inhabitants will have one significant benefit: it will motivate the colonies to reduce slavery and promote the growth of their free population.
Mr. Hopkins observed, there were four larger, four smaller, and four middle-sized colonies. That the four largest would contain more than half the inhabitants of the confederating states, and therefore would govern the others as they should please. That history affords no instance of such a thing as equal representation. The Germanic body votes by states. The Helvetic body does the same; and so does the Belgic confederacy. That too little is known of the ancient confederations, to say what was their practice.
Mr. Hopkins noted that there were four large colonies, four small ones, and four medium-sized ones. He pointed out that the four largest would hold more than half the population of the confederated states and would, therefore, control the others however they wanted. He remarked that history shows no example of true equal representation. The Germanic body votes by states, the Helvetic body does the same, as does the Belgic confederacy. There is also too little known about the ancient confederations to determine their practices.
Mr. Wilson thought, that taxation should be in proportion to wealth, but that representation should accord with the number of freemen. That government is a collection or result of the wills of all: that if any government could speak the will of all, it would be perfect; and that, so far as it departs from this, it becomes imperfect. It has been said, that Congress is a representation of states, not of individuals. I say, that the objects of its care are all the individuals of the states. It is strange, that annexing the name of ‘State’ to ten thousand men, should give them an equal right with forty thousand. This must be the effect of magic, not of reason. As to those matters which are referred to Congress, we are not so many states; we are one large state. We lay aside our individuality, whenever we come here. The Germanic body is a burlesque on government: and their practice on any point, is a sufficient authority and proof that it is wrong. The greatest imperfection in the constitution of the Belgic confederacy is their voting by provinces. The interest of the whole is constantly sacrificed to that of the small, states. The history of the war in the reign of Queen Anne, sufficiently proves this. It is asked, shall nine colonies put it into the power of four, to govern them as they please? I invert the question, and ask, shall two millions of people put it into the power of one million, to govern them as they please? It is pretended, too, that the smaller colonies will be in danger from the greater. Speak in honest language and say, the minority will be in danger from the majority. And is there an assembly on earth, where this danger may not be equally pretended? The truth is, that our proceedings will then be consentaneous with the interests of the majority, and so they ought to be. The probability is much greater, that the larger states will disagree, than that they will combine. I defy the wit of man to invent a possible case, or to suggest any one thing on earth, which shall be for the interests of Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, and which will not also be for the interest of the other states.*
Mr. Wilson believed that taxes should be based on wealth, but representation should reflect the number of free people. He argued that government is a collective expression of everyone's will, and if a government could represent everyone’s will, it would be perfect; any deviation from this makes it imperfect. It's been claimed that Congress represents states rather than individuals. I argue that Congress's focus includes all individuals within those states. It's odd that labeling ten thousand people as a 'State' gives them the same rights as forty thousand. This seems like magic, not logic. When it comes to matters decided by Congress, we aren’t just a bunch of states; we are one large state. We set aside our individual identities when we come together. The Germanic model is a mockery of government, and their practices on any matter prove it’s flawed. One major flaw of the Belgic confederacy is that they vote by provinces, which constantly sacrifices the interests of the whole for the small states. The history of the war during Queen Anne's reign demonstrates this well. The question is raised: should nine colonies allow four to govern them as they wish? I turn that around and ask, should two million people give one million the power to govern them as they wish? It's also claimed that smaller colonies are at risk from larger ones. Let’s be straightforward and say that the minority is at risk from the majority. Is there any assembly on earth where this concern can't be voiced? The reality is that our actions will then align with the interests of the majority, and that’s how it should be. It’s far more likely that larger states will disagree than that they will unite. I challenge anyone to find a scenario or suggest anything on earth that would benefit Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts that wouldn’t also benefit the other states.*
* Here end the author's notes on the 'earlier debates on the confederation,' and the manuscript he started in 1821 resumes.
These articles, reported July 12, ‘76, were debated from day to day, and time to time, for two years, were ratified July 9, ‘78, by ten states, by New-Jersey on the 26th of November of the same year, and by Delaware on the 23rd of February following. Maryland alone held off two years more, acceding to them March 1, ‘81, and thus closing the obligation.
These articles, reported on July 12, '76, were debated daily and occasionally for two years, and were ratified on July 9, '78, by ten states, with New Jersey on November 26 of that same year, and Delaware on February 23 of the following year. Maryland was the only state that delayed for another two years before agreeing to them on March 1, '81, thus finalizing the commitment.
Our delegation had been renewed for the ensuing year, commencing August 11; but the new government was now organized, a meeting of the legislature was to be held in October, and I had been elected a member by my county. I knew that our legislation, under the regal government, had many very vicious points which urgently required reformation, and I thought I could be of more use in forwarding that work. I therefore retired from my seat in Congress on the 2nd of September, resigned it, and took my place in the legislature of my state, on the 7th of October.
Our delegation had been renewed for the upcoming year, starting on August 11; however, the new government was now in place, and a meeting of the legislature was scheduled for October. I had been elected as a member by my county. I realized that our laws under the royal government had many serious issues that desperately needed reform, and I believed I could contribute more effectively to that effort. Therefore, I stepped down from my position in Congress on September 2, resigned, and took my seat in the legislature of my state on October 7.
On the 11th, I moved for leave to bring in a bill for the establishment of courts of justice, the organization of which was of importance. I drew the bill; it was approved by the committee, reported and passed, after going through its due course.
On the 11th, I requested permission to introduce a bill to establish courts of justice, as their organization was important. I drafted the bill; it was approved by the committee, reported, and passed after going through the necessary process.
On the 12th, I obtained leave to bring in a bill declaring tenants in tail to hold their lands in fee simple. In the earlier times of the colony, when lands were to be obtained for little or nothing, some provident individuals procured large grants; and, desirous of founding great families for themselves, settled them on their descendants in fee tail. The transmission of this property from generation to generation, in the same name, raised up a distinct set of families, who, being privileged by law in the perpetuation of their wealth, were thus formed into a Patrician order, distinguished by the splendor and luxury of their establishments. From this order, too, the king habitually selected his Counsellors of state; the hope of which distinction devoted the whole corps to the interests and will of the crown. To annul this privilege, and instead of an aristocracy of wealth, of more harm and danger, than benefit, to society, to make an opening for the aristocracy of virtue and talent, which nature has wisely provided for the direction of the interests of society, and scattered with equal hand through all its conditions, was deemed essential to a well ordered republic. To effect it, no violence was necessary, no deprivation of natural right, but rather an enlargement of it by a repeal of the law. For this would authorize the present holder to divide the property among his children equally, as his affections were divided; and would place them, by natural generation, on the level of their fellow citizens. But this repeal was strongly opposed by Mr. Pendleton, who was zealously attached to ancient establishments; and who, taken all in all, was the ablest man in debate I have ever met with. He had not indeed the poetical fancy of Mr. Henry, his sublime imagination, his lofty and overwhelming diction; but he was cool, smooth, and persuasive; his language flowing, chaste, and embellished; his conceptions quick, acute, and full of resource; never vanquished; for if he lost the main battle, he returned upon you, and regained so much of it as to make it a drawn one, by dexterous manoeuvres, skirmishes in detail, and the recovery of small advantages which, little singly, were important all together. You never knew when you were clear of him, but were harassed by his perseverance, until the patience was worn down of all who had less of it than himself. Add to this, that he was one of the most virtuous and benevolent of men, the kindest friend, the most amiable and pleasant of companions, which ensured a favorable reception to whatever came from him. Finding that the general principle of entails could not be maintained, he took his stand on an amendment which he proposed, instead of an absolute abolition, to permit the tenant in tail to convey in fee simple, if he chose it: and he was within a few votes of saving so much of the old law. But the bill passed finally for entire abolition.
On the 12th, I got permission to introduce a bill stating that tenants in tail could hold their lands in fee simple. In the early days of the colony, when land was easy to obtain, some forward-thinking people secured large grants and, wanting to establish prominent families for themselves, settled these lands on their descendants in fee tail. This transfer of property from generation to generation under the same name created a distinct class of families who, privileged by law to maintain their wealth, formed a noble class known for the extravagance of their lifestyles. From this group, the king frequently chose his state advisors; the aspiration for such recognition led them to dedicate themselves entirely to the interests and will of the crown. To eliminate this privilege, and instead of an aristocracy based on wealth—which was more harmful than beneficial to society—to create a path for an aristocracy based on virtue and talent, which nature wisely distributes across all social classes, was considered essential for a well-ordered republic. Achieving this required no violence or deprivation of natural rights, but rather an expansion of rights through the repeal of the law. This repeal would allow the current holder to divide the property evenly among their children, reflecting how their affections were divided, and would place them, by natural descent, on equal footing with their fellow citizens. However, this repeal faced strong opposition from Mr. Pendleton, who was passionately committed to traditional systems; he was, overall, the most skilled debater I’ve ever encountered. While he didn’t possess the poetic flair of Mr. Henry, with his grand imagination and powerful rhetoric, Pendleton was cool, smooth, and persuasive; his language was fluid, elegant, and polished; his ideas were quick, sharp, and resourceful; he was never truly defeated, as even if he lost the main argument, he would regroup and recover enough to make it a draw through clever tactics, minor skirmishes, and regaining small advantages that, while insignificant on their own, were collectively important. You never knew when he would give up, as his persistence wore down the patience of those less resilient than he was. Additionally, he was one of the most virtuous and kind-hearted individuals, the best friend and most pleasant companion, which ensured a warm reception for everything he presented. When he realized that the overarching principle of entails couldn’t be sustained, he proposed an amendment to allow the tenant in tail to convey in fee simple if they chose, and he was just a few votes short of preserving a portion of the old law. But ultimately, the bill passed with complete abolition.
In that one of the bills for organizing our judiciary system, which proposed a court of Chancery, I had provided for a trial by jury of all matters of fact, in that as well as in the courts of law. He defeated it by the introduction of four words only, ‘if either party choose?’ The consequence has been, that as no suitor will say to his judge, ‘Sir, I distrust you, give me a jury,’ juries are rarely, I might say perhaps never, seen in that court, but when called for by the Chancellor of his own accord.
In one of the bills designed to set up our judicial system, which included a proposal for a Chancery court, I included a provision for a jury trial for all factual matters, just like in the courts of law. He shot it down by adding just four words: ‘if either party choose?’ As a result, since no one would say to the judge, ‘Sir, I don’t trust you, let me have a jury,’ juries are hardly ever, if ever, seen in that court unless the Chancellor requests one himself.
The first establishment in Virginia, which became permanent, was made in 1607. I have found no mention of negroes in the colony until about 1650. The first brought here as slaves were by a Dutch ship; after which the English commenced the trade, and continued it until the revolutionary war. That suspended, ipso facto, their further importation for the present, and the business of the war pressing constantly on the legislature, this subject was not acted on finally until the year ‘78, when I brought in a bill to prevent their further importation. This passed without opposition, and stopped the increase of the evil by importation, leaving to future efforts its final eradication.
The first permanent settlement in Virginia was established in 1607. I haven’t found any references to Black people in the colony until around 1650. The first ones brought here as slaves came on a Dutch ship; after that, the English started the trade and continued it until the Revolutionary War. Once that war began, ipso facto, their further importation was halted for the time being, and the ongoing demands of the war occupied the legislature, so this issue wasn’t addressed definitively until 1778. At that point, I introduced a bill to stop their further importation. This was passed without opposition, which halted the growth of the problem through new imports, leaving future efforts for its complete elimination.
The first settlers of this colony were Englishmen, loyal subjects to their king and church; and the grant to Sir Walter Raleigh contained an express proviso, that their laws should not be against the true Christian faith, now professed in the church of England.’ As soon as the state of the colony admitted, it was divided into parishes, in each of which was established a minister of the Anglican church, endowed with a fixed salary, in tobacco, a glebe house and land, with the other necessary appendages. To meet these expenses, all the inhabitants of the parishes were assessed, whether they were or not members of the established church. Towards Quakers, who came here, they were most cruelly intolerant, driving them from the colony by the severest penalties. In process of time, however, other sectarisms were introduced, chiefly of the Presbyterian family; and the established clergy, secure for life in their glebes and salaries, adding to these, generally, the emoluments of a classical school, found employment enough in their farms and school-rooms, for the rest of the week, and devoted Sunday only to the edification of their flock, by service, and a sermon at their parish church. Their other pastoral functions were little attended to. Against this inactivity, the zeal and industry of sectarian preachers had an open and undisputed field; and by the time of the revolution, a majority of the inhabitants had become dissenters from the established church, but were still obliged to pay contributions to support the pastors of the minority. This unrighteous compulsion, to maintain teachers of what they deemed religious errors, was grievously felt during the regal government, and without a hope of relief. But the first republican legislature, which met in ‘76, was crowded with petitions to abolish, this spiritual tyranny. These brought on the severest contests in which I have ever been engaged. Our great opponents were Mr. Pendleton and Robert Carter Nicholas; honest men, but zealous churchmen. The petitions were referred to the committee of the whole House on the state of the country; and, after desperate contests in that committee, almost daily, from the 11th of October to the 5th of December, we prevailed so far only, as to repeal the laws, which rendered criminal the maintenance of any religious opinions, the forbearance of repairing to church, or the exercise of any mode of worship: and further, to exempt dissenters from contributions to the support of the established church; and to suspend, only until the next session, levies on the members of the church for the salaries of their own incumbents. For although the majority of our citizens were dissenters, as has been observed, a majority of the legislature were churchmen. Among these, however, were some reasonable and liberal men, who enabled us, on some points, to obtain feeble majorities. But our opponents carried, in the general resolutions of the committee of November 19, a declaration, that religious assemblies ought to be regulated, and that provision ought to be made for continuing the succession of the clergy, and superintending their conduct. And in the bill now passed, was inserted an express reservation of the question, Whether a general assessment should not be established by law, on every one, to the support of the pastor of his choice; or whether all should be left to voluntary contributions: and on this question, debated at every session from ‘76 to ‘79 (some of our dissenting allies, having now secured their particular object, going over to the advocates of a general assessment), we could only obtain a suspension from session to session until ‘79, when the question against a general assessment was finally carried, and the establishment of the Anglican church entirely put down. In justice to the two honest but zealous opponents, who have been named, I must add, that although, from their natural temperaments, they were more disposed generally to acquiesce in things as they are, than to risk innovations; yet, whenever the public will had once decided, none were more faithful or exact in their obedience to it.
The first settlers of this colony were Englishmen, loyal subjects to their king and church; and the grant to Sir Walter Raleigh included a clear condition that their laws shouldn’t go against the true Christian faith, as practiced in the Church of England. Once the colony was stable enough, it was divided into parishes, each having a minister of the Anglican church, who received a fixed salary in tobacco, a glebe house, and land, along with necessary provisions. To cover these costs, all residents of the parishes were taxed, regardless of their church membership. They were particularly harsh towards Quakers, driving them out of the colony with severe penalties. Over time, however, other denominations, mainly from the Presbyterian tradition, began to settle in. The established clergy, secure in their churches and salaries for life, usually also took on roles as teachers at local schools, dedicating most of their week to farming and only Sunday to leading services and preaching to their congregations. Their other pastoral duties received little attention. This lack of activity gave room for the enthusiasm and hard work of other preachers, and by the time of the revolution, most residents had become dissenters from the established church, yet they still had to financially support the ministers of the minority. This unfair requirement to support those they considered to propagate false religious beliefs was keenly felt during the royal government, with no hope for relief. However, the first republican legislature that convened in '76 was flooded with petitions to end this spiritual oppression. These resulted in fierce debates, where our main opponents were Mr. Pendleton and Robert Carter Nicholas; honest men, but strong adherents of the church. The petitions were sent to the committee of the whole House on the state of the country, and after intense discussions in that committee nearly every day from October 11 to December 5, we succeeded only in repealing the laws that made it illegal to hold different religious beliefs, to avoid going to church, or to practice any form of worship; we also managed to exempt dissenters from supporting the established church financially and to postpone tax levies on church members for their own ministers’ salaries. Although most citizens were dissenters, as noted, the majority in the legislature were church members. Among them were some reasonable and open-minded people who helped us secure small majorities on some issues. However, our opponents succeeded in the committee’s general resolutions on November 19, declaring that religious gatherings should be regulated and that there should be provisions for the continued succession of clergy and oversight of their actions. The bill that passed included a clear question about whether a general tax should be implemented for everyone to support the pastor of their choice or if it should rely on voluntary donations. This question was debated at every session from '76 to '79 (with some dissenters, having achieved their specific goal, switching to support a general tax), and we could only achieve temporary suspensions until '79, when the case against a general tax was finally decided, leading to the complete dissolution of the Anglican church’s establishment. In fairness to the two honest but committed opponents mentioned, I must add that while they were generally more inclined to accept things as they were rather than risk changes, whenever the public will was clear, no one was more faithful or diligent in obeying it.
The seat of our government had been originally fixed in the peninsula of Jamestown, the first settlement of the colonists; and had been afterwards removed a few miles inland to Williamsburg. But this was at a time when our settlements had not extended beyond the tide waters. Now they had crossed the Allegany; and the centre of population was very far removed from what it had been. Yet Williamsburg was still the depository of our archives, the habitual residence of the Governor, and many other of the public functionaries, the established place for the sessions of the legislature, and the magazine of our military stores: and its situation was so exposed, that it might be taken at any time in war, and, at this time particularly, an enemy might in the night run up either of the rivers, between which it lies, land a force above, and take possession of the place, without the possibility of saving either persons or things. I had proposed its removal so early as October, ‘76; but it did not prevail until the session of May, ‘79.
The seat of our government was originally established in Jamestown, the first settlement of the colonists, and later moved a few miles inland to Williamsburg. This was when our settlements hadn't expanded beyond the tidewaters. Now they had crossed the Allegheny, and the center of population was much farther away than before. However, Williamsburg was still where our archives were kept, the usual residence of the Governor, and many other public officials. It was the designated location for legislative sessions and the storage for our military supplies. Its location was so vulnerable that it could be captured at any time during a war, and at that moment, an enemy could easily come up either of the rivers that bordered it, land troops upriver, and seize the town without the chance to save either people or property. I had suggested moving it as early as October '76; but it didn’t happen until the session in May '79.
Early in the session of May, ‘79, I prepared, and obtained leave to bring in a bill, declaring who should be deemed citizens, asserting the natural right of expatriation, and prescribing the mode of exercising it. This, when I withdrew from the house on the 1st of June following, I left in the hands of George Mason, and it was passed on the 26th of that month.
Early in May of '79, I prepared and got permission to introduce a bill that defined who should be considered citizens, affirmed the natural right to expatriate, and outlined how to exercise this right. When I left the house on June 1st, I handed it over to George Mason, and it was passed on the 26th of that month.
In giving this account of the laws, of which I was myself the mover and draughtsman, I by no means mean to claim to myself the merit of obtaining their passage. I had many occasional and strenuous coadjutors in debate, and one, most steadfast, able, and zealous; who was himself a host. This was George Mason, a man of the first order of wisdom among those who acted on the theatre of the revolution, of expansive mind, profound judgment, cogent in argument, learned in the lore of our former constitution, and earnest for the republican change, on democratic principles. His elocution was neither flowing nor smooth; but his language was strong, his manner most impressive, and strengthened by a dash of biting cynicism, when provocation made it seasonable.
In sharing this account of the laws that I initiated and drafted, I don't intend to take sole credit for getting them passed. I had many dedicated and passionate supporters during the debates, particularly one steadfast, capable, and enthusiastic ally who was a force in his own right. This was George Mason, a man of exceptional wisdom among those involved in the revolution, with a broad mind, deep judgment, compelling arguments, knowledgeable about our previous constitution, and committed to democratic principles for a republican shift. His speech wasn't fluid or polished, but his words were powerful, his presence was very impactful, and he added a touch of sharp cynicism when needed.
Mr. Wythe, while speaker in the two sessions of 1777, between his return from Congress and his appointment to the Chancery, was an able and constant associate in whatever was before a committee of the whole. His pure integrity, judgment, and reasoning powers gave him great weight. Of him, see more in some notes inclosed in my letter of August 31, 1821, to Mr. John Saunderson. [See Appendix, note A.]
Mr. Wythe, while serving as speaker during the two sessions of 1777, between his return from Congress and his appointment to the Chancery, was a skilled and dedicated member of the committee of the whole. His strong integrity, sound judgment, and analytical skills gave him significant influence. For more about him, refer to some notes included in my letter dated August 31, 1821, to Mr. John Saunderson. [See Appendix, note A.]
Mr. Madison came into the House in 1776, a new member, and young; which circumstances, concurring with his extreme modesty, prevented his venturing himself in debate before his removal to the Council of State, in November, ‘77. From thence he went to Congress, then consisting of few members. Trained in these successive schools, he acquired a habit of self-possession, which placed at ready command the rich resources of his luminous and discriminating mind, and of his extensive information, and rendered him the first of every assembly afterwards, of which he became a member. Never wandering from his subject into vain declamation, but pursuing it closely, in language pure, classical, and copious, soothing always the feelings of his adversaries by civilities and softness of expression, he rose to the eminent station which he held in the great National Convention of 1787; and in that of Virginia, which followed, he sustained the new constitution in all its parts, bearing off the palm against the logic of George Mason, and the fervid declamation of Mr. Henry. With these consummate powers, was united a pure and spotless virtue, which no calumny has ever attempted to sully. Of the powers and polish of his pen, and of the wisdom of his administration in the highest office of the nation, I need say nothing. They have spoken, and will for ever speak for themselves.
Mr. Madison joined the House in 1776 as a new and young member. His extreme modesty, combined with these circumstances, kept him from participating in debates until he moved to the Council of State in November '77. From there, he went to Congress, which had only a few members at that time. Through these different experiences, he developed a calm confidence that allowed him to easily access the rich resources of his bright and discerning mind, as well as his extensive knowledge, making him the leading member of every assembly he later joined. He never strayed from his topic into pointless speeches; instead, he stayed focused, using clear, classical, and abundant language, always making sure to treat his opponents with civility and gentle expression. This approach helped him achieve the prominent position he held in the great National Convention of 1787. In the subsequent Virginia Convention, he supported the new constitution in all its aspects, successfully countering the arguments of George Mason and the passionate speeches of Mr. Henry. Along with these exceptional abilities, he possessed a pure and unblemished character that no slanderous attack has ever managed to tarnish. There's nothing more to say about the skill and refinement of his writing or the wisdom he showed while serving in the nation’s highest office. They have spoken for themselves and will continue to do so forever.
So far we were proceeding in the details of reformation only; selecting points of legislation, prominent in character and principle, urgent, and indicative of the strength of the general pulse of reformation. When I left Congress in ‘76, it was in the persuasion, that our whole code must be reviewed, adapted to our republican form of government, and, now that we had no negatives of Councils, Governors, and Kings to restrain us from doing right, that it should be corrected, in all its parts, with a single eye to reason, and the good of those for whose government it was framed. Early, therefore, in the session of ‘76, to which I returned, I moved and presented a bill for the revision of the laws; which was passed on the 24th of October, and on the 5th of November, Mr. Pendleton, Mr. Wythe, George Mason, Thomas L. Lee, and myself, were appointed a committee to execute the work. We agreed to meet at Fredericksburg to settle the plan of operation, and to distribute the work. We met there accordingly, on the 13th of January, 1777. The first question was, whether we should propose to abolish the whole existing system of laws, and prepare a new and complete Institute, or preserve the general system, and only modify it to the present state of things. Mr. Pendleton, contrary to his usual disposition in favor of ancient things, was for the former proposition, in which he was joined by Mr. Lee. To this it was objected, that to abrogate our whole system would be a bold measure, and probably far beyond the views of the legislature; that they had been in the practice of revising, from time to time, the laws of the colony, omitting the expired, the repealed, and the obsolete, amending only those retained, and probably meant we should now do the same, only including the British statutes as well as our own: that to compose a new Institute, like those of Justinian and Bracton, or that of Blackstone, which was the model proposed by Mr. Pendleton, would be an arduous undertaking, of vast research, of great consideration and judgment; and when reduced to a text, every word of that text, from the imperfection of human language, and its incompetence to express distinctly every shade of idea, would become a subject of question and chicanery, until settled by repeated adjudications; that this would involve us for ages in litigation, and render property uncertain, until, like the statutes of old, every word had been tried and settled by numerous decisions, and by new volumes of reports and commentaries; and that no one of us, probably, would undertake such a work, which, to be systematical, must be the work of one hand. This last was the opinion of Mr. Wythe, Mr. Mason, and myself. When we proceeded to the distribution of the work, Mr. Mason excused himself, as, being no lawyer, he felt himself unqualified for the work, and he resigned soon after. Mr. Lee excused himself on the same ground, and died indeed in a short time. The other two gentlemen, therefore, and myself, divided the work among us. The common law and statutes to the 4 James I. (when our separate legislature was established) were assigned to me; the British statutes, from that period to the present day, to Mr. Wythe; and the Virginia laws to Mr. Pendleton. As the law of Descents, and the Criminal law, fell of course within my portion, I wished the committee to settle the leading principles of these, as a guide for me in framing them; and, with respect to the first, I proposed to abolish the law of primogeniture, and to make real estate descendible in parcenery to the next of kin, as personal property is, by the statute of distribution. Mr. Pendleton wished to preserve the right of primogeniture; but seeing at once that that could not prevail, he proposed we should adopt the Hebrew principle, and give a double portion to the elder son. I observed, that if the elder son could eat twice as much, or do double work, it might be a natural evidence of his right to a double portion; but being on a par, in his powers and wants, with his brothers and sisters, he should be on a par also in the partition of the patrimony; and such was the decision of the other members.
So far, we’ve been focusing on the details of reform, selecting key points of legislation that are significant and urgent, and reflect the overall momentum for change. When I left Congress in '76, I believed that we needed to review our entire code, making it fit for our republican form of government. Now that we were free from the limitations imposed by councils, governors, and kings, it was time to correct everything, guided solely by reason and the well-being of those it was meant to govern. Early in the '76 session, which I returned to, I proposed a bill to revise the laws; it passed on October 24th, and on November 5th, Mr. Pendleton, Mr. Wythe, George Mason, Thomas L. Lee, and I were appointed to a committee to carry out the task. We agreed to meet in Fredericksburg to plan our approach and divide the work. We met there on January 13, 1777. The first question was whether we should suggest abolishing the entire current legal system and creating a new complete code, or just modify the existing system to better fit the present situation. Mr. Pendleton, who usually favored tradition, supported the former option, which Mr. Lee also backed. It was pointed out that completely abolishing our system would be a bold move and likely beyond what the legislature intended. They had a history of revising the colony's laws periodically, removing expired, repealed, and obsolete laws, only amending those that were still relevant, and they probably meant to do the same now, including both British and our own statutes. Creating a new code, like those of Justinian, Bracton, or Blackstone, which was what Mr. Pendleton suggested, would be a massive effort requiring extensive research, careful consideration, and judgment. Once it was reduced to a text, every word, due to the limitations of human language and its inability to clearly express every nuance, would be subject to debate and legal arguments until clarified through repeated court rulings. This could lead to prolonged litigation and uncertainty over property ownership until, like ancient statutes, every word had been tested and established through numerous decisions and new volumes of reports and commentary. Furthermore, it was unlikely any of us would take on such a task, as it would need to be managed by one person for consistency. This was the view of Mr. Wythe, Mr. Mason, and me. When we divided the work, Mr. Mason excused himself, feeling unqualified because he wasn’t a lawyer, and he resigned shortly afterward. Mr. Lee also stepped back for the same reason and unfortunately passed away soon after. Thus, the other two gentlemen and I divided the responsibilities. The common law and statutes up to the reign of James I (when our separate legislature was established) were assigned to me; the British statutes from that time to the present were given to Mr. Wythe; and Mr. Pendleton received the Virginia laws. Since the law of descents and criminal law fell under my portion, I wanted the committee to establish the main principles as a guide for me in drafting them. Regarding the law of descents, I proposed to abolish primogeniture and allow real estate to be inherited equally among the next of kin, similar to how personal property is handled under the statute of distribution. Mr. Pendleton preferred to maintain the right of primogeniture but, upon realizing that wouldn't hold up, suggested we adopt the Hebrew principle of giving a double portion to the eldest son. I argued that if the eldest son could truly eat twice as much or do double the work, it might justify a double portion; however, since he was equal in abilities and needs to his siblings, he should be treated equally when it came to dividing the inheritance. The rest of the members agreed with this decision.
On the subject of the Criminal law, all were agreed, that the punishment of death should be abolished, except for treason and murder; and that, for other felonies, should be substituted hard labor in the public works, and, in some cases, the Lex talionis. How this last revolting principle came to obtain our approbation, I do not remember. There remained, indeed, in our laws, a vestige of it in a single case of a slave; it was the English law, in the time of the Anglo-Saxons, copied probably from the Hebrew law of an ‘eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,’ and it was the law of several ancient people; but the modern mind had left it far in the rear of its advances. These points, however, being settled, we repaired to our respective homes for the preparation of the work.
On the topic of criminal law, everyone agreed that the death penalty should be abolished, except for treason and murder; for other crimes, hard labor on public works should be the replacement, and in some cases, the Lex talionis. I can’t recall how this last disturbing principle gained our approval. There was still a remnant of it in our laws for one specific case involving a slave; it was the English law from the time of the Anglo-Saxons, likely borrowed from the Hebrew law of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," and it was also the law of several ancient cultures; however, the modern mindset had moved far beyond it. With these matters settled, we returned to our homes to prepare for the work.
In the execution of my part, I thought it material not to vary the diction of the ancient statutes by modernizing it, nor to give rise to new questions by new expressions. The text of these statutes had been so fully explained and defined, by numerous adjudications, as scarcely ever now to produce a question in our courts. I thought it would be useful, also, in all new draughts, to reform the style of the later British statutes, and of our own acts of Assembly; which, from their verbosity, their endless tautologies, their involutions of case within case, and parenthesis within parenthesis, and their multiplied efforts at certainty, by saids and afore-saids, by ors and by ands, to make them more plain, are really rendered more perplexed and incomprehensible, not only to common readers, but to the lawyers themselves. We were employed in this work from that time to February, 1779, when we met at Williamsburg; that is to say, Mr. Pendleton, Mr. Wythe, and myself; and meeting day by day, we examined critically our several parts, sentence by sentence, scrutinizing and amending, until we had agreed on the whole. We then returned home, had fair copies made of our several parts, which were reported to the General Assembly, June 18, 1779, by Mr. Wythe and myself, Mr. Pendleton’s residence being distant, and he having authorized us by letter to declare his approbation. We had, in this work, brought so much of the Common law as it was thought necessary to alter, all the British statutes from Magna Charta to the present day, and all the laws of Virginia, from the establishment of our legislature in the 4th Jac. I. to the present time, which we thought should be retained, within the compass of one hundred and twenty-six bills, making a printed folio of ninety pages only. Some bills were taken out, occasionally, from time to time, and passed; but the main body of the work was not entered on by the legislature, until after the general peace, in 1785, when, by the unwearied exertions of Mr. Madison, in opposition to the endless quibbles, chicaneries, perversions, vexations, and delays of lawyers and demi-lawyers, most of the bills were passed by the legislature, with little alteration.
In carrying out my part, I felt it was important not to change the wording of the old laws by modernizing it, nor to create new questions with new phrases. The text of these laws had been explained and defined so thoroughly by numerous court rulings that it rarely produced questions in our courts anymore. I also thought it would be helpful, in all our new drafts, to improve the style of the later British laws, as well as our own Assembly acts; their wordiness, endless repetitions, complicated case structures, and excessive attempts at clarity with “said” and “afore-said,” “or” and “and,” made them more confusing and hard to understand, not just for the general public but for lawyers as well. We worked on this from then until February 1779, when we met in Williamsburg; that is, Mr. Pendleton, Mr. Wythe, and I. Meeting daily, we critically examined each section, sentence by sentence, scrutinizing and revising until we agreed on everything. We then returned home and had clean copies made of our respective parts, which were presented to the General Assembly on June 18, 1779, by Mr. Wythe and me, since Mr. Pendleton lived far away and had authorized us via letter to express his approval. In this effort, we included as much of the common law as we thought necessary to change, all British laws from Magna Carta to the present day, and all Virginia laws from the establishment of our legislature in the 4th Jac. I. to now, which we believed should be retained, all within one hundred and twenty-six bills, resulting in a printed folio of just ninety pages. Some bills were occasionally removed and passed, but the main body of the work wasn’t taken up by the legislature until after the general peace in 1785, when, thanks to Mr. Madison’s tireless efforts against the endless arguments, tricks, distortions, frustrations, and delays from lawyers and semi-lawyers, most of the bills were passed by the legislature with little change.
The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason and right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved, that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the words ‘Jesus Christ,’ so that it should read, ‘a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;’ the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.
The bill to establish religious freedom, which had previously been partially enacted, was drafted with a broad interpretation of reason and rights. It still faced pushback; however, after some changes to the preamble, it was ultimately approved. A notable point demonstrated that its aim to protect opinions was intended to be universal. When the preamble stated that coercion goes against the intentions of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was suggested to add the words 'Jesus Christ,' making it read, 'a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion.' This change was rejected by a significant majority, proving that they intended to include under its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Muslim, the Hindu, and nonbelievers of every kind.
Beccaria, and other writers on crimes and punishments, had satisfied the reasonable world of the unrightfulness and inefficacy of the punishment of crimes by death; and hard labor on roads, canals, and other public works, had been suggested as a proper substitute. The Revisors had adopted these opinions; but the general idea of our country had not yet advanced to that point. The bill, therefore, for proportioning crimes and punishments, was lost in the House of Delegates by a majority of a single vote. I learned afterwards, that the substitute of hard labor in public, was tried (I believe it was in Pennsylvania) without success. Exhibited as a public spectacle, with shaved heads, and mean clothing, working on the high roads, produced in the criminals such a prostration of character, such an abandonment of self-respect, as, instead of reforming, plunged them into the most desperate and hardened depravity of morals and character. To pursue the subject of this law.—I was written to in 1785 (being then in Paris) by Directors appointed to superintend the building of a Capitol in Richmond, to advise them as to a plan, and to add to it one of a Prison. Thinking it a favorable opportunity of introducing into the state an example of architecture, in the classic style of antiquity, and the Maison Quarrée of Nismes, an ancient Roman temple, being considered as the most perfect model existing of what may be called Cubic architecture, I applied to M. Clerissault, who had published drawings of the antiquities of Nismes, to have me a model of the building made in stucco, only changing the order from Corinthian to Ionic, on account of the difficulty of the Corinthian capitals. I yielded, with reluctance, to the taste of Clerissault, in his preference of the modern capital of Scamozzi to the more noble capital of antiquity. This was executed by the artist whom Choiseul Gouffier had carried with him to Constantinople, and employed, while Ambassador there, in making those beautiful models of the remains of Grecian architecture, which are to be seen at Paris. To adapt the exterior to our use, I drew a plan for the interior, with the apartments necessary for legislative, executive, and judiciary purposes; and accommodated in their size and distribution to the form and dimensions of the building. These were forwarded to the Directors, in 1786, and were carried into execution, with some variations, not for the better, the most important of which, however, admit of future correction. With respect to the plan of a Prison, requested at the same time, I had heard of a benevolent society, in England, which had been indulged by the government, in an experiment of the effect of labor, in solitary confinement, on some of their criminals; which experiment had succeeded beyond expectation. The same idea had been suggested in France, and an Architect of Lyons had proposed a plan of a well contrived edifice, on the principle of solitary confinement. I procured a copy, and as it was too large for our purposes, I drew one on a scale less extensive, but susceptible of additions as they should be wanting. This I sent to the Directors, instead of a plan of a common prison, in the hope that it would suggest the idea of labor in solitary confinement, instead of that on the public works, which we had adopted in our Revised Code. Its principle, accordingly, but not its exact form, was adopted by Latrobe in carrying the plan into execution, by the erection of what is now called the Penitentiary, built under his direction. In the mean while, the public opinion was ripening, by time, by reflection, and by the example of Pennsylvania, where labor on the highways had been tried, without approbation, from 1786 to ‘89, and had been followed by their Penitentiary system on the principle of confinement and labor, which was proceeding auspiciously. In 1796, our legislature resumed the subject, and passed the law for amending the Penal laws of the commonwealth. They adopted solitary, instead of public, labor, established a gradation in the duration of the confinement, approximated the style of the law more to the modern usage, and, instead of the settled distinctions of murder and manslaughter, preserved in my bill, they introduced the new terms of murder in the first and second degree. Whether these have produced more or fewer questions of definition, I am not sufficiently informed of our judiciary transactions, to say. I will here, however, insert the text of my bill, with the notes I made in the course of my researches into the subject. [See Appendix, Note E.]
Beccaria and other writers on crimes and punishments had convinced reasonable people that the death penalty was unjust and ineffective; hard labor on roads, canals, and other public works was suggested as a suitable alternative. The Revisors had accepted these views, but the general mindset of our country had not progressed that far yet. As a result, the bill to align crimes and punishments failed in the House of Delegates by a single vote. I later found out that the alternative of hard labor in public was tested (I believe it was in Pennsylvania) without success. Displayed as a public spectacle, with shaved heads and shabby clothing, working on the highways led to a complete loss of character and self-respect in the criminals, which instead of reforming them, pushed them into deeper moral depravity. To continue discussing this law—In 1785, while I was in Paris, I was contacted by Directors tasked with overseeing the construction of a Capitol in Richmond, asking for my advice on a plan, which included a prison. Thinking it was a good chance to introduce an example of classical architecture into the state, and considering the Maison Quarrée of Nîmes, an ancient Roman temple regarded as the perfect model of cubic architecture, I reached out to M. Clerissault, who had published drawings of Nîmes’ antiquities, to create a stucco model of the building, only changing the style from Corinthian to Ionic due to the complexity of the Corinthian capitals. I reluctantly agreed to Clerissault's preference for the modern Scamozzi capital over the more distinguished capital of antiquity. This was produced by the artist whom Choiseul Gouffier took to Constantinople, and he had employed him there to create those beautiful models of Greek architecture now seen in Paris. To adapt the exterior for our needs, I drafted an interior plan with the necessary spaces for legislative, executive, and judicial functions, tailored in size and arrangement to fit the building's shape and dimensions. These plans were sent to the Directors in 1786 and were carried out with some changes, albeit not improved, although the most significant changes could still be corrected in the future. Regarding the plan for a prison that was also requested, I had learned of a charitable organization in England that had been permitted by the government to experiment with the effects of solitary confinement on some of their criminals, which had succeeded beyond expectations. This idea was suggested in France as well, and an architect from Lyons had proposed a well-designed building based on solitary confinement principles. I obtained a copy of this plan, but since it was too large for our needs, I created a smaller version that could still be expanded as required. I sent this to the Directors instead of a design for a conventional prison, hoping it would promote the idea of labor in solitary confinement, rather than public works, which we had incorporated in our Revised Code. Its principle, though not its exact design, was used by Latrobe in realizing the plan by building what is now known as the Penitentiary under his direction. Meanwhile, public opinion was evolving over time, through reflection, and by the example of Pennsylvania, where labor on highways had been unsuccessfully attempted from 1786 to 1789, followed by their Penitentiary system based on confinement and labor, which was progressing positively. In 1796, our legislature revisited the topic and passed a law to amend the Commonwealth's penal laws. They chose solitary labor instead of public labor, established a range for the duration of confinement, made the law more contemporary in style, and rather than keeping the established distinctions between murder and manslaughter, as I had originally proposed, they introduced new terms of first-degree and second-degree murder. I do not know enough about our judicial proceedings to say whether these changes have led to more or fewer definitional issues. However, I will include the text of my bill here, along with the notes I made during my research on the subject. [See Appendix, Note E.]
The acts of Assembly concerning the College of William and Mary, were properly within Mr. Pendleton’s portion of the work; but these related chiefly to its revenue, while its constitution, organization, and scope of science, were derived from its charter. We thought that on this subject, a systematical plan of general education should be proposed, and I was requested to undertake it. I accordingly prepared three bills for the Revisal, proposing three distinct grades of education, reaching all classes. 1st. Elementary schools, for all children generally, rich and poor. 2nd. Colleges, for a middle degree of instruction, calculated for the common purposes of life, and such as would be desirable for all who were in easy circumstances. And, 3rd., an ultimate grade for teaching the sciences generally, and in their highest degree. The first bill proposed to lay off every county into Hundreds, or Wards, of a proper size and population for a school, in which reading, writing, and common arithmetic should be taught; and that the whole state should be divided into twenty-four districts, in each of which should be a school for classical learning, grammar, geography, and the higher branches of numerical arithmetic. The second bill proposed to amend the constitution of William and Mary college, to enlarge its sphere of science, and to make it in fact a University. The third was for the establishment of a library. These bills were not acted on until the same year, ‘96, and then only so much of the first as provided for elementary schools. The College of William and Mary was an establishment purely of the Church of England; the Visitors were required to be all of that Church; the Professors to subscribe its Thirty-nine Articles; its Students to learn its Catechism; and one of its fundamental objects was declared to be, to raise up Ministers for that Church. The religious jealousies, therefore, of all the dissenters, took alarm lest this might give an ascendancy to the Anglican sect, and refused acting on that bill. Its local eccentricity, too, and unhealthy autumnal climate, lessened the general inclination towards it. And in the Elementary bill, they inserted a provision which completely defeated it; for they left it to the court of each county to determine for itself, when this act should be carried into execution, within their county. One provision of the bill was, that the expenses of these schools should be borne by the inhabitants of the county, every one in proportion to his general tax rate. This would throw on wealth the education of the poor; and the justices, being generally of the more wealthy class, were unwilling to incur that burthen, and I believe it was not suffered to commence in a single county. I shall recur again to this subject, towards the close of my story, if I should have life and resolution enough to reach that term; for I am already tired of talking about myself.
The acts of Assembly regarding the College of William and Mary fell under Mr. Pendleton’s jurisdiction, but they mainly concerned its revenue, while its structure, organization, and academic scope came from its charter. We believed that a systematic plan for general education should be proposed, and I was asked to take it on. I prepared three bills for the Revisal, each proposing a different level of education for all groups. First, elementary schools for all children, both rich and poor. Second, colleges offering a moderate level of instruction suitable for common life goals, aimed at those in comfortable circumstances. Third, an advanced level for teaching various sciences comprehensively. The first bill suggested dividing every county into Hundreds or Wards of an appropriate size and population for a school, where reading, writing, and basic arithmetic would be taught. It also proposed dividing the state into twenty-four districts, each with a school for classical studies, grammar, geography, and advanced arithmetic. The second bill aimed to amend the constitution of William and Mary College, expanding its academic focus and effectively turning it into a university. The third bill was for setting up a library. These bills were not addressed until the same year, ‘96, and only part of the first, which addressed elementary schools, was acted upon. The College of William and Mary was entirely a Church of England establishment; the Visitors were required to be members of that Church, Professors had to subscribe to its Thirty-nine Articles, and Students were expected to learn its Catechism. One of its fundamental goals was to raise Ministers for that Church. Due to the resulting religious tension, dissenters feared this would give preference to the Anglican sect and refused to act on that bill. Additionally, its local quirks and unhealthy autumn climate reduced general interest in it. In the Elementary bill, they included a provision that completely undermined it; they left it up to each county's court to decide when to implement the act. One provision stated that the costs of these schools would be covered by the county residents, each contributing according to their tax rate. This would place the financial burden of educating the poor on the wealthy, and since justices were typically from the wealthier class, they were reluctant to take on that responsibility. I believe it was never initiated in a single county. I will return to this topic later in my story, if I have the will and chance to reach that point, as I'm already weary of discussing myself.
The bill on the subject of slaves, was a mere digest of the existing laws respecting them, without any intimation of a plan for a future and general emancipation. It was thought better that this should be kept back, and attempted only by way of amendment, whenever the bill should be brought on. The principles of the amendment, however, were agreed on, that is to say, the freedom of all born after a certain day, and deportation at a proper age. But it was found that the public mind would not yet bear the proposition, nor will it bear it even at this day. Yet the day is not distant when it must bear and adopt it, or worse will follow. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate, than that these people are to be free; nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion, have drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degree, as that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their place be, pari passu, filled up by free white laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up. We should in vain look for an example in the Spanish deportation or deletion of the Moors. This precedent would fall far short of our case.
The bill about slaves was just a summary of the current laws regarding them, without any suggestion of a plan for future and overall freedom. It was decided that this should be postponed and only attempted as an amendment whenever the bill was presented. However, the principles of the amendment were agreed upon, meaning that all born after a certain date would be free, and deportation would happen at a suitable age. But it became clear that the public wasn't ready to accept this idea, and even today it remains a tough sell. Still, the time isn't far off when everyone will have to embrace it or face worse consequences. Nothing is more certain in the future than that these people will be free; it's also clear that two races, both free, cannot coexist under the same government. Nature, habit, and opinion have created undeniable differences between them. We still have the chance to handle the process of emancipation and deportation peacefully and gradually, so that the change happens subtly, with their roles being slowly replaced by free white laborers. If, however, we leave it to enforce itself, humanity has every reason to fear what lies ahead. Looking for a comparison in the Spanish deportation or removal of the Moors would be pointless. This example wouldn’t even come close to our situation.
I considered four of these bills, passed or reported, as forming a system by which every fibre would be eradicated of ancient or future aristocracy; and a foundation laid for a government truly republican. The repeal of the laws of entail would prevent the accumulation and perpetuation of wealth, in select families, and preserve the soil of the country from being daily more and more absorbed in mortmain. The abolition of primogeniture, and equal partition of inheritances, removed the feudal and unnatural distinctions which made one member of every family rich, and all the rest poor, substituting equal partition, the best of all Agrarian laws. The restoration of the rights of conscience relieved the people from taxation for the support of a religion not theirs; for the establishment was truly of the religion of the rich, the dissenting sects being entirely composed of the less wealthy people; and these, by the bill for a general education, would be qualified to understand their rights, to maintain them, and to exercise with intelligence their parts in self-government: and all this would be effected, without the violation of a single natural right of any one individual citizen. To these, too, might be added, as a further security, the introduction of the trial by jury into the Chancery courts, which have already ingulphed, and continue to ingulph, so great a proportion of the jurisdiction over our property.
I looked at four of these bills, either passed or reported, as creating a system that would eliminate every trace of ancient or future aristocracy and lay the groundwork for a truly republican government. Repealing the laws of entail would stop wealth from accumulating and persisting in select families, keeping the country’s land from being increasingly absorbed by dead hands. The abolition of primogeniture and equal division of inheritances would erase the feudal and unnatural distinctions that made one member of each family wealthy while leaving the rest poor, replacing it with equal distribution, which is the best of all land laws. Restoring the rights of conscience would free people from taxes that support a religion they didn’t practice; the established church truly represented the wealthy, while dissenting groups were made up of less affluent people. With the proposed bill for general education, these individuals would be empowered to understand their rights, defend them, and participate intelligently in self-government. All of this could be accomplished without violating any natural rights of individual citizens. Additionally, we could bolster security by introducing jury trials in the Chancery courts, which have already absorbed, and continue to absorb, a significant portion of the jurisdiction over our property.
On the 1st of June, 1779, I was appointed Governor of the Commonwealth, and retired from the legislature. Being elected, also, one of the Visitors of William and Mary college, a self-electing body, I effected, during my residence in Williamsburg that year, a change in the organization of that institution, by abolishing the Grammar school, and the two professorships of Divinity and Oriental languages, and substituting a professorship of Law and Police, one of Anatomy, Medicine, and Chemistry, and one of Modern Languages; and the charter confining us to six professorships, We added the Law of Nature and Nations, and the Fine Arts, to the duties of the Moral professor, and Natural History to those of the professor of Mathematics and Natural Philosophy.
On June 1, 1779, I was appointed Governor of the Commonwealth and stepped away from the legislature. After being elected as one of the Visitors of William and Mary College, a self-electing group, I made changes to the organization of that institution during my time in Williamsburg that year by closing the Grammar school and the two professorships in Divinity and Oriental languages. I replaced them with a professorship in Law and Police, one in Anatomy, Medicine, and Chemistry, and another in Modern Languages. Additionally, since our charter limited us to six professorships, we added the Law of Nature and Nations and the Fine Arts to the responsibilities of the Moral professor, and included Natural History with those of the professor of Mathematics and Natural Philosophy.
Being now, as it were, identified with the Commonwealth itself, to write my own history, during the two years of my administration, would be to write the public history of that portion of the revolution within this state. This has been done by others, and particularly by Mr. Girardin, who wrote his Continuation of Burke’s History of Virginia, while at Milton in this neighborhood, had free access to all my papers while composing it, and has given as faithful an account as I could myself. For this portion, therefore, of my own life, I refer altogether to his history. From a belief that, under the pressure of the invasion under which we were then laboring, the public would have more confidence in a military chief, and that the military commander, being invested with the civil power also, both might be wielded with more energy, promptitude, and effect for the defence of the state, I resigned the administration at the end of my second year, and General Nelson was appointed to succeed me.
Being closely tied to the Commonwealth itself, writing my own history during the two years of my administration would effectively mean writing the public history of that part of the revolution in this state. This has already been covered by others, particularly by Mr. Girardin, who wrote his Continuation of Burke’s History of Virginia while at Milton in this area. He had full access to all my papers while writing it and provided a very accurate account, just as I would have. So, for this part of my life, I completely refer to his history. I believed that during the difficult times we were facing due to the invasion, the public would have more confidence in a military leader. Since the military commander was also given civil authority, I thought that both could be managed more effectively, swiftly, and decisively for the defense of the state. Thus, I resigned from the administration at the end of my second year, and General Nelson was appointed to take my place.
Soon after my leaving Congress, in September, ‘76, to wit, on the last day of that month, I had been appointed, with Dr. Franklin, to go to France, as a Commissioner to negotiate treaties of alliance and commerce with that government. Silas Deane, then in France, acting as agent for procuring military stores,* was joined with us in commission. But such was the state of my family that I could not leave it, nor could I expose it to the dangers of the sea, and of capture by the British ships, then covering the ocean. I saw, too, that the laboring oar was really at home, where much was to be done, of the most permanent interest, in new-modelling our governments, and much to defend our fanes and fire-sides from the desolations of an invading enemy, pressing on our country in every point. I declined, therefore, and Dr. Lee was appointed in my place. On the 15th of June, 1781, I had been appointed, with Mr. Adams, Dr. Franklin, Mr. Jay, and Mr. Laurens, a Minister Plenipotentiary for negotiating peace, then expected to be effected through the mediation of the Empress of Russia. The same reasons obliged me still to decline; and the negotiation was in fact never entered on. But, in the autumn of the next year, 1782, Congress receiving assurances that a general peace would be concluded in the winter and spring, they renewed my appointment on the 13th of November of that year. I had, two months before that, lost the cherished companion of my life, in whose affections, unabated on both sides, I had lived the last ten years in unchequered happiness. With the public interests, the state of my mind concurred in recommending the change of scene proposed; and I accepted the appointment, and left Monticello on the 19th of December, 1782, for Philadelphia, where I arrived on the 27th. The Minister of France, Luzerne, offered me a passage in the Romulus frigate, which I accepted; but she was then lying a few miles below Baltimore, blocked up in the ice. I remained, therefore, a month in Philadelphia, looking over the papers in the office of State, in order to possess myself of the general state of our foreign relations, and then went to Baltimore, to await the liberation of the frigate from the ice. After waiting there nearly a month, we received information that a Provisional treaty of peace had been signed by our Commissioners on the 3rd of September, 1782, to become absolute, on the conclusion of peace between France and Great Britain. Considering my proceeding to Europe as now of no utility to the public, I returned immediately to Philadelphia, to take the orders of Congress, and was excused by them from further proceeding. I therefore returned home, where I arrived on the 15th of May, 1783.
Soon after I left Congress in September 1776, specifically on the last day of that month, I was appointed along with Dr. Franklin to go to France as a Commissioner to negotiate treaties of alliance and commerce with that government. Silas Deane, who was in France at the time acting as an agent to procure military supplies, was also part of our commission. However, my family situation was such that I couldn’t leave them, nor could I risk them facing the dangers of the sea and possible capture by British ships that were then dominating the waters. I also realized that my efforts were really needed at home, where there was much to be done to reorganize our governments and to defend our homes from the destruction caused by an invading enemy pushing into our country from all sides. Therefore, I turned down the position, and Dr. Lee was appointed in my place. On June 15, 1781, I was appointed, along with Mr. Adams, Dr. Franklin, Mr. Jay, and Mr. Laurens, as a Minister Plenipotentiary for negotiating peace, which was anticipated to be facilitated through the mediation of the Empress of Russia. I again had to decline for the same reasons, and the negotiation never took place. But in the autumn of the following year, 1782, Congress received assurances that a general peace would be established during the winter and spring, so they renewed my appointment on November 13 of that year. Two months prior, I had lost the beloved companion of my life, with whom I had shared ten years of unbroken happiness, and our mutual affection remained strong. With both my personal and public interests aligned, I felt it was time for a change of scenery; so I accepted the appointment and left Monticello on December 19, 1782, heading to Philadelphia, where I arrived on the 27th. The French Minister, Luzerne, offered me a passage on the Romulus frigate, which I accepted; however, it was stuck in ice a few miles below Baltimore. Consequently, I stayed in Philadelphia for a month, reviewing documents in the State office to understand our foreign relations, and then traveled to Baltimore to wait for the frigate to be free from the ice. After nearly a month of waiting, we learned that a provisional treaty of peace had been signed by our Commissioners on September 3, 1782, which would become permanent once peace was finalized between France and Great Britain. Considering my trip to Europe was no longer useful to the public, I returned immediately to Philadelphia to get Congress's directives and was excused by them from further action. I then went home, arriving on May 15, 1783.
* He pretended to be a merchant, but in reality, he was an agent for military supplies and was also checking the attitudes of the French government to see how much support they would offer us, either secretly or openly. He was appointed by the Committee of Foreign Correspondence in March 1776.
On the 6th of the following month, I was appointed by the legislature a delegate to Congress, the appointment to take place on the 1st of November ensuing, when that of the existing delegation would expire. I accordingly left home on the 16th of October, arrived at Trenton, where Congress was sitting, on the 3rd of November, and took my seat on the 4th, on which day Congress adjourned, to meet at Annapolis on the 26th.
On the 6th of the next month, the legislature appointed me as a delegate to Congress, with the appointment starting on November 1, when the current delegation's term would end. So, I left home on October 16, arrived in Trenton, where Congress was meeting, on November 3, and took my seat on the 4th, the same day Congress adjourned, planning to reconvene in Annapolis on the 26th.
Congress had now become a very small body, and the members very remiss in their attendance on its duties, insomuch that a majority of the states, necessary by the Confederation to constitute a House, even for minor business, did not assemble until the 13th of December.
Congress had now shrunk to a very small group, and the members were quite neglectful in showing up for their duties, to the extent that a majority of the states, needed by the Confederation to form a House, even for minor business, did not gather until December 13th.
They, as early as January 7, 1782, had turned their attention to the monies current in the several states, and had directed the Financier, Robert Morris, to report to them a table of rates, at which the foreign coins should be received at the treasury. That officer, or rather his assistant, Gouverneur Morris, answered them on the 15th, in an able and elaborate statement of the denominations of money current in the several states, and of the comparative value of the foreign coins chiefly in circulation with us, He went into the consideration of the necessity of establishing a standard of value with us, and of the adoption of a money unit. He proposed for that unit, such a fraction of pure silver as would be a common measure of the penny of every state, without leaving a fraction. This common divisor he found to be 1/1440 of a dollar, or 1/1600 the crown sterling. The value of a dollar was, therefore, to be expressed by 1440 units, and of a crown by 1600; each unit containing a quarter of a grain of fine silver. Congress turning again their attention to this subject the following year, the Financier, by a letter of April 30,1783, further explained and urged the unit he had proposed: but nothing more was done on it until the ensuing year, when it was again taken up, and referred to a committee, of which I was a member. The general views of the Financier were sound, and the principle was ingenious, on which he proposed to found his unit; but it was too minute for ordinary use, too laborious for computation, either by the head or in figures. The price of a loaf of bread, 1/20 of a dollar, would be 72 units. A pound of butter, 1/5 of a dollar, 288 units. A horse, or bullock, of eighty dollars’ value, would require a notation of six figures, to wit, 115,200, and the public debt, suppose of eighty millions, would require twelve figures, to wit, 115,200,000,000 units. Such a system of money-arithmetic would be entirely unmanageable for the common purposes of society. I proposed, therefore, instead of this, to adopt the Dollar as our unit of account and payment, and that its divisions and subdivisions should be in the decimal ratio. I wrote some Notes on the subject, which I submitted to the consideration of the Financier. I received his answer and adherence to his general system, only agreeing to take for his unit one hundred of those he first proposed, so that a Dollar should be 14 40/100 and a crown 16 units. I replied to this, and printed my Notes and Reply on a flying sheet, which I put into the hands of the members of Congress for consideration, and the Committee agreed to report on my principle. This was adopted the ensuing year, and is the system which now prevails. I insert, here, the Notes and Reply, as showing the different views on which the adoption of our money system hung. [See Appendix, note F.]The divisions into dismes, cents, and mills is now so well understood, that it would be easy of introduction into the kindred branches of weights and measures. I use, when I travel, an Odometer of Clarke’s invention, which divides the mile into cents, and I find every one comprehends a distance readily, when stated to him in miles and cents; so he would in feet and cents, pounds and cents, &c.
They, as early as January 7, 1782, focused on the money used in various states and instructed the Financier, Robert Morris, to provide them with a table of rates for foreign coins accepted at the treasury. This officer, or rather his assistant, Gouverneur Morris, responded on the 15th with a thorough and detailed account of the denominations of currency in the different states as well as the comparative value of the foreign coins mostly in circulation. He discussed the need to establish a standard of value and the adoption of a monetary unit. He suggested using a fraction of pure silver that would serve as a common measure of the penny in each state, without leaving any fractions. This common divisor he identified as 1/1440 of a dollar, or 1/1600 of the sterling crown. Therefore, the value of a dollar would be expressed in 1440 units, and that of a crown in 1600, with each unit containing a quarter of a grain of fine silver. Congress revisited this topic the following year, and the Financier further clarified and advocated for the unit he proposed in a letter dated April 30, 1783. However, no further action was taken until the next year when it was brought up again and assigned to a committee, of which I was a member. The overall ideas of the Financier were reasonable, and the principle he proposed for his unit was clever; however, it was too small for everyday usage and too complicated for calculations, whether mentally or in writing. The price of a loaf of bread, at 1/20 of a dollar, would be 72 units. A pound of butter, costing 1/5 of a dollar, would amount to 288 units. A horse or bullock valued at eighty dollars would need a notation of six figures, specifically 115,200, and the national debt, let’s say eighty million, would require twelve figures, namely 115,200,000,000 units. Such a money system would be completely unmanageable for everyday societal needs. I therefore suggested adopting the Dollar as our unit of account and payment, using decimal ratios for its divisions and subdivisions. I composed some Notes on the subject, which I presented to the Financier for consideration. I received his response, which supported his overall system but agreed to set his unit at one hundred of those he originally proposed, meaning a Dollar would equal 14 40/100 and a crown 16 units. I replied to this and published my Notes and Reply on a flyer, which I distributed to the members of Congress for their review, and the Committee agreed to report on my principle. This was adopted the following year and is the system we use today. I include the Notes and Reply here to illustrate the differing viewpoints that influenced the adoption of our monetary system. [See Appendix, note F.] The divisions into dimes, cents, and mills are so well understood now that they could easily be implemented in related measurements of weight and distance. When I travel, I use a distance-measuring device invented by Clarke that divides the mile into cents, and I find that everyone easily understands a distance when expressed in miles and cents; they would also in feet and cents, pounds and cents, etc.
The remissness of Congress, and their permanent session began to be a subject of uneasiness; and even some of the legislatures had recommended to them intermissions, and periodical sessions. As the Confederation had made no provision for a visible head of the government, during vacations of Congress, and such a one was necessary to superintend the executive business, to receive and communicate with foreign ministers and nations, and to assemble Congress on sudden and extraordinary emergencies, I proposed, early in April, the appointment of a committee, to be called the ‘Committee of the States,’ to consist of a member from each state, who should remain in session during the recess of Congress: that the functions of Congress should be divided into executive and legislative, the latter to be reserved, and the former, by a general resolution, to be delegated to that Committee. This proposition was afterwards agreed to; a Committee appointed who entered on duty on the subsequent adjournment of Congress, quarrelled very soon, split into two parties, abandoned their post, and left the government without any visible head, until the next meeting of Congress. We have since seen the same thing take place, in the Directory of France; and I believe it will for ever take place in any Executive consisting of a plurality. Our plan, best, I believe, combines wisdom and practicability, by providing a plurality of Counsellors, but a single Arbiter for ultimate decision. I was in France when we heard of this schism and separation of our Committee, and, speaking with Dr. Franklin of this singular disposition of men to quarrel, and divide into parties, he gave his sentiments, as usual, by way of Apologue. He mentioned the Eddystone light-house, in the British channel, as being built on a rock, in the mid-channel, totally inaccessible in winter, from the boisterous character of that sea, in that season; that, therefore, for the two keepers employed to keep up the lights, all provisions for the winter were necessarily carried to them in autumn, as they could never be visited again till the return of the milder season; that, on the first practicable day in the spring, a boat put off to them with fresh supplies. The boatmen met at the door one of the keepers, and accosted him with a ‘How goes it, friend?’ ‘Very well.’ ‘How is your companion?’ ‘I do not know.’ ‘Don’t know? Is not he here?’ ‘I can’t tell.’ ‘Have not you seen him to-day?’ ‘No.’ ‘When did you see him?’ ‘Not since last fall.’ ‘You have killed him?’ ‘Not I, indeed.’ They were about to lay hold of him, as having certainly murdered his companion; but he desired them to go up stairs and examine for themselves. They went up, and there found the other keeper. They had quarrelled, it seems, soon after being left there, had divided into two parties, assigned the cares below to one, and those above to the other, and had never spoken to, or seen, one another since.
The negligence of Congress, along with their ongoing sessions, started to become a source of concern. Some state legislatures even suggested that they take breaks and have regular sessions. Since the Confederation didn’t provide for a clear leader of the government during Congress's breaks, which was necessary to oversee executive matters, communicate with foreign diplomats and nations, and convene Congress in urgent situations, I proposed in early April that we appoint a committee called the 'Committee of the States.' This would consist of one member from each state who would remain in session while Congress was on break. I suggested dividing Congress's functions into executive and legislative branches, with the legislative part being reserved and the executive part delegated to this Committee through a general resolution. This proposal was later accepted; a Committee was appointed that began its work after Congress adjourned. However, they quickly argued, split into two factions, abandoned their responsibilities, and left the government without a clear leader until Congress met again. We've since seen a similar situation occur in the Directory of France, and I believe this will always happen with any Executive made up of multiple people. Our plan, I think, best balances wisdom and practicality by providing several counselors but a single decision-maker. I was in France when we learned about this divide within our Committee, and while discussing this tendency of people to argue and form factions with Dr. Franklin, he shared his thoughts in the form of a fable. He mentioned the Eddystone lighthouse in the British Channel, which is built on a rock in the middle of the channel and is completely inaccessible in winter because of the rough seas. Consequently, all provisions for the winter had to be delivered to the two keepers in the autumn since they couldn't be visited again until the weather improved. On the first suitable day in spring, a boat set out to bring them fresh supplies. When the boatmen arrived, they saw one of the keepers and asked, “How’s it going, friend?” “Very well.” “How is your partner?” “I don’t know.” “Don’t know? Isn’t he here?” “I can’t tell.” “Haven’t you seen him today?” “No.” “When did you last see him?” “Not since last fall.” “You’ve killed him?” “Not me!” They were about to accuse him of murdering his partner, but he asked them to go upstairs and check for themselves. They went up and found the other keeper. It turns out they had quarreled soon after being left alone, divided responsibilities—one took care of things below, while the other handled the upper levels—and they hadn’t spoken to or seen each other since.
But to return to our Congress at Annapolis. The definitive treaty of peace which had been signed at Paris on the 3rd of September, 1783, and received here, could not be ratified without a House of nine states. On the 23rd of December, therefore, we addressed letters to the several Governors, stating the receipt of the definitive treaty; that seven states only were in attendance, while nine were necessary to its ratification; and urging them to press on their delegates the necessity of their immediate attendance. And on the 26th, to save time, I moved that the Agent of Marine (Robert Morris) should be instructed to have ready a vessel at this place, at New York, and at some Eastern port, to carry over the ratification of the treaty when agreed to. It met the general sense of the House, but was opposed by Dr. Lee, on the ground of expense, which it would authorize the Agent to incur for us; and, he said, it would be better to ratify at once, and send on the ratification. Some members had before suggested, that seven states were competent to the ratification. My motion was therefore postponed, and another brought forward by Mr. Read, of South Carolina, for an immediate ratification. This was debated the 26th and 27th. Read, Lee, Williamson, and Jeremiah Chase urged that ratification was a mere matter of form; that the treaty was conclusive from the moment it was signed by the ministers; that, although the Confederation requires the assent of nine states to enter into a treaty, yet, that its conclusion could not be called the entrance into it; that supposing nine states requisite, it would be in the power of five states to keep us always at war; that nine states had virtually authorized the ratification, having ratified the provisional treaty, and instructed their ministers to agree to a definitive one in the same terms, and the present one was, in fact, substantially, and almost verbatim, the same; that there now remain but sixty-seven days for the ratification, for its passage across the Atlantic, and its exchange; that there was no hope of our soon having nine states present in fact, that this was the ultimate point of time to which we could venture to wait; that if the ratification was not in Paris by the time stipulated, the treaty would become void; that if ratified by seven states, it would go under our seal, without its being known to Great Britain that only seven had concurred; that it was a question of which they had no right to take cognizance, and we were only answerable for it to our constituents; that it was like the ratification which Great Britain had received from the Dutch, by the negotiations of Sir William Temple.
But to get back to our Congress in Annapolis. The final peace treaty that was signed in Paris on September 3, 1783, and received here, couldn’t be ratified without a House of nine states. So, on December 23, we wrote letters to the various Governors, letting them know about the receipt of the final treaty; that only seven states were present, while nine were needed for ratification; and urging them to ensure their delegates' immediate attendance. On the 26th, to save time, I proposed that the Marine Agent (Robert Morris) be instructed to prepare a vessel at this location, in New York, and at some Eastern port, to transport the ratification of the treaty once it was agreed upon. This idea was generally accepted by the House, but Dr. Lee opposed it on the grounds of the expenses it would authorize the Agent to incur for us; he argued that it would be better to ratify immediately and send the ratification over. Some members had previously suggested that seven states were enough for ratification. My motion was postponed, and another was proposed by Mr. Read from South Carolina for an immediate ratification. This was debated on the 26th and 27th. Read, Lee, Williamson, and Jeremiah Chase argued that ratification was just a formality; that the treaty was conclusive as soon as it was signed by the ministers; that while the Confederation requires the approval of nine states to enter into a treaty, the conclusion of the treaty couldn’t be considered an entry into it; that, even if nine states were required, it would allow five states to keep us perpetually at war; that nine states had effectively authorized the ratification by approving the provisional treaty and instructing their ministers to agree to a final one under the same terms, and the current treaty was, in fact, substantially and nearly word-for-word the same; that there were only sixty-seven days left for the ratification, for it to cross the Atlantic, and for its exchange; that there was no hope of having nine states present anytime soon, and this was the last moment we could afford to wait; that if the ratification wasn’t in Paris by the deadline, the treaty would become void; that if ratified by seven states, it would be sealed without Great Britain knowing that only seven had agreed; that it was an issue they had no right to acknowledge, and we were only accountable for it to our constituents; that it was similar to the ratification Great Britain received from the Dutch through the negotiations of Sir William Temple.
On the contrary, it was argued by Monroe, Gerry, Howel, Ellery, and myself, that by the modern usage of Europe, the ratification was considered as the act which gave validity to a treaty, until which, it was not obligatory.* That the commission to the ministers, reserved the ratification to Congress; that the treaty itself stipulated, that it should be ratified; that it became a second question, who were competent to the ratification? That the Confederation expressly required nine states to enter into any treaty; that, by this, that instrument must have intended, that the assent of nine states should be necessary, as well to the completion as to the commencement of the treaty, its object having been to guard the rights of the Union in all those important cases, where nine states are called for; that by the contrary construction, seven states, containing less than one third of our whole citizens, might rivet on us a treaty, commenced indeed under commission and instructions from nine states, but formed by the minister in express contradiction to such instructions, and in direct sacrifice of the interests of so great a majority; that the definitive treaty was admitted not to be a verbal copy of the provisional one, and whether the departures from it were of substance, or not, was a question on which nine states alone were competent to decide; that the circumstances of the ratification of the provisional articles by nine states, the instructions to our ministers to form a definitive one by them, and their actual agreement in substance, do not render us competent to ratify in the present instance; if these circumstances are in themselves a ratification, nothing further is requisite than to give attested copies of them, in exchange for the British ratification; if they are not, we remain where we were, without a ratification by nine states, and incompetent ourselves to ratify; that it was but four days since the seven states, now present, unanimously concurred in a resolution to be forwarded to the Governors of the absent states, in which they stated, as a cause for urging on their delegates, that nine states were necessary to ratify the treaty; that in the case of the Dutch ratification, Great Britain had courted it, and therefore was glad to accept it as it was; that they knew our Constitution, and would object to a ratification by seven; that, if that circumstance was kept back, it would be known hereafter, and would give them ground to deny the validity of a ratification, into which they should have been surprised and cheated, and it would be a dishonorable prostitution of our seal; that there is a hope of nine states; that if the treaty would become null, if not ratified in time, it would not be saved by an imperfect ratification; but that, in fact, it would not be null, and would be placed on better ground, going in unexceptionable form, though a few days too late, and rested on the small importance of this circumstance, and the physical impossibilities which had prevented a punctual compliance in point of time; that this would be approved by all nations, and by Great Britain herself, if not determined to renew the war, and if so determined, she would never want excuses, were this out of the way. Mr. Read gave notice, he should call for the yeas and nays; whereon those in opposition, prepared a resolution, expressing pointedly the reasons of their dissent from his motion. It appearing, however, that his proposition could not be carried, it was thought better to make no entry at all. Massachusetts alone would have been for it; Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, and Virginia against it, Delaware, Maryland, and North Carolina, would have been divided.
On the other hand, Monroe, Gerry, Howell, Ellery, and I argued that, according to the current practice in Europe, ratification was seen as the action that made a treaty valid; until that happened, it wasn’t binding. The commission to the ministers left the ratification to Congress; the treaty itself stated that it required ratification; and it then became a separate question of who was authorized to ratify it. The Confederation explicitly stated that nine states were needed to enter into any treaty. This means that the document intended for the agreement of nine states to be necessary for both the start and completion of the treaty, aimed at protecting the rights of the Union in important situations requiring nine states. If we interpreted it differently, then seven states, representing less than one-third of our total population, could impose a treaty that began with the commission and instructions from nine states but was created by the minister in direct contradiction to those instructions and to the detriment of such a large majority. It was acknowledged that the final treaty was not a verbatim copy of the provisional one, and whether the differences were significant or not was something only nine states could decide. The fact that nine states ratified the provisional articles, gave instructions to our ministers to create a definitive treaty, and agreed on its substance does not mean we are qualified to ratify in this situation; if those conditions themselves act as a ratification, then all we need to do is submit certified copies in exchange for the British ratification. If they don’t, we still stand where we were, without a ratification from nine states, and we lack the authority to ratify ourselves. Just four days ago, the seven states present unanimously agreed to send a message to the governors of the absent states urging them that nine states were needed to ratify the treaty. In the case of the Dutch ratification, Great Britain sought it and was pleased to accept it as it was. They knew our Constitution and would refuse ratification from just seven states; if that fact got concealed, it would eventually come out and give them grounds to dispute the validity of a ratification they would feel misled into accepting, and it would be an unworthy misuse of our seal. There is hope for nine states; if the treaty were to become void if not ratified on time, it wouldn’t be salvaged by an imperfect ratification. However, the truth is, it wouldn’t be void, and it would be positioned on a more solid basis, although it would come a few days late, based on the relatively minor importance of this issue, and the physical impossibilities that had prevented on-time compliance. This would be accepted by all nations, including Great Britain itself, unless they intended to restart the war, and if that were the case, they would always find excuses, even if this issue was resolved. Mr. Read announced he would call for a vote; in response, those opposed prepared a resolution clearly stating the reasons for their disagreement with his motion. However, it was clear that his proposal would not pass, so it was decided it was better to make no official record at all. Massachusetts would have supported it alone; Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, and Virginia would have opposed it, while Delaware, Maryland, and North Carolina would have been split.
Our body was little numerous, but very contentious. Day after day was wasted on the most unimportant questions. A member, one of those afflicted with the morbid rage of debate, of an ardent mind, prompt imagination, and copious flow of words, who heard with impatience any logic which was not his own, sitting near me on some occasion of a trifling but wordy debate, asked me how I could sit in silence, hearing so much false reasoning, which a word should refute? I observed to him, that to refute indeed was easy, but to silence impossible; that in measures brought forward by myself, I took the laboring oar, as was incumbent on me; but that in general, I was willing to listen; that if every sound argument or objection was used by some one or other of the numerous debaters, it was enough; if not, I thought it sufficient to suggest the omission, without going into a repetition of what had been already said by others: that this was a waste and abuse of the time and patience of the House, which could not be justified. And I believe, that if the members of deliberate bodies were to observe this course generally, they would do in a day, what takes them a week; and it is really more questionable, than may at first be thought, whether Bonaparte’s dumb legislature, which said nothing, and did much, may not be preferable to one which talks much, and does nothing. I served with General Washington in the legislature of Virginia, before the revolution, and, during it, with Dr. Franklin in Congress. I never heard either of them speak ten minutes at a time, nor to any but the main point, which was to decide the question. They laid their shoulders to the great points, knowing that the little ones would follow of themselves. If the present Congress errs in too much talking, how can it be otherwise, in a body to which the people send one hundred and fifty lawyers, whose trade it is, to question every thing, yield nothing, and talk by the hour? That one hundred and fifty lawyers should do business together, ought not to be expected. But to return again to our subject.
Our group was small, but very argumentative. Day after day was wasted on the most trivial issues. One member, who was overly passionate about debating, had a quick mind and a lot to say. He sat near me during a pointless but lengthy discussion and asked how I could sit in silence while listening to so much faulty reasoning that could be easily countered. I told him that while it’s easy to counter such arguments, it’s impossible to silence them; when I presented my own points, I took the initiative as was my responsibility, but generally, I preferred to listen. If every solid argument or counterargument was made by different debaters, that was enough. If not, I thought it was sufficient just to suggest what was missing, without repeating what others had already said, as that wasted everyone’s time and patience, which couldn’t be justified. I believe that if members of deliberative bodies generally followed this approach, they could accomplish in a day what takes them a week. It's actually more debatable than it might first appear whether Bonaparte’s silent legislature, which did a lot without talking, might be better than one that talks a lot but does nothing. I served with General Washington in the Virginia legislature before the revolution, and during it, with Dr. Franklin in Congress. I never heard either of them speak for more than ten minutes at a time, nor did they discuss anything but the main point, which was to make a decision. They focused on the bigger issues, knowing that the smaller ones would resolve themselves. If the current Congress tends to talk too much, how could it be any different in a body where the people send one hundred and fifty lawyers, whose job is to question everything, concede nothing, and talk endlessly? It shouldn't be surprising that one hundred and fifty lawyers might struggle to work together. But let’s get back to our topic.
Those, who thought seven states competent to the ratification, being very restless under the loss of their motion, I proposed, on the third of January, to meet them on middle ground, and therefore moved a resolution, which premised, that there were but seven states present, who were unanimous for the ratification, but that they differed in opinion on the question of competency; that those however in the negative, were unwilling, that any powers which it might be supposed they possessed, should remain unexercised for the restoration of peace, provided it could be done, saving their good faith, and without importing any opinion of Congress, that seven states were competent, and resolving that the treaty be ratified so far as they had power; that it should be transmitted to our ministers, with instructions to keep it uncommunicated; to endeavor to obtain three months longer for exchange of ratifications; that they should be informed, that so soon as nine states shall be present, a ratification by nine shall be sent them: if this should get to them before the ultimate point of time for exchange, they were to use it, and not the other; if not, they were to offer the act of the seven states in exchange, informing them the treaty had come to hand while Congress was not in session, that but seven states were as yet assembled, and these had unanimously concurred in the ratification. This was debated on the third and fourth; and on the fifth, a vessel being to sail for England, from this port, (Annapolis), the House directed the President to write to our ministers accordingly.
Those who believed that seven states were capable of ratifying the treaty, feeling frustrated by the lack of progress, I suggested on January 3rd that we find common ground. I proposed a resolution stating that while only seven states were present and unanimously agreed on the ratification, they disagreed about their authority. However, those opposing were not willing to let any powers they might have stay unused for the sake of restoring peace, as long as it was done respectfully and without implying that Congress thought seven states were sufficient. The resolution called for the treaty to be ratified to the extent of their authority and sent to our ministers with instructions to keep it confidential and to seek an additional three months for exchanging ratifications. They were to be informed that as soon as nine states were present, a ratification from nine would be sent to them. If the nine-state ratification reached them before the deadline for exchange, they were to use that; if not, they were to offer the ratification from the seven states in exchange, explaining that the treaty had arrived while Congress was not in session and that only seven states had convened, who unanimously agreed on ratification. This was debated on the 3rd and 4th, and on the 5th, with a ship scheduled to sail for England from Annapolis, the House instructed the President to write to our ministers accordingly.
January 14. Delegates from Connecticut having attended yesterday, and another from South Carolina coming in this day, the treaty was ratified without a dissenting voice; and three instruments of ratification were ordered to be made out, one of which was sent by Colonel Harmer, another by Colonel Franks, and the third transmitted to the Agent of Marine, to be forwarded by any good opportunity.
January 14. Delegates from Connecticut attended yesterday, and another from South Carolina arrived today, so the treaty was ratified unanimously; three ratification documents were to be prepared, with one sent by Colonel Harmer, another by Colonel Franks, and the third passed to the Marine Agent to be sent out at the next good opportunity.
Congress soon took up the consideration of their foreign relations. They deemed it necessary to get their commerce placed, with every nation, on a footing as favorable as that of other nations; and for this purpose, to propose to each a distinct treaty of commerce. This act too would amount to an acknowledgment, by each, of our independence, and of our reception into the fraternity of nations; which, although as possessing our station of right, and, in fact, we would not condescend to ask, we were not unwilling to furnish opportunities for receiving their friendly salutations and welcome. With France, the United Netherlands, and Sweden, we had already treaties of commerce; but commissions were given for those countries also, should any amendments be thought necessary. The other states to which treaties were to be proposed, were England, Hamburg, Saxony, Prussia, Denmark, Russia, Austria, Venice, Rome, Naples, Tuscany, Sardinia, Genoa, Spain, Portugal, the Porte, Algiers, Tripoli, Tunis, and Morocco.
Congress soon began discussing their foreign relations. They thought it was important to establish their trade with every nation on the same favorable terms as other countries. To achieve this, they decided to propose individual trade treaties with each nation. This action would also serve as an acknowledgment of their independence and acceptance into the community of nations; although we believed we deserved this status by right and wouldn’t ask for it, we were open to creating opportunities for friendly greetings and welcome. We already had trade treaties with France, the United Netherlands, and Sweden, but commissions were also established for those countries in case any changes were needed. The other countries where treaties were to be proposed included England, Hamburg, Saxony, Prussia, Denmark, Russia, Austria, Venice, Rome, Naples, Tuscany, Sardinia, Genoa, Spain, Portugal, the Ottoman Empire, Algiers, Tripoli, Tunisia, and Morocco.
On the 7th of May, Congress resolved that a Minister Plenipotentiary should be appointed, in addition to Mr. Adams and Dr. Franklin, for negotiating treaties of commerce with foreign nations, and I was elected to that duty. I accordingly left Annapolis on the 11th, took with me my eldest daughter; then at Philadelphia (the two others being too young for the voyage), and proceeded to Boston, in quest of a passage. While passing through the different states, I made a point of informing myself of the state of the commerce of each, went on to New Hampshire with the same view, and returned to Boston. Thence I sailed on the 5th of July, in the Ceres, a merchant ship of Mr. Nathaniel Tracy, bound to Cowes. He was himself a passenger, and, after a pleasant voyage of nineteen days, from land to land, we arrived at Cowes on the 26th. I was detained there a few days by the indisposition of my daughter. On the 30th we embarked for Havre, arrived there on the 31st, left it on the 3rd of August, and arrived at Paris on the 6th. I called immediately on Dr. Franklin, at Passy, communicated to him our charge, and we wrote to Mr. Adams, then at the Hague, to join us at Paris.
On May 7th, Congress decided that a Minister Plenipotentiary should be appointed, in addition to Mr. Adams and Dr. Franklin, to negotiate trade agreements with foreign nations, and I was selected for that role. I left Annapolis on the 11th, taking my oldest daughter with me; the other two were too young for the trip. We headed to Boston to find passage. While traveling through different states, I took the time to learn about each state's commerce, then went on to New Hampshire for the same purpose before returning to Boston. From there, I sailed on July 5th aboard the Ceres, a merchant ship owned by Mr. Nathaniel Tracy, heading to Cowes. He was traveling as a passenger too, and after a pleasant nineteen-day journey, we reached Cowes on the 26th. I was held up there for a few days due to my daughter's illness. On the 30th, we boarded a ship to Havre, arriving there on the 31st, leaving on August 3rd, and reaching Paris on the 6th. I immediately visited Dr. Franklin in Passy, shared our assignment with him, and we wrote to Mr. Adams, who was then in The Hague, asking him to join us in Paris.
Before I had left America, that is to say, in the year 1781, 1 had received a letter from M. de Marbois, of the French legation in Philadelphia, informing me, he had been instructed by his government to obtain such statistical accounts of the different states of our Union, as might be useful for their information; and addressing to me a number of queries relative to the state of Virginia. I had always made it a practice, whenever an opportunity occurred of obtaining any information of our country, which might be of use to me in any station, public or private, to commit it to writing. These memoranda were on loose papers, bundled up without order, and difficult of recurrence, when I had occasion for a particular one. I thought this a good occasion to embody their substance, which I did in the order of Mr. Marbois’ queries, so as to answer his wish, and to arrange them for my own use. Some friends, to whom they were occasionally communicated, wished for copies; but their volume rendering this too laborious by hand, I proposed to get a few printed for their gratification. I was asked such a price however, as exceeded the importance of the object. On my arrival at Paris, I found it could be done for a fourth of what I had been asked here. I therefore corrected and enlarged them, and had two hundred copies printed, under the title of ‘Notes on Virginia.’ I gave a very few copies to some particular friends in Europe, and sent the rest to my friends in America. An European copy, by the death of the owner, got into the hands of a bookseller, who engaged its translation, and when ready for the press, communicated his intentions and manuscript to me, suggesting that I should correct it, without asking any other permission for the publication. I never had seen so wretched an attempt at translation. Interverted, abridged, mutilated, and often reversing the sense of the original, I found it a blotch of errors from beginning to end. I corrected some of the most material, and, in that form, it was printed in French. A London bookseller, on seeing the translation, requested me to permit him to print the English original. I thought it best to do so, to let the world see that it was not really so bad as the French translation had made it appear. And this is the true history of that publication.
Before I left America, in 1781, I received a letter from M. de Marbois, who was with the French legation in Philadelphia. He informed me that his government had tasked him with gathering statistical information about the different states in our Union to help them understand things better. He sent me several questions regarding Virginia. I had always made it a habit to write down any useful information about our country whenever I had the chance, whether for public or private use. These notes were on random pieces of paper, bundled without any organization, making it hard to find a specific one when I needed it. I figured this was a good opportunity to compile the information, arranging it according to Mr. Marbois's questions to satisfy his request and to organize it for my own benefit. Some friends, to whom I shared this information from time to time, wanted copies; however, since it was too labor-intensive to write them all out by hand, I suggested getting a few printed for their convenience. They quoted me a price that seemed too high for what it was worth. Once I arrived in Paris, I found it could be printed for a quarter of that price. So, I revised and expanded the notes, and had two hundred copies printed under the title 'Notes on Virginia.' I gave a few copies to special friends in Europe and sent the rest to my friends in America. One European copy eventually ended up with a bookseller after its owner's passing. He decided to translate it, and when it was ready for publication, he informed me of his plans and asked me to correct it, without seeking any formal permission for the release. I had never seen such a poorly executed translation. It was inverted, abridged, mutilated, and often misrepresented the original meaning. I found it filled with errors from start to finish. I corrected some of the most significant mistakes, and that version was published in French. A bookseller in London, upon seeing the translation, asked me if he could print the original English text. I thought it would be best to do so to show that the original wasn’t as bad as the French translation made it look. This is the true story behind that publication.
Mr. Adams soon joined us at Paris, and our first employment was to prepare a general form, to be proposed to such nations as were disposed to treat with us. During the negotiations for peace with the British Commissioner, David Hartley, our Commissioners had proposed, on the suggestion of Dr. Franklin, to insert an article, exempting from capture by the public or private armed ships, of either belligerent, when at war, all merchant vessels and their cargoes, employed merely in carrying on the commerce between nations. It was refused by England, and unwisely, in my opinion. For, in the case of a war with us, their superior commerce places infinitely more at hazard on the ocean, than ours; and, as hawks abound in proportion to game, so our privateers would swarm, in proportion to the wealth exposed to their prize, while theirs would be few, for want of subjects of capture. We inserted this article in our form, with a provision against the molestation of fishermen, husbandmen, citizens unarmed, and following their occupations in unfortified places, for the humane treatment of prisoners of war, the abolition of contraband of war, which exposes merchant vessels to such vexatious and ruinous detentions and abuses; and for the principle of free bottoms, free goods.
Mr. Adams soon joined us in Paris, and our first task was to create a standard proposal for nations willing to negotiate with us. During the peace talks with the British Commissioner, David Hartley, our Commissioners suggested, following Dr. Franklin's advice, to include a clause that would protect all merchant ships and their cargoes involved in trade between nations from being seized by either side’s naval or private ships during a war. England rejected this, which I believe was a mistake. In the event of war with us, their greater commerce would be far more at risk on the ocean than ours. Just as there are more hawks when there is plenty of game, our privateers would abound relative to the wealth available for capture, while theirs would be fewer due to a lack of targets. We included this clause in our proposal, along with provisions to protect fishermen, farmers, unarmed citizens, and those working in unprotected areas, ensuring humane treatment of prisoners of war, abolishing contraband of war—which leads to frustrating and damaging detentions and mistreatment of merchant ships; and affirming the principle that free vessels should carry free goods.
In a conference with the Count de Vergennes, it was thought better to leave to legislative regulation, on both sides, such modifications of our commercial intercourse, as would voluntarily flow from amicable dispositions. Without urging, we sounded the ministers of the several European nations, at the court of Versailles, on their dispositions towards mutual commerce, and the expediency of encouraging it by the protection of a treaty. Old Frederic, of Prussia, met us cordially, and without hesitation, and appointing the Baron de Thulemeyer, his minister at the Hague, to negotiate with us, we communicated to him our Projet, which, with little alteration by the King, was soon concluded. Denmark and Tuscany entered also into negotiations with us. Other powers appearing indifferent, we did not think it proper to press them. They seemed, in fact, to know little about us, but as rebels, who had been successful in throwing off the yoke of the mother country. They were ignorant of our commerce, which had been always monopolized by England, and of the exchange of articles it might offer advantageously to both parties. They were inclined, therefore, to stand aloof, until they could see better what relations might be usefully instituted with us. The negotiations, therefore, begun with Denmark and Tuscany, we protracted designedly, until our powers had expired; and abstained from making new propositions to others having no colonies; because our commerce being an exchange of raw for wrought materials, is a competent price for admission into the colonies of those possessing them; but were we to give it, without price, to others, all would claim it, without price, on the ordinary ground of gentis amicissimæ.
During a meeting with Count de Vergennes, it was decided to leave the adjustments to our trade relations to legislation on both sides, as they would naturally emerge from friendly intentions. Without pushing, we gauged the ministers from various European countries at the Versailles court regarding their willingness for mutual trade and the benefit of promoting it through a treaty. Old Frederick of Prussia welcomed us warmly and without hesitation, appointing Baron de Thulemeyer, his minister in the Hague, to negotiate with us. We shared our proposal with him, which, with minimal changes from the King, was quickly finalized. Denmark and Tuscany also began discussions with us. Other nations seemed uninterested, so we felt it wasn't wise to pressure them. They mostly viewed us as rebels who had managed to break free from the mother country. They were unaware of our trade, which had always been controlled by England, and the potential benefits of exchanging goods. Therefore, they preferred to remain distant until they could better understand how to establish useful relationships with us. As a result, we deliberately extended the negotiations with Denmark and Tuscany until our authority ran out and refrained from making new proposals to others who had no colonies. Our trade consisted of exchanging raw materials for manufactured goods, which justified our entry into others' colonies; however, if we offered it for free to others, everyone would demand it without charge based on the usual grounds of gentis amicissimæ.
Mr. Adams, being appointed Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States to London, left us in June, and in July, 1785, Dr. Franklin returned to America, and I was appointed his successor at Paris. In February, 1786, Mr. Adams wrote to me, pressingly, to join him in London immediately, as he thought he discovered there some symptoms of better disposition towards us. Colonel Smith, his secretary of legation, was the bearer of his urgencies for my immediate attendance. I, accordingly, left Paris on the 1st of March, and, on my arrival in London, we agreed on a very summary form of treaty, proposing an exchange of citizenship for our citizens, our ships, and our productions generally, except as to office. On my presentation, as usual, to the King and Queen, at their levees, it was impossible for any thing to be more ungracious, than their notice of Mr. Adams and myself. I saw, at once, that the ulcerations of mind in that quarter left nothing to be expected on the subject of my attendance; and, on the first conference with the Marquis of Caermarthen, the Minister for foreign affairs, the distance and disinclination which he betrayed in his conversation, the vagueness and evasions of his answers to us, confirmed me in the belief of their aversion to have any thing to do with us. We delivered him, however, our Projet, Mr. Adams not despairing as much as I did of its effect. We afterwards, by one or more, notes, requested his appointment of an interview and conference, which, without directly declining, he evaded, by pretence of other pressing occupations for the moment. After staying there seven weeks, till within a few days of the expiration of our commission, I informed the minister, by note, that my duties at Paris required my return to that place, and that I should, with pleasure, be the bearer of any commands to his Ambassador there. He answered, that he had none, and, wishing me a pleasant journey, I left London the 26th, and arrived at Paris the 30th of April.
Mr. Adams was appointed Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States to London, so he left us in June, and in July 1785, Dr. Franklin returned to America, and I was appointed his successor in Paris. In February 1786, Mr. Adams wrote to me urgently, asking me to join him in London right away, as he thought he noticed some signs of a better attitude toward us. Colonel Smith, his secretary of legation, delivered his urgent request for my immediate presence. I therefore left Paris on March 1, and upon arriving in London, we agreed on a very straightforward form of treaty, proposing an exchange of citizenship for our citizens, our ships, and our products in general, except for offices. When I presented myself, as usual, to the King and Queen at their levees, their acknowledgment of Mr. Adams and me was extremely unwelcoming. I quickly realized that the resentment in that circle meant that I could expect nothing positive regarding my presence; and during my first meeting with the Marquis of Caermarthen, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the distance and reluctance he showed in the conversation, along with the vague and evasive nature of his responses to us, confirmed my belief in their desire to avoid any dealings with us. We did present him with our Projet, although Mr. Adams was not as pessimistic about its impact as I was. Later, through one or more notes, we asked for a meeting and discussion, which he avoided without directly declining, claiming other urgent matters required his attention at that moment. After staying there for seven weeks, just a few days before our commission expired, I informed the minister by note that my duties in Paris required my return, and I would be happy to carry any messages to his ambassador there. He replied that he had none, and wishing me a safe journey, I left London on the 26th and arrived in Paris on April 30.
While in London, we entered into negotiations with the Chevalier Pinto, Ambassador of Portugal, at that place. The only article of difficulty between us was, a stipulation that our bread-stuff should be received in Portugal, in the form of flour as well as of grain. He approved of it himself, but observed that several nobles, of great influence at their court, were the owners of windmills in the neighborhood of Lisbon, which depended much for their profits on manufacturing our wheat, and that this stipulation would endanger the whole treaty. He signed it, however, and its fate was what he had candidly portended.
While in London, we began negotiations with the Chevalier Pinto, the Ambassador of Portugal. The only sticking point between us was a condition that our grain should be accepted in Portugal as both flour and whole grain. He personally agreed to it but pointed out that several powerful nobles at their court owned windmills near Lisbon, which relied heavily on processing our wheat for their profits, and that this condition could jeopardize the entire treaty. However, he did sign it, and its outcome was exactly what he honestly predicted.
My duties, at Paris, were confined to a few objects; the receipt of our whale-oils, salted fish, and salted meats, on favorable terms; the admission of our rice on equal terms with that of Piedmont, Egypt, and the Levant; a mitigation of the monopolies of our tobacco by the farmers-general, and a free admission of our productions into their islands, were the principal commercial objects which required attention; and on these occasions, I was powerfully aided by all the influence and the energies of the Marquis de la Fayette, who proved himself equally zealous for the friendship and welfare of both nations; and, in justice, I must also say, that I found the government entirely disposed to befriend us on all occasions, and to yield us every indulgence, not absolutely injurious to themselves. The Count de Vergennes had the reputation with the diplomatic corps, of being wary and slippery in his diplomatic intercourse; and so he might be, with those whom he knew to be slippery, and double-faced themselves. As he saw that I had no indirect views, practised no subtleties, meddled in no intrigues, pursued no concealed object, I found him as frank, as honorable, as easy of access to reason, as any man with whom I had ever done business; and I must say the same for his successor, Montmorin, one of the most honest and worthy of human beings.
My duties in Paris focused on a few key tasks: receiving our whale oils, salted fish, and salted meats on good terms; ensuring our rice was treated fairly compared to that of Piedmont, Egypt, and the Levant; reducing the tobacco monopolies held by the farmers-general; and allowing our products free access to their islands. These were the main commercial concerns that needed attention, and in these matters, I was strongly supported by the influence and efforts of the Marquis de la Fayette, who showed a genuine commitment to fostering friendship and the welfare of both nations. I must also note that the government was consistently inclined to assist us whenever possible, offering us every concession that wouldn’t harm their interests. The Count de Vergennes was known among diplomats for being cautious and elusive, and he certainly exhibited that behavior with those he deemed similarly tricky and duplicitous. However, because he recognized that I had no hidden agenda, engaged in no manipulation, and was not involved in any intrigues, I found him to be as open, honorable, and reasonable as anyone I had ever worked with. I would say the same about his successor, Montmorin, who was one of the most honest and admirable people I have encountered.
Our commerce, in the Mediterranean, was placed under early alarm, by the capture of two of our vessels and crews by the Barbary cruisers. I was very unwilling that we should acquiesce in the European humiliation, of paying a tribute to those lawless pirates, and endeavored to form an association of the powers subject to habitual depredations from them. I accordingly prepared, and proposed to their Ministers at Paris, for consultation with their governments, articles of a special confederation, in the following form.
Our trade in the Mediterranean faced an immediate threat when two of our ships and their crews were captured by Barbary pirates. I was very reluctant to go along with the European shame of paying a tribute to these lawless pirates, so I tried to organize a coalition of the countries that suffered regular attacks from them. I prepared and proposed to their representatives in Paris, for discussion with their governments, the terms of a special alliance, in the following format.
‘Proposals for concerted operation among the powers at war with the piratical States of Barbary.
‘Proposals for coordinated action among the countries at war with the pirate states of Barbary.
‘1. It is proposed, that the several powers at war with the piratical States of Barbary, or any two or more of them who shall be willing, shall enter into a convention to carry on their operations against those States, in concert, beginning with the Algerines.
‘1. It is proposed that the various powers at war with the pirate states of Barbary, or any two or more of them willing to join, will come together in an agreement to conduct their operations against those states in collaboration, starting with the Algerians.
‘2. This convention shall remain open to any other power, who shall, at any future time, wish to accede to it; the parties reserving the right to prescribe the conditions of such accession, according to the circumstances existing at the time it shall be proposed.
‘2. This agreement will be open to any other country that wants to join at any future time; the parties reserve the right to set the requirements for joining, based on the situation at the time the request is made.
‘3. The object of the convention shall be to compel the piratical States to perpetual peace, without price, and to guaranty that peace to each other.
‘3. The goal of the convention is to force the pirate nations into lasting peace, at no cost, and to ensure that peace for one another.
‘4. The operations for obtaining this peace shall be constant cruises on their coast, with a naval force now to be agreed on. It is not proposed, that this force shall be so considerable, as to be inconvenient to any party. It is believed, that half a dozen frigates, with as many tenders or xebecs, one half of which shall be in cruise, while the other half is at rest, will suffice.
‘4. The efforts to achieve this peace will involve regular patrols along their coast, using a naval force that will be agreed upon. It’s not suggested that this force should be so large as to cause inconvenience to any party. It’s believed that about six frigates, along with as many support ships or small vessels, with half of them on patrol while the other half rests, will be enough.
‘5. The force agreed to be necessary, shall be furnished by the parties, in certain quotas, now to be fixed; it being expected, that each will be willing to contribute, in such proportion as circumstances may render reasonable.
‘5. The required force will be provided by the parties in specific quotas, which will be determined now; it is expected that each will be willing to contribute in a way that seems reasonable based on the circumstances.
‘6. As miscarriages often proceed from the want of harmony among officers of different nations, the parties shall now consider and decide, whether it will not be better to contribute their quotas in money, to be employed in fitting out and keeping on duty a single fleet of the force agreed on.
‘6. Since conflicts often arise from a lack of cooperation among officers from different countries, the parties should now think about and determine whether it would be better to each contribute their share in money, which will be used to equip and maintain a single fleet with the agreed-upon force.
‘7. The difficulties and delays, too, which will attend the management of these operations, if conducted by the parties themselves separately, distant as their courts may be from one another, and incapable of meeting in consultation, suggest a question, whether it will not be better for them to give full powers, for that purpose, to their Ambassadors, or other Ministers resident at some one court of Europe, who shall form a Committee, or Council, for carrying this convention into effect; wherein, the vote of each member shall be computed in proportion to the quota of his sovereign, and the majority so computed, shall prevail in all questions within the view of this convention. The court of Versailles is proposed, on account of its neighborhood to the Mediterranean, and because all those powers are represented there, who are likely to become parties to this convention.
‘7. The challenges and delays involved in managing these operations, if handled separately by the parties themselves, considering how far apart their courts may be and their inability to meet for discussions, raise the question of whether it would be better for them to assign full authority for this purpose to their Ambassadors or other Ministers stationed at a single court in Europe. They could form a Committee or Council to implement this convention, where each member's vote would be weighted according to their sovereign's contribution, and the majority of those votes would decide all matters related to this convention. The court of Versailles is suggested because of its proximity to the Mediterranean and because it includes representatives from all the powers that are likely to join this convention.
‘8. To save to that Council the embarrassment of personal solicitations for office, and to assure the parties, that their contributions will be applied solely to the object for which they are destined, there shall be no establishment of officers for the said Council, such as Commissioners, Secretaries, or any other kind, with either salaries or perquisites, nor any other lucrative appointments, but such whose functions are to be exercised on board the said vessels.
‘8. To spare the Council the awkwardness of personal requests for positions and to ensure that contributions are used only for their intended purpose, there will be no creation of officers for the Council, such as Commissioners, Secretaries, or any other type, with salaries or benefits, nor any other paid positions, except for those whose roles will be carried out on the vessels mentioned.
‘9. Should war arise between any two of the parties to this convention, it shall not extend to this enterprise, nor interrupt it; but as to this, they shall be reputed at peace.
‘9. If war breaks out between any two parties to this agreement, it will not affect this enterprise or disrupt it; instead, for this matter, they will be considered at peace.
‘10. When Algiers shall be reduced to peace, the other piratical States, if they refuse to discontinue their piracies, shall become the objects of this convention, either successively or together, as shall seem best.
‘10. Once Algiers is brought to peace, if the other pirate states refuse to stop their piracy, they will be included in this agreement, either one at a time or all at once, depending on what seems best.
‘11. Where this convention would interfere with treaties actually existing between any of the parties and the said States of Barbary, the treaty shall prevail, and such party shall be allowed to withdraw from the operations against that state.’
‘11. If this convention conflicts with any existing treaties between any of the parties and the States of Barbary, the treaty will take precedence, and that party will be permitted to opt out of the actions against that state.’
Spain had just concluded a treaty with Algiers, at the expense of three millions of dollars, and did not like to relinquish the benefit of that, until the other party should fail in their observance of it. Portugal, Naples, the Two Sicilies, Venice, Malta, Denmark, and Sweden were favorably disposed to such an association; but their representatives at Paris expressed apprehensions that France would interfere, and, either openly or secretly, support the Barbary powers; and they required, that I should ascertain the dispositions of the Count de Vergennes on the subject. I had before taken occasion to inform him of what we were proposing, and, therefore, did not think it proper to insinuate any doubt of the fair conduct of his government; but stating our propositions, I mentioned the apprehensions entertained by us that England would interfere in behalf of those piratical governments. ‘She dares not do it,’ said he. I pressed it no further. The other Agents were satisfied with this indication of his sentiments, and nothing was now wanting to bring it into direct and formal consideration, but the assent of our government, and their authority to make the formal proposition. I communicated to them the favorable prospect of protecting our commerce from the Barbary depredations, and for such a continuance of time, as, by an exclusion of them from the sea, to change their habits and characters, from a predatory to an agricultural people: towards which, however, it was expected they would contribute a frigate, and its expenses, to be in constant cruise. But they were in no condition to make any such engagement. Their recommendatory powers for obtaining contributions, were so openly neglected by the several states, that they declined an engagement, which they were conscious they could not fulfil with punctuality; and so it fell through.
Spain had just finalized a treaty with Algiers, costing three million dollars, and was hesitant to let go of the benefits until the other side failed to adhere to it. Portugal, Naples, the Two Sicilies, Venice, Malta, Denmark, and Sweden were open to such an alliance; however, their representatives in Paris were worried that France might interfere and either openly or secretly back the Barbary powers. They asked me to find out what the Count de Vergennes thought about the matter. I had previously informed him of our proposals, so I didn't feel it was appropriate to suggest any doubts about his government's integrity. Instead, I presented our propositions and expressed our concerns that England might intervene on behalf of those pirate states. "She wouldn't dare," he replied. I didn't push the issue further. The other agents were pleased with this indication of his views, and all that remained to move forward was the approval of our government and their authorization to make the formal proposal. I shared with them the promising opportunity to protect our trade from Barbary attacks, which could potentially change their habits and lifestyle from being predatory to agricultural, given an exclusion from the sea for a sufficient length of time. However, it was expected they would need to provide a frigate and cover its expenses for constant patrols. Unfortunately, they were in no position to make such a commitment. Their efforts to secure contributions were so clearly ignored by the various states that they avoided making a promise they knew they couldn't keep reliably, and so it fell through.
[In the original manuscript, the paragraph that ends with ‘fell through’ finishes on page 81; between this page and the next, there is a stitched leaf of old writing, which serves as a memorandum, and note G in the Appendix is a copy of it.]
In 1786, while at Paris, I became acquainted with John Ledyard, of Connecticut, a man of genius, of some science, and of fearless courage and enterprise. He had accompanied Captain Cook in his voyage to the Pacific, had distinguished himself on several occasions by an unrivalled intrepidity, and published an account of that voyage, with details unfavorable to Cook’s deportment towards the savages, and lessening our regrets at his fate; Ledyard had come to Paris, in the hope of forming a company to engage in the fur-trade of the Western coast of America. He was disappointed in this, and being out of business, and of a roaming, restless character, I suggested to him the enterprise of exploring the Western part of our continent, by passing through St. Petersburg to Kamtschatka, and procuring a passage thence in some of the Russian vessels to Nootka sound, whence he might make his way across the continent to the United States; and I undertook to have the permission of the Empress of Russia solicited. He eagerly embraced the proposition, and M. de Semoulin, the Russian Ambassador, and more particularly Baron Grimm, the special correspondent of the Empress, solicited her permission for him to pass through her dominions, to the Western coast of America. And here I must correct a material error, which I have committed in another place, to the prejudice of the Empress. In writing some notes of the life of Captain Lewis, prefixed to his ‘Expedition to the Pacific,’ I stated, that the Empress gave the permission asked, and afterwards retracted it. This idea, after a lapse of twenty-six years, had so insinuated itself into my mind, that I committed it to paper, without the least suspicion of error. Yet I find, on returning to my letters of that date, that the Empress refused permission at once, considering the enterprise as entirely chimerical. But Ledyard would not relinquish it, persuading himself, that, by proceeding to St. Petersburg, he could satisfy the Empress of its practicability, and obtain her permission. He went accordingly, but she was absent on a visit to some distant part of her dominions, and he pursued his course to within two hundred miles of Kamtschatka, where he was overtaken by an arrest from the Empress, brought back to Poland, and there dismissed. I must, therefore, in justice, acquit the Empress of ever having for a moment countenanced, even by the indulgence of an innocent passage through her territories, this interesting enterprise.
In 1786, while in Paris, I met John Ledyard from Connecticut, a talented man with some knowledge, fearless courage, and a spirit of adventure. He had traveled with Captain Cook on his Pacific voyage, distinguished himself with unmatched bravery on several occasions, and published an account of that journey that criticized Cook's treatment of the natives, which helped lessen our sadness over his fate. Ledyard came to Paris hoping to form a company for the fur trade on the Western coast of America. When that didn't work out, and feeling restless and without direction, I suggested he explore the Western part of our continent by traveling through St. Petersburg to Kamtschatka, then securing passage on a Russian ship to Nootka Sound, from where he could cross the continent to the United States. I offered to request permission from the Empress of Russia. He eagerly accepted the idea, and M. de Semoulin, the Russian Ambassador, along with Baron Grimm, the Empress's special correspondent, sought her permission for him to transit through her lands to the Western coast of America. Here, I must correct a significant error I made elsewhere, which negatively reflects on the Empress. In writing notes about Captain Lewis's life, which precede his "Expedition to the Pacific," I claimed that the Empress granted the requested permission and then retracted it. This belief had so ingrained itself in my mind over the twenty-six years that I wrote it down without realizing it was wrong. However, upon reviewing my letters from that time, I found that the Empress outright refused permission, thinking the endeavor was completely unrealistic. Nevertheless, Ledyard persisted, convincing himself that if he went to St. Petersburg, he could prove its feasibility to the Empress and gain her consent. He proceeded, but she was away visiting a remote part of her empire, and he traveled to within two hundred miles of Kamtschatka before being arrested by the Empress’s orders, returned to Poland, and dismissed. Therefore, to be fair, I must clear the Empress of ever having entertained this fascinating project, even with the allowance of a simple passage through her territories.
The pecuniary distresses of France produced this year a measure, of which there had been no example for near two centuries; and the consequences of which, good and evil, are not yet calculable. For its remote causes, we must go a little back.
The financial troubles in France led to a measure this year that hasn’t been seen in nearly two centuries, and the outcomes, both good and bad, are still unpredictable. To understand the distant causes, we need to look back a bit.
Celebrated writers of France and England had already sketched good principles on the subject of government: yet the American Revolution seems first to have awakened the thinking part of the French nation in general from the sleep of despotism in which they were sunk. The officers, too, who had been to America, were mostly young men, less shackled by habit and prejudice, and more ready to assent to the suggestions of common sense, and feeling of common rights, than others. They came back with new ideas and impressions. The press, notwithstanding its shackles, began to disseminate them; conversation assumed new freedoms; politics became the theme of all societies, male and female, and a very extensive and zealous party was formed, which acquired the appellation of the Patriotic party, who, sensible of the abusive government under which they lived, sighed for occasions for reforming it. This party comprehended all the honesty of the kingdom, sufficiently at leisure to think, the men of letters, the easy Bourgeois, the young nobility, partly from reflection, partly from mode; for these sentiments became matter of mode, and, as such, united most of the young women to the party. Happily for the nation, it happened, at the same moment, that the dissipations of the queen and court, the abuses of the pension-list, and dilapidations in the administration of every branch of the finances, had exhausted the treasures and credit of the nation, insomuch, that its most necessary functions were paralyzed. To reform these abuses would have overset the Minister; to impose new taxes by the authority of the king, was known to be impossible, from the determined opposition of the Parliament to their enregistry. No resource remained, then, but to appeal to the nation. He advised, therefore, the call of an Assembly of the most distinguished characters of the nation, in the hope, that, by promises of various and valuable improvements in the organization and regimen of the government, they would be induced to authorize new taxes, to control the opposition of the Parliament, and to raise the annual revenue to the level of expenditures. An Assembly of Notables, therefore, about one hundred and fifty in number, named by the King, convened on the 22nd of February. The Minister (Calonne) stated to them, that the annual excess of expenses beyond the revenue, when Louis XVI. came to the throne, was thirty-seven millions of livres; that four hundred and forty millions had been borrowed to re-establish the navy; that the American war had cost them fourteen hundred and forty millions (two hundred and fifty-six millions of dollars), and that the interest of these sums, with other increased expenses, had added forty millions more to the annual deficit. (But a subsequent and more candid estimate made it fifty-six millions.) He proffered them an universal redress of grievances, laid open those grievances fully, pointed out sound remedies, and, covering his canvass with objects of this magnitude, the deficit dwindled to a little accessory, scarcely attracting attention. The persons chosen, were the most able and independent characters in the kingdom, and their support, if it could be obtained, would be enough for him. They improved the occasion for redressing their grievances, and agreed that the public wants should be relieved; but went into an examination of the causes of them. It was supposed that Calonne was conscious that his accounts could not bear examination; and it was said, and believed, that he asked of the King, to send four members to the Bastile, of whom the Marquis de la Fayette was one, to banish twenty others, and two of his Ministers. The King found it shorter to banish him. His successor went on in full concert with the Assembly. The result was an augmentation of the revenue, a promise of economies in its expenditure, of an annual settlement of the public accounts before a council, which the Comptroller, having been heretofore obliged to settle only with the King in person, of course never settled at all; an acknowledgment that the King could not lay a new tax, a reformation of the Criminal laws, abolition of torture, suppression of corvees, reformation of the gabelles, removal of the interior custom-houses, free commerce of grain, internal and external, and the establishment of Provincial Assemblies; which, altogether, constituted a great mass of improvement in the condition of the nation. The establishment of the Provincial Assemblies was, in itself, a fundamental improvement. They would be, of the choice of the people, one third renewed every year, in those provinces where there are no states, that is to say, over about three fourths of the kingdom. They would be partly an Executive themselves, and partly an Executive Council to the Intendant, to whom the executive power, in his province, had been heretofore entirely delegated. Chosen by the people, they would soften the execution of hard laws, and, having a right of representation to the King, they would censure bad laws, suggest good ones, expose abuses, and their representations, when united, would command respect. To the other advantages, might be added the precedent itself of calling the Assemblée des Notables, which would perhaps grow into habit. The hope was, that the improvements thus promised would be carried into effect; that they would be maintained during the present reign, and that that would be long enough for them to take some root in the constitution, so that they might come to be considered as a part of that, and be protected by time, and the attachment of the nation.
Celebrated writers from France and England had already outlined solid principles on government, but the American Revolution appears to have first stirred the French populace from the deep slumber of despotism they had been in. The officers who had gone to America were mainly young men, less constrained by traditions and biases, and more open to the ideas of common sense and shared rights than others. They returned with fresh perspectives and insights. Despite censorship, the press began to spread these new ideas; conversations grew bolder; politics became the hot topic in social circles, both male and female. A large and passionate group emerged, known as the Patriotic party, who recognized the oppressive government under which they lived and yearned for opportunities to reform it. This group included all the honest citizens of the country, those who had the time to think, the intellectuals, the comfortable bourgeois, and the young nobility, partly inspired by reflection and partly by fashion; these ideas became fashionable, attracting most of the young women to the party. Fortunately for the nation, at the same time, the excesses of the queen and court, the misuse of the pension list, and mismanagement in every area of the finances had drained the nation’s resources and credit, rendering its essential functions paralyzed. Reforming these abuses would have toppled the Minister; imposing new taxes under the king’s authority was known to be impossible due to the Parliament's strong opposition to their registration. Thus, the only remaining option was to appeal to the nation. He then suggested calling an Assembly of the nation’s most distinguished figures, hoping that by promising various valuable improvements in the structure and management of the government, they would be persuaded to approve new taxes, curb the Parliament's opposition, and align annual revenue with expenditures. Consequently, an Assembly of Notables, comprising about one hundred and fifty members appointed by the King, convened on February 22nd. The Minister (Calonne) informed them that when Louis XVI came to the throne, the annual deficit was thirty-seven million livres; that four hundred and forty million had been borrowed to restore the navy; that the American war had cost them fourteen hundred and forty million (two hundred and fifty-six million dollars), and that the interest on these debts, along with other increased costs, added forty million more to the annual deficit. (However, a later and more accurate estimate indicated it was fifty-six million.) He offered them a comprehensive plan for addressing grievances, fully outlined the issues, pointed out effective solutions, and, by highlighting these significant matters, the deficit appeared minor and hardly caught attention. The chosen members were the most capable and independent figures in the kingdom, and if he could win their support, it would be sufficient for him. They seized the opportunity to address their grievances and agreed that the public’s needs should be met; however, they began analyzing the causes behind those needs. It was thought that Calonne realized his accounts wouldn’t survive scrutiny; it was rumored and believed that he requested the King to send four members to the Bastille, one of whom was the Marquis de Lafayette, to exile twenty others, along with two of his Ministers. The King found it easier to just exile him. His successor worked closely with the Assembly. The outcome was an increase in revenue, a promise of reductions in spending, an annual review of public accounts before a council—which the Comptroller, previously compelled to report only to the King, had never done—an acknowledgment that the King couldn’t impose new taxes, reform of the criminal laws, the abolition of torture, suppression of corvées, reform of the gabelles, removal of internal customs, free trade of grain, both domestically and internationally, and the establishment of Provincial Assemblies. Together, these reforms represented a significant improvement in the nation’s condition. The creation of Provincial Assemblies was a fundamental enhancement in itself. They would be elected by the people, renewed by one third each year in provinces without states, covering about three-fourths of the kingdom. They would partially act as an Executive and serve as an Executive Council to the Intendant, who previously had all executive power in his province. Elected by the people, they would ease the enforcement of harsh laws and have the right to represent their views to the King, allowing them to critique poor laws, propose better ones, expose abuses, and their collective opinions would demand respect. Additionally, the precedent of calling the Assemblée des Notables would likely become a new custom. The hope was that the improvements promised would be implemented, maintained throughout the current reign, and last long enough to become entrenched in the constitution, ultimately being protected by time and the loyalty of the nation.
The Count de Vergennes had died a few days before the meeting of the Assembly, and the Count de Montmorin had been named Minister of foreign affairs, in his place. Villedeuil succeeded Calonne, as Comptroller General, and Lomenie de Brienne, Archbishop of Toulouse, afterwards of Sens, and ultimately Cardinal Lomenie, was named Minister principal, with whom the other Ministers were to transact the business of their departments, heretofore done with the King in person; and the Duke de Nivernois, and M. de Malesherbes, were called to the Council. On the nomination of the Minister principal, the Marshals de Segur and de Castries retired from the departments of War and Marine, unwilling to act subordinately, or to share the blame of proceedings taken out of their direction. They were succeeded by the Count de Brienne, brother of the Prime Minister, and the Marquis de la Luzerne, brother to him who had been Minister in the United States.
The Count de Vergennes passed away just a few days before the Assembly meeting, and the Count de Montmorin was appointed as the new Minister of Foreign Affairs. Villedeuil took over from Calonne as Comptroller General, and Lomenie de Brienne, the Archbishop of Toulouse, later Archbishop of Sens, and eventually Cardinal Lomenie, was appointed as the principal minister, with whom the other ministers would handle their departmental affairs, which had previously been done directly with the King. The Duke de Nivernois and M. de Malesherbes were invited to the Council. Following the appointment of the principal minister, Marshals de Segur and de Castries stepped down from the War and Marine departments, not wanting to work under someone else or take responsibility for decisions made without their input. They were replaced by the Count de Brienne, the Prime Minister's brother, and the Marquis de la Luzerne, brother of the former Minister in the United States.
A dislocated wrist, unsuccessfully set, occasioned advice from my surgeon, to try the mineral waters of Aix, in Provence, as a corroborant. I left Paris for that place therefore, on the 28th of February, and proceeded up the Seine, through Champagne and Burgundy, and down the Rhone through the Beaujolais by Lyons, Avignon, Nismes, to Aix; where, finding on trial no benefit from the waters, I concluded to visit the rice country of Piedmont, to see if any thing might be learned there, to benefit the rivalship of our Carolina rice with that, and thence to make a tour of the seaport towns of France, along its Southern and Western coast, to inform myself, if any thing could be done to favor our commerce with them. From Aix, therefore, I took my route by Marseilles, Toulon, Hieres, Nice, across the Col de Tende, by Coni, Turin, Vercelli, Novara, Milan, Pavia, Novi, Genoa. Thence, returning along the coast by Savona. Noli, Albenga, Oneglia, Monaco, Nice, Antibes, Frejus, Aix, Marseilles, Avignon, Nismes, Montpellier, Frontignan, Sette, Agde, and along the canal of Languedoc, by Beziers, Narbonne, Carcassonne, Castelnaudari, through the Souterrain of St. Feriol, and back by Castelnaudari, to Toulouse; thence to Montauban, and down the Garonne by Langon to Bordeaux. Thence to Rochefort, la Rochelle, Nantes, L’Orient; then back by Rennes to Nantes, and up the Loire by Angers, Tours, Amboise, Blois, to Orleans, thence direct to Paris, where I arrived on the 10th of June. Soon after my return from this journey, to wit, about the latter part of July, I received my younger daughter, Maria, from Virginia, by the way of London, the youngest having died some time before.
A dislocated wrist, which didn't heal properly, led my surgeon to recommend that I try the mineral waters of Aix in Provence as a remedy. So, I left Paris for that destination on February 28th and traveled up the Seine, through Champagne and Burgundy, and down the Rhône through Beaujolais, passing by Lyon, Avignon, and Nîmes to Aix. After trying the waters and finding no benefit, I decided to visit the rice country of Piedmont to see if I could learn anything that could help our Carolina rice compete with theirs. From there, I planned to tour the seaport towns of France along the southern and western coast to see if there were ways to boost our commerce with them. I then took my route from Aix through Marseille, Toulon, Hyères, Nice, across the Col de Tende, and through Coni, Turin, Vercelli, Novara, Milan, Pavia, Novi, and Genoa. After that, I returned along the coast through Savona, Noli, Albenga, Oneglia, Monaco, Nice, Antibes, Fréjus, Aix, Marseille, Avignon, Nîmes, Montpellier, Frontignan, Sète, Agde, and along the Canal du Midi, passing through Béziers, Narbonne, Carcassonne, Castelnaudary, through the Souterrain of St. Feriol, and back to Castelnaudary, then to Toulouse. From there, I went to Montauban and traveled down the Garonne to Bordeaux. After that, I visited Rochefort, La Rochelle, Nantes, L'Orient; then I returned through Rennes to Nantes and went up the Loire, stopping in Angers, Tours, Amboise, Blois, and Orleans, before heading straight back to Paris, where I arrived on June 10th. Shortly after returning from this trip, around late July, I welcomed my younger daughter, Maria, from Virginia via London, as my youngest had passed away some time earlier.
The treasonable perfidy of the Prince of Orange, Stadtholder and Captain General of the United Netherlands, in the war which England waged against them, for entering into a treaty of commerce with the United States, is known to all. As their Executive officer, charged with the conduct of the war, he contrived to baffle all the measures of the States General, to dislocate all their military plans, and played false into the hands of England against his own country, on every possible occasion, confident in her protection, and in that of the King of Prussia, brother to his Princess. The States General, indignant at this patricidal conduct, applied to France for aid, according to the stipulations of the treaty, concluded with her in ‘85. It was assured to them readily, and in cordial terms, in a letter from the Count de Vergennes, to the Marquis de Verac, Ambassador of France at the Hague, of which the following is an extract.
The treasonous betrayal by the Prince of Orange, Stadtholder and Captain General of the United Netherlands, during England's war against them, for making a trade agreement with the United States, is well-known. As their Executive officer responsible for managing the war, he managed to undermine all the actions of the States General, disrupt all their military strategies, and acted against his own country in favor of England at every opportunity, trusting in her support and that of the King of Prussia, who is the brother of his Princess. The States General, outraged by this treacherous behavior, sought assistance from France as outlined in the treaty made with her in '85. They received a prompt and friendly response in a letter from Count de Vergennes to Marquis de Verac, the French Ambassador at the Hague, of which the following is an excerpt.
‘Extrait de la dépêche de Monsieur le Comte de Vergennes à Monsieur le Marquis de Verac, Ambassadeurde France à la Haye, du ler Mars, 1786.
‘Excerpt from the dispatch of Monsieur le Comte de Vergennes to Monsieur le Marquis de Verac, Ambassador of France in The Hague, dated March 1, 1786.
‘Le Roi concourrera, autant qu’il sera en son pouvoir, au succès de la chose, et vous inviterez, de sa part, les Patriotes de lui communiquer leurs vues, leurs plans, et leurs envies. Vous les assurerez, que le roi prend un interêt véritable à leurs personnes cornme à leur cause, et qu’ils peuvent compter sur sa protection. Us doivent y compter d’autant plus, Monsieur, que nous ne dissimulons pas, que si Monsieur le Stadtholder reprend son ancienne influence, le système Anglois ne tardera pas de prévaloir, et que notre alliance deviendroit un être de raison. Les Patriotes sentiront facilement, que cette position seroit incompatible avec la dignité, comme avec la considération de sa Majesté. Mais dans le cas, Monsieur, ou les chefs des Patriotes auroient à craindre une scission, ils auroient le temps suffisant peur ramener ceux de leurs amis, que les Anglomanes ont égarés, et préparer les choses, de maniere que la question de nouveau mise en délibération, soit decidée selon leurs desirs. Dans cette hypothèse, le roi vous autorise à agir de concert avec eux, de suivre la direction qu’ils jugeront devoir vous donner, et d’employer tous les moyens pour augmenter le nombre des partisans de la bonne cause. Il me reste, Monsieur, de vous parler de la sureté personelle des Patriotes. Vous les assurerez, que dans tout état de cause, le roi les prend sous sa protection immédiate, et vous ferez connoître, partout où vous le jugerez nécessaire, que sa Majesté regarderoit comme une offense personelle, tout ce qu’on entreprenderoit contre leur liberté. Il est á presumer que ce langage, tenu avec énergie, en imposera á l’audace des Anglomanes, et que Monsieur le Prince de Nassau croira courir quelque risque en provoquant le ressentiment de sa Majesté.’ *
‘The King will do everything in his power to support the cause, and on his behalf, you will encourage the Patriots to share their views, plans, and desires with him. You will assure them that the King truly cares about them as individuals and their cause, and they can count on his protection. They should count on it even more, sir, because we do not hide the fact that if the Stadtholder regains his former influence, the English system will quickly prevail, and our alliance will become a mere formality. The Patriots will easily feel that this situation would be incompatible with both the dignity and the standing of His Majesty. However, if the leaders of the Patriots fear a split, they will have enough time to bring back those of their friends who have been misled by the Anglophiles, and prepare matters so that when the question is debated again, it will be decided according to their wishes. In this scenario, the King authorizes you to act in concert with them, to follow the direction they believe you should take, and to use all means to increase the number of supporters for the good cause. Finally, sir, I must speak to you about the personal safety of the Patriots. You will assure them that in any case, the King places them under his immediate protection, and you will communicate, wherever you deem necessary, that His Majesty would consider any attempt against their freedom a personal offense. It is to be expected that this strong language will intimidate the boldness of the Anglophiles, and that His Highness the Prince of Nassau will believe he risks something by provoking the resentment of His Majesty.’ *
[*Extract from the dispatch of Count de Vergennes to the Marquis de Verac, Ambassador from France, in The Hague, dated March 1, 1788. ‘The King will provide assistance to the best of his ability to ensure the success of the matter at hand, and on his behalf, you should encourage the Patriots to share their thoughts, plans, and grievances with him. You can assure them that the King genuinely cares about them and their cause, and they can trust in his protection. They should consider this assurance significant because we do not hide the fact that if the Stadtholder regains his previous influence, the English system will likely dominate, and our alliance will merely be a figment of imagination. The Patriots will quickly recognize that such a situation would undermine both the dignity and respect due to his Majesty. However, if the head of the Patriots fears division, they will have enough time to win back those misled by the Anglomaniacs and to arrange matters so that when the issue arises again, it can be resolved according to their desires. In this hypothetical scenario, the King authorizes you to work together with them, to follow any guidance they deem appropriate, and to use every means to increase the number of supporters for the good cause. Finally, I must address the personal safety of the Patriots. You can assure them that, in any circumstance, the King will provide them with his immediate protection, and you should communicate, wherever you see fit, that his Majesty will consider any action against their freedom a personal affront. This firm stance may impact the boldness of the Anglomaniacs, and the Prince de Nassau will recognize that he risks provoking the anger of his Majesty.’]
This letter was communicated by the Patriots to me, when at Amsterdam, in 1788, and a copy sent by me to Mr. Jay, in my letter to him of March 16, 1788.
This letter was shared with me by the Patriots when I was in Amsterdam in 1788, and I sent a copy to Mr. Jay in my letter to him dated March 16, 1788.
The object of the Patriots was, to establish a representative and republican government. The majority of the States General were with them, but the majority of the populace of the towns was with the Prince of Orange; and that populace was played off with great effect by the triumvirate of * * * Harris, the English Ambassador, afterwards Lord Malmesbury, the Prince of Orange, a stupid man, and the Princess, as much a man as either of her colleagues, in audaciousness, in enterprise, and in the thirst of domination. By these, the mobs of the Hague were excited against the members of the States General; their persons were insulted, and endangered in the streets; the sanctuary of their houses was violated; and the Prince, whose function and duty it was to repress and punish these violations of order, took no steps for that purpose. The States General, for their own protection, were therefore obliged to place their militia under the command of a Committee. The Prince filled the courts of London and Berlin with complaints at this usurpation of his prerogatives, and, forgetting that he was but the first servant of a Republic, marched his regular troops against the city of Utrecht, where the States were in session. They were repulsed by the militia. His interests now became marshaled with those of the public enemy, and against his own country. The States, therefore, exercising their rights of sovereignty, deprived him of all his powers. The great Frederic had died in August, ‘86. He had never intended to break with France in support of the Prince of Orange. During the illness of which he died, he had, through the Duke of Brunswick, declared to the Marquis de la Fayette, who was then at Berlin, that he meant not to support the English interest in Holland: that he might assure the government of France, his only wish was, that some honorable place in the Constitution should be reserved for the Stadtholder and his children, and that he would take no part in the quarrel, unless an entire abolition of the Stadtholderate should be attempted. But his place was now occupied by Frederic William, his great nephew, a man of little understanding, much caprice, and very inconsiderate: and the Princess, his sister, although her husband was in arms against the legitimate authorities of the country, attempting to go to Amsterdam, for the purpose of exciting the mobs of that place, and being refused permission to pass a military post on the way, he put the Duke of Brunswick at the head of twenty thousand men, and made demonstrations of marching on Holland. The King of France hereupon declared, by his Chargé des Affaires in Holland, that if the Prussian troops continued to menace Holland with an invasion, his Majesty, in quality of Ally, was determined to succor that province. In answer to this, Eden gave official information to Count Montmorin, that England must consider as at an end, its convention with France relative to giving notice of its naval armaments, and that she was arming generally. War being now imminent, Eden, since Lord Aukland, questioned me on the effect of our treaty with France, in the case of a war, and what might be our dispositions. I told him frankly, and without hesitation, that our dispositions would be neutral, and that I thought it would be the interest of both these powers that we should be so; because, it would relieve both from all anxiety as to feeding their West India islands; that, England, too, by suffering us to remain so, would avoid a heavy land war on our Continent, which might very much cripple her proceedings elsewhere; that our treaty, indeed, obliged us to receive into our ports the armed vessels of France, with their prizes, and to refuse admission to the prizes made on her by her enemies: that there was a clause, also, by which we guaranteed to France her American possessions, which might perhaps force us into the war, if these were attacked. ‘Then it will be war,’ said he, ‘for they will assuredly be attacked.’ Liston, at Madrid, about the same time, made the same enquiries of Carmichael. The government of France then declared a determination to form a camp of observation at Givet, commenced arming her marine, and named the Bailli de Suffrein their Generalissimo on the Ocean. She secretly engaged, also, in negotiations with Russia, Austria, and Spain, to form a quadruple alliance. The Duke of Brunswick having advanced to the confines of Holland, sent some of his officers to Givet, to reconnoitre the state of things there, and report them to him. He said afterwards, that ‘if there, had been only a few tents at that place, he should not have advanced further, for that the king would not, merely for the interest of his sister, engage in a war with France.’ But, finding that there was not a single company there, he boldly entered the country, took their towns as fast as he presented himself before them, and advanced on Utrecht. The States had appointed the Rhingrave of Salm their Commander in chief; a Prince without talents, without courage, and without principle. He might have held out in Utrecht, for a considerable time, but he surrendered the place without firing a gun, literally ran away and hid himself, so that for months it was not known what was become of him. Amsterdam was then attacked, and capitulated. In the mean time, the negotiations for the quadruple alliance were proceeding favorably; but the secrecy with which they were attempted to be conducted, was penetrated by Fraser, Chargé des Affaires of England at St. Petersburg, who instantly notified his court, and gave the alarm to Prussia. The King saw at once what would be his situation, between the jaws of France, Austria, and Russia. In great dismay, he besought the court of London not to abandon him, sent Alvensleben to Paris to explain and soothe; and England, through the Duke of Dorset and Eden, renewed her conferences for accommodation. The Archbishop, who shuddered at the idea of war, and preferred a peaceful surrender of right, to an armed vindication of it, received them with open arms, entered into cordial conferences, and a declaration, and counter-declaration, were cooked up at Versailles, and sent to London for approbation. They were approved there, reached Paris at one o’clock of the 27th, and were signed that night at Versailles. It was said and believed at Paris, that M. de Montrnorin, literally ‘pleuroit cotnrae un enfant,’ when obliged to sign this counter-declaration; so distressed was he by the dishonor of sacrificing the Patriots, after assurances so solemn of protection, and absolute encouragement to proceed. The Prince of Orange was reinstated in all his powers, now become regal. A great emigration of the Patriots took place; all were deprived of office, many exiled, and their property confiscated. They were received in France, and subsisted, for some time, on her bounty. Thus fell Holland, by the treachery of her Chief, from her honorable independence, to become a province of England; and so, also, her Stadtholder, from the high station of the first citizen of a free Republic, to be the servile Viceroy of a foreign Sovereign. And this was effected by a mere scene of bullying and demonstration; not one of the parties, France, England, or Prussia, having ever really meant to encounter actual war for the interest of the Prince of Orange. But it had all the effect of a real and decisive war.
The goal of the Patriots was to establish a representative and republican government. Most of the States General supported them, but the majority of the town population sided with the Prince of Orange. That population was effectively manipulated by a trio consisting of * * * Harris, the English Ambassador who later became Lord Malmesbury, the Prince of Orange, who was quite uninformed, and the Princess, who matched her colleagues in boldness, ambition, and desire for control. They incited the crowds in The Hague against the members of the States General; their members were insulted and threatened in the streets, their homes were intruded upon, and the Prince, whose role was to suppress and punish these disorderly acts, did nothing to address them. To protect themselves, the States General had to put their militia under the command of a Committee. The Prince flooded the courts of London and Berlin with complaints about this usurpation of his powers, forgetting he was merely the chief servant of a Republic. He marched his regular troops against the city of Utrecht, where the States were in session, but they were driven back by the militia. His interests now aligned with the public enemy, opposing his own country. Therefore, the States exercised their sovereignty rights and stripped him of all his powers. The great Frederick had died in August ‘86. He had never intended to break with France to support the Prince of Orange. During his final illness, he had communicated through the Duke of Brunswick to the Marquis de Lafayette in Berlin that he did not intend to support English interests in Holland. He wanted to assure the French government that he wished for some honorable position in the Constitution to be reserved for the Stadtholder and his children, and he would not get involved unless there was an attempt to completely dismantle the Stadtholderate. But his position was now taken by Frederick William, his great-nephew, who was not very bright, quite capricious, and very reckless. The Princess, his sister, despite her husband being in arms against the legitimate authorities of the country, tried to travel to Amsterdam to incite riots there. When she was denied permission to pass a military checkpoint, the Prince put the Duke of Brunswick in charge of twenty thousand men and threatened to march into Holland. The King of France then announced, through his Chargé des Affaires in Holland, that if the Prussian troops kept threatening Holland with invasion, he, as an ally, was determined to help that province. In response, Eden informed Count Montmorin that England would consider its agreement with France regarding notifying each other about naval armaments to be null and void, and that they were arming up. As war loomed, Eden, following Lord Auckland's lead, asked me about the implications of our treaty with France in the event of war and what our decisions might be. I told him candidly that our stance would be neutral and that I thought it would be in the best interest of both powers for us to remain so; it would ease their concerns about supplying their West Indies islands. Additionally, England could avoid a heavy land war on our continent, which could significantly hinder her operations elsewhere. Our treaty obligated us to allow French armed ships and their prizes into our ports while denying access to prizes taken by their enemies. There was also a clause guaranteeing France her American territories, which might compel us into the war if they were attacked. "Then it will be war," he said, "because they will definitely be attacked." Around the same time, Liston in Madrid made similar inquiries of Carmichael. The French government then declared its intention to set up a camp for observation at Givet, began arming its navy, and appointed the Bailli de Suffrein as their Generalissimo at sea. They also secretly started negotiations with Russia, Austria, and Spain to form a quadruple alliance. The Duke of Brunswick, having advanced to the borders of Holland, sent some of his officers to Givet to scout the situation there and report back. He later claimed that if only a few tents had been present at that location, he wouldn't have pushed for further advancement because the king would not engage in a war with France just for his sister's interests. However, upon discovering there wasn't a single company stationed there, he boldly entered the country, capturing towns as soon as he approached them and marched towards Utrecht. The States had appointed the Rhingrave of Salm as their commander-in-chief; a prince with no talent, courage, or principles. He could have held out in Utrecht for a long time, but he surrendered without firing a shot and literally ran away, hiding himself, so that for months no one knew what had happened to him. Amsterdam was then attacked and capitulated. Meanwhile, negotiations for the quadruple alliance proceeded favorably, but their secretive nature was uncovered by Fraser, the Chargé des Affaires of England in St. Petersburg, who quickly informed his court and alarmed Prussia. The King immediately recognized his precarious position, caught between France, Austria, and Russia. In great distress, he implored the court in London not to abandon him, sent Alvensleben to Paris to explain and reassure; and England, via the Duke of Dorset and Eden, resumed discussions for reconciliation. The Archbishop, who was horrified at the idea of war and preferred a peaceful resolution to an armed assertion of rights, welcomed them warmly and entered into friendly talks. A declaration and a counter-declaration were drafted at Versailles and sent to London for approval. They were approved and arrived in Paris at 1:00 PM on the 27th, being signed that night at Versailles. It was said and believed in Paris that M. de Montmorin was literally "weeping like a child" when compelled to sign this counter-declaration, so troubled was he by the disgrace of betraying the Patriots after such solemn assurances of protection and encouragement to continue their cause. The Prince of Orange was restored to all his powers, now effectively regal. A significant emigration of Patriots occurred; all were stripped of their offices, many were exiled, and their properties were confiscated. They were taken in by France, who supported them for a time. Thus, Holland fell, through the betrayal of its Chief, from its honorable independence to become a province of England; and so did its Stadtholder, from the esteemed position of the first citizen of a free Republic to the subservient Viceroy of a foreign Sovereign. This was accomplished through mere threats and displays of force; none of the parties—France, England, or Prussia—ever truly intended to engage in real war for the benefit of the Prince of Orange. Nonetheless, it had all the effects of a genuine and decisive war.
Our first essay, in America, to establish a federative government had fallen, on trial, very short of its object. During the war of Independence, while the pressure of an external enemy hooped us together, and their enterprises kept us necessarily on the alert, the spirit of the people, excited by danger, was a supplement to the Confederation, and urged them to zealous exertions, whether claimed by that instrument or not; but, when peace and safety were restored, and every man became engaged in useful and profitable occupation, less attention was paid to the calls of Congress. The fundamental defect of the Confederation was, that Congress was not authorized to act immediately on the people, and by its own officers. Their power was only requisitory, and these requisitions were addressed to the several Legislatures, to be by them carried into execution, without other coercion than the moral principle of duty. This allowed, in fact, a negative to every legislature, on every measure proposed by Congress; a negative so frequently exercised in practice, as to benumb the action of the Federal government, and to render it inefficient in its general objects, and more especially in pecuniary and foreign concerns. The want, too, of a separation of the Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary functions, worked disadvantageously in practice. Yet this state of things afforded a happy augury of the future march of our Confederacy, when it was seen that the good sense and good dispositions of the people, as soon as they perceived the incompetence of their first compact, instead of leaving its correction to insurrection and civil war, agreed, with one voice, to elect deputies to a general Convention, who should peaceably meet and agree on such a Constitution as ‘would ensure peace, justice, liberty, the common defence, and general welfare.’
Our first essay in America to establish a federal government fell far short of its goal. During the War of Independence, the pressure from an external enemy kept us united, and their actions kept us on high alert. The people's spirit, fueled by danger, supported the Confederation and motivated them to work hard, whether it was requested by that document or not. However, once peace and safety were restored and everyone got busy with their own productive work, people paid less attention to Congress's calls. The Confederation's main flaw was that Congress had no power to act directly on the people and used its own officers. Their authority was only a request, with these requests sent to the various legislatures to be executed by them, relying solely on the moral obligation to comply. This effectively allowed every legislature to veto any measure proposed by Congress, and this veto was often used, which stifled the Federal government's effectiveness and made it weak, especially regarding financial and foreign matters. Additionally, the lack of separation among the Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary functions worked against us. Nonetheless, this situation offered a hopeful sign for the future of our Confederacy when it became clear that the good judgment and intentions of the people, upon realizing the inadequacy of their initial agreement, chose, in unison, to elect representatives for a general Convention, who would meet peacefully and agree on a Constitution that would guarantee peace, justice, liberty, common defense, and the general welfare.
This Convention met at Philadelphia on the 25th of May, ‘87. It sat with closed doors, and kept all its proceedings secret, until its dissolution on the 17th of September, when the results of its labors were published all together. I received a copy, early in November, and read and contemplated its provisions with great satisfaction. As not a member of the Convention, however, nor probably a single citizen of the Union, had approved it in all its parts, so I, too, found articles which I thought objectionable. The absence of express declarations ensuring freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of the person under the uninterrupted protection of the habeas corpus and trial by jury in civil, as well as in criminal cases, excited my jealousy; and the re-eligibility of the President for life, I quite disapproved. I expressed freely, in letters to my friends, and most particularly to Mr. Madison and General Washington, my approbations and objections. How the good should be secured, and the ill brought to rights, was the difficulty. To refer it back to a new Convention, might endanger the loss of the whole. My first idea was, that the nine states first acting, should accept it unconditionally, and thus secure what in it was good, and that the four last should accept on the previous condition, that certain amendments should be agreed to; but a better course was devised, of accepting the whole, and trusting that the good sense and honest intentions of our citizens would make the alterations which should be deemed necessary. Accordingly, all accepted, six without objection, and seven with recommendations of specified amendments. Those respecting the press, religion, and juries, with several others, of great value, were accordingly made; but the habeas corpus was left to the discretion of Congress, and the amendment against the re-eligibility of the President was not proposed. My fears of that feature were founded on the importance of the office, on the fierce contentions it might excite among ourselves, if continuable for life, and the dangers of interference, either with money or arms, by foreign nations, to whom the choice of an American President might become interesting. Examples of this abounded in history; in the case of the Roman Emperors, for instance; of the Popes, while of any significance; of the German Emperors; the Kings of Poland, and the Deys of Barbary. I had observed, too, in the feudal history, and in the recent instance, particularly, of the Stadtholder of Holland, how easily offices, or tenures for life, slide into inheritances. My wish, therefore, was that the President should be elected for seven years, and be ineligible afterwards. This term I thought sufficient to enable him, with the concurrence of the Legislature, to carry though and establish any system of improvement he should propose for the general good. But the practice adopted, I think, is better, allowing his continuance for eight years, with a liability to be dropped at half way of the term, making that a period of probation. That his continuance should be restrained to seven years, was the opinion of the Convention at an earlier stage of its session, when it voted that term, by a majority of eight against two, and by a simple majority, that he should be ineligible a second time. This opinion was confirmed by the House so late as July 26, referred to the Committee of detail, reported favorably by them, and changed to the present form by final vote, on the last day, but one only, of their session. Of this change, three states expressed their disapprobation; New York, by recommending an amendment, that the President should not be eligible a third time, and Virginia and North Carolina, that he should not be capable of serving more than eight, in any term of sixteen years; and although this amendment has not been made in form, yet practice seems to have established it. The example of four Presidents, voluntarily retiring at the end of their eighth year, and the progress of public opinion, that the principle is salutary, have given it in practice the force of precedent and usage; insomuch, that should a President consent to be a candidate for a third election, I trust he would be rejected, on this demonstration of ambitious views.
This Convention gathered in Philadelphia on May 25, 1787. It held its meetings behind closed doors and kept everything confidential until it concluded on September 17, when the results of its work were published. I received a copy early in November and read and thought about its provisions with great satisfaction. However, since I was not a member of the Convention, nor likely was any citizen of the Union fully in agreement with it, I too found certain articles that I thought were problematic. The lack of clear statements guaranteeing freedom of religion, freedom of the press, the right to personal liberty under the uninterrupted protection of *habeas corpus*, and trial by jury in both civil and criminal cases raised my concerns; and I strongly opposed the idea of the President being eligible for life. I expressed my approval and objections freely in letters to my friends, particularly to Mr. Madison and General Washington. The challenge lay in figuring out how to secure the positive aspects while correcting the negatives. Referring it back to a new Convention might risk losing everything. My initial thought was that the nine states that acted first should accept it unconditionally to secure its good parts, and the last four should agree on the condition that certain amendments be accepted; but a better approach was found: to accept it as a whole and trust that the common sense and good intentions of our citizens would lead to necessary changes. As it turned out, all accepted it—six without any objections and seven with recommendations for specific amendments. Those related to the press, religion, and juries, among others of great importance, were made; however, *habeas corpus* was left at Congress's discretion, and the amendment against the re-eligibility of the President was not proposed. My concerns about this point stemmed from the significance of the office, the intense rivalries it could provoke among us if a President served for life, and the risks of interference, either financially or militarily, by foreign nations that might have an interest in choosing an American President. We have historical examples of this, such as the Roman Emperors, significant Popes, German Emperors, Kings of Poland, and the Deys of Barbary. I also noted, especially in feudal history and the recent case of the Stadtholder of Holland, how easily lifetime positions become inheritances. Therefore, I wanted the President to be elected for seven years, with no chance of re-election thereafter. I felt that this term would be enough for him, with the Legislature's support, to implement and establish any system of improvements he proposed for the public good. However, I believe the adopted practice is better, allowing for eight years of service, with the possibility of being terminated halfway through the term, making that a trial period. The Convention initially agreed on limiting the term to seven years, having voted that arrangement with a majority of eight to two, and by a simple majority that he should not be eligible for a second term. This was confirmed by the House as late as July 26, referred to the Committee of Detail, favorably reported by them, and changed to the current form by a final vote just one day before the end of their session. Three states expressed their disagreement with this change: New York recommended an amendment stating that the President should not be eligible for a third term, while Virginia and North Carolina wanted a limit of eight years over any span of sixteen years. Although this amendment hasn’t been formally established, it seems to be followed in practice. The example of four Presidents voluntarily stepping down at the end of their eighth year and the shift in public opinion suggesting that the principle is beneficial have essentially turned it into a precedent. I believe that if a President decided to run for a third term, he would likely be rejected, as it would indicate ambitious intentions.
But there was another amendment, of which none of us thought at the time, and in the omission of which, lurks the germ that is to destroy this happy combination of National powers, in the general government, for matters of National concern, and independent powers in the States, for what concerns the States severally. In England, it was a great point gained at the Revolution, that the commissions of the Judges, which had hitherto been during pleasure, should thenceforth be made during good behavior. A Judiciary, dependant on the will of the King, had proved itself the most oppressive of all tools in the hands of that magistrate. Nothing, then, could be more salutary, than a change there, to the tenure of good behavior; and the question of good behavior, left to the vote of a simple majority in the two Houses of Parliament. Before the Revolution, we were all good English Whigs, cordial in their free principles, and in their jealousies of their Executive magistrate. These jealousies are very apparent, in all our state Constitutions; and, in the General government in this instance, we have gone even beyond the English caution, by requiring a vote of two thirds, in one of the Houses, for removing a Judge; a vote so impossible, where * any defence is made, before men of ordinary prejudices and passions, that our Judges are effectually independent of the nation. But this ought not to be. I would not, indeed, make them dependant on the Executive authority, as they formerly were in England; but I deem it indispensable to the continuance of this government, that they should be submitted to some practical and impartial control; and that this, to be impartial, must be compounded of a mixture of State and Federal authorities. It is not enough, that honest men are appointed Judges. All know the influence of interest on the mind of man, and how unconsciously his judgment is warped by that influence. To this bias add that of the esprit de corps, of their peculiar maxim and creed, that ‘it is the office of a good Judge to enlarge his jurisdiction,’ and the absence of responsibility; and how can we expect impartial decision between the General government, of which they are themselves so eminent a part, and an individual state, from which they have nothing to hope or fear? We have seen, too, that, contrary to all correct example, they are in the habit of going out of the question before them, to throw an anchor ahead, and grapple further hold for future advances of power. They are then, in fact, the corps of sappers and miners, steadily working to undermine the independent rights of the states, and to consolidate all power in the hands of that government, in which they have so important a freehold estate. But it is not by the consolidation, or concentration of powers, but by their distribution, that good government is effected. Were not this great country already divided into states, that division must be made, that each might do for itself what concerns itself directly, and what it can so much better do than a distant authority. Every state again is divided into counties, each to take care of what lies within its local bounds; each county again into townships or wards, to manage minuter details; and every ward into farms, to be governed each by its individual proprietor. Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread. It is by this partition of cares, descending in gradation from general to particular, that the mass of human affairs may be best managed, for the good and prosperity of all. I repeat, that I do not charge the judges with wilful and ill-intentioned error; but honest error must be arrested, where its toleration leads to public ruin. As, for the safety of society, we commit honest maniacs to Bedlam, so judges should be withdrawn from their bench, whose erroneous biases are leading us to dissolution. It may, indeed, injure them in fame or in fortune; but it saves the Republic, which is the first and supreme law.
But there was another change that none of us considered at the time, and in this omission, lies the seed that will ultimately undermine this effective balance of national powers within the federal government—responsible for national matters—and the independent powers of the states concerning their own affairs. In England, a significant achievement during the Revolution was establishing that judges' commissions, which had previously been granted at the pleasure of the monarch, would now be granted during good behavior. A judiciary dependent on the King’s will had proven to be the most oppressive tool in the hands of that ruler. So, a change to a tenure of good behavior was very beneficial, with the question of good behavior being determined by a simple majority in both Houses of Parliament. Before the Revolution, we were all enthusiastic English Whigs, fully committed to their principles of freedom and wary of the executive authority. These concerns are evident in all our state constitutions, and in the federal government, we’ve gone even further than the English model by requiring a two-thirds vote in one of the Houses to remove a judge—a threshold that makes it incredibly difficult to remove a judge when any defense is presented, leading to our judges being effectively independent from the nation. However, this should not be the case. I wouldn’t want them to be dependent on the executive authority as they used to be in England; however, I believe it’s essential for the sustainability of this government that they be subject to some practical and impartial oversight, which must involve a balance of state and federal authority. It’s not sufficient that honest individuals are appointed as judges. Everyone knows how personal interest can affect a person’s mindset, often without them even realizing it, skewing their judgment. With that bias, along with the group mentality of their unique principles and beliefs—that a good judge’s role is to expand his jurisdiction—and the lack of accountability, how can we expect impartial decisions between the federal government, of which they are a significant part, and an individual state, from which they have neither hope nor fear? We’ve also seen, contrary to all proper examples, that they often stray outside the matters at hand to set precedents and secure further extensions of power. In reality, they act as a group of sappers and miners, systematically working to erode the independent rights of the states and to consolidate power within that government, in which they hold such a vital stake. However, good governance is achieved not through the consolidation or concentration of power, but through its distribution. If our vast country weren’t already divided into states, such division would need to happen, so each could manage what directly concerns itself—something it can do far better than any distant authority. Each state is again divided into counties, each responsible for managing its local affairs; each county is further divided into townships or wards, responsible for more detailed management; and every ward into farms, each managed by its individual owner. If we were directed from Washington when to plant and when to harvest, we would soon run out of food. It is through this delegation of responsibilities, flowing from the general to the specific, that the complex web of human affairs can be best managed for the collective good and prosperity. I want to stress that I do not accuse the judges of intentional wrongdoing; however, honest mistakes must be corrected when they lead to public devastation. Just as we commit honest but dangerous individuals to institutions for the safety of society, judges who are misguided in their judgments should be removed from the bench if their biased decisions are steering us toward chaos. This may harm their reputation or finances, but it is a necessary sacrifice to protect the Republic, which is our paramount obligation.
* In the impeachment of Judge Pickering from New Hampshire, a regular and out-of-control alcoholic, no defense was presented. If there had been one, more than a third of the Senate would have voted to acquit him.
Among the debilities of the government of the Confederation, no one was more distinguished or more distressing, than the utter impossibility of obtaining, from the States, the monies necessary for the payment of debts, or even for the ordinary expenses of the government. Some contributed a little, some less, and some nothing; and the last, furnished at length an excuse for the first, to do nothing also. Mr. Adams, while residing at the Hague, had a general authority to borrow what sums might be requisite, for ordinary and necessary expenses. Interest on the public debt, and the maintenance of the diplomatic establishment in Europe, had been habitually provided in this way. He was now elected Vice-President of the United States, was soon to return to America, and had referred our bankers to me for future counsel, on our affairs in their hands. But I had no powers, no instructions, no means, and no familiarity with the subject. It had always been exclusively under his management, except as to occasional and partial deposites in the hands of Mr. Grand, banker in Paris, for special and local purposes. These last had been exhausted for some time, and I had fervently pressed the Treasury board to replenish this particular deposite, as Mr. Grand now refused to make further advances. They answered candidly, that no funds could be obtained until the new government should get into action, and have time to make its arrangements. Mr. Adams had received his appointment to the court of London, while engaged at Paris, with Dr. Franklin and myself, in the negotiations under our joint commissions. He had repaired thence to London, without returning to the Hague, to take leave of that government. He thought it necessary, however, to do so now, before he should leave Europe, and accordingly went there. I learned his departure from London, by a letter from Mrs. Adams, received on the very day on which he would arrive at the Hague. A consultation with him, and some provision for the future, was indispensable, while we could yet avail ourselves of his powers; for when they would be gone, we should be without resource. I was daily dunned by a Company who had formerly made a small loan to the United States, the principal of which was now become due; and our bankers in Amsterdam had notified me, that the interest on our general debt would be expected in June; that if we failed to pay it, it would be deemed an act of bankruptcy, and would effectually destroy the credit of the Upited States, and all future prospects of obtaining money there; that the loan they had been authorized to open, of which a third only was filled, had now ceased to get forward, and rendered desperate that hope of resource. I saw that there was not a moment to lose, and set out for the Hague on the 2nd morning after receiving the information of Mr. Adams’s journey. I went the direct road by Louvres, Senlis, Roye, Pont St. Maxence, Bois le Due, Gournay, Peronne, Cambray, Bouchain, Valenciennes, Mons, Bruxelles, Malines, Antwerp, Mordick, and Rotterdam, to the Hague, where I happily found Mr. Adams. He concurred with me at once in opinion, that something must be done, and that we ought to risk ourselves on doing it without instructions, to save the credit of the United States. We foresaw, that before the new government could be adopted, assembled, establish its financial system, get the money into the Treasury, and place it in Europe, considerable time would elapse; that, therefore, we had better provide at once for the years ‘88, ‘89, and ‘90, in order to place our government at its ease, and our credit in security, during that trying interval. We set out, therefore, by the way of Leyden, for Amsterdam, where we arrived on the 10th, I had prepared an estimate, showing, that
Among the weaknesses of the Confederation government, none was more prominent or troubling than the complete inability to secure the funds needed from the States for debt payments or even for everyday government expenses. Some States contributed a little, some contributed less, and some contributed nothing at all; and the latter eventually gave the former an excuse to also do nothing. While living in The Hague, Mr. Adams had broad authority to borrow any amounts necessary for ordinary and essential expenses. Interest on the public debt and the support of our diplomatic presence in Europe had routinely been arranged this way. Now elected Vice-President of the United States, he was about to return to America and had referred our bankers to me for future advice on our financial matters. However, I had no authority, no instructions, no resources, and no experience with this. It had always been under his control, apart from occasional and partial deposits with Mr. Grand, a banker in Paris, for specific local purposes. Those deposits had been exhausted for some time, and I had urgently urged the Treasury Board to replenish that particular deposit since Mr. Grand was now refusing to make further advances. They candidly replied that no funds could be secured until the new government was up and running and had time to arrange its affairs. Mr. Adams had received his appointment to the London court while working in Paris with Dr. Franklin and me on negotiations under our joint commissions. He left for London without returning to The Hague to say goodbye to that government but thought it necessary to do so before leaving Europe, so he went there. I learned of his departure from London through a letter from Mrs. Adams, received on the very day he was arriving at The Hague. It was crucial to consult with him and make some plans for the future while we still had his authority; once it was gone, we would have no resources. I was being persistently pursued by a company that had previously made a small loan to the United States, and now the principal was due. Our bankers in Amsterdam had informed me that the interest on our general debt was expected in June, and failing to pay it would be seen as bankruptcy, effectively ruining the credit of the United States and any future prospects for securing funds. They also noted that the loan they had been greenlit to initiate, of which only one-third was filled, had come to a halt, further jeopardizing our hopes for resources. I realized there was no time to waste and set out for The Hague on the second morning after receiving the news of Mr. Adams’s journey. I took the direct route via Louvres, Senlis, Roye, Pont St. Maxence, Bois le Duc, Gournay, Peronne, Cambrai, Bouchain, Valenciennes, Mons, Brussels, Mechelen, Antwerp, Mordick, and Rotterdam, arriving at The Hague, where I was fortunate to find Mr. Adams. He immediately agreed with me that action was necessary and that we should boldly act without instructions to protect the credit of the United States. We anticipated that before the new government could be adopted, convened, established its financial system, deposited money into the Treasury, and made it available in Europe, considerable time would pass. Therefore, we decided it was best to take steps immediately to cover the years ’88, ’89, and ’90 to ensure our government was stable and our credit secure during that difficult period. We set out via Leiden to Amsterdam, where we arrived on the 10th. I had prepared an estimate showing that

Florins.
Florins.
There would be necessary for the year ‘88—531,937-10 ‘89—538,540 ‘90—473,540 —————————— Total, 1,544,017-10
There would be a need for the year '88—531,937.10 '89—538,540 '90—473,540 —————————— Total, 1,544,017.10
Florins.
Coins.
To meet this, the bankers had in hand, 79,268-2-8 and the unsold bonds would yield, 542,800
To achieve this, the bankers had on hand, 79,268-2-8 and the unsold bonds would generate, 542,800
622,068-2-8
622,068-2-8
Leaving a deficit of 921,949-7-4
Leaving a deficit of 921,949-7-4
We proposed then to borrow a million, yielding 920,000
We proposed then to borrow a million, resulting in 920,000.
Which would leave a small deficiency of 1,949-7-4
Which would leave a small deficit of 1,949-7-4
Mr. Adams accordingly executed 1000 bonds, for 1000 florins each, and deposited them in the hands of our bankers, with instructions, however, not to issue them until Congress should ratify the measure. This done, he returned to London, and I set out for Paris; and, as nothing urgent forbade it, I determined to return along the banks of the Rhine, to Strasburg, and thence strike off to Paris. I accordingly left Amsterdam on the 30th of March, and proceeded by Utrecht, Nimegnen, Cleves, Duysberg, Dusseldorf, Cologne, Bonne, Coblentz, Nassau, Hocheim, Frankfort, and made an excursion to Hanau, then to Mayence, and another excursion to Rudesheim, and Johansberg; then by Oppenheim, Worms, and Manheim, making an excursion to Heidelberg, then by Spire, Carlsruhe, Rastadt, and Kelh, to Sfrasburg, where I arrived April the 16th, and proceeded again on the 18th, by Phalsbourg, Fenestrange, Dieuze, Moyenvie, Nancy, Toul, Ligny, Barleduc, St. Diziers, Vitry, Chalons sur Marne, Epernay, Chateau Thierri, Meaux, to Paris, where I arrived on the 23d of April: and I had the satisfaction to reflect, that by this journey, our credit was secured, the new government was placed at ease for two years to come, and that, as well as myself, relieved from the torment of incessant duns, whose just complaints could not be silenced by any means within our power.
Mr. Adams executed 1,000 bonds for 1,000 florins each and deposited them with our bankers, instructing them not to issue them until Congress ratified the measure. After that, he returned to London, and I headed to Paris. Since nothing urgent prevented it, I decided to take the route along the Rhine back to Strasbourg before heading to Paris. I left Amsterdam on March 30 and traveled through Utrecht, Nijmegen, Cleves, Duisburg, Düsseldorf, Cologne, Bonn, Coblentz, Nassau, Hochheim, and Frankfurt, making a detour to Hanau, then to Mainz, with another side trip to Rüdesheim and Johannisberg. Then I continued through Oppenheim, Worms, and Mannheim, making a stop in Heidelberg, and went on to Speyer, Karlsruhe, Rastatt, and Kuhl, arriving in Strasbourg on April 16. I set off again on April 18, passing through Phalsbourg, Fenestrange, Dieuze, Moyenvie, Nancy, Toul, Ligny, Bar-le-Duc, St. Dizier, Vitry, Chalons sur Marne, Epernay, Chateau-Thierry, and Meaux, finally reaching Paris on April 23. I felt satisfied knowing that this journey secured our credit, gave the new government peace of mind for the next two years, and freed both myself and others from the constant pressure of creditors whose legitimate demands we could not easily silence.
A Consular Convention had been agreed on in ‘84, between Dr. Franklin and the French government, containing several articles, so entirely inconsistent with the laws of the several states, and the general spirit of our citizens, that Congress withheld their ratification, and sent it back to me, with instructions to get those articles expunged, or modified, so as to render them compatible with our laws. The Minister unwillingly released us from these concessions, which, indeed, authorized the exercise of powers very offensive in a free state. After much discussion, the Convention was reformed in a considerable degree, and was signed by the Count Montmorin and myself, on the 14th of November, ‘88; not indeed, such as I would have wished; but such as could be obtained with good humor and friendship.
A Consular Convention was agreed upon in '84 between Dr. Franklin and the French government, containing several articles that were completely inconsistent with the laws of the various states and the general outlook of our citizens. As a result, Congress decided not to ratify it and sent it back to me with instructions to have those articles removed or modified to make them compatible with our laws. The Minister reluctantly allowed us to back out of these concessions, which indeed granted powers that were very offensive in a free state. After much debate, the Convention was significantly reformed and was signed by Count Montmorin and me on November 14, '88; it wasn't exactly what I had hoped for, but it was what could be achieved with good humor and friendship.
On my return from Holland, I found Paris as I had left it, still in high fermentation. Had the Archbishop, on the close of the Assembly of Notables, immediately carried into operation the measures contemplated, it was believed they would all have been registered by the Parliament; but he was slow, presented his edicts, one after another, and at considerable intervals, which gave time for the feelings excited by the proceedings of the Notables to cool off, new claims to be advanced, and a pressure to arise for a fixed constitution, not subject to changes at the will of the King. Nor should we wonder at this pressure, when we consider the monstrous abuses of power under which this people were ground to powder; when we pass in review the weight of their taxes, and the inequality of their distribution; the oppressions of the tythes, the failles, the corvees, the gabelles, the farms and the barriers; the shackles on commerce by monopolies; on industry by guilds and corporations; on the freedom of conscience, of thought, and of speech; on the freedom of the press by the censure; and of the person by lettres de cachet; the cruelty of the criminal code generally; the atrocities of the rack; the venality of Judges, and their partialities to the rich; the monopoly of military honors by the noblesse; the enormous expenses of the Queen, the Princes, and the Court; the prodigalities of pensions; and the riches, luxury, indolence, and immorality of the Clergy. Surely under such a mass of misrule and oppression, a people might justly press for thorough reformation, and might even dismount their roughshod riders, and leave them to walk, on their own legs. The edicts, relative to the corvees and free circulation of grain, were first presented to the Parliament and registered; but those for the impot territorial, and stamp tax, offered some time after, were refused by the Parliament, which proposed a call of the States General, as alone competent to their authorization. Their refusal produced a bed of justice, and their exile to Troyes. The Advocates, however, refusing to attend them, a suspension in the administration of justice took place. The Parliament held out for awhile, but the ennui of their exile and absence from Paris, began at length to be felt, and some dispositions for compromise to appear. On their consent, therefore, to prolong some of the former taxes, they were recalled from exile. The King met them in session, November 19, ‘87, promised to call the States General in the year ‘92, and a majority expressed their assent to register an edict for successive and annual loans from 1788 to ‘92; but a protest being entered by the Duke of Orleans, and this encouraging others in a disposition to retract, the King ordered peremptorily the registry of the edict, and left the assembly abruptly. The Parliament immediately protested, that the votes for the enregistry had not been legally taken, and that they gave no sanction to the loans proposed. This was enough to discredit and defeat them. Hereupon issued another edict, for the establishment of a cour plenière and the suspension of all the Parliaments in the kingdom. This being opposed, as might be expected, by reclamations from all the Parliaments and Provinces, the King gave way, and by an edict of July 5th, ‘88, renounced his cour plenière, and promised the States General for the first of May, of the ensuing year: and the Archbishop, finding the times beyond his faculties, accepted the promise of a Cardinal’s hat, was removed (September ‘88) from the Ministry, and Mr. Necker was called to the department of finance. The innocent rejoicings of the people of Paris on this change, provoked the interference of an officer of the city guards, whose order for their dispersion not being obeyed, he charged them with fixed bayonets, killed two or three, and wounded many. This dispersed them for the moment, but they collected the next day in great numbers, burnt ten or twelve guardhouses, killed two or three of the guards, and lost six or eight more of their own number. The city was hereupon put under martial law, and after a while the tumult subsided. The effect of this change of ministers, and the promise of the States General at an early day tranquillized the nation. But two great questions now occurred. 1st. What proportion shall the number of deputies of the Tiers Etat bear to those of the Nobles and Clergy? And, 2nd. Shall they sit in the same or in distinct apartments? Mr. Necker, desirous of avoiding himself these knotty questions, proposed a second call of the same Notables, and that their advice should be asked on the subject. They met, November 9, ‘88, and, by five bureaux against one, they recommended the forms of the States General of 1614; wherein the Houses were separate, and voted by orders, not by persons. But the whole nation declaring at once against this, and that the Tiers Etat should be, in numbers, equal to both the other orders, and the Parliament deciding for the same proportion, it was determined so to be, by a declaration of December 27th, ‘88. A Report of Mr. Necker, to the King, of about the same date, contained other very important concessions. 1. That the King could neither lay a new tax, nor prolong an old one. 2. It expressed a readiness to agree on the periodical meeting of the States. 3. To consult on the necessary restriction on lettres de cachet; and 4. How far the press might be made free. 5. It admits that the States are to appropriate the public money; and 6. That Ministers shall be responsible for public expenditures. And these concessions came from the very heart of the King. He had not a wish but for the good of the nation; and for that object, no personal sacrifice would ever have cost him a moment’s regret; but his mind was weakness itself, his constitution timid, his judgment null, and without sufficient firmness even to stand by the faith of his word. His Queen, too, haughty and bearing no contradiction, had an absolute ascendancy over him; and around her were rallied the King’s brother D’Artois, the court generally, and the aristocratic part of his Ministers, particularly Breteuil, Broglio, Vauguyon, Foulon, Luzerne, men whose principles of government were those of the age of Louis XIV. Against this host, the good counsels of Necker, Montmorin, St. Priest, although in unison with the wishes of the King himself, were of little avail. The resolutions of the morning, formed under their advice, would be reversed in the evening, by the influence of the Queen and court. But the hand of Heaven weighed heavily indeed on the machinations of this junto; producing collateral incidents, not arising out of the case, yet powerfully co-exciting the nation to force a regeneration of its government, and overwhelming, with accumulated difficulties, this liberticide resistance. For, while laboring under the want of money for even ordinary purposes, in a government which required a million of livres a day, and driven to the last ditch by the universal call for liberty, there came on a winter of such severe cold, as was without example in the memory of man, or in the written records of history. The Mercury was at times 50° below the freezing point of Farenheit, and 22° below that of Reaumur. All out-door labor was suspended, and the poor, without the wages of labor, were, of course, without either bread or fuel. The government found its necessities aggravated by that of procuring immense quantities of firewood, and of keeping great fires at all the cross streets, around which the people gathered in crowds, to avoid perishing with cold. Bread, too, was to be bought, and distributed daily, gratis, until a relaxation of the season should enable the people to work: and the slender stock of bread-stuff had for some time threatened famine, and had raised that article to an enormous price. So great, indeed, was the scarcity of bread, that, from the highest to the lowest citizen, the bakers were permitted to deal but a scanty allowance per head, even to those who paid for it; and, in cards of invitation to dine in the richest houses, the guest was notified to bring his own bread. To eke out the existence of the people, every person who had the means, was called on for a weekly subscription, which the Cures collected, and employed in providing messes for the nourishment of the poor, and vied with each other in devising such economical compositions of food, as would subsist the greatest number with the smallest means. This want of bread had been foreseen for some time past, and M. de Montmorin had desired me to notify it in America, and that, in addition to the market price, a premium should be given on what should be brought from the United States. Notice was accordingly given, and produced considerable supplies. Subsequent information made the importations from America, during the months of March, April, and May, into the Atlantic ports of France, amount to about twenty-one thousand barrels of flour, besides what went to other ports, and in other months; while our supplies to their West Indian islands relieved them also from that drain. This distress for bread continued till July.
On my return from Holland, I found Paris just as I had left it, still in a state of unrest. It was believed that if the Archbishop had quickly put into action the measures discussed at the Assembly of Notables, they would have all been approved by the Parliament. However, he was slow, presenting his edicts one after another, with long gaps in between, which allowed the excitement from the Notables' proceedings to die down, new claims to emerge, and pressure to build for a fixed constitution that wouldn’t change at the King’s whim. We shouldn’t be surprised by this pressure when we consider the severe abuses of power that destroyed the people; when we look at their heavy taxes and how unfairly they were distributed; the burdens of tithes, feudal dues, forced labor, taxes on salt, and tolls; the restrictions on commerce through monopolies; on industry through trade guilds; on freedom of conscience, thought, and speech; on press freedom through censorship; and personal freedoms through lettres de cachet; the harshness of the criminal code; the torture devices used in punishment; the corruption of judges and their favoritism toward the wealthy; the military honors monopolized by the nobility; the Queen's extravagant spending, as well as that of the Princes and the Court; the excessive pensions; and the riches, luxury, laziness, and immorality of the clergy. Given such a massive amount of misrule and oppression, it was reasonable for the people to demand thorough reform and even to unseat their oppressive rulers and make them walk on their own. The edicts concerning forced labor and the free movement of grain were first submitted to the Parliament and approved; however, those related to the new territorial tax and stamp duty, presented later, were refused by the Parliament, which called for a meeting of the States General as the only body able to authorize them. Their refusal triggered a bed of justice and their exile to Troyes. The Advocates, however, refused to attend, leading to a halt in the administration of justice. The Parliament held out for a while, but the boredom of their exile and absence from Paris began to weigh on them, and they showed some willingness to compromise. Upon their agreement to extend some previous taxes, they were recalled from exile. The King met with them in session on November 19, '87, promised to convene the States General in '92, and a majority agreed to register an edict for annual loans from 1788 to '92; but after the Duke of Orleans protested, which encouraged others to reconsider, the King ordered the registration of the edict and abruptly left the assembly. The Parliament immediately protested that the votes for the registration had not been legally taken and that they did not approve the proposed loans. This was sufficient to discredit and defeat them. Another edict was then issued to establish a cour plenière and suspend all the Parliaments in the kingdom. This was predictably opposed by protests from all the Parliaments and provinces, leading the King to relent and, by an edict of July 5, '88, renounce his cour plenière and promise the States General for May of the following year. The Archbishop, finding the situation beyond his control, accepted the promise of a Cardinal’s hat, was removed from the Ministry in September '88, and Mr. Necker was appointed to manage the finances. The people of Paris celebrated this change, which provoked intervention from a city guard officer; when his order to disperse the crowd was ignored, he charged them with fixed bayonets, killing two or three and wounding many. This briefly broke up the crowd, but they regrouped the next day in large numbers, burning ten or twelve guardhouses and killing two or three guards while losing six or eight of their own. The city was then placed under martial law, and the tumult eventually subsided. The impact of this change in ministers and the promise for the States General calmed the nation for a time. However, two major questions emerged. First, how many deputies should the Tiers Etat have compared to the Nobles and Clergy? Second, should they meet in the same or separate chambers? Mr. Necker, wanting to avoid these tricky issues himself, proposed a second meeting of the same Notables and asked for their advice. They met on November 9, '88, and, by five votes to one, recommended the same structure as the States General of 1614, where the Houses were separate and voted by orders rather than individuals. But the entire nation protested against this, insisting that the Tiers Etat should have as many representatives as the other two orders, and the Parliament ruled in favor of this equal proportion, which became official with a declaration on December 27, '88. A report from Mr. Necker to the King around the same time included other significant concessions. 1. That the King could neither impose a new tax nor extend an existing one. 2. It expressed a willingness to agree to regular meetings of the States. 3. To consult on necessary restrictions on lettres de cachet; and 4. The extent to which the press could be made free. 5. It acknowledged that the States would allocate public funds; and 6. That Ministers would be accountable for public spending. These concessions came straight from the King’s heart. He wanted nothing more than the good of the nation and would have made any personal sacrifice for it without regret; however, his mind was weak, his disposition timid, his judgment lacking, and he did not possess the firmness necessary to uphold his word. His Queen, too proud and unwilling to be contradicted, held significant sway over him; around her gathered the King’s brother D’Artois, the court in general, and the aristocratic faction of his Ministers, especially Breteuil, Broglio, Vauguyon, Foulon, and Luzerne, whose governing principles reflected the era of Louis XIV. Against this group, the sound advice from Necker, Montmorin, and St. Priest, though in line with the King’s wishes, had little effect. The resolutions made in the morning under their guidance would be overturned by the evening due to the influence of the Queen and the court. Yet, divine intervention weighed heavily on the plans of this faction, leading to events arising from circumstances that reinforced the people’s call for a transformation of their government, adding to the pressures faced by this oppressive resistance. While struggling with a lack of funds for even regular operations in a government needing a million livres a day, and being cornered by the universal demand for freedom, an incredibly harsh winter set in, unprecedented in human memory or historical records. Temperatures dropped to fifty degrees below the freezing point of Fahrenheit and twenty-two degrees below that of Reaumur. All outdoor work stopped, and the poor, without wages, were, of course, without bread or fuel. The government faced escalating needs for large amounts of firewood and to maintain big fires at all the street corners, where people gathered in crowds to avoid freezing. Bread also had to be bought and distributed for free until the weather improved enough for people to work: the limited supply of bread had long posed a risk of famine and its price skyrocketed. The shortage was so severe that bakers were allowed to give only a tiny amount of bread per person, even to those who paid for it, creating situations where invitations to dinner at the wealthiest homes included a note asking guests to bring their own bread. To help the people survive, anyone who could was asked to contribute weekly, with funds collected by the priests to provide meals for the poor, who competed to come up with economical food combinations to feed the most with the smallest means. This bread shortage had been anticipated for some time, and Mr. de Montmorin had asked me to communicate it to America, requesting that, in addition to the market price, a premium be offered for supplies brought in from the United States. Notice was given, leading to significant supplies. Later reports showed that imports from America during March, April, and May to France’s Atlantic ports totaled around twenty-one thousand barrels of flour, not to mention what went to other ports and at different times; meanwhile, our provisions for the West Indies also relieved them from that burden. This bread crisis lasted until July.
Hitherto no acts of popular violence had been produced by the struggle for political reformation. Little riots, on ordinary incidents, had taken place at other times, in different parts of the kingdom, in which some lives, perhaps a dozen or twenty, had been lost; but in the month of April, a more serious one occurred in Paris, unconnected, indeed, with the Revolutionary principle, but making part of the history of the day. The Fauxbourg St. Antoine, is a quarter of the city inhabited entirely by the class of day-laborers and journeymen in every line. A rumor was spread among them, that a great paper-manufacturer, of the name of Reveillon, had proposed, on some occasion, that their wages should be lowered to fifteen sous a day. Inflamed at once into rage, and without inquiring into its truth, they flew to his house in vast numbers, destroyed every thing in it, and in his magazines and work-shops, without secreting, however, a pin’s worth to themselves, and were continuing this work of devastation, when the regular troops were called in. Admonitions being disregarded, they were of necessity fired on, and a regular action ensued, in which about one hundred of them were killed, before the rest would disperse. There had rarely passed a year without such a riot, in some part or other of the kingdom; and this is distinguished only as cotemporary with the Revolution, although not produced by it.
Until now, there hadn’t been any acts of public violence resulting from the fight for political reform. There had been small riots during everyday incidents at other times in different parts of the kingdom, which claimed some lives, maybe a dozen or twenty; but in April, a more serious event took place in Paris, not actually related to the Revolutionary principle, but still part of the events of the day. The Fauxbourg St. Antoine is an area of the city populated entirely by day laborers and tradesmen. A rumor spread among them that a major paper manufacturer named Reveillon had suggested, at some point, that their wages should be reduced to fifteen sous a day. Fuming with anger and without checking if the rumor was true, they rushed to his house in large numbers, destroying everything inside and in his warehouses and workshops, without taking anything for themselves, and continued their rampage until the regular troops were called in. When their warnings went unheeded, they were forced to fire on the crowd, leading to a confrontation in which about a hundred of them were killed before the rest finally dispersed. There had hardly been a year without such a riot happening somewhere in the kingdom, and this one is noted only because it coincided with the Revolution, even though it wasn't caused by it.
The States General were opened on the 5th of May, ‘89, by speeches from the King, the Garde des Sceaux, Lamoignon, and Mr. Necker. The last was thought to trip too lightly over the constitutional reformations which were expected. His notices of them in this speech, were not as full as in his previous Rapport au Roi. This was observed, to his disadvantage: but much allowance should have been made for the situation in which he was placed, between his own counsels and those of the ministers and party of the court. Overruled in his own opinions, compelled to deliver, and to gloss over those of his opponents, and even to keep their secrets, he could not come forward in his own attitude.
The States General were opened on May 5, '89, with speeches from the King, the Garde des Sceaux, Lamoignon, and Mr. Necker. People thought Necker skated too lightly over the constitutional reforms that were anticipated. His references to those reforms in this speech were not as detailed as in his earlier Rapport au Roi. This was noted to his disadvantage, but a lot of understanding should have been given for the difficult situation he was in, caught between his own advice and that of the ministers and the court's party. Overruled in his own opinions, forced to present, and to gloss over the views of his opponents, and even to keep their secrets, he couldn't present himself genuinely.
The composition of the Assembly, although equivalent, on the whole, to what had been expected, was something different in its elements. It had been supposed, that a superior education would carry into the scale of the Commons, a respectable portion of the Noblesse. It did so as to those of Paris, of its vicinity, and of the other considerable cities, whose greater intercourse with enlightened society had liberalized their minds, and prepared them to advance up to the measure of the times. But the Noblesse of the country, which constituted two thirds of that body, were far in their rear. Residing constantly on their patrimonial feuds, and familiarized, by daily habit, with Seigneurial powers and practices, they had not yet learned to suspect their inconsistence with reason and right. They were willing to submit to equality of taxation, but not to descend from their rank and prerogatives to be incorporated in session with the Tiers Etat. Among the Clergy, on the other hand, it had been apprehended that the higher orders of the Hierarchy, by their wealth and connections, would have carried the elections generally; but it turned out, that in most cases, the lower clergy had obtained the popular majorities. These consisted of the Cureés sons of the peasantry, who had been employed to do all the drudgery of parochial services for ten, twenty, or thirty louis a year; while their superiors were consuming their princely revenues in palaces of luxury and indolence. The objects for which this body was convened, being of the first order of importance, I felt it very interesting to understand the views of the parties of which it was composed, and especially the ideas prevalent, as to the organization contemplated for their government. I went, therefore, daily from Paris to Versailles, and attended their debates, generally till the hour of adjournment. Those of the Noblesse were impassioned and tempestuous. They had some able men on both sides, actuated by equal zeal. The debates of the Commons were temperate, rational, and inflexibly firm. As preliminary to all other business, the awful questions came on: Shall the States sit in one, or in distinct apartments? And shall they vote by heads or houses? The opposition was soon found to consist of the Episcopal order among the clergy, and two thirds of the Noblesse; while the Tiers Etat were, to a man, united and determined. After various propositions of compromise had failed, the Commons undertook to cut the Gordian knot. The Abbe Sieyes, the most logical head of the nation, (author of the pamphlet ‘Qu’est ce que le Tiers Etat?’ which had electrified that country, as Paine’s ‘Common Sense’ did us,) after an impressive speech on the 10th of June, moved that a last invitation should be sent to the Nobles and Clergy, to attend in the hall of the States, collectively or individually, for the verification of powers, to which the Commons would proceed immediately, either in their presence or absence. This verification being finished, a motion was made, on the 15th, that they should constitute themselves a National Assembly; which was decided on the 17th, by a majority of four fifths. During the debates on this question, about twenty of the Curés had joined them, and a proposition was made, in the chamber of the Clergy, that their whole body should join. This was rejected, at first, by a small majority only; but, being afterwards somewhat modified, it was decided affirmatively, by a majority of eleven. While this was under debate, and unknown to the court, to wit, on the 19th, a council was held in the afternoon, at Marly, wherein it was proposed that the King should interpose, by a declaration of his sentiments, in a séance royale. A form of declaration was proposed by Necker, which, while it censured, in general, the preceedings, both of the Nobles and Commons, announced the King’s views, such as substantially to coincide with the Commons. It was agreed to in Council, the séance was fixed for the 22nd, the meetings of the States were till then to be suspended, and every thing, in the mean time, kept secret. The members, the next morning (the 20th) repairing to their house, as usual, found the doors shut and guarded, a proclamation posted up for a séance, royale on the 22nd, and a suspension of their meetings in the mean, time. Concluding that their dissolution was now to take place, they repaired to a building called the Jeu de paume (or Tennis court), and there bound themselves by oath to each other, never to separate, of their own accord, till they had settled a constitution for the nation, on a solid basis, and, if separated by force, that they would reassemble in some other place. The next day they met in the church of St. Louis, and were joined by a majority of the clergy. The heads of the aristocracy saw that all was lost without some bold exertion. The King was still at Marly. Nobody was permitted to approach him but their friends. He was assailed by falsehoods in all shapes. He was made to believe that the Commons were about to absolve the army from their oath of fidelity to him, and to raise their pay. The court party were now all rage and desperation. They procured a committee to be held, consisting of the King and his Ministers, to which Monsieur and the Count d’Artois should be admitted. At this committee, the latter attacked Mr. Necker personally, arraigned his declaration, and proposed one which some of his prompters had put into his hands. Mr. Necker was browbeaten and intimidated, and the King shaken. He determined that the two plans should be deliberated on the next day, and the séance royale put off a day longer. This encouraged a fiercer attack on Mr. Necker the next day. His draught of a declaration was entirely broken up, and that of the Count d’Artois inserted into it. Himself and Montmorin offered their resignation, which was refused; the Count d’Artois saying to Mr. Necker, ‘No, sir, you must be kept as the hostage; we hold you responsible for all the ill which shall happen.’ This change of plan was immediately whispered without doors. The Noblesse were in triumph; the people in consternation. I was quite alarmed at this state of things. The soldiery had not yet indicated which side they should take, and that which they should support would be sure to prevail. I considered a successful reformation of government in France as insuring a general reformation through Europe, and the resurrection to a new life of their people, now ground to dust by the abuses of the governing powers. I was much acquainted with the leading patriots of the Assembly. Being from a country which had successfully passed through a similar reformation, they were disposed to my acquaintance, and had some confidence in me. I urged, most strenuously, an immediate compromise; to secure what the government was now ready to yield, and trust to future occasions for what might still be wanting. It was well understood that the King would grant, at this time, 1. Freedom of the person by habeas corpus. 2. Freedom of conscience: 3. Freedom of the press: 4. Trial by jury: 5. A representative legislature: 6. Annual meetings: 7. The origination of laws: 8. The exclusive right of taxation and appropriation: and 9. The responsibility of ministers: and with the exercise of these powers they could obtain, in future, whatever might be further necessary to improve and preserve their constitution. They thought otherwise, however, and events have proved their lamentable error. For, after thirty years of war, foreign and domestic, the loss of millions of lives, the prostration of private happiness, and the foreign subjugation of their own country for a time, they have obtained no more, nor even that securely. They were unconscious of (for who could foresee?) the melancholy sequel of their well-meant perseverance; that their physical force would be usurped by a first tyrant to trample on the independence, and even the existence, of other nations: that this would afford a fatal example for the atrocious conspiracy of kings against their people; would generate their unholy and homicide alliance to make common cause among themselves, and to crush, by the power of the whole, the efforts of any part, to moderate their abuses and oppressions. When the King passed, the next day, through the lane formed from the Chateau to the Hotel des Etats, there was a dead silence. He was about an hour in the House, delivering his speech and declaration. On his coming out, a feeble cry of Vive le Roy was raised by some children, but the people remained silent and sullen. In the close of his speech, he had ordered that the members should follow him, and resume their deliberations the next day. The Noblesse followed him, and so did the clergy, except about thirty, who, with the Tiers, remained in the room, and entered into deliberation. They protested against what the King had done, adhered to all their former proceedings, and resolved the inviolability of their own persons. An officer came to order them out of the room in the King’s name. ‘Tell those who sent you,’ said Mirabeau, ‘that we shall not move hence but at our own will, or the point of the bayonet.’ In the afternoon, the people, uneasy, began to assemble in great numbers in the courts and vicinities of the palace. This produced alarm. The Queen sent for Mr. Necker. He was conducted, amidst the shouts and acclamations of the multitude, who filled all the apartments of the palace. He was a few minutes only with the Queen, and what passed between them did not transpire. The King went out to ride. He passed through the crowd to his carriage, and into it, without being in the least noticed. As Mr. Necker followed him, universal acclamations were raised of ‘Vive Monsieur Necker, vive le sauveur de la France opprimée.’ He was conducted back to his house, with the same demonstrations of affection and anxiety. About two hundred deputies of the Tiers, catching the enthusiasm of the moment, went to his house, and extorted from him a promise that he would not resign. On the 25th, forty-eight of the Nobles joined the Tiers, and among them the Duke of Orleans. There were then with them one hundred and sixty-four members of the clergy, although the minority of that body still sat apart, and called themselves the Chamber of the Clergy. On the 26th, the Archbishop of Paris joined the Tiers, as did some others of the clergy and of the Noblesse.
The Assembly's makeup, while generally as expected, had some different parts. It was thought that educated individuals would bring a respectable number of nobles into the Commons. That did happen with those from Paris, its surroundings, and other major cities, where greater interaction with progressive society had opened their minds and prepared them for contemporary challenges. However, the country’s nobility, which made up two-thirds of that body, lagged far behind. Living continuously on their ancestral lands and accustomed, by daily experience, to feudal power and practices, they had yet to question their outcomes in terms of reason and justice. They were open to the idea of equal taxation but were unwilling to lower their status and privileges to sit with the Tiers Etat. Conversely, it had been feared that the wealth and connections of the higher clergy would dominate elections, but in most cases, the lower clergy won the popular vote. These were the parish priests, often the sons of peasants, who handled all the day-to-day church services for ten, twenty, or thirty louis a year, while their superiors lived in luxury and idleness on their princely incomes. Given the significant issues this body was convened to address, I found it crucial to understand the perspectives of its members, especially regarding the proposed organization of their governance. Thus, I traveled daily from Paris to Versailles to attend their debates, usually until the adjournment. The noble debates were heated and passionate, with capable individuals on both sides, fueled by a shared zeal. The Commons’ discussions were calm, rational, and steadfast. As a preliminary matter, the critical questions emerged: Should the States meet together or in separate rooms? Should they vote by individuals or by groups? The opposition was quickly identified as the bishops among the clergy and two-thirds of the nobility, while the Tiers Etat stood united and resolute. After several failed compromise proposals, the Commons decided to cut the Gordian knot. Abbe Sieyes, who had the sharpest mind in the nation (the author of the pamphlet ‘Qu’est ce que le Tiers Etat?’ which electrified the nation, much like Paine’s ‘Common Sense’ did for us), made an impactful speech on June 10th and suggested sending a final invitation to the nobles and clergy to join the States in a hall, either together or separately, for the verification of powers the Commons would proceed with, regardless of their presence or absence. Once this verification was completed, on the 15th, a proposal was made to form a National Assembly, which was approved on the 17th by a four-fifths majority. During the debate on this issue, about twenty priests joined them, and a motion was put forth in the clergy chamber for the entire body to join. Initially, this was narrowly rejected, but with some modifications, it was eventually approved with a majority of eleven. While this was being debated, unbeknownst to the court, on the 19th, a council was held in the afternoon at Marly, where it was suggested that the King should intervene with a declaration of his sentiments in a séance royale. Necker proposed a declaration that criticized both the nobles’ and commons' proceedings while revealing the King’s views, which mostly aligned with the commons. The council agreed, the séance was scheduled for the 22nd, the States' meetings were to be suspended until then, and everything was to remain secret. The next morning (the 20th), when the members arrived at their assembly as usual, they found the doors shut and guarded, with a proclamation announcing the séance royale on the 22nd and a suspension of their meetings in the meantime. Assuming they were being dissolved, they went to a venue called the Jeu de paume (or Tennis court), where they pledged an oath to each other to never separate willingly until they had established a solid constitution for the nation, and if separated by force, they would reconvene elsewhere. The following day, they gathered in the church of St. Louis and were joined by a majority of the clergy. The aristocracy realized that everything was lost without a bold move. The King was still at Marly, where only their allies could approach him. He was bombarded with falsehoods in every form. He was led to believe that the Commons were about to release the army from their loyalty to him and increase their pay. The court faction was then filled with rage and desperation. They arranged a committee meeting, which included the King and his ministers, and to which Monsieur and Count d’Artois would be admitted. In this meeting, the latter personally attacked Mr. Necker, criticized his declaration, and proposed a different one that some of his advisors had provided him. Mr. Necker was browbeaten and intimidated, and the King was shaken. He decided that both plans would be debated the next day and the séance royale postponed for an additional day. This sparked a more aggressive attack on Mr. Necker the following day. His draft declaration was completely dismantled, and Count d’Artois’s version was inserted. Both he and Montmorin offered their resignations, which were refused, with Count d’Artois telling Mr. Necker, “No, sir, you must be kept as a hostage; we hold you accountable for all the harm that may come.” This change in plans was quickly whispered outside. The Noblesse celebrated; the populace was in shock. I felt very alarmed by the situation. The army had not shown which side they would take, and whichever side they supported was sure to win. I believed that successfully reforming the government in France would ensure a widespread reform across Europe and a revival for its people, who were then crushed under the abuses of the ruling powers. I was well-acquainted with the leading patriots in the Assembly. Coming from a country that had successfully undergone a similar reform, they were inclined to be friendly with me and had some confidence in my insights. I strongly advocated for an immediate compromise to secure what the government was ready to concede and trusted that future opportunities would bring what was still needed. It was well-known that the King would grant, at this moment, 1. Personal freedom by habeas corpus. 2. Freedom of conscience. 3. Freedom of the press. 4. Trial by jury. 5. A representative legislature. 6. Annual meetings. 7. The initiation of laws. 8. The exclusive right to tax and allocate funds. 9. The accountability of ministers. With these powers, they could achieve whatever else was necessary to improve and maintain their constitution in the future. However, they thought differently, and events proved their regrettable mistake. After thirty years of foreign and domestic war, the loss of millions of lives, the destruction of private happiness, and the temporary foreign domination of their country, they achieved no more than what they had before, nor with any security. They were blinded to (who could foresee?) the dismal outcome of their good intentions; that their physical strength would be usurped by one tyrant to oppress the independence and even the existence of other nations: that this would serve as a fatal example for an atrocious conspiracy of kings against their people; creating a treacherous and murderous alliance to unite against efforts from any part to mitigate their abuses and oppressions. When the King passed the next day through the lane stretching from the Chateau to the Hotel des Etats, there was complete silence. He spent about an hour in the House, delivering his speech and declaration. Upon exiting, a weak cheer of Vive le Roy was raised by some children, but the crowd remained silent and sullen. At the end of his speech, he instructed the members to follow him and continue their discussions the following day. The Noblesse followed him, and so did the clergy, except for about thirty who, along with the Tiers, stayed in the room and began deliberating. They protested against the King’s actions, upheld all their previous decisions, and affirmed the inviolability of their persons. An officer came to order them out of the room in the King’s name. “Tell those who sent you,” said Mirabeau, “that we shall not move from here without our own will, or the point of a bayonet.” In the afternoon, the restless people began gathering in large numbers around the palace’s courts and nearby areas. This caused alarm. The Queen called for Mr. Necker. He was brought in amidst cheers and applause from the multitude filling all the palace’s halls. He met with the Queen for only a few minutes, and the details of their conversation were not disclosed. The King went out for a ride. He passed through the crowd to his carriage and into it without being noticed at all. As Mr. Necker followed him, he received loud cheers of ‘Vive Monsieur Necker, vive le sauveur de la France opprimée.’ He was escorted back to his home with the same waves of affection and concern. Around two hundred deputies from the Tiers, caught up in the moment’s excitement, went to his residence and forced him to promise he wouldn’t resign. On the 25th, forty-eight nobles joined the Tiers, including the Duke of Orleans. At that time, they had one hundred sixty-four clergy members with them, even though the minority of that group still sat separately and referred to themselves as the Chamber of the Clergy. On the 26th, the Archbishop of Paris joined the Tiers, along with some other clergy members and nobles.
These proceedings had thrown the people into violent ferment. It gained the soldiery, first of the French guards, extended to those of every other denomination, except the Swiss, and even to the body guards of the King. They began to quit their barracks, to assemble in squads, to declare they would defend the life of the King, but would not be the murderers of their fellow-citizens. They called themselves the soldiers of the nation, and left now no doubt on which side they would be, in case of a rupture. Similar accounts came in from the troops in other parts of the kingdom, giving good reason to believe they would side with their fathers and brothers, rather than with their officers. The operation of this medicine at Versailles, was as sudden as it was powerful. The alarm there was so complete, that in the afternoon of the 27th, the King wrote with his own hand letters to the Presidents of the Clergy and Nobles, engaging them immediately to join the Tiers. These two bodies were debating, and hesitating, when notes from the Count d’Artois decided their compliance. They went in a body, and took their seats with the Tiers, and thus rendered the union of the orders in one chamber complete.
These events had stirred the people into a violent uproar. It rallied the soldiers, starting with the French guards, and spread to troops of all kinds, except the Swiss, and even the King’s bodyguards. They began leaving their barracks, gathering in groups, announcing they would protect the King’s life but wouldn’t become the killers of their fellow citizens. They called themselves the soldiers of the nation and made it clear which side they would support in case of a conflict. Similar reports came from troops in other parts of the kingdom, suggesting they would side with their families rather than their officers. The effect of this situation at Versailles was as sudden as it was powerful. The panic there was so intense that on the afternoon of the 27th, the King personally wrote letters to the Presidents of the Clergy and Nobles, urging them to join the Tiers immediately. These two groups were debating and hesitating when messages from Count d’Artois pushed them to comply. They went together and took their seats with the Tiers, thus completing the union of the orders in one chamber.
The Assembly now entered on the business of their mission, and first proceeded to arrange the order in which they would take up the heads of their constitution, as follows:
The Assembly now got to work on their mission and first decided on the order in which they would address the points of their constitution, as follows:
First, and as preliminary to the whole, a general declaration of the rights of man. Then, specifically, the principles of the monarchy; rights of the nation; rights of the king; rights of the citizens; organization and rights of the National Assembly; forms necessary for the enactment of laws; organization and functions of the Provincial and Municipal Assemblies; duties and limits of the Judiciary power; functions and duties of the Military power.
First, as a foundation for everything, a general statement of human rights. Then, specifically, the principles of the monarchy; the rights of the nation; the rights of the king; the rights of the citizens; the organization and rights of the National Assembly; the procedures necessary for creating laws; the organization and functions of the Provincial and Municipal Assemblies; the responsibilities and limits of the judicial power; the functions and duties of the military power.
A declaration of the rights of man, as the preliminary of their work, was accordingly prepared and proposed by the Marquis de la Fayette.
A declaration of the rights of man was prepared and suggested by the Marquis de la Fayette as the beginning of their work.
But the quiet of their march was soon disturbed by information that troops, and particularly the foreign troops, were advancing on Paris from various quarters. The King had probably been advised to this on the pretext of preserving peace in Paris. But his advisers were believed to have other things in contemplation. The Marshal de Broglio was appointed to their command, a highflying aristocrat, cool and capable of every thing. Some of the French guards were soon arrested, under other pretexts, but really on account of their dispositions in favor of the national cause. The people of Paris forced their prison, liberated them, and sent a deputation to the Assembly to solicit a pardon. The Assembly recommended peace and order to the people of Paris, the prisoners to the King, and asked from him the removal of the troops. His answer was negative and dry, saying they might remove themselves, if they pleased, to Noyon or Soissons. In the mean time, these troops, to the number of twenty or thirty thousand, had arrived, and were posted in and between Paris and Versailles. The bridges and passes were guarded. At three o’clock in the afternoon of the 11th of July, the Count de la Luzerne was sent to notify Mr. Necker of his dismission, and to enjoin him to retire instantly, without saying a word of it to any body. He went home, dined, and proposed to his wife a visit to a friend, but went in fact to his country-house at St. Ouen, and at midnight set out for Brussels. This was not known till the next day (the 12th), when the whole ministry was changed, except Villedeuil, of the domestic department, and Barenton, Garde des Sceaux. The changes were as follows.
But the quiet of their march was soon disrupted by news that troops, especially foreign troops, were moving toward Paris from different directions. The King was probably informed of this under the pretense of maintaining peace in Paris. However, it was believed that his advisers had other plans in mind. Marshal de Broglio, an ambitious aristocrat known for being cool and capable of anything, was appointed to lead them. Some of the French guards were quickly arrested under various pretexts, but really because of their support for the national cause. The people of Paris broke into the prison, freed them, and sent a delegation to the Assembly to request a pardon. The Assembly urged the people of Paris to maintain peace and order, the prisoners to the King, and asked him to withdraw the troops. His response was blunt and cold, suggesting that the troops could relocate to Noyon or Soissons if they wanted. Meanwhile, these troops, numbering twenty to thirty thousand, had arrived and were positioned in and around Paris and Versailles. The bridges and routes were heavily guarded. At three o’clock in the afternoon on July 11th, Count de la Luzerne was sent to inform Mr. Necker of his dismissal and to instruct him to leave immediately without mentioning it to anyone. He went home, had dinner, and suggested to his wife that they visit a friend, but he actually headed to his country house in St. Ouen and left for Brussels at midnight. This was not known until the next day (the 12th), when the entire ministry was changed, except for Villedeuil from the domestic department and Barenton, Garde des Sceaux. The changes were as follows.
The Baron de Breteuil, President of the Council of Finance; de la Galasiere, Comptroller General, in the room of Mr. Necker; the Marshal de Broglio, Minister of War, and Foulon under him, in the room of Puy-Segur; the Duke de la Vauguyon, Minister of Foreign Affairs, instead of the Count de Montmorin; de la Porte, Minister of Marine, in place of the Count de la Luzerne; St. Priest was also removed from the Council. Lucerne and Puy Segur had been strongly of the aristocratic party in the Council but they were not considered as equal to the work now to be done. The King was now completely in the hands of men, the principal among whom had been noted through their lives for the Turkish despotism of their characters, and who were associated around the King as proper instruments for what was to be executed. The news of this change began to be known at Paris about one or two o’clock. In the afternoon, a body of about one hundred German cavalry were advanced, and drawn up in the Place Louis XV., and about two hundred Swiss posted at a little distance in their rear. This drew people to the spot, who thus accidentally found themselves in front of the troops, merely at first as spectators; but, as their numbers increased, their indignation rose. They retired a few steps, and posted themselves on and behind large piles of stones, large and small, collected in that place for a bridge, which was to be built adjacent to it. In this position, happening to be in my carriage on a visit, I passed through the lane they had formed, without interruption. But the moment after I had passed, the people attacked the cavalry with stones. They charged, but the advantageous position of the people, and the showers of stones, obliged the horse to retire, and quit the field altogether, leaving one of their number on the ground, and the Swiss in their rear, not moving to their aid. This was the signal for universal insurrection, and this body of cavalry, to avoid being massacred, retired towards Versailles. The people now armed themselves with such weapons as they could find in armorers’ shops, and private houses, and with bludgeons; and were roaming all night, through all parts of the city, without any decided object. The next day (the 13th), the Assembly pressed on the king to send away the troops, to permit the Bourgeoisie of Paris, to arm for the preservation of order in the city, and offered to send a deputation from their body to tranquillize them: but their propositions were refused. A committee of magistrates and electors of the city were appointed by those bodies, to take upon them its government. The people, now openly joined by the French guards, forced the prison of St. Lazare, released all the prisoners, and took a great store of corn, which they carried to the corn market. Here they got some arms, and the French guards began to form and train; them. The city-committee determined to raise forty-eight thousand Bourgeois, or rather to restrain their numbers to forty-eight thousand. On the 14th, they sent one of their members (Monsieur de Corny) to the Hotel des Invalides, to ask arms for their Garde Bourgeoise. He was followed by, and he found there, a great collection of people. The Governor of the Invalids came out, and represented the impossibility of his delivering arms, without the orders of those from whom he received them. De Corny advised the people then to retire, and retired himself; but the people took possession of the arms, it was remarkable, that not only the Invalids themselves made no opposition, but that a body of five thousand foreign troops, within four hundred yards, never stirred. M. de Corny, and five others, were then sent to ask arms of M. de Launay, Governor of the Bastile. They found a great collection of people already before the place, and they immediately planted a flag of truce, which was answered by a like flag hoisted on the parapet. The deputation prevailed on the people to fall back a little, advanced themselves to make their demand of the Governor, and in that instant, a discharge from the Bastile killed four persons, of those nearest to the deputies. The deputies retired. I happened to be at the house of M. de Corny, when he returned to it, and received from him a narrative of these transactions. On the retirement of the deputies, the people rushed forward, and almost in an instant, were in possession of a fortification, of infinite strength, defended by one hundred men, which in other times, had stood several regular sieges, and had never been taken. How they forced their entrance has never been explained. They took all the arms, discharged the prisoners, and such of the garrison as were not killed in the first moment of fury; carried the Governor and Lieutenant Governor to the Place de Greve (the place of public execution), cut off their heads, and sent them through the city, in triumph, to the Palais Royal. About the same instant, a treacherous correspondence having been discovered in M. de Flesselles, Prévôt des Marchands, they seized him in the Hotel de Ville, where he was in the execution of his office, and cut off his head. These events, carried imperfectly to Versailles, were the subject of two successive deputations from the Assembly to the King, to both of which he gave dry and hard answers; for nobody had as yet been permitted to inform him, truly and fully, of what had passed at Paris. But at night, the Duke de Liancourt forced his way into the King’s bed-chamber, and obliged him to hear a full and animated detail of the disasters of the day in Paris. He went to bed fearfully impressed. The decapitation of De Launay worked powerfully, through the night, on the whole Aristocratical party; insomuch, that in the morning, those of the greatest influence on the Count d’Artois, represented to him the absolute necessity, that the King should give up every thing to the Assembly. This according with the dispositions of the King, he went about eleven o’clock, accompanied only by his brothers, to the Assembly, and there read to them a speech, in which he asked their interposition to re-establish order. Although couched in terms of some caution, yet the manner in which it was delivered made it evident, that it was meant as a surrender at discretion. He returned to the Chateau afoot, accompanied by the Assembly. They sent off a deputation to quiet Paris, at the head of which was the Marquis de la Fayette, who had, the same morning, been named Commandant en Chef of the Milice Bourgeoise; and Monsieur Bailly, former President of the States General, was called for as Prévôt des Marchands. The demolition of the Bastile was now ordered and begun. A body of the Swiss guards, of the regiment of Ventimille, and the city horse-guards joined the people. The alarm at Versailles increased. The foreign troops were ordered off instantly. Every Minister resigned. The King confirmed Bailly as Prévôt des Marchands, wrote to Mr. Necker, to recall him, sent his letter open to the Assembly, to be forwarded by them, and invited them to go with him to Paris the next day, to satisfy the city of his dispositions; and that night, and the next morning, the Count d’Artois, and M. de Montesson, a deputy connected with him, Madame de Polignac, Madame de Guiche, and the Count de Vaudreuil, favorites of the Queen, the Abbe de Vermont her confessor, the Prince of Conde. and Duke of Bourbon fled. The King came to Paris, leaving the Queen in consternation for his return. Omitting the less important figures of the procession, the King’s carriage was in the centre; on each side of it, the Assembly, in two ranks afoot; at their head the Marquis de la Fayette, as commander-in-chief, on horse-back, and Bourgeois guards before and behind. About sixty thousand citizens, of all forms and conditions, armed with the conquests of the Bastile and Invalids, as far as they would go, the rest with pistols, swords, pikes, pruning hooks, scythes, &c. lined all the streets through which the procession passed, and with the crowds of people in the streets, doors, and windows, saluted them everywhere with the cries of ‘Vive la Nation,’ but not a single ‘Vive le Roi’ was heard. The King stopped at the Hotel de Ville. There M. Bailly presented, and put into his hat, the popular cockade, and addressed him. The King being unprepared, and unable to answer, Bailly went to him, gathered from him some scraps of sentences, and made out an answer, which he delivered to the audience, as from the King. On their return, the popular cries were ‘Vive le Roi et la Nation.’ He was conducted by a garde Bourgeoise, to his palace at Versailles, and thus concluded such an ‘amende honorable,’ as no sovereign ever made, and no people ever received.
The Baron de Breteuil, President of the Council of Finance; de la Galasiere, Comptroller General, replacing Mr. Necker; the Marshal de Broglio, Minister of War, and Foulon under him, replacing Puy-Segur; the Duke de la Vauguyon, Minister of Foreign Affairs, instead of the Count de Montmorin; de la Porte, Minister of Marine, instead of the Count de la Luzerne; and St. Priest was also removed from the Council. Lucerne and Puy Segur had strongly supported the aristocratic party in the Council, but they were no longer seen as capable of handling the current situation. The King was now entirely under the influence of men who had historically displayed a tyrannical nature and who surrounded the King as appropriate tools for their plans. News of this shift began to spread in Paris around one or two o'clock. Later that afternoon, about one hundred German cavalry advanced and assembled in Place Louis XV., with around two hundred Swiss troops stationed a little behind them. This gathering drew a crowd, who initially came to observe but soon found their anger rising. They stepped back a bit and positioned themselves behind large piles of stones collected for a nearby bridge. In my carriage at the time, I passed through the lane they created without any trouble. Just after I passed, the crowd started throwing stones at the cavalry. The cavalry charged, but the crowd's advantageous position and the barrage of stones forced the horses to retreat completely, leaving one of their own on the ground, while the Swiss in the back offered no help. This became the trigger for widespread rebellion, and to avoid being slaughtered, the cavalry fell back toward Versailles. The people began arming themselves with whatever weapons they could find in local shops and private homes, as well as bludgeons, roaming throughout the city all night without any clear objective. The next day (the 13th), the Assembly urged the king to withdraw the troops to allow the Parisian Bourgeoisie to arm themselves in order to maintain order, offering to send a delegation to calm the situation, but their requests were denied. A committee of local magistrates and electors was appointed to govern the city. The people, now openly supported by the French guards, stormed the prison of St. Lazare, freeing all the prisoners and seizing a large stockpile of grain, which they brought to the grain market. There, they obtained some weapons, and the French guards began training them. The city committee decided to cap the number of armed citizens at forty-eight thousand. On the 14th, they sent a member, Monsieur de Corny, to the Hotel des Invalides to request weapons for their Garde Bourgeoise. He was followed by a large group of people. The Governor of the Invalides came out and explained that he could not give out arms without orders from his superiors. De Corny advised the crowd to disperse and left himself; however, the people took possession of the arms, notably without any opposition from the Invalids or a body of five thousand foreign troops nearby who did not intervene. De Corny and five others were then sent to request arms from M. de Launay, Governor of the Bastille. They found a large crowd already gathered there and quickly raised a flag of truce, which was met with a similar flag hoisted on the parapet. The deputies managed to convince the crowd to step back a bit while they approached the Governor to make their demand, but at that moment, shots were fired from the Bastille, killing four people closest to the deputies. The representatives retreated. I happened to be at M. de Corny's house when he returned and shared his account of these events. As the deputies withdrew, the crowd surged forward and swiftly took control of a fortress, incredibly strong, defended by one hundred men, which had withstood several regular sieges without ever being captured. How they managed to breach its defenses remains a mystery. They seized all the arms, released the prisoners, and those in the garrison who were not killed in the initial frenzy; they took the Governor and Lieutenant Governor to the Place de Greve (the site of public executions), beheaded them, and displayed their heads triumphantly throughout the city to the Palais Royal. Around the same time, a treacherous correspondence involving M. de Flesselles, Prévôt des Marchands, was discovered, leading to his capture at the Hôtel de Ville, where he was executing his duties, and he was also beheaded. These incidents, reaching Versailles in a fragmented manner, prompted two successive delegations from the Assembly to approach the King, to which he responded with curt and harsh remarks, as no one had been allowed to inform him accurately about what was happening in Paris. However, at night, the Duke de Liancourt managed to enter the King’s chamber and compelled him to listen to a detailed and passionate account of the day’s chaos in Paris. He went to bed deeply shaken. The news of De Launay's execution had a profound impact on the entire aristocratic faction overnight, so much so that in the morning, the most influential members surrounding the Count d’Artois stressed the urgent need for the King to concede everything to the Assembly. This aligned with the King's inclinations, leading him, around eleven o’clock, accompanied only by his brothers, to go to the Assembly and read a speech in which he requested their help in restoring order. Although it was worded cautiously, the delivery revealed it was intended as a complete capitulation. He returned to the Chateau on foot, followed by the Assembly. They dispatched a delegation to soothe Paris, led by the Marquis de la Fayette, who had been named Commandant en Chef of the Milice Bourgeoise that same morning; and Monsieur Bailly, former President of the States General, was appointed as Prévôt des Marchands. The demolition of the Bastille was now ordered and started. A group of Swiss guards from the Ventimille regiment and the city horse guards joined the crowd. Tensions escalated at Versailles. The foreign troops were commanded to leave immediately. All Ministers resigned. The King confirmed Bailly as Prévôt des Marchands, wrote to Mr. Necker to bring him back, sent his letter openly to the Assembly for them to forward, and invited them to accompany him to Paris the next day to assure the city of his intentions. That night and into the next morning, the Count d’Artois, M. de Montesson (a connected deputy), Madame de Polignac, Madame de Guiche, Count de Vaudreuil (the Queen’s favorites), Abbe de Vermont (her confessor), Prince of Conde, and Duke of Bourbon fled. The King went to Paris, leaving the Queen distressed over his return. Excluding the less notable figures in the procession, the King’s carriage was at the center; on either side were members of the Assembly, lined up two rows on foot; at the forefront was the Marquis de la Fayette, in his role as commander-in-chief, on horseback, with Bourgeois guards in front and behind. About sixty thousand citizens of all backgrounds, armed with weapons captured from the Bastille and Invalides, and others with whatever they could find—pistols, swords, pikes, pruning hooks, scythes, etc.—lined the streets along the procession route, greeted by crowds at street corners, doorways, and windows who shouted ‘Vive la Nation,’ but not a single ‘Vive le Roi’ was heard. The King stopped at the Hôtel de Ville. There, M. Bailly presented him with the popular cockade and addressed him. The King, caught off guard and unable to respond, relied on Bailly to gather some of his fragmented thoughts to formulate a reply, which Bailly delivered to the audience as coming from the King. As they returned, the popular cries were ‘Vive le Roi et la Nation.’ He was escorted by a garde Bourgeoise to his palace at Versailles, marking an ‘amende honorable’ the likes of which no sovereign has ever made, and no people ever received.
And here, again, was lost another precious occasion of sparing to France the crimes and cruelties through which she has since passed, and to Europe, and finally America, the evils which flowed on them also from this mortal source. The King was now become a passive machine in the hands of the National Assembly, and had he been left to himself, he would have willingly acquiesced in whatever they should devise as best for the nation. A wise constitution would have been formed, hereditary in his line, himself placed at its head, with powers so large, as to enable him to do all the good of his station, and so limited, as to restrain him from its abuse. This he would have faithfully administered, and more than this, I do not believe, he ever wished. But he had a Queen of absolute sway over his weak mind and timid virtue, and of a character the reverse of his in all points. This angel, as gaudily painted in the rhapsodies of Burke, with some smartness of fancy, but no sound sense, was proud, disdainful of restraint, indignant at all obstacles to her will, eager in the pursuit of pleasure, and firm enough to hold to her desires, or perish in their wreck. Her inordinate gambling and dissipations, with those of the Count d’Artois, and others of her clique, had been a sensible item in the exhaustion of the treasury, which called into action the reforming hand of the nation; and her opposition to it, her inflexible perverseness, and dauntless spirit, led herself to the Guillotine, drew the King on with her, and plunged the world into crimes and calamities which will for ever stain the pages of modern history. I have ever believed, that had there been no Queen, there would have been no revolution. No force would have been provoked, nor exercised. The King would have gone hand in hand with the wisdom of his sounder counsellors, who, guided by the increased lights of the age, wished only, with the same pace, to advance the principles of their social constitution. The deed which closed the mortal course of these sovereigns, I shall neither approve nor condemn. I am not prepared to say, that the first magistrate of a nation cannot commit treason against his country, or is unamenable to its punishment: nor yet, that where there is no written law, no regulated tribunal, there is not a law in our hearts, and a power in our hands, given for righteous employment in maintaining right, and redressing wrong. Of those who judged the King, many thought him wilfully criminal; many, that his existence would keep the nation in perpetual conflict with the horde of Kings, who would war against a regeneration which might come home to themselves, and that it were better that one should die than all. I should not have voted with this portion of the legislature. I should have shut up the Queen in a convent, putting harm out of her power, and placed the King in his station, investing him with limited powers, which, I verily believe, he would have honestly exercised, according to the measure of his understanding. In this way, no void would have been created, courting the usurpation of a military adventurer, nor occasion given for those enormities which demoralized the nations of the world, and destroyed, and is yet to destroy, millions and millions of its inhabitants. There are three epochs in history, signalized by the total extinction of national morality. The first was of the successors of Alexander, not omitting himself: the next, the successors of the first Cæsar: the third, our own age. This was begun by the partition of Poland, followed by that of the treaty of Pilnitz; next the conflagration of Copenhagen; then the enormities of Bonaparte, partitioning the earth at his will, and devastating it with fire and sword; now the conspiracy of Kings, the successors of Bonaparte, blasphemously calling themselves ‘The Holy Alliance,’ and treading in the footsteps of their incarcerated leader; not yet, indeed, usurping the government of other nations, avowedly and in detail, but controlling by their armies the forms in which they will permit them to be governed; and reserving, in petto, the order and extent of the usurpations further meditated. But I will return from a digression, anticipated, too, in time, into which I have been led by reflection on the criminal passions which refused to the world a favorable occasion of saving it from the afflictions it has since suffered.
And here was yet another lost opportunity to spare France from the crimes and cruelties it has since endured, and to prevent Europe, and ultimately America, from suffering the consequences that stemmed from this deadly source. The King had now become a passive entity in the hands of the National Assembly, and if left to his own devices, he would have willingly accepted whatever they deemed best for the nation. A wise constitution could have been established, hereditary to his lineage, with him at its helm, possessing sufficient power to do good in his role, yet limited enough to prevent any abuse of that power. He would have administered this faithfully, and I believe he never wished for more than that. But he had a Queen who had absolute control over his weak mind and timid character, and she was completely different from him in every way. This angel, as vividly described in Burke's elaborate writings, was proud, dismissive of constraints, outraged by any obstacles to her desires, indulgent in pleasure, and resolute in pursuing her wants, even if it meant facing downfall. Her excessive gambling and indulgences, along with those of Count d’Artois and others in her circle, had significantly contributed to the depletion of the treasury, which prompted the nation to take action for reform; her resistance to this, her stubbornness, and fearless spirit led her to the Guillotine, carried the King along with her, and caused the world to plunge into crimes and disasters that will forever mar the pages of modern history. I have always believed that if there had been no Queen, there would have been no revolution. No force would have been provoked or exercised. The King would have worked alongside the wisdom of his more sound-minded advisors, who, enlightened by the progress of the age, sought only to promote the principles of their social constitution at a similar pace. I will neither endorse nor condemn the act that ended the lives of these monarchs. I am not ready to say that the highest official of a nation cannot commit treason against it, nor that without a written law or regulated tribunal, there isn't a law in our hearts and a power in our hands meant for just causes in maintaining what is right and rectifying what is wrong. Among those who judged the King, some believed him willfully guilty, while others thought his existence would keep the nation in continued conflict with a bunch of kings who would oppose any potential transformation that could affect them personally, concluding that it was better for one to die than for all to suffer. I would not have aligned myself with this part of the legislature. I would have confined the Queen in a convent, removing her ability to do harm, and restored the King to his position, granting him limited powers, which I genuinely believe he would have used honestly, in line with his understanding. In this way, no vacuum would have been created that could encourage a military usurper, nor would there have been opportunities for the atrocities that corrupted nations worldwide and caused, and will continue to cause, the deaths of millions. There are three significant periods in history marked by the complete collapse of national morality. The first was with the successors of Alexander, including him; next, the successors of the first Caesar; the third, our current age. This began with the partition of Poland, followed by the Treaty of Pillnitz; then the destruction of Copenhagen; next came the offenses of Bonaparte, who divided the world at will, setting it ablaze with fury; now the coalition of kings, descendants of Bonaparte, sacrilegiously calling themselves 'The Holy Alliance,' tread the path of their imprisoned leader; they are not yet outright usurping the governance of other nations, but they are controlling through their armies the manner in which they will permit governance, while secretly planning the scope and nature of future usurpations. But I will return from this tangent, anticipated even in time, which I have strayed into while reflecting on the wrongful passions that denied the world a chance to save itself from the sufferings it has faced since.
Mr. Necker had reached Basle before he was overtaken by the letter of the King, inviting him back to resume the office he had recently left. He returned immediately, and all the other ministers having resigned, a new administration was named, to wit: St. Priest and Montmorin were restored; the Archbishop of Bordeaux was appointed Garde des Sceaux; La Tour du Pin, Minister of War; La Luzerne, Minister of Marine. This last was believed to have been effected by the friendship of Montmorin; for although differing in politics, they continued firm in friendship, and Luzerne, although not an able man, was thought an honest one. And the Prince of Bauvau was taken into the Council.
Mr. Necker arrived in Basel before he was reached by the King's letter, asking him to come back to the position he had just left. He returned right away, and since all the other ministers had resigned, a new administration was formed: St. Priest and Montmorin were reinstated; the Archbishop of Bordeaux was appointed Garde des Sceaux; La Tour du Pin became Minister of War; and La Luzerne was made Minister of Marine. It was believed that Montmorin’s friendship helped with this appointment, as they remained close despite their political differences, and even though Luzerne wasn't very capable, he was considered honest. Additionally, the Prince of Bauvau was included in the Council.
Seven Princes of the blood royal, six ex-ministers, and many of the high Noblesse, having fled, and the present ministers, except Luzerne, being all of the popular party, all the functionaries of government moved, for the present, in perfect harmony.
Seven royal princes, six former ministers, and many high-ranking nobles have fled, and the current ministers, except for Luzerne, all belong to the popular party. All government officials are currently working together in perfect harmony.
In the evening of August the 4th, and on the motion of the Viscount de Noailles, brother-in-law of La Fayette, the Assembly abolished all titles of rank, all the abusive privileges of feudalism, the tythes and casuals of the clergy, all provincial privileges, and, in fine, the feudal regimen generally. To the suppression of tythes, the Abbe Sieyes was vehemently opposed; but his learned and logical arguments were unheeded, and his estimation lessened by a contrast of his egoism (for he was beneficed on them) with the generous abandonment of rights by the other members of the Assembly. Many days were employed in putting into the form of laws the numerous demolitions of ancient abuses; which done, they proceeded to the preliminary work of a declaration of rights. There being much concord of sentiment on the elements of this instrument, it was liberally framed, and passed with a very general approbation. They then appointed a committee for the ‘reduction of a projet’ of a constitution, at the head of which was the Archbishop of Bordeaux. I received from him, as chairman of the committee, a letter of July the 20th, requesting me to attend and assist at their deliberations; but I excused myself, on the obvious considerations, that my mission was to the King as Chief Magistrate of the nation, that my duties were limited to the concerns of my own country, and forbade me to intermeddle with the internal transactions of that in which I had been received under a specific character only. Their plan of a constitution was discussed in sections, and so reported from time to time, as agreed to by the committee. The first respected the general frame of the government; and that this should be formed into three departments, executive, legislative, and judiciary, was generally agreed. But when they proceeded to subordinate developments, many and various shades of opinion came into conflict, and schism, strongly marked, broke the Patriots into fragments of very discordant principles. The first question, Whether there should be a King? met with no open opposition; and it was readily agreed, that the government of France should be monarchical and hereditary. Shall the King have a negative on the laws? Shall that negative be absolute, or suspensive only? Shall there be two Chambers of Legislation, or one only? If two, shall one of them be hereditary? or for life? or for a fixed term? and named by the King? or elected by the people? These questions found strong differences of opinion, and produced repulsive combinations among the Patriots. The aristocracy was cemented by a common principle of preserving the ancient regime or whatever should be nearest to it. Making this their polar star, they moved in phalanx, gave preponderance on every question to the minorities of the Patriots, and always to those who advocated the least change. The features of the new constitution were thus assuming a fearful aspect, and great alarm was produced among the honest Patriots by these dissensions in their ranks. In this uneasy state of things, I received one day a note from the Marquis de la Fayette, informing me, that he should bring a party of six or eight friends, to ask a dinner of me the next day. I assured him of their welcome. When they arrived, they were La Fayette himself, Duport, Barnave, Alexander la Meth, Blacon, Mounier, Maubourg, and Dagout. These were leading Patriots, of honest but differing opinions, sensible of the necessity of effecting a coalition by mutual sacrifices, knowing each other, and not afraid, therefore, to unbosom themselves mutually. This last was a material principle in the selection. With this view, the Marquis had invited the conference, and had fixed the time and place inadvertently, as to the embarrassment under which it might place me. The cloth being removed, and wine set on the table, after the American manner, the Marquis introduced the objects of the conference, by summarily reminding them of the state of things in the Assembly, the course which the principles of the constitution were taking, and the inevitable result, unless checked by more concord among the Patriots themselves. He observed, that although he also had his opinion, he was ready to sacrifice it to that of his brethren of the same cause; but that a common opinion must now be formed, or the aristocracy would carry every thing, and that, whatever they should now agree on, he, at the head of the national force, would maintain. The discussions began at the hour of four, and were continued till ten o’clock in the evening; during which time I was a silent witness to a coolness and candor of argument unusual in the conflicts of political opinion; to a logical reasoning, and chaste eloquence, disfigured by no gaudy tinsel of rhetoric or declamation, and truly worthy of being placed in parallel with the finest dialogues of antiquity, as handed to us by Xenophon, by Plato, and Cicero. The result was, that the King should have a suspensive veto on the laws, that the legislature should be composed of a single body only, and that to be chosen by the people. This Concordat decided the fate of the constitution. The Patriots all rallied to the principles thus settled, carried every question agreeably to them, and reduced the aristocracy to insignificance and impotence. But duties of exculpation were now incumbent on me. I waited on Count Montmorin the next morning, and explained to him, with truth and candor, how it happened that my house had been made the scene of conferences of such a character. He told me he already knew every thing which had passed, that so far from taking umbrage at the use made of my house on that occasion, he earnestly wished I would habitually assist at such conferences, being sure I should be useful in moderating the warmer spirits, and promoting a wholesome and practicable reformation only. I told him I knew too well the duties I owed to the King, to the nation, and to my own country, to take any part in councils concerning their internal government, and that I should persevere, with care, in the character of a neutral and passive spectator, with wishes only, and very sincere ones, that those measures might prevail which would be for the greatest good of the nation. I have no doubt, indeed, that this conference was previously known and approved by this honest minister, who was in confidence and communication with the Patriots, and wished for a reasonable reform of the constitution.
On the evening of August 4th, on the motion of Viscount de Noailles, who was La Fayette’s brother-in-law, the Assembly abolished all titles of nobility, all the unfair privileges of feudalism, the tithes and casuals of the clergy, all provincial privileges, and essentially, the feudal system altogether. The Abbe Sieyes was strongly opposed to the elimination of tithes, but his well-reasoned arguments went ignored, and his reputation was diminished because people contrasted his selfishness (since he benefited from tithes) with the selfless renunciation of rights by other Assembly members. Several days were spent drafting laws to formalize the many abolitions of old abuses; once that was accomplished, they moved on to the initial work of creating a declaration of rights. There was a strong consensus on the key elements of this document, allowing it to be crafted with generosity and passed with broad approval. They then formed a committee to draft a proposal for a constitution, headed by the Archbishop of Bordeaux. On July 20th, I received a letter from him, requesting my attendance and assistance during their discussions; however, I respectfully declined, explaining that my mission was to the King as the Chief Magistrate of the nation, that my responsibilities were confined to my own country, and I shouldn't interfere in the internal matters of a nation where I had been accepted in a specific role only. Their proposed constitution was discussed in sections and reported progressively as the committee agreed. The first section addressed the overall structure of government, and it was widely agreed that it should consist of three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. However, when they started discussing further details, numerous conflicting opinions emerged, causing a significant split among the Patriots on various principles. The first question, whether there should be a King, faced no outright opposition; it was quickly accepted that France would retain a monarchical and hereditary government. Would the King have the power to veto laws? Would this veto be absolute or only suspensive? Should there be two legislative chambers or just one? If there were two, should one be hereditary, for life, or for a fixed term, appointed by the King or elected by the people? These issues sparked strong disagreements, leading to disunity among the Patriots. The aristocracy was united by a shared goal of preserving the old regime or something close to it. With this as their guiding principle, they aligned together, consistently giving weight to the minority views of the Patriots, particularly those favoring minimal change. Consequently, the features of the new constitution began to take a troubling form, causing great concern among the sincere Patriots due to the discord within their ranks. In this turbulent situation, I received a note from Marquis de La Fayette, stating he would bring a group of six or eight friends for dinner the following day. I assured him they were welcome. When they arrived, they included La Fayette himself, Duport, Barnave, Alexander la Meth, Blacon, Mounier, Maubourg, and Dagout. These were leading Patriots, honest yet holding differing viewpoints, aware of the need to find common ground through mutual sacrifices, and comfortable enough with each other to openly share their thoughts. This openness was a key factor in selecting those invited. With this aim in mind, the Marquis had organized the meeting and set the time and place without realizing the pressure it might put on me. After the meal was cleared and wine was served, in a casual American fashion, the Marquis opened the discussion by briefly reminding everyone of the current situation in the Assembly, the direction the principles of the constitution were taking, and the dire outcomes if the Patriots didn't unite. He noted that while he had his own views, he was willing to set them aside for the sake of his fellow supporters, stressing that a unified stance must be developed, or the aristocracy would dominate. He pledged that whatever they agreed upon, he would uphold it as the leader of the national force. The discussions began at 4 PM and lasted until 10 PM; during that time, I quietly observed an unusual level of calmness and sincerity in their arguments, clear reasoning, and eloquent expression, free from the flashy embellishments of rhetoric or declamation, truly worthy of being compared to the finest dialogues of antiquity as presented by Xenophon, Plato, and Cicero. They concluded that the King would have a suspensive veto on laws, that the legislature would be a single body chosen by the people. This agreement determined the fate of the constitution. The Patriots unified around the established principles, successfully passing every issue along those lines, effectively reducing the aristocracy to insignificance and powerlessness. However, I now had an obligation to explain my actions. The next morning, I visited Count Montmorin and honestly explained how it came to be that my home hosted such discussions. He informed me that he was already aware of everything that had transpired and, far from being displeased with my house being used for that purpose, he actually hoped I would regularly participate in such meetings, confident that I could help moderate the more passionate voices and encourage just and feasible reform. I responded that I was fully aware of my responsibilities to the King, the nation, and my own country, and would maintain a neutral and passive role, wishing sincerely for the measures that would benefit the nation the most. I am quite certain that this conference had previously been known and endorsed by this honorable minister, who was in touch with the Patriots and desired a reasonable reform of the constitution.
Here I discontinue my relation of the French Revolution. The minuteness with which I have so far given its details, is disproportioned to the general scale of my narrative. But I have thought it justified by the interest which the whole world must take in this Revolution. As yet, we are but in the first chapter of its history. The appeal to the rights of man, which had been made in the United States, was taken up by France, first of the European nations. From her the spirit has spread over those of the South. The tyrants of the North have allied indeed against it; but it is irresistible. Their opposition will only multiply its millions of human victims; their own satellites will catch it, and the condition of man through the civilized world, will be finally and greatly meliorated. This is a wonderful instance of great events from small causes. So inscrutable is the arrangement of causes and consequences in this world, that a two-penny duty on tea, unjustly imposed in a sequestered part of it, changes the condition of all its inhabitants. I have been more minute in relating the early transactions of this regeneration, because I was in circumstances peculiarly favorable for a knowledge of the truth. Possessing the confidence and intimacy of the leading Patriots, and more than all, of the Marquis Fayette, their head and Atlas, who had no secrets from me, I learned with correctness the views and proceedings of that party; while my intercourse with the diplomatic missionaries of Europe at Paris, all of them with the court, and eager in prying into its councils and proceedings, gave me a knowledge of these also. My information was always, and immediately committed to writing, in letters to Mr. Jay, and often to my friends, and a recurrence to these letters now insures me against errors of memory. These opportunities of information ceased at this period, with my retirement from this interesting scene of action. I had been more than a year soliciting leave to go home, with a view to place my daughters in the society and care of their friends, and to return for a short time to my station at Paris. But the metamorphosis through which our government was then passing from its chrysalid to its organic form, suspended its action in a great degree; and it was not till the last of August that I received the permission I had asked. And here I cannot leave this great and good country, without expressing my sense of its pre-eminence of character among the nations of the earth. A more benevolent people I have never known, nor greater warmth and devotedness in their select friendships. Their kindness and accommodation to strangers is unparalleled, and the hospitality of Paris is beyond any thing I had conceived to be practicable in a large city. Their eminence, too, in science, the communicative dispositions of their scientific men, the politeness of the general manners, the ease and vivacity of their conversation, give a charm to their society, to be found nowhere else. In a comparison of this with other countries, we have the proof of primacy, which was given to Themistocles after the battle of Salamis. Every general voted to himself the first reward of valor, and the second to Themistocles. So, ask the traveled inhabitant of any nation, In what country on earth would you rather live?—Certainly, in my own, where are all my friends, my relations, and the earliest and sweetest affections and recollections of my life. Which would be your second choice? France.
Here I end my account of the French Revolution. The detailed way I've described it so far is disproportionate to the overall scope of my narrative. However, I believe it’s justified because the entire world has a stake in this Revolution. We are still in the early chapters of its history. The appeal to human rights that was made in the United States was taken up by France, the first of the European nations to do so. From there, the spirit has spread to the South. The tyrants of the North have indeed joined forces against it, but it is unstoppable. Their resistance will only lead to more victims; their own followers will embrace it, and the state of humanity across the civilized world will ultimately improve significantly. This is a remarkable example of how great events can stem from small causes. The way causes and effects are arranged in this world is so complex that a small tax on tea, wrongly imposed in a distant part of it, can change the lives of everyone. I have provided more detail on the early events of this transformation because I was in a uniquely favorable position to understand the truth. With the trust and closeness of the leading Patriots, especially the Marquis de Lafayette, their leader and main supporter, who had no secrets from me, I accurately learned about the views and actions of that group. Additionally, my interactions with European diplomats in Paris, all eager to uncover the court’s activities and decisions, also informed me of those matters. I always wrote down my information immediately, in letters to Mr. Jay and often to my friends, and reviewing these letters now protects me against memory errors. These opportunities for insight ended when I withdrew from this captivating scene of action. I had spent over a year asking for permission to return home to place my daughters among their friends and then come back to my position in Paris for a short time. However, the transformation our government was undergoing from its transitional form to its final structure greatly delayed this process, and it wasn't until the end of August that I received the permission I had requested. And here, I can’t leave this great and wonderful country without expressing my admiration for its superior character among the nations of the world. I have never known a more generous people, nor have I encountered greater warmth and commitment in their close friendships. Their kindness and hospitality toward strangers are unmatched, and the hospitality of Paris is beyond anything I had imagined possible in a large city. Their excellence in science, the willingness of their scientists to share knowledge, the politeness of their general manners, and the ease and liveliness of their conversation make their society uniquely charming. In comparing this with other countries, we find proof of superiority; it reminds me of Themistocles after the battle of Salamis. Every general claimed the first prize for bravery for himself, giving the second to Themistocles. So, if you ask a well-traveled person from any nation, "In what country would you prefer to live?" they would certainly reply, "In my own, where all my friends, family, and the earliest and sweetest memories of my life are located." And which would be your second choice? France.
On the 26th of September, I left Paris for Havre, where I was detained by contrary winds, until the 8th of October. On that day, and the 9th, I crossed over to Cowes, where I had engaged the Clermont, Capt. Colley, to touch for me. She did so; but here again we were detained by contrary winds, until the 22nd, when we embarked, and landed at Norfolk on the 23rd of November. On my way home, I passed some days at Eppington, in Chesterfield, the residence of my friend and connection, Mr. Eppes; and, while there, I received a letter from the President, General Washington, by express, covering an appointment to be Secretary of State. [See Appendix, note H.] I received it with real regret. My wish had been to return to Paris, where I had left my household establishment, as if there myself, and to see the end of the Revolution, which, I then thought, would be certainly and happily closed in less than a year. I then meant to return home, to withdraw from political life, into which I had been impressed by the circumstances of the times, to sink into the bosom of my family and friends, and devote myself to studies more congenial to my mind. In my answer of December 15th, I expressed these dispositions candidly to the President, and my preference of a return to Paris; but assured him, that if it was believed I could be more useful in the administration of the government, I would sacrifice my own inclinations without hesitation, and repair to that destination: this I left to his decision. I arrived at Monticello on the 23rd of December, where I received a second letter from the President, expressing his continued wish, that I should take my station there, but leaving me still at liberty to continue in my former office, if I could not reconcile myself to that now proposed. This silenced my reluctance, and I accepted the new appointment.
On September 26th, I left Paris for Havre, where I was held up by unfavorable winds until October 8th. On that day and the 9th, I crossed over to Cowes, where I had arranged for the Clermont, Capt. Colley, to pick me up. She did so; but again, we were delayed by contrary winds until the 22nd, when we boarded and landed at Norfolk on November 23rd. On my way home, I spent a few days at Eppington in Chesterfield, the home of my friend and relative, Mr. Eppes; and while I was there, I received a letter from the President, General Washington, via express, including an appointment to be Secretary of State. [See Appendix, note H.] I received it with genuine regret. I had hoped to return to Paris, where I had left my home, as if I were there myself, and to witness the end of the Revolution, which I then thought would be certainly and happily concluded in less than a year. I intended to return home afterwards, to step away from political life, which I had been drawn into by the circumstances of the time, and to sink into the comfort of my family and friends, focusing on studies that suited me better. In my response on December 15th, I honestly shared these feelings with the President and my preference to return to Paris; but I assured him that if it was believed I could be more useful in the administration of the government, I would put aside my own wishes without hesitation and go to that position: I left that decision to him. I arrived at Monticello on December 23rd, where I received a second letter from the President, reiterating his desire for me to take up my new role, but still allowing me the freedom to stay in my previous position if I couldn't come to terms with the one now proposed. This eased my reluctance, and I accepted the new appointment.
In the interval of my stay at home, my eldest daughter had been happily married to the eldest son of the Tuckahoe branch of Randolphs, a young gentleman of genius, science, and honorable mind, who afterwards filled a dignified station in the General Government, and the most dignified in his own State. I left Monticello on the 1st of March, 1790, for New York. At Philadelphia I called on the venerable and beloved Franklin. He was then on the bed of sickness from which he never rose. My recent return from a country in which he had left so many friends, and the perilous convulsions to which they had been exposed, revived all his anxieties to know what part they had taken, what had been their course, and what their fate. He went over all in succession, with a rapidity and animation, almost too much for his strength. When all his inquiries were satisfied, and a pause took place, I told him I had learned with much pleasure that, since his return to America, he had been occupied in preparing for the world, the history of his own life. ‘I cannot say much of that,’ said he; ‘but I will give you a sample of what I shall leave:’ and he directed his little grandson (William Bache) who was standing by the bedside, to hand him a paper from the table, to which he pointed. He did so; and the Doctor putting it into my hands, desired me to take it, and read it at my leisure. It was about a quire of folio paper, written in a large and running hand, very like his own. I looked into it slightly, then shut it, and said I would accept his permission to read it, and would carefully return it. He said, ‘No, keep it.’ Not certain of his meaning, I again looked into it, folded it for my pocket, and said again, I would certainly return it. ‘No,’ said he, ‘keep it.’ I put it into my pocket, and shortly after, took leave of him. He died on the 17th of the ensuing month of April; and as I understood that he had bequeathed all his papers to his grandson, William Temple Franklin, I immediately wrote to Mr. Franklin, to inform him I possessed this paper, which I should consider as his property, and would deliver to his order. He came on immediately to New York, called on me for it, and I delivered it to him. As he put it into his pocket, he said carelessly, he had either the original, or another copy of it, I do not recollect which. This last expression struck my attention forcibly, and for the first time suggested to me the thought, that Dr. Franklin had meant it as a confidential deposite in my hands, and that I had done wrong in parting from it. I have not yet seen the collection he published of Dr. Franklin’s works, and therefore know not if this is among them. I have been told it is not. It contained a narrative of the negotiations between Dr. Franklin and the British Ministry, when he was endeavoring to prevent the contest of arms which followed. The negotiation was brought about by the intervention of Lord Howe and his sister, who, I believe, was called Lady Howe, but I may misremember her title. Lord Howe seems to have been friendly to America, and exceedingly anxious to prevent a rupture. His intimacy with Dr. Franklin, and his position with the Ministry, induced him to undertake a mediation between them; in which his sister seemed to have been associated. They carried from one to the other, backwards and forwards, the several propositions and answers which passed, and seconded with their own intercessions, the importance of mutual sacrifices, to preserve the peace and connection of the two countries. I remember that Lord North’s answers were dry, unyielding, in the spirit of unconditional submission, and betrayed an absolute indifference to the occurrence of a rupture; and he said to the mediators distinctly, at last, that ‘a rebellion was not to be deprecated on the part of Great Britain; that the confiscations it would produce, would provide for many of their friends.’ This expression was reported by the mediators to Dr. Franklin, and indicated so cool and calculated a purpose in the Ministry, as to render compromise hopeless, and the negotiation was discontinued. If this is not among the papers published, we ask, what has become of it? I delivered it with my own hands, into those of Temple Franklin. It certainly established views so atrocious in the British government, that its suppression would, to them, be worth a great price. But could the grandson of Dr. Franklin be, in such degree, an accomplice in the parricide of the memory of his immortal grandfather? The suspension, for more than twenty years, of the general publication, bequeathed and confided to him, produced for a while hard suspicions against him: and if, at last, all are not published, a part of these suspicions may remain with some.
During my time at home, my eldest daughter got happily married to the oldest son of the Tuckahoe branch of the Randolph family, a talented and honorable young man who later held an important position in the federal government and the highest office in his own state. I left Monticello on March 1, 1790, for New York. While in Philadelphia, I visited the esteemed and beloved Franklin. He was lying sick, never to recover. My recent return from a country where he had many friends, who faced extreme dangers, reignited all his worries about what had happened to them. He asked about each of them in quick succession, with such energy that it almost exhausted him. Once I answered all his questions and there was a moment of silence, I mentioned that I was pleased to learn he had been working on writing the history of his own life since returning to America. "I can’t say much about that," he replied, "but I'll show you a sample of what I plan to leave behind." He pointed to a paper on the table and instructed his little grandson, William Bache, who was standing by his bedside, to bring it to him. The boy did so, and Franklin handed it to me, asking me to read it at my convenience. It was a stack of folio paper filled with writing in a large, flowing hand resembling his own. I glanced at it briefly, then closed it, saying I would gladly accept his permission to read and would return it carefully. He replied, “No, keep it.” Unsure of his intention, I looked at it again, folded it for my pocket, and reiterated that I would definitely return it. “No,” he insisted, “keep it.” I placed it in my pocket and soon took my leave. He passed away on April 17 of that year, and when I learned he had left all his papers to his grandson, William Temple Franklin, I immediately wrote to inform him I had this paper, which I considered his property and would return at his request. He came to New York right away, asked for it, and I gave it to him. As he put it in his pocket, he casually remarked that he either had the original or another copy of it; I can’t remember which. That last comment caught my attention strongly and for the first time made me think that Dr. Franklin intended it as a confidential deposit with me, and that I had made a mistake in letting it go. I haven’t seen the collection of Dr. Franklin's works that he published, so I don’t know if this paper is included. I’ve been told it isn’t. It contained a narrative about the negotiations between Dr. Franklin and the British Ministry when he was trying to prevent the conflict that followed. The negotiations were facilitated by Lord Howe and his sister, who I believe was called Lady Howe, though I might be mistaken about her title. Lord Howe seemed to be supportive of America and was very eager to prevent a break. His closeness to Dr. Franklin and his role with the Ministry led him to mediate between them, with his sister also involved. They transported various proposals and responses back and forth, supporting the idea of mutual sacrifices to maintain peace and ties between the two countries. I recall that Lord North’s responses were curt, inflexible, displaying an attitude of unconditional surrender, and showed a complete indifference to the likelihood of conflict. He made it clear to the mediators that "a rebellion was not to be discouraged by Great Britain; the confiscations it would bring would benefit many of their friends.” This statement was reported back to Dr. Franklin and demonstrated such a cold and deliberate intent from the Ministry that compromise became impossible, resulting in the negotiation being halted. If this isn’t in the published papers, what happened to it? I handed it directly to Temple Franklin. It certainly exposed views so appalling from the British government that its suppression would be highly valued by them. But could Dr. Franklin's grandson be so much an accomplice in the obliteration of his legendary grandfather’s legacy? The pause in the general publication, which he inherited and was entrusted with for over twenty years, led to some harsh suspicions against him; and if not everything is published in the end, some lingering doubts may remain.
I arrived at New York on the 21st of March, where Congress was in session.
I arrived in New York on March 21st, when Congress was in session.
APPENDIX TO THE MEMOIR.
[NOTE A.] Letter to John Saunderson, Esq.
Sir,
Hey,
Monticello, August 31, 1820.
Monticello, August 31, 1820.
Your letter of the 19th was received in due time, and I wish it were in my power to furnish you more fully, than in the enclosed paper, with materials for the biography of George Wythe; but I possess none in writing, am very distant from the place of his birth and early life, and know not a single person in that quarter from whom inquiry could be made, with the expectation of collecting any thing material. Add to this, that feeble health disables me, almost, from writing; and, entirely, from the labor of going into difficult research. I became acquainted with Mr. Wythe when he was about thirty-five years of age. He directed my studies in the law, led me into business, and continued, until death, my most affectionate friend. A close intimacy with him, during that period of forty odd years, the most important of his life, enables me to state its leading facts, which, being of my own knowledge, I vouch their truth. Of what precedes that period, I speak from hearsay only, in which there may be error, but of little account, as the character of the facts will themselves manifest. In the epoch of his birth I may err a little, stating that from the recollection of a particular incident, the date of which, within a year or two, I do not distinctly remember. These scanty outlines, you will be able, I hope, to fill up from other information, and they may serve you, sometimes, as landmarks to distinguish truth from error, in what you hear from others. The exalted virtue of the man will also be a polar star to guide you in all matters which may touch that element of his character. But on that you will receive imputation from no man; for, as far as I know, he never had an enemy. Little as I am able to contribute to the just reputation of this excellent man, it is the act of my life most gratifying to my heart: and leaves me only to regret that a waning memory can do no more.
Your letter from the 19th arrived on time, and I wish I could provide you with more detailed information for the biography of George Wythe than what's included in the attached document. Unfortunately, I don’t have any written records, I’m far from his birthplace and early life, and I don’t know anyone there whom I could ask for more information that would be significant. On top of that, my poor health makes it nearly impossible for me to write, and completely prevents me from undertaking extensive research. I met Mr. Wythe when he was around thirty-five. He guided my legal studies, helped me get into business, and remained my most caring friend until his death. My close relationship with him over the forty-plus years—the most important years of his life—allows me to share its main facts, which I can personally verify as true. For what happened before that time, I rely on hearsay, which may contain some inaccuracies, but they are of little consequence as the nature of the facts will reveal themselves. I might be slightly off about the exact timing of his birth; I remember a specific incident, but I don’t recall the date precisely—it could be within a year or two. I hope these brief details will help you fill in the gaps with other information, and they might serve as markers to help you discern truth from falsehood in what you hear from others. The remarkable integrity of the man will also guide you in all matters related to that aspect of his character. You shouldn’t worry about criticism regarding that; to my knowledge, he never had an enemy. Even though I can't contribute much to the rightful reputation of this admirable man, it brings me immense joy to do so. I only regret that my fading memory can offer no more.
Of Mr. Hancock I can say nothing, having known him only in the chair of Congress. Having myself been the youngest man but one in that body, the disparity of age prevented any particular intimacy. But of him there can be no difficulty in obtaining full information in the North.
Of Mr. Hancock, I can't say much since I've only known him while he was in the chair of Congress. As the second youngest person in that group, the age difference kept us from becoming close. However, finding detailed information about him in the North won't be a problem.
I salute you, Sir, with sentiments of great respect.
I greet you, Sir, with deep respect.
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
Notes for the Biography of George Wythe.
Notes for the Biography of George Wythe.
George Wythe was born about the year 1727 or 1728, of a respectable family in the county of Elizabeth City, on the shores of the Chesapeake. He inherited, from his father, a fortune sufficient for independence and ease. He had not the benefit of a regular education in the schools, but acquired a good one of himself, and without assistance; insomuch, as to become the best Latin and Greek scholar in the state. It is said, that while reading the Greek Testament, his mother held an English one, to aid him in rendering the Greek text conformably with that. He also acquired, by his own reading, a good knowledge of Mathematics, and of Natural and Moral Philosophy. He engaged in the study of the law under the direction of a Mr. Lewis, of that profession, and went early to the bar of the General Court, then occupied by men of great ability, learning, and dignity in their profession. He soon became eminent among them, and, in process of time, the first at the bar, taking into consideration his superior learning, correct elocution, and logical style of reasoning; for in pleading he never indulged himself with an useless or declamatory thought or word; and became as distinguished by correctness and purity of conduct in his profession, as he was by his industry and fidelity to those who employed him. He was early elected to the House of Representatives, then called the House of Burgesses, and continued in it until the Revolution. On the first dawn of that, instead of higgling on half-way principles, as others did who feared to follow their reason, he took his stand on the solid ground, that the only link of political union between us and Great Britain, was the identity of our Executive; that that nation and its Parliament had no more authority over us, than we had over them, and that we were co-ordinate nations with Great Britain and Hanover.
George Wythe was born around 1727 or 1728 to a respected family in Elizabeth City County, by the Chesapeake Bay. He inherited a fortune from his father that allowed him to live independently and comfortably. Although he didn’t receive formal schooling, he taught himself quite well and became the best Latin and Greek scholar in the state. It's said that while he read the Greek Testament, his mother held an English version to help him match the Greek text with its translation. He also gained knowledge in Mathematics, as well as Natural and Moral Philosophy through his reading. He studied law under a Mr. Lewis and entered the bar at the General Court, which was then filled with highly skilled and esteemed lawyers. He quickly distinguished himself, eventually becoming the leading lawyer by virtue of his superior knowledge, clear speaking, and logical reasoning; he never included unnecessary or rhetorical flourishes in his arguments. He was equally known for his integrity and dedication to his clients. He was elected early on to the House of Representatives, known then as the House of Burgesses, and served there until the Revolution. When that time came, rather than compromise with half-measures like others who were afraid to act on their beliefs, he firmly asserted that the only political connection between us and Great Britain was their shared Executive; that nation and its Parliament had no more authority over us than we had over them, and that we were equal nations alongside Great Britain and Hanover.
In 1774, he was a member of a Committee of the House of Burgesses, appointed to prepare a Petition to the King, a Memorial to the House of Lords, and a Remonstrance to the House of Commons, on the subject of the proposed Stamp Act. He was made draughtsman of the last, and, following his own principles, he so far overwent the timid hesitations of his colleagues, that his draught was subjected by them to material modifications; and, when the famous Resolutions of Mr. Henry, in 1775, were proposed, it was not on any difference of principle that they were opposed by Wythe. Randolph, Pendleton, Nicholas, Bland, and other worthies, who had long been the habitual leaders of the House; but because those papers of the preceding session had already expressed the same sentiments and assertions of right, and that an answer to them was yet to be expected.
In 1774, he was part of a Committee of the House of Burgesses, assigned to draft a Petition to the King, a Memorial to the House of Lords, and a Remonstrance to the House of Commons regarding the proposed Stamp Act. He was the one who wrote the last document, and, sticking to his own beliefs, he pushed past the cautious hesitations of his colleagues, which led to them making significant changes to his draft. When the famous Resolutions by Mr. Henry were proposed in 1775, it wasn't due to any difference in principle that Wythe opposed them. Rather, it was because those documents from the previous session had already conveyed the same sentiments and claims of rights, and they were still waiting for a response to them.
In August, 1775, he was appointed a member of Congress, and in 1776, signed the Declaration of Independence, of which he had, in debate, been an eminent supporter. And subsequently, in the same year, he was appointed by the Legislature of Virginia, one of a committee to revise the laws of the state, as well of British, as of Colonial enactment, and to prepare bills for re-enacting them, with such alterations as the change in the form and principles of the government, and other circumstances, required: and of this work, he executed the period commencing with the revolution in England, and ending with the establishment of the new government here; excepting the Acts for regulating descents, for religious freedom, and for proportioning crimes and punishments. In 1777, he was chosen speaker of the House of Delegates, being of distinguished learning in parliamentary law and proceedings; and towards the end of the same year, he was appointed one of the three Chancellors, to whom that department of the Judiciary was confided, on the first organization of the new government. On a subsequent change of the form of that court, he was appointed sole Chancellor, in which office he continued to act until his death, which happened in June, 1806, about the seventy-eighth or seventy-ninth year of his age.
In August 1775, he was appointed a member of Congress, and in 1776, he signed the Declaration of Independence, which he had strongly supported during debates. Later that same year, he was appointed by the Virginia Legislature to be part of a committee tasked with revising the state laws, both British and Colonial, and to prepare bills to re-enact them with the necessary changes due to the shift in government and other circumstances. He worked on this project from the revolution in England until the establishment of the new government here, except for the Acts concerning inheritance, religious freedom, and the proportionality of crimes and punishments. In 1777, he was elected speaker of the House of Delegates, recognized for his exceptional knowledge of parliamentary law and procedures. By the end of that year, he was one of three Chancellors appointed to oversee that branch of the Judiciary when the new government was first organized. When the structure of that court was later changed, he was appointed the sole Chancellor, a position he held until his death in June 1806, at around seventy-eight or seventy-nine years old.
Mr. Wythe had been twice married; first, I believe, to a daughter of Mr. Lewis, with whom he had studied law, and afterwards, to a Miss Taliaferro, of a wealthy and respectable family in the neighborhood of Williamsburg; by neither of whom did he leave issue.
Mr. Wythe was married twice; first, I think, to a daughter of Mr. Lewis, whom he studied law with, and later, to a Miss Taliaferro from a wealthy and respected family near Williamsburg; he didn't have any children with either of them.
No man ever left behind him a character more venerated than George Wythe. His virtue was of the purest tint; his integrity inflexible, and his justice exact; of warm patriotism, and, devoted as he was to liberty, and the natural and equal rights of man, he might truly be called the Cato of his country, without the avarice of the Roman; for a more disinterested person never lived. Temperance and regularity in all his habits, gave him general good health, and his unaffected modesty and suavity of manners endeared him to every one. He was of easy elocution, his language chaste, methodical in the arrangement of his matter, learned and logical in the use of it, and of great urbanity in debate; not quick of apprehension, but, with a little time, profound in penetration, and sound in conclusion. In his philosophy he was firm, and neither troubling, nor perhaps trusting, any one with his religious creed, he left the world to the conclusion, that that religion must be good which could produce a life of exemplary virtue.
No one has left a more respected legacy than George Wythe. His character was incredibly virtuous; his integrity was unwavering, and his sense of justice was precise. He had a strong sense of patriotism, and devoted to liberty and the natural and equal rights of all people, he could truly be called the Cato of his country, without the greed of the Romans; for he was an entirely selfless person. His temperance and regular habits contributed to his overall good health, and his genuine modesty and pleasant demeanor made him beloved by everyone. He communicated easily, his language was refined, and his thoughts were organized. He was knowledgeable and logical in his arguments, and very courteous in debate; while he wasn't quick to grasp things, given a little time, he had deep insights and sound conclusions. He was steadfast in his beliefs, and without troubling or perhaps even confiding in anyone about his religious views, he allowed the world to conclude that any religion that can inspire a life of exemplary virtue must be good.
His stature was of the middle size, well formed and proportioned, and the features of his face were manly, comely, and engaging. Such was George Wythe, the honor of his own, and the model of future times.
His height was average, with a well-built and proportionate physique, and his facial features were masculine, attractive, and charming. This was George Wythe, the pride of his era and the example for those to come.
[NOTE B.]—Letter to Samuel A. Wells, Esq.
Sir,
Sir,
Monticello, May 12, 1829.
Monticello, May 12, 1829.
An absence, of sometime, at an occasional and distant residence, must apologize for the delay in acknowledging the receipt of your favor of April 12th; and candor obliges me to add, that it has been somewhat extended by an aversion to writing, as well as to calls on my memory for facts so much obliterated from it by time, as to lessen my own confidence in the traces which seem to remain. One of the enquiries in your letter, however, may be answered without an appeal to the memory. It is that respecting the question, Whether committees of correspondence originated in Virginia, or Massachusetts? on which you suppose me to have claimed it for Virginia; but certainly I have never made such a claim. The idea, I suppose, has been taken up from what is said in Wirt’s history of Mr. Henry, page 87, and from an inexact attention to its precise terms. It is there said, ‘This House [of Burgesses, of Virginia] had the merit of originating that powerful engine of resistance, corresponding committees between the legislatures of the different colonies.’ That the fact, as here expressed, is true, your letter bears witness, when it says, that the resolutions of Virginia, for this purpose, were transmitted to the speakers of the different assemblies, and by that of Massachusetts was laid, at the next session, before that body, who appointed a committee for the specified object: adding, ‘Thus, in Massachusetts, there were two committees of correspondence, one chosen by the people, the other appointed by the House of Assembly; in the former, Massachusetts preceded Virginia; in the latter, Virginia preceded Massachusetts.’ To the origination of committees for the interior correspondence between the counties and towns of a state, I know of no claim on the part of Virginia; and certainly none was ever made by myself. I perceive, however, one error, into which memory had led me. Our committee for national correspondence was appointed in March, ‘73, and I well remember, that going to Williamsburg in the month of June following, Peyton Randolph, our chairman, told me that messengers bearing despatches between the two states had crossed each other by the way, that of Virginia carrying our propositions for a committee of national correspondence, and that of Massachusetts, bringing, as my memory suggested, a similar proposition. But here I must have misremembered; and the resolutions brought us from Massachusetts were probably those you mention of the town-meeting of Boston, on the motion of Mr. Samuel Adams, appointing a committee ‘to state the rights of the colonists, and of that province in particular, and the infringements of them; to communicate them to the several towns, as the sense of the town of Boston, and to request, of each town, a free, communication of its sentiments on this subject.’ I suppose, therefore, that these resolutions were not received, as you think, while the House of Burgesses was in session in March, 1773, but a few days after we rose, and were probably what was sent by the messenger, who crossed ours by the way. They may, however, have been still different. I must, therefore, have been mistaken in supposing, and stating to Mr. Wirt, that the proposition of a committee for national correspondence was nearly simultaneous in Virginia and Massachusetts.
An absence, at times, at a distant residence, must explain the delay in acknowledging the receipt of your letter from April 12th; and I must honestly add that this delay has been partly due to my reluctance to write, as well as needing to recall facts that have faded from my memory over time, which makes me less confident in the details that seem to remain. However, one of the questions in your letter can be answered without relying on memory. It concerns whether committees of correspondence originated in Virginia or Massachusetts, which you think I claimed for Virginia; but I have never made such a claim. I assume this idea arose from what is stated in Wirt’s history of Mr. Henry, page 87, and from a loose interpretation of its exact wording. It says, ‘This House [of Burgesses, of Virginia] had the merit of originating that powerful engine of resistance, corresponding committees between the legislatures of the different colonies.’ Your letter confirms the truth of this fact when it mentions that Virginia's resolutions for this purpose were sent to the speakers of the different assemblies, and the one from Massachusetts was presented at the next session, resulting in the appointment of a committee for the specified purpose: adding, ‘Thus, in Massachusetts, there were two committees of correspondence, one chosen by the people, the other appointed by the House of Assembly; in the former, Massachusetts preceded Virginia; in the latter, Virginia preceded Massachusetts.’ I know of no claim from Virginia regarding the origin of committees for internal correspondence between the counties and towns of a state; and I certainly made none myself. However, I do realize I made one error, influenced by my memory. Our committee for national correspondence was appointed in March '73, and I clearly remember that when I went to Williamsburg that June, Peyton Randolph, our chairman, told me that messengers carrying dispatches between the two states had crossed paths, with Virginia's carrying our proposals for a national correspondence committee and Massachusetts' bringing what my memory suggested was a similar proposal. But I must have misremembered; the resolutions we received from Massachusetts were likely those you mentioned from the Boston town meeting, motioned by Mr. Samuel Adams, to appoint a committee ‘to state the rights of the colonists, particularly those of that province, and the infringements on them; to communicate these to the various towns as the sense of Boston, and to request each town to freely share its opinions on this subject.’ Therefore, I believe these resolutions were not received, as you think, while the House of Burgesses was in session in March 1773, but rather a few days after we adjourned, and they were likely sent by the messenger who crossed paths with ours. They may have been entirely different as well. I must have been mistaken in believing and telling Mr. Wirt that the proposition for a national correspondence committee arose nearly simultaneously in Virginia and Massachusetts.
A similar misapprehension of another passage in Mr. Wirt’s book, for which I am also quoted, has produced a similar reclamation on the part of Massachusetts, by some of her most distinguished and estimable citizens. I had been applied to by Mr. Wirt, for such facts respecting Mr. Henry, as my intimacy with him and participation in the transactions of the day, might have placed within my knowledge. I accordingly committed them to paper; and Virginia being the theatre of his action, was the only subject within my contemplation. While speaking of him, of the resolutions and measures here, in which he had the acknowledged lead, I used the expression that ‘Mr. Henry certainly gave the first impulse to the ball of revolution.’ [Wirt, page 41.] The expression is indeed general, and in all its extension would comprehend all the sister states; but indulgent construction would restrain it, as was really meant, to the subject matter under contemplation, which was Virginia alone; according to the rule of the lawyers, and a fair canon of general criticism, that every expression should be construed secundum subjectam materiam. Where the first attack was made, there must have been of course, the first act of resistance, and that was in Massachusetts. Our first overt act of war, was Mr. Henry’s embodying a force of militia from several counties, regularly armed and organized, marching them in military array, and making reprisal on the King’s treasury at the seat of government, for the public powder taken away by his Governor. This was on the last days of April, 1775. Your formal battle of Lexington was ten or twelve days before that, and greatly overshadowed in importance, as it preceded in time, our little affray, which merely amounted to a levying of arms against the King; and very possibly, you had had military affrays before the regular battle of Lexington.
A similar misunderstanding of another part of Mr. Wirt’s book, where I’m also mentioned, has led to a similar response from Massachusetts, coming from some of its most respected and esteemed citizens. Mr. Wirt reached out to me for facts about Mr. Henry that my close relationship with him and my involvement in the events of the time might have given me insight into. I wrote these down, considering Virginia as the primary focus since that was where he was active. When discussing him and the resolutions and measures he led here, I used the phrase that “Mr. Henry certainly gave the first push to the revolution.” [Wirt, page 41.] The phrase is indeed broad and could apply to all the sister states; however, a charitable interpretation would limit it, as I intended, to the matter at hand, which was solely Virginia. According to legal principles and a commonsense approach to criticism, every statement should be interpreted secundum subjectam materiam. Where the initial attack occurred, there must naturally have been the first act of resistance, and that was in Massachusetts. Our first active step in the war was Mr. Henry organizing a militia from several counties, properly armed and structured, marching them in formation, and retaliating against the King’s treasury for the public powder taken by his Governor. This happened in the last days of April, 1775. Your formal battle of Lexington took place ten or twelve days prior and was significantly more prominent due to its timing, overshadowing our minor skirmish, which was essentially an armed response against the King; and it’s very possible that there were military skirmishes before the official battle of Lexington.
These explanations will, I hope, assure you, Sir, that so far as either facts or opinions have been truly quoted from me, they have never been meant to intercept the just fame of Massachusetts, for the promptitude and perseverance of her early resistance. We willingly cede to her the laud of having been (although not exclusively) ‘the cradle of sound principles,’ and, if some of us believe she has deflected from them in her course, we retain full confidence in her ultimate return to them.
These explanations will, I hope, reassure you, Sir, that as far as any facts or opinions have been accurately quoted from me, they were never intended to undermine the rightful reputation of Massachusetts for her swift and steady early resistance. We willingly acknowledge her credit for being (though not exclusively) ‘the cradle of sound principles,’ and while some of us believe she has strayed from them along the way, we have full confidence that she will ultimately return to them.
I will now proceed to your quotation from Mr. Galloway’s statement of what passed in Congress, on their Declaration of Independence; in which statement there is not one word of truth, and where bearing some resemblance to truth, it is an entire perversion of it. I do not charge this on Mr. Galloway himself; his desertion having taken place long before these measures, he doubtless received his information from some of the loyal friends whom he left behind him. But as yourself, as well as others, appear embarrassed by inconsistent accounts of the proceedings on that memorable occasion, and as those who have endeavored to restore the truth, have themselves committed some errors, I will give you some extracts from a written document on that subject; for the truth of which, I pledge myself to heaven and earth; having, while the question of Independence was under consideration before Congress, taken written notes, in my seat, of what was passing, and reduced them to form on the final conclusion. I have now before me that paper, from which the following are extracts. ‘Friday, June 7th, 1776. The delegates from Virginia moved, in obedience to instructions from their constituents, that the Congress should declare that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; that measures should be immediately taken for procuring the assistance of foreign powers, and a Confederation be formed to bind the colonies more closely together. The House being obliged to attend at that time to some other business, the proposition was referred to the next day, when the members were ordered to attend punctually at ten o’clock. Saturday, June 8th. They proceeded to take it into consideration, and referred it to a committee of the whole, into which they immediately resolved themselves, and passed that day and Monday, the 10th, in debating on the subject.
I will now address your quote from Mr. Galloway’s account of what happened in Congress regarding their Declaration of Independence; in which account, there isn’t a single truth, and where it resembles the truth, it completely distorts it. I don’t blame Mr. Galloway himself for this; he left before these events took place, so he likely got his information from some of the loyal friends he abandoned. However, since both you and others seem confused by contradictory reports of the events on that historic occasion, and since those who tried to clarify the truth have also made some mistakes, I will share some excerpts from a written document on the topic; for the validity of which, I promise you, I swear to heaven and earth; having, while the issue of Independence was being discussed in Congress, taken written notes from my seat about what was happening and organized them into a final form. I currently have that document in front of me, from which the following are excerpts. ‘Friday, June 7th, 1776. The delegates from Virginia moved, following instructions from their constituents, that Congress should declare that these United Colonies are, and rightfully ought to be, free and independent states; that they are released from all loyalty to the British crown, and that all political ties between them and Great Britain are, and should be, completely severed; that steps should be taken immediately to seek the support of foreign powers, and a Confederation should be formed to unite the colonies more closely. The House had to attend to other business at that time, so the proposal was postponed until the next day, when the members were instructed to be present promptly at ten o’clock. Saturday, June 8th. They began to consider it, referring it to a committee of the whole, into which they quickly resolved themselves, spending that day and Monday, the 10th, debating the matter.
‘It appearing, in the course of these debates, that the colonies of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delware, Maryland, and South Carolina, were not yet matured for falling from the parent stem, but that they were fast advancing to that state, it was thought most prudent to wait a while for them, and to postpone the final decision to July 1st. But, that this might occasion as little delay as possible, a Committee was appointed to prepare a Declaration of Independence. The Committee were John Adams, Dr. Franklin, Roger Sherman, Robert R. Livingston, and myself. This was reported to the House on Friday the 28th of June, when it was read and ordered to lie on the table. On Monday, the 1st of July, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole, and resumed the consideration of the original motion made by the delegates of Virginia, which, being again debated through the day, was carried in the affirmative by the votes of New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia. South Carolina and Pennsylvania voted against it. Delaware had but two members present, and they were divided. The delegates from New York declared they were for it themselves, and were assured their constituents were for it; but that their instructions having been drawn near a twelvemonth before, when reconciliation was still the general object, they were enjoined by them, to do nothing which should impede that object. They, therefore, thought themselves not justifiable in voting on either side, and asked leave to withdraw from the question, which was given them. The Committee rose, and reported their resolution to the House. Mr. Rutledge, of South Carolina, then requested the determination might be put off to the next day, as he believed his colleagues, though they disapproved of the resolution, would then join in it for the sake of unanimity. The ultimate question, whether the House would agree to the resolution of the Committee, was accordingly postponed to the next day, when it was again moved, and South Carolina concurred in voting for it. In the mean time, a third member had come post from the Delaware counties, and turned the vote of that colony in favor of the resolution. Members of a different sentiment attending that morning from Pennsylvania also, her vote was changed; so that the whole twelve colonies, who were authorized to vote at all, gave their votes for it; and within a few days [July 9th] the convention of New York approved of it, and thus supplied the void occasioned by the withdrawing of their delegates from the vote.’ [Be careful to observe, that this vacillation and vote were on the original motion of the 7th of June, by the Virginia delegates, that Congress should declare the colonies independent.] ‘Congress proceeded, the same day, to consider the Declaration of Independence, which had been reported and laid on the table the Friday preceding, and on Monday referred to a Committee of the whole. The pusillanimous idea, that we had friends in England worth keeping terms with, still haunted the minds of many. For this reason, those passages which conveyed censures on the people of England were struck out, lest they should give them offence. The debates having taken up the greater parts of the second, third, and fourth days of July, were, in the evening of the last, closed: the Declaration was reported by the Committee, agreed to by the House, and signed by every member present except Mr. Dickinson.’ So far my notes.
‘During these discussions, it became clear that the colonies of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and South Carolina were not yet ready to separate from the parent country, but they were rapidly moving toward that point. It was considered wise to wait a bit longer for them and to delay the final decision until July 1st. To minimize any delays, a Committee was formed to draft a Declaration of Independence. The Committee consisted of John Adams, Dr. Franklin, Roger Sherman, Robert R. Livingston, and myself. This was presented to the House on Friday, June 28th, where it was read and set aside for later discussion. On Monday, July 1st, the House reconvened as a Committee of the Whole and took up the original motion made by the Virginia delegates. After a day of debate, the motion was voted in favor by New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia. South Carolina and Pennsylvania voted against it. Delaware had only two members present, and they were split. The New York delegates expressed their support for the resolution, stating they believed their constituents were in favor as well; however, because their instructions were crafted nearly a year earlier when reconciliation was still the aim, they felt prevented from taking a stand on either side and requested permission to withdraw from the vote, which was granted. The Committee then rose and reported their resolution to the House. Mr. Rutledge of South Carolina requested to postpone the decision until the next day, as he thought his colleagues, despite their disapproval of the resolution, would support it for the sake of unity. The final question of whether the House would approve the Committee’s resolution was postponed until the next day, when it was moved again, and South Carolina joined in voting for it. Meanwhile, a third delegate from Delaware had arrived and changed the vote of that colony to in favor of the resolution. Members from Pennsylvania with differing opinions were present that morning as well, causing their vote to change, resulting in all twelve colonies authorized to vote supporting it. Within a few days [July 9th], the New York convention approved it, filling the gap left by their delegates withdrawing from the vote.’ [Note that this uncertainty and voting were on the original motion from June 7th by the Virginia delegates for Congress to declare the colonies independent.] ‘Congress then proceeded on the same day to consider the Declaration of Independence, which had been reported and tabled the previous Friday, and on Monday it was referred to a Committee of the Whole. The timid notion that we had friends in England worth maintaining relations with still lingered in many minds. For this reason, passages that criticized the people of England were removed to avoid causing offense. The debates took up most of the second, third, and fourth days of July and concluded on the evening of the last day: the Declaration was reported by the Committee, approved by the House, and signed by every member present except Mr. Dickinson.’ That’s all my notes.
Governor M’Kean, in his letter to M’Corkle of July 16th, 1817, has thrown some lights on the transactions of that day: but, trusting to his memory chiefly, at an age when our memories are not to be trusted, he has confounded two questions, and ascribed proceedings to one which belonged to the other. These two questions were, 1st, the Virginia motion of June the 7th, to declare Independence; and 2nd, the actual Declaration, its matter and form. Thus he states the question on the Declaration itself, as decided on the 1st of July; but it was the Virginia motion which was voted on that day in committee of the whole; South Carolina, as well as Pennsylvania, then voting against it. But the ultimate decision in the House, on the report of the Committee, being, by request, postponed to the next morning, all the states voted for it, except New York, whose vote was delayed for the reason before stated. It was not till the 2nd of July, that the Declaration itself was taken up; nor till the 4th, that it was decided, and it was signed by every member present, except Mr. Dickinson.
Governor M’Kean, in his letter to M’Corkle dated July 16, 1817, sheds some light on the events of that day. However, relying mostly on his memory at an age when memories aren’t always reliable, he confuses two issues and attributes actions of one to the other. These two issues were: 1st, the Virginia motion from June 7 to declare Independence; and 2nd, the actual Declaration, its content and format. He mentions the question regarding the Declaration itself as being decided on July 1, but it was actually the Virginia motion that was voted on that day in a committee of the whole, with both South Carolina and Pennsylvania voting against it. However, the final decision in the House regarding the Committee's report was postponed at their request until the next morning, and all states except New York voted for it, as New York's vote was delayed for the reasons previously mentioned. The Declaration itself was not taken up until July 2, and it wasn’t decided until July 4, when every member present signed it, except Mr. Dickinson.
The subsequent signatures of members who were not then present, and some of them not yet in office, is easily explained, if we observe who they were; to wit, that they were of New York and Pennsylvania. New York did not sign till the 15th, because it was not till the 9th, (five days after the general signature,) that their Convention authorized them to do so. The Convention of Pennsylvania, learning that it had been signed by a majority only of their delegates, named a new delegation on the 20th, leaving out Mr. Dickinson, who had refused to sign, Willing and Humphreys, who had withdrawn, reappointing the three members who had signed, Morris, who had not been present, and five new ones, to wit, Rush, Clymer, Smith, Taylor, and Ross: and Morris and the five new members were permitted to sign, because it manifested the assent of their full delegation, and the express will of their Convention, which might have been doubted on the former signature of a minority only. Why the signature of Thornton, of New Hampshire, was permitted so late as the 4th of November, I cannot now say; but undoubtedly for some particular reason, which we should find to have been good, had it been expressed. These were the only post-signers, and you see, sir, that there were solid reasons for receiving those of New York and Pennsylvania, and that this circumstance in no wise affects the faith of this Declaratory Charter of our rights, and of the rights of man.
The signatures that came later from members who weren’t present at the time, and some of whom weren’t even in office yet, can be easily explained if we look at who they were; specifically, they were from New York and Pennsylvania. New York didn’t sign until the 15th because it wasn’t until the 9th, five days after the general signing, that their Convention authorized them to do so. The Pennsylvania Convention, realizing that only a majority of their delegates had signed, appointed a new delegation on the 20th. They left out Mr. Dickinson, who refused to sign, and Willing and Humphreys, who had withdrawn, while reappointing the three members who had already signed, Morris, who hadn’t been present, along with five new members: Rush, Clymer, Smith, Taylor, and Ross. Morris and the five new members were allowed to sign because it showed the agreement of their entire delegation and the clear will of their Convention, which might have been questioned with just a minority's signature. I can’t explain why Thornton from New Hampshire was allowed to sign so late as November 4th, but there must have been a valid reason, even if it wasn’t stated. These were the only late signers, and as you can see, there were solid reasons for accepting the signatures from New York and Pennsylvania, and this situation doesn’t affect the integrity of this Declaratory Charter of our rights and the rights of man.
With a view to correct errors of fact before they become inveterate by repetition, I have stated what I find essentially material in my papers, but with that brevity which the labor of writing constrains me to use.
To fix factual errors before they become ingrained through repetition, I've pointed out what I consider essential in my papers, but I've kept it brief due to the demands of writing.
On the four particular articles of inquiry in your letter, respecting your grandfather, the venerable Samuel Adams, neither memory nor memorandums enable me to give any information. I can say that he was truly a great man, wise in council, fertile in resources, immovable in his purposes, and had, I think, a greater share than any other member, in advising and directing our measures in the Northern war. As a speaker, he could not be compared with his living colleague and namesake, whose deep conceptions, nervous style, and undaunted firmness, made him truly our bulwark in debate. But Mr. Samuel Adams, although not of fluent elocution, was so rigorously logical, so clear in his views, abundant in good sense, and master always of his subject, that he commanded the most profound attention whenever he rose in an assembly, by which the froth of declamation was heard with the most sovereign contempt. I sincerely rejoice that the record of his worth is to be undertaken by one so much disposed as you will be, to hand him down fairly to that posterity, for whose liberty and happiness he was so zealous a laborer.
Regarding the four specific topics you asked about in your letter concerning your grandfather, the honorable Samuel Adams, neither my memory nor any notes I have can provide any information. I can say that he was truly a remarkable man, wise in his decisions, resourceful, steadfast in his goals, and I believe he contributed more than any other member in advising and guiding our actions during the Northern war. As a speaker, he couldn't be compared to his contemporary colleague and namesake, whose deep insights, strong style, and unwavering determination made him our real defense in debates. However, Mr. Samuel Adams, while not particularly fluent in speech, was extremely logical, clear in his ideas, full of common sense, and always in command of his topic, earning deep respect whenever he spoke in assemblies, where the superficial rhetoric was regarded with disdain. I genuinely rejoice that his legacy will be preserved by someone as committed as you to accurately represent him for the future generations, for whose freedom and happiness he worked so passionately.
With sentiments of sincere veneration for his memory, accept yourself this tribute to it, with the assurances of my great respect.
With genuine respect for his memory, please accept this tribute to it, along with my deep admiration.
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
P. S. August 6th, 1822. Since the date of this letter, to wit, this day, August 6, ‘22, I have received the new publication of the Secret Journals of Congress, wherein is stated a resolution of July 19th, 1776, that the Declaration passed on the 4th, be fairly engrossed on parchment, and when engrossed, be signed by every member; and another of August 2nd, that being engrossed and compared at the table, it was signed by the members; that is to say, the copy engrossed on parchment (for durability) was signed by the members, after being compared at the table with the original one signed on paper, as before stated. I add this P. S. to the copy of my letter to Mr. Wells, to prevent confounding the signature of the original with that of the copy engrossed on parchment.
P. S. August 6, 1822. Since the date of this letter, specifically today, August 6, '22, I have received the new publication of the Secret Journals of Congress, which states a resolution from July 19, 1776, that the Declaration passed on the 4th should be properly written on parchment, and once completed, be signed by every member. There’s also another resolution from August 2nd, confirming that once it was written out and checked against the original, it was signed by the members. In other words, the version written on parchment (for its durability) was signed by the members after being compared at the table with the original signed on paper, as mentioned earlier. I'm adding this P. S. to my letter to Mr. Wells to clarify the difference between the signature on the original and that on the parchment copy.
[NOTE C]—August, 1774, Instructions to the first Delegation
On the Instructions given to the first Delegation of Virginia to Congress, in August, 1774.
On the instructions given to the first delegation of Virginia to Congress, in August 1774.
The Legislature of Virginia happened to be in session in Williamsburg, when news was received of the passage, by the British Parliament, of the Boston Port Bill, which was to take effect on the first day of June then ensuing. The House of Burgesses, thereupon, passed a resolution, recommending to their fellow-citizens that that day should be set apart for fasting and prayer to the Supreme Being, imploring him to avert the calamities then threatening us, and to give us one heart and one mind to oppose every invasion of our liberties. The next day, May the 20th, 1774, the Governor dissolved us. We immediately repaired to a room in the Raleigh tavern, about one hundred paces distant from the Capitol, formed ourselves into a meeting, Peyton Randolph in the chair, and came to resolutions, declaring, that an attack on one colony to enforce arbitrary acts, ought to be considered as an attack on all, and to be opposed by the united wisdom of all. We, therefore, appointed a Committee of Correspondence, to address letters to the Speakers of the several Houses of Representatives of the colonies, proposing the appointment of deputies from each, to meet annually in a general Congress, to deliberate on their common interests, and on the measures to be pursued in common. The members then separated to their several homes, except those of the Committee, who met the next day, prepared letters according to instructions, and despatched them by messengers express, to their several destinations. It had been agreed, also by the meeting, that the Burgesses, who should be elected under the writs then issuing, should be requested to meet in Convention on a certain day in August, to learn the result of these letters, and to appoint delegates to a Congress, should that measure be approved by the other colonies. At the election, the people re-elected every man of the former Assembly, as a proof of their approbation of what they had done. Before I left home to attend the Convention, I prepared what I thought might be given, in instruction, to the Delegates who should be appointed to attend the General Congress proposed. They were drawn in haste, with a number of blanks, with some uncertainties and inaccuracies of historical facts, which I neglected at the moment, knowing they could be readily corrected at the meeting. I set out on my journey, but was taken sick on the road, and was unable to proceed. I therefore sent on, by express, two copies, one under cover to Patrick Henry, the other to Peyton Randolph, who I knew would be in the chair of the Convention. Of the former no more was ever heard or known. Mr. Henry probably thought it too bold, as a first measure, as the majority of the members did. On the other copy being laid on the table of the Convention, by Peyton Randolph, as the proposition of a member who was prevented from attendance by sickness on the road, tamer sentiments were preferred, and, I believe, wisely preferred; the leap I proposed being too long, as yet, for the mass of our citizens. The distance between these, and the instructions actually adopted, is of some curiosity, however, as it shows the inequality of pace with which we moved, and the prudence required to keep front and rear together. My creed had been formed on unsheathing the sword at Lexington. They printed the paper, however, and gave it the title of ‘A Summary View of the Rights of British America.’ In this form it got to London, where the opposition took it up, shaped it to opposition views, and, in that form, it ran rapidly through several editions.
The Legislature of Virginia was in session in Williamsburg when news arrived that the British Parliament had passed the Boston Port Bill, set to take effect on June 1st. The House of Burgesses then passed a resolution recommending that citizens observe that day as a time for fasting and prayer to the Supreme Being, asking Him to avert the impending disasters and to unite us in defending our liberties. The next day, on May 20th, 1774, the Governor dissolved our assembly. We immediately gathered in a room at the Raleigh tavern, about a hundred steps from the Capitol, formed a meeting with Peyton Randolph as chair, and adopted resolutions stating that an attack on one colony to enforce arbitrary acts should be seen as an attack on all and must be met with the combined wisdom of all. We then appointed a Committee of Correspondence to send letters to the Speakers of the various colonial Houses of Representatives, suggesting that each appoint deputies to meet annually in a general Congress to discuss common interests and strategies. The members then returned to their homes, except for those on the Committee, who reconvened the next day, prepared the letters as instructed, and sent them out via express messengers to their destinations. It was also agreed that the Burgesses elected under the writs being issued would be asked to meet in Convention on a specific day in August to hear the responses to these letters and to appoint delegates to a Congress if the other colonies approved. During the election, the people re-elected every member of the previous Assembly as a sign of their approval of their actions. Before leaving home to attend the Convention, I drafted what I thought should be suggested to the Delegates who would attend the proposed General Congress. I hurriedly wrote them, leaving several blanks and some inaccuracies in historical facts that I didn’t correct at the time, knowing they could be fixed at the meeting. I set out on my journey but fell ill en route, preventing me from continuing. I sent two copies ahead by express, one addressed to Patrick Henry and the other to Peyton Randolph, who I knew would be chairing the Convention. No further word was ever heard from the former; Mr. Henry likely deemed my proposal too bold, as did most of the members. When the other copy was presented at the Convention by Peyton Randolph as the suggestion from a member who was unable to attend due to illness, more moderate sentiments were favored, I believe wisely, since the leap I proposed seemed too drastic for most citizens at that moment. The difference between my proposals and the instructions that were eventually adopted is interesting, as it reflects the varying pace at which we moved and the need for prudence in keeping all members aligned. My views had been formed after the conflict at Lexington. They published the document, titled ‘A Summary View of the Rights of British America.’ It made its way to London, where opposition members picked it up, adapted it to their perspectives, and it quickly went through several editions.
Mr. Marshall, in his history of General Washington, chapter 3, speaking of this proposition for Committees of correspondence and for a General Congress, says, ‘this measure had already been proposed in town meeting in Boston,’ and some pages before he had said, that ‘at a session of the General Court of Massachusetts, in September, 1770, that Court, in pursuance of a favorite idea of uniting all the colonies in one system of measures, elected a Committee of correspondence, to communicate with such Committees as might be appointed by the other colonies.’ This is an error. The Committees of correspondence, elected by Massachusetts, were expressly for a correspondence among the several towns of that province only. Besides the text of their proceedings, his own note X, proves this. The first proposition for a general correspondence between the several states, and for a General Congress, was made by our meeting of May, 1774. Botta, copying Marshall, has repeated his error, and so it will be handed on from copyist to copyist, ad infinitum. Here follow my proposition, and the more prudent one which was adopted.
Mr. Marshall, in his history of General Washington, chapter 3, mentions this proposal for Committees of Correspondence and a General Congress, stating, 'this measure had already been proposed in a town meeting in Boston,' and several pages earlier, he noted that 'at a session of the General Court of Massachusetts, in September 1770, that Court, in line with a popular idea of uniting all the colonies under one system of measures, elected a Committee of Correspondence to communicate with Committees that might be appointed by the other colonies.' This is incorrect. The Committees of Correspondence elected by Massachusetts were specifically for communication among the various towns within that province. Furthermore, the text of their proceedings and his own note X confirm this. The first proposal for a general correspondence among the several states and for a General Congress came from our meeting in May 1774. Botta, copying Marshall, has repeated this mistake, and it will continue to be passed down from one copyist to another, ad infinitum. Here are my proposals and the more cautious one that was ultimately adopted.
‘Resolved, That it be an instruction to the said deputies, when assembled in General Congress, with the deputies from the other states of British America, to propose to the said Congress that an humble and dutiful address be presented to his Majesty, begging leave to lay before him, as Chief Magistrate of the British empire, the united complaints of his Majesty’s subjects in America; complaints which are excited by many unwarrantable encroachments and usurpations, attempted to be made by the legislature of one part of the empire upon the rights which God and the laws have given equally and independently to all. To represent to his Majesty that, these, his States, have often individually made humble application to his imperial throne, to obtain, through its intervention, some redress of their injured rights; to none of which was ever even an answer condescended. Humbly to hope that this, their joint address, penned in the language of truth, and divested of those expressions of servility which would persuade his Majesty that we are asking favors, and not rights, shall obtain from his Majesty a more respectful acceptance; and this his Majesty will think we have reason to expect, when he reflects that he is no more than the chief officer of the people, appointed by the laws, and circumscribed with definite powers, to assist in working the great machine of government, erected for their use, and, consequently, subject to their superintendence; and in order that these, our rights, as well as the invasions of them, may be laid more fully before his Majesty, to take a view of them from the origin and first settlement of these countries.
‘Resolved, That it be an instruction to the said deputies, when gathered in General Congress, with the deputies from the other states of British America, to propose to the said Congress that a respectful and sincere address be presented to his Majesty, requesting permission to lay before him, as the Chief Magistrate of the British Empire, the united grievances of his Majesty’s subjects in America; grievances that have arisen from numerous unjust encroachments and usurpations attempted by the legislature of one part of the empire on the rights that God and the laws have granted equally and independently to all. To represent to his Majesty that these states have often individually made humble appeals to his imperial throne, seeking, through its intervention, some relief for their violated rights; to which none have ever received even a response. Humbly hoping that this joint address, written in the language of truth and free from expressions of servility that might suggest to his Majesty that we are asking for favors rather than asserting our rights, shall be met with a more respectful reception; and that his Majesty will think it reasonable to expect this when he considers that he is merely the chief officer of the people, appointed by the laws, and limited by defined powers to help operate the great machinery of government established for their benefit, and, as such, subject to their oversight; and in order that our rights, as well as the violations of them, may be presented more completely to his Majesty, to take a look at them from the beginning and the initial settlement of these countries.
‘To remind him that our ancestors, before their emigration to America, were the free inhabitants of the British dominions in Europe, and possessed a right, which nature has given to all men, of departing from the country in which chance, not choice, has placed them, of going in quest of new habitations, and of there establishing new societies, under such laws and regulations, as to them shall seem most likely to promote public happiness. That their Saxon ancestors had, under this universal law, in like manner left their native wilds and woods in the North of Europe, had possessed themselves of the island of Britain, then less charged with inhabitants, and had established there that system of laws which has so long been the glory and protection of that country. Nor was ever any claim of superiority or dependence asserted over them, by that mother country from which they had migrated: and were such a claim made, it is believed his Majesty’s subjects in Great Britain have too firm a feeling of the rights derived to them from their ancestors, to bow down the sovereignty of their state before such visionary pretensions. And it is thought that no circumstance has occurred to distinguish, materially, the British from the Saxon emigration. America was conquered, and her settlements made and firmly established, at the expense of individuals, and not of the British public. Their own blood was spilt in acquiring lands for their settlement, their own fortunes expended in making that settlement effectual. For themselves they fought, for themselves they conquered, and for themselves alone they have right to hold. No shilling was ever issued from the public treasures of his Majesty, or his ancestors, for their assistance, till of very late times, after the colonies had become established on a firm and permanent fooling. That then, indeed, having become valuable to Great Britain for her commercial purposes, his Parliament was pleased to lend them assistance, against an enemy who would fain have drawn to herself the benefits of their commerce, to the great aggrandizement of herself, and danger of Great Britain. Such assistance, and in such circumstances, they had often before given to Portugal and other allied states, with whom they carry on a commercial intercourse. Yet these states never supposed, that by calling in her aid, they thereby submitted themselves to her sovereignty. Had such terms been proposed, they would have rejected them with disdain, and trusted for better to the moderation of their enemies, or to a vigorous exertion of their own force. We do not, however, mean to underrate those aids, which, to us, were doubtless valuable, on whatever principles granted: but we would show that they cannot give a title to that authority which the British Parliament would arrogate over us; and that they may amply be repaid, by our giving to the inhabitants of Great Britain such exclusive privileges in trade as may be advantageous to them, and, at the same time, not too restrictive to ourselves. That settlement having been thus effected in the wilds of America, the emigrants thought proper to adopt that system of laws, under which they had hitherto lived in the mother country, and to continue their union with her, by submitting themselves to the same common sovereign, who was thereby made the central link, connecting the several parts of the empire thus newly multiplied.
‘To remind him that our ancestors, before they came to America, were free people living in the British territories in Europe, and had a natural right, granted to all men, to leave the country where chance, not choice, had placed them, to seek out new homes, and to establish new societies there, governed by laws and regulations that they believed would best promote public happiness. Their Saxon ancestors also left their native forests in Northern Europe under this universal law, took possession of the island of Britain, which had fewer inhabitants at the time, and established the legal system that has long been the pride and protection of that country. No claim of superiority or dependence was ever asserted over them by the mother country from which they had migrated; and if such a claim were made, it’s believed that the subjects of His Majesty in Great Britain have too strong a sense of the rights passed down from their ancestors to bow to such imaginary pretensions. It’s thought that no significant circumstance has arisen to fundamentally distinguish the British from the Saxon migrations. America was conquered, and its settlements were established at the expense of individuals, not the British public. They spilled their own blood to acquire land for their settlement and spent their own fortunes to make that settlement effective. They fought for themselves, they conquered for themselves, and they alone have the right to hold that land. No money was ever provided from the public treasury of His Majesty or his ancestors for their aid until very recently, after the colonies had become firmly established. At that point, having become valuable to Great Britain for commercial reasons, Parliament was willing to assist them against an enemy who wanted to seize the benefits of their trade, greatly enriching herself and endangering Great Britain. Such assistance, under similar circumstances, had often been given to Portugal and other allied states with which they conducted trade. Yet these states never thought that by seeking help, they were submitting to British sovereignty. If such terms had been offered, they would have rejected them with disdain, relying instead on either the moderation of their enemies or their own vigorous efforts. However, we do not mean to underestimate those aids that were undoubtedly valuable to us, regardless of the principles behind them; but we argue that they do not grant a title to the authority that the British Parliament would claim over us; and that they can be fully compensated by granting the inhabitants of Great Britain exclusive trade privileges that would benefit them, while also not overly restricting us. Once the settlement was thus established in the wilds of America, the emigrants decided to adopt the legal system under which they had lived in the mother country and to maintain their connection with her by submitting to the same common sovereign, who became the central link connecting the various parts of the newly expanded empire.’
‘But that not long were they permitted, however far they thought themselves removed from the hand of oppression, to hold undisturbed, the rights thus acquired at the hazard of their lives and loss of their fortunes. A family of Princes was then on the British throne, whose treasonable crimes against their people brought on them, afterwards, the exertion of those sacred and sovereign rights of punishment, reserved in the hands of the people for cases of extreme necessity, and judged by the constitution unsafe to be delegated to any other judicature. While every day brought forth some new and unjustifiable exertion of power over their subjects on that side the water, it, was not to be expected that those here, much less able at that time to oppose the designs of despotism, should be exempted from injury. Accordingly, this country, which had been acquired by the lives, the labors, and fortunes of individual adventurers, was by these Princes, at several times, parted out and distributed among the favorites and followers of their fortunes; and, by an assumed right of the crown alone, were erected into distinct and independent governments; a measure, which, it is believed, his Majesty’s prudence and understanding would prevent him from imitating at this day; as no exercise of such power, of dividing and dismembering a country, has ever occurred in his Majesty’s realm of England, though now of very ancient standing; nor could it be justified or acquiesced under there, or in any other part of his Majesty’s empire.
‘But they were not allowed for long, no matter how far they thought they had distanced themselves from oppression, to maintain the rights they had earned at the risk of their lives and the loss of their fortunes. A family of princes was then on the British throne, whose treason against their people ultimately led to the exercise of those sacred and sovereign rights of punishment, which the people reserved for extreme cases and deemed unsafe to delegate to any other authority. With each day bringing new and unjustifiable displays of power over their subjects across the sea, it was unrealistic to expect that those here, much less capable at that time of resisting tyranny, would be free from harm. As a result, this country, which had been established through the lives, efforts, and fortunes of individual adventurers, was at various times taken apart and handed out by these princes to their favorites and supporters. By a claimed right of the crown alone, these lands were turned into separate and independent governments; a move that, it is believed, His Majesty’s prudence and understanding would prevent him from repeating today; as no exercise of such power to divide and dismantle a country has ever occurred in His Majesty’s realm of England, despite its long history; nor could it be justified or accepted there, or in any other part of His Majesty’s empire.
‘That the exercise of a free trade with all parts of the world, possessed by the American colonists, as of natural right, and which no law of their own had taken away or abridged, was next the object of unjust encroachment. Some of the colonies having thought proper to continue the administration of their government in the name and under the authority of his Majesty, King Charles the First, whom, notwithstanding his late deposition by the Commonwealth of England, they continued in the sovereignty of their State, the Parliament, for the Commonwealth, took the same in high offence, and assumed upon themselves the power of prohibiting their trade with all other parts of the world, except the Island of Great Britain. This arbitrary act, however, they soon recalled, and by solemn treaty entered into on the 12th day of March, 1651, between the said Commonwealth by their Commissioners, and the colony of Virginia by their House of Burgesses, it was expressly stipulated by the eighth article of the said treaty, that they should have “free trade as the people of England do enjoy to all places and with all nations, according to the laws of that Commonwealth.” But that, upon the restoration of his Majesty, King Charles the Second, their rights of free commerce fell once more a victim to arbitrary power: and by several acts of his reign, as well as of some of his successors, the trade of the colonies was laid under such restrictions, as show what hopes they might form from the justice of a British Parliament, were its uncontrolled power admitted over these States.*
‘The American colonists had the natural right to engage in free trade with all parts of the world. No law they had enacted had taken that right away or limited it, yet it became the target of unjust interference. Some colonies chose to continue their governance under King Charles the First, even after his recent deposition by the Commonwealth of England, maintaining his sovereignty in their state. The Parliament, representing the Commonwealth, took offense at this and claimed the authority to restrict their trade with all others except Great Britain. However, they quickly revoked this arbitrary action, and through a formal treaty on March 12, 1651, between the Commonwealth's Commissioners and Virginia's House of Burgesses, it was clearly stated in the eighth article of the treaty that they would have “free trade just like the people of England to all places and with all nations, according to the laws of that Commonwealth.” But when King Charles the Second was restored to the throne, their rights to free trade once again fell victim to arbitrary power. Several acts during his reign, as well as those of some of his successors, imposed such restrictions on colonial trade, highlighting the limited hopes they might have for justice from a British Parliament should its unchecked power be recognized over these states.*
*12. C.2. c. 18. 15. C.2. c.11. 25. C.2. c.7. 7. 8. W. M. c.22. 11. W.34. Anne. 6. C.2. c.13.
History has informed us, that bodies of men, as well as individuals, are susceptible of the spirit of tyranny. A view of these acts of Parliament for regulation, as it has been affectedly called, of the American trade, if all other evidences were removed out of the case, would undeniably evince the truth of this observation. Besides the duties they impose on our articles of export and import, they prohibit our going to any markets northward of Cape Finisterra, in the kingdom of Spain, for the sale of commodities which Great Britian will not take from us, and for the purchase of others, with which she cannot supply us; and that, for no other than the arbitrary purpose of purchasing for themselves, by a sacrifice of our rights and interests, certain privileges in their commerce with an allied state, who, in confidence that their exclusive trade with America will be continued, while the principles and power of the British Parliament be the same, have indulged themselves in every exorbitance which their avarice could dictate, or our necessities extort; have raised their commodities called for in America, to the double and treble of what they sold for, before such exclusive privileges were given them, and of what better commodities of the same kind would cost us elsewhere; and, at the same time, give us much less for what we carry thither, than might be had at more convenient ports. That these acts prohibit us from carrying, in quest of other purchasers, the surplus of our tobaccos, remaining after the consumption of Great Britain is supplied: so that we must leave them with the British merchant, for whatever he will please to allow us, to be by him re-shipped to foreign markets, where he will reap the benefits of making sale of them for full value. That, to heighten still the idea of Parliamentary justice, and to show with what moderation they are like to exercise power, where themselves are to feel no part of its weight, we take leave to mention to his Majesty certain other acts of the British Parliament, by which they would prohibit us from manufacturing, for our own use, the articles we raise on our own lands, with our own labor. By an act passed in the fifth year of the reign of his late Majesty, King George the Second, an American subject is forbidden to make a hat for himself, of the fur which he has taken, perhaps on his own soil; an instance of despotism, to which no parallel can be produced in the most arbitrary ages of British history. By one other act, passed in the twenty-third year of the same reign, the iron which we make, we are forbidden to manufacture; and, heavy as that article is, and necessary in every branch of husbandry, besides commission and insurance, we are to pay freight for it to Great Britain, and freight for it back again, for the purpose of supporting, not men, but machines, in the island of Great Britain. In the same spirit of equal and impartial legislation, is to be viewed the act of Parliament, passed in the fifth year of the same reign, by which American lands are made subject to the demands of British creditors, while their own lands were still continued unanswerable for their debts; from which one of these conclusions must necessarily follow, either that justice is not the same thing in America as in Britain, or else that the British Parliament pay less regard to it here than there. But, that we do not point out to his Majesty the injustice of these acts, with intent to rest on that principle the cause of their nullity; but to show that experience confirms the propriety of those political principles, which exempt us from the jurisdiction of the British Parliament. The true ground on which we declare these acts void, is, that the British Parliament has no right to exercise authority over us.
History has shown us that groups of people, just like individuals, can fall into the trap of tyranny. Looking at these acts of Parliament, misleadingly called regulations of American trade, would clearly demonstrate this point even if we had no other evidence. Besides the taxes they impose on our exports and imports, they prevent us from going to any markets north of Cape Finisterra in Spain to sell goods that Great Britain won't buy from us and to purchase items that they can't supply us with. The only reason for this is their arbitrary desire to gain certain trade privileges for themselves with an ally, who, trusting that their exclusive trade with America will continue as long as British Parliament's principles and powers remain unchanged, have taken advantage of our needs and raised their prices to double or triple what they sold for before receiving such exclusive privileges. They also give us much less for what we send there compared to what we could get at more accessible ports. These acts stop us from seeking out other buyers for the surplus of our tobacco after Britain’s needs have been met. We have to leave it with the British merchant for whatever price he decides, so he can resell it to foreign markets where he will profit from selling it at full value. To further highlight the so-called "justice" of Parliament and show their lack of moderation in exercising power when they won't bear any of its burdens, we would like to bring to his Majesty's attention other acts of British Parliament that ban us from manufacturing for our own use the products we grow on our own land with our own labor. According to an act passed in the fifth year of King George the Second's reign, an American is forbidden to make a hat for himself from fur he might have taken from his own land—an example of despotism that has no parallel in even the most oppressive times of British history. By another act, passed in the twenty-third year of the same reign, we're forbidden to manufacture the iron we produce, and although iron is heavy and necessary for all farming activities, we must pay to ship it to Great Britain and then pay again to ship it back, not to support people but to support machines in Great Britain. This same spirit of equally unfair legislation is evident in the act passed in the fifth year of the same reign, which subjects American lands to the claims of British creditors while their own lands remain exempt from such demands. This leads to one of two conclusions: either justice is not the same in America as it is in Britain, or the British Parliament cares less about it here than there. However, our intention in pointing out these injustices to his Majesty is not to argue for their nullity based solely on that principle, but to demonstrate that experience supports the idea that we are exempt from British Parliament's authority. The real reason we declare these acts void is that the British Parliament has no right to exert authority over us.
‘That these exercises of usurped power have not been confined to instances alone, in which themselves were interested; but they have also intermeddled with the regulation of the internal affairs of the colonies. The act of the 9th of Anne for establishing a post-office in America seems to have had little connection with British convenience, except that of accommodating his Majesty’s ministers and favorites with the sale of a lucrative and easy office.
‘These abuses of power haven't just happened in situations where they had a personal interest; they've also interfered with the management of the colonies' internal affairs. The act of the 9th of Anne to set up a post office in America appears to have little to do with British needs, except for making it convenient for His Majesty's ministers and favorites to benefit from a profitable and easy position.
‘That thus have we hastened through the reigns which preceded his Majesty’s, during which the violations of our rights were less alarming, because repeated at more distant intervals, than that rapid and bold succession of injuries, which is likely to distinguish the present from all other periods of American story. Scarcely have our minds been able to emerge from the astonishment, into which one stroke of Parliamentary thunder has involved us, before another more heavy and more alarming is fallen on us. Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematical plan of reducing us to slavery.
‘We have quickly gone through the reigns before his Majesty’s, during which the violations of our rights were less concerning, as they happened less frequently, compared to the rapid and bold wave of injuries distinguishing this period from all other times in American history. Just when we think we’ve recovered from the shock of one act of Parliamentary thunder, another heavier and more alarming one strikes us. Individual acts of tyranny might be blamed on a passing opinion, but a series of oppressions that began at a specific time and continued without change through different leaders clearly demonstrate a deliberate, systematic plan to reduce us to slavery.

‘That the act passed in the fourth year of his Majesty’s reign, entitled “an act [ Act for granting certain duties.]
‘That the act passed in the fourth year of his Majesty’s reign, entitled “an act [ Act for granting certain duties.]
‘One other act passed in the fifth year of his reign, entitled “an act [Stamp Act.]
‘One other act passed in the fifth year of his reign, titled “an act [Stamp Act.]
‘One other act passed in the sixth year of his reign, entitled “an act [Act declaring the right of Parliament over the colonies.]
‘One other act passed in the sixth year of his reign, titled “an act [Act declaring the right of Parliament over the colonies.]
‘And one other act passed in the seventh year of his reign, entitled an act [ Act for granting duties on paper, tea, &c.
‘And one other act passed in the seventh year of his reign, entitled an act [ Act for granting duties on paper, tea, &c.
‘Form that connected chain of parliamentary usurpation, which has already been the subject of frequent applications to his Majesty, and the Houses of Lords and Commons of Great Britain; and, no answers having yet been condescended to any of these, we shall not trouble his Majesty with a repetition of the matters they contained.
‘Form that connected chain of parliamentary takeovers, which has already been frequently addressed to his Majesty, and the Houses of Lords and Commons of Great Britain; and, since there have been no responses to any of these, we won't bother his Majesty by repeating the issues they included.
‘But that one other act passed in the same seventh year of his reign, having been a peculiar attempt, must ever require peculiar mention. It is entitled “an act [Act suspending Legislature of New York.]
‘But that one other act passed in the same seventh year of his reign, having been a unique attempt, must always require special mention. It is titled “an act [Act suspending Legislature of New York.]
‘One free and independent legislature hereby takes upon itself to suspend the powers of another, free and independent as itself. Thus exhibiting a phenomenon unknown in nature, the creator and creature of its own power. Not only the principles of common sense, but the common feelings of human nature must be surrendered up, before his Majesty’s subjects here can be persuaded to believe, that they hold their political existence at the will of a British Parliament. Shall these governments be dissolved, their property annihilated, and their people reduced to a state of nature, at the imperious breath of a body of men whom they never saw, in whom they never confided, and over whom they have no powers of punishment or removal, let their crimes against the American public be ever so great? Can any one reason be assigned, why one hundred and sixty thousand electors in the island of Great Britain should give law to four millions in the states of America, every individual of whom is equal to every individual of them in virtue, in understanding, and in bodily strength? Were this to be admitted, instead of being a free people, as we have hitherto supposed, and mean to continue ourselves, we should suddenly be found the slaves, not of one, but of one hundred and sixty thousand tyrants; distinguished, too, from all others, by this singular circumstance, that they are removed from the reach of fear, the only restraining motive which may hold the hand of a tyrant.
‘One free and independent legislature now takes it upon itself to suspend the powers of another, which is just as free and independent. This shows a situation that doesn’t exist in nature, where the creator becomes the creature of its own power. Not only must common sense be ignored, but the basic feelings of human nature must also be overridden before the subjects of his Majesty can be convinced that they owe their political existence to the will of a British Parliament. Should these governments be dissolved, their property destroyed, and their people brought back to a state of nature, solely at the command of a group of men whom they’ve never seen, trusted, or had any authority over, regardless of how severe their crimes against the American people may be? Is there any reason to believe that one hundred and sixty thousand voters in Great Britain should have the right to impose laws on four million people in America, every one of whom is equal to them in merit, intellect, and physical capability? If this were accepted, instead of being a free people, as we have believed and intend to remain, we would suddenly find ourselves enslaved, not by one, but by one hundred and sixty thousand tyrants; and uniquely, they would be free from the fear that typically restrains a tyrant.’
‘That, by “an act to discontinue in such manner, and for such time as are therein mentioned, the landing and discharging, lading or shipping of goods, wares, and merchandise, at the town and within the harbor of Boston, in the province of Massachusetts Bay, in North America,” [14 G.3.] which was passed at the last session of the British Parliament, a large and populous town, whose trade was their sole subsistence, was deprived of that trade, and involved in utter ruin. Let us for a while, suppose the question of right suspended, in order to examine this act on principles of justice. An act of Parliament had been passed, imposing duties on teas, to be paid in America, against which act the Americans had protested, as inauthoritative. The East India Company, who till that time had never sent a pound of tea to America on their own account, step forth on that occasion, the asserters of Parliamentary right, and send hither many ship-loads of that obnoxious commodity. The masters of their several vessels, however, on their arrival in America, wisely attended to admonition, and returned with their cargoes. In the province of New England alone, the remonstrances of the people were disregarded, and a compliance, after being many days waited for, was flatly refused. Whether in this, the master of the vessel was governed by his obstinacy, or his instructions, let those who know, say. There are extraordinary situations which require extraordinary interposition. An exasperated people, who feel that they possess power, are not easily restrained within limits strictly regular. A number of them assembled in the town of Boston, threw the tea into the ocean, and dispersed without doing any other act of violence. If in this they did wrong, they were known, and were amenable to the laws of the land; against which, it could not be objected that they had ever, in any instance, been obstructed or diverted from their regular course, in favor of popular offenders. They should, therefore, not have been distrusted on this occasion. But that ill-fated colony had formerly been bold in their enmities against the House of Stuart, and were now devoted to ruin, by that unseen hand which governs the momentous affairs of this great empire. On the partial representations of a few worthless ministerial dependants, whose constant office it has been to keep that government embroiled, and who, by their treacheries, hope to obtain the dignity of British knighthood, without calling for a party accused, without asking a proof, without attempting a distinction between the guilty and the innocent, the whole of that ancient and wealthy town, is in a moment reduced from opulence to beggary. Men who had spent their lives in extending the British commerce, who had invested in that place, the wealth their honest endeavors had merited, found themselves and their families, thrown at once on the world, for subsistence by its charities. Not the hundredth part of the inhabitants of that town had been concerned in the act complained of; many of them were in Great Britain, and in other parts beyond sea; yet all were involved in one indiscriminate ruin, by a new executive power, unheard of till then, that of a British Parliament. A property of the value of many millions of money was sacrificed to revenge, not to repay, the loss of a few thousands. This is administering justice with a heavy hand indeed! And when is this tempest to be arrested in its course? Two wharves are to be opened again when his Majesty shall think proper: the residue which lined the extensive shores of the bay of Boston, are for ever interdicted the exercise of commerce. This little exception seems to have been thrown in for no other purpose, than that of setting a precedent for investing his Majesty with legislative powers. If the pulse of his people shall beat calmly under this experiment, another and another will be tried, till the measure of despotism be filled up. It would be an insult on common sense, to pretend that this exception was made in order to restore its commerce to that great town. The trade which cannot be received at two wharves alone, must of necessity be transferred to some other place; to which it will soon be followed by that of the two wharves. Considered in this light, it would be an insolent and cruel mockery at the annihilation of the town of Boston. By the act for the suppression of riots and tumults in the town of Boston, [14 G.3.] passed also in the last session of Parliament, a murder committed there, is, if the Governor pleases, to be tried in the court of King’s Bench, in the island of Great Britain, by a jury of Middlesex. The witnesses, too, on receipt of such a sum as the Governor shall think it reasonable for them to expend, are to enter into recognisance to appear at the trial. This is, in other words, taxing them to the amount of their recognisance; and that amount may be whatever a Governor pleases. For who does his Majesty think can be prevailed on to cross the Atlantic, for the sole purpose of bearing evidence to a fact? His expenses are to be borne, indeed, as they shall be estimated by a Governor; but who are to feed the wife and children whom he leaves behind, and who have had no other subsistence but his daily labor? Those epidemical disorders, too, so terrible in a foreign climate, is the cure of them to be estimated among the articles of expense, and their danger to be warded off by the almighty power of a Parliament? And the wretched criminal, if he happen to have offended on the American side, stripped of his privilege of trial by peers of his vicinage, removed from the place where alone full evidence could be obtained, without money, without counsel, without friends, without exculpatory proof, is tried before Judges predetermined to condemn. The cowards who would suffer a countryman to be torn from the bowelss of their society, in order to be thus offered a sacrifice to Parliamentary tyranny, would merit that everlasting infamy now fixed on the authors of the act! A clause, for a similar purpose, had been introduced into an act passed in the twelfth year of his Majesty’s reign, entitled, “an act for the better securing and preserving his Majesty’s dock-yards, magazines, ships, ammunition, and stores;” against which, as meriting the same censures, the several colonies have already protested.
‘That, by “an act to discontinue in such manner, and for such time as are therein mentioned, the landing and discharging, lading or shipping of goods, wares, and merchandise, at the town and within the harbor of Boston, in the province of Massachusetts Bay, in North America,” [14 G.3.] which was passed at the last session of the British Parliament, a large and populous town, whose trade was their sole subsistence, was deprived of that trade and faced complete ruin. Let us for a while suspend the question of right to examine this act based on principles of justice. An act of Parliament was passed that imposed duties on teas to be paid in America, against which the Americans protested, deeming it unauthorized. The East India Company, which had never before sent a pound of tea to America on their own, seized this opportunity to assert Parliamentary authority and sent numerous shiploads of this unwelcome commodity. However, the masters of these vessels, upon arriving in America, wisely heeded warnings and returned with their cargoes. In New England specifically, the people's objections were ignored, and after many days of waiting, compliance was flatly refused. Whether the master of the vessel acted out of stubbornness or was following instructions is for those who know to determine. Extraordinary situations require extraordinary responses. A furious people who believe they have power are not easily kept within strict limits. A group gathered in Boston, threw the tea into the ocean, and left without committing any further acts of violence. If they were in the wrong, they could be identified and held accountable under the law; it cannot be argued that they were ever obstructed or diverted from their usual course in favor of popular offenders. Therefore, there should have been no distrust toward them on this occasion. But that ill-fated colony had previously shown boldness against the House of Stuart and was now destined for ruin by that unseen hand guiding the significant affairs of this great empire. Based on the biased portrayals of a few worthless government loyalists, whose usual role has been to keep the government embroiled and who hope to gain British knighthood through their treachery, without calling the accused to answer, without requiring proof, without distinguishing between the guilty and the innocent, the entire ancient and wealthy town found itself abruptly reduced from prosperity to poverty. Men who dedicated their lives to advancing British commerce, who invested in that place the wealth earned through honest effort, found themselves and their families cast into the world, reliant on its charities. Not even a fraction of the town's inhabitants were involved in the act in question; many were in Great Britain or elsewhere, yet all were drawn into indiscriminate ruin by a new form of executive power, unheard of until then, that of the British Parliament. Property valued in the millions was sacrificed for revenge, not to compensate for a few thousand lost. This is indeed severe justice! And when will this storm be halted? Two wharves are to be reopened when the King sees fit; the rest lining the expansive shores of Boston Bay are forever banned from engaging in commerce. This small exception appears to have been included solely to establish a precedent for granting the King legislative powers. If the pulse of his people remains calm under this trial, more measures will follow until the limits of tyranny are fully reached. It would insult common sense to suggest this exception was made to restore commerce to that great town. Trade that cannot be conducted at just two wharves must inevitably be redirected elsewhere, which will soon also attract the trade from the two wharves. Viewed this way, it would be a vicious and cruel mockery of the destruction of Boston. By the act for the suppression of riots and disturbances in Boston, [14 G.3.] passed during the last session of Parliament, a murder committed there can be, at the Governor's discretion, tried in the King's Bench court in Great Britain, by a jury from Middlesex. The witnesses, upon receiving an amount deemed reasonable by the Governor for their expenses, are required to enter into a recognizance to appear for the trial. In other words, they are taxed to the extent of their recognizance; and that amount can be whatever the Governor decides. For who does the King believe will agree to cross the Atlantic just to provide evidence? Their expenses will be covered as estimated by the Governor, but who will provide for the wives and children left behind, dependent solely on their daily labor? Those well-known health risks in a foreign land raise the question of whether their treatment will be included in the cost considerations, and whether their dangers can be managed by Parliament's almighty power? And the unfortunate criminal, if he is deemed to have offended on the American side, stripped of his right to be tried by a jury of his peers, removed from the location where full evidence can only be gathered, without money, without legal help, without friends, and without evidence to defend himself, is judged by judges already inclined to convict. Those cowards who would allow a fellow countryman to be torn from their society only to be offered up as a sacrifice to Parliamentary tyranny deserve the unending shame now associated with the authors of that act! A similar clause was included in an act passed in the twelfth year of the King’s reign, titled, “an act for the better securing and preserving his Majesty’s dock-yards, magazines, ships, ammunition, and stores;” against which the various colonies have already protested.
‘That these are the acts of power, assumed by a body of men foreign to our constitutions, and unacknowledged by our laws; against which we do, on behalf of the inhabitants of British America, enter this our solemn and determined protest. And we do earnestly entreat his Majesty, as yet the only mediatory power between the several states of the British empire, to recommend to his Parliament of Great Britain, the total revocation of these acts, which, however nugatory they be, may yet prove the cause of further discontents and jealousies among us.
'These actions are taken by a group of people who are not part of our constitution and aren't recognized by our laws. On behalf of the people of British America, we formally and firmly protest against them. We strongly urge His Majesty, who remains the only mediating power among the different states of the British Empire, to recommend to the Parliament of Great Britain the complete repeal of these acts. Even though they may seem insignificant, they could still lead to more dissatisfaction and distrust among us.'
‘That we next proceed to consider the conduct of his Majesty, as holding the Executive powers of the laws of these states, and mark out his deviations from the line of duty. By the constitution of Great Britain, as well as of the several American States, his Majesty possesses the power of refusing to pass into a law, any bill which has already passed the other two branches of the legislature. His Majesty, however, and his ancestors, conscious of the impropriety of opposing their single opinion to the united wisdom of two Houses of Parliament, while their proceedings were unbiased by interested principles, for several ages past, have modestly declined the exercise of this power, in that part of his empire called Great Britain. But, by change of circumstances, other principles than those of justice simply, have obtained an influence on their determinations. The addition of new states to the British empire, has produced an addition of new, and sometimes, opposite interests. It is now, therefore, the great office of his Majesty, to resume the exercise of his negative power, and to prevent the passage of laws by any one legislature of the empire, which might bear injuriously on the rights and interests of another. Yet this will not excuse the wanton exercise of this power, which we have seen his Majesty practise on the laws of the American legislatures. For the most trifling reasons, and sometimes for no conceivable reason at all, his Majesty has rejected laws of the most salutary tendency. The abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those colonies, where it was, unhappily, introduced in their infant state. But previous to the enfranchisement of the slaves we have, it is necessary to exclude all further importations from Africa. Yet our repeated attempts to effect this, by prohibitions, and by imposing duties which might amount to a prohibition, have been hitherto defeated by his Majesty’s negative: thus preferring the immediate advantages of a few British corsairs to the lasting interests of the American States, and to the rights of human nature, deeply wounded by this infamous practice. Nay, the single interposition of an interested individual against a law, was scarcely ever known to fail of success, though in the opposite scale were placed the interests of a whole country. That this is so shameful an abuse of a power, trusted with his Majesty for other purposes, as if, not reformed, would call for some legal restrictions.
‘Let’s now look at the actions of His Majesty, who holds the executive powers of the laws in these states, and identify where he has strayed from his duties. According to the constitution of Great Britain and the various American states, His Majesty has the authority to refuse to sign any bill that has already passed through the other two branches of the legislature. However, His Majesty and his ancestors, aware of the inappropriateness of going against the collective judgment of two Houses of Parliament when their decisions are not influenced by personal interests, have for many years chosen not to exercise this power within that part of his empire known as Great Britain. Yet, due to changing circumstances, other motivations besides pure justice have begun to affect their decisions. The addition of new states to the British Empire has brought about new, and sometimes conflicting, interests. It is now His Majesty's significant duty to resume the use of his veto power to stop any one legislature from passing laws that could harm the rights and interests of another. However, this doesn’t excuse the reckless use of this power that we have seen His Majesty apply to the laws of the American legislatures. For the most trivial reasons, and sometimes for no understandable reason at all, His Majesty has rejected laws that would have been extremely beneficial. The end of domestic slavery is a major goal in those colonies where it was, regrettably, introduced in their early days. But before we can free the slaves we have, it’s essential to stop all further imports from Africa. Yet our repeated efforts to achieve this, through bans and imposing duties that could act as a ban, have been thwarted by His Majesty’s veto: thus prioritizing the immediate gains of a few British privateers over the long-term interests of the American states and the fundamental rights of humanity, which are deeply harmed by this disgraceful practice. Indeed, even the intervention of a single self-interested individual against a law has hardly ever failed, even when the overall interests of an entire country are at stake. This is such a shameful abuse of power, entrusted to His Majesty for different purposes, that if not reformed, it would require some legal limitations.
‘With equal inattention to the necessities of his people here, has his Majesty permitted our laws to lie neglected in England for years, neither confirming them by his assent, nor annulling them by his negative: so that such of them as have no suspending clause, we hold on the most precarious of all tenures, his Majesty’s will; and such of them as suspend themselves till his Majesty’s assent be obtained, we have feared might be called into existence at some future and distant period, when time and change of circumstances shall have rendered them destructive to his people here. And, to render this grievance still more oppressive, his Majesty, by his instructions, has laid his Governors under such restrictions, that they can pass no law of any moment, unless it have such suspending clause: so that, however immediate may be the call for legislative interposition, the law cannot be executed till it has twice crossed the Atlantic, by which time the evil may have spent its whole force.
‘With equal disregard for the needs of his people here, his Majesty has allowed our laws to be ignored in England for years, neither approving them nor rejecting them: so that those laws without a suspending clause depend on his Majesty’s will; and those that are suspended until his Majesty’s approval is granted, we worry might only be enforced at some future time when changes in circumstances could make them harmful to his people here. To make this issue even more burdensome, his Majesty, through his instructions, has placed such restrictions on his Governors that they cannot pass any significant law unless it includes such a suspending clause: so that, no matter how urgent the need for legislative action may be, the law cannot be enforced until it has traveled across the Atlantic twice, by which time the problem may have already fully manifested.’
‘But in what terms reconcilable to Majesty, and,at the same time to truth, shall we speak of a late instruction to his Majesty’s Governor of the colony of Virginia, by which he is forbidden to assent to any law for the division of a county, unless the new county will consent to have no representative in Assembly? That colony has as yet affixed no boundary to the westward. Their Western counties, therefore, are of indefinite extent. Some of them are actually seated many hundred miles from their Eastern limits. Is it possible, then that his Majesty can have bestowed a single thought on the situation of those people, who, in order to obtain justice for injuries, however great or small, must, by the laws of that colony, attend their county court at such a distance, with all their witnesses, monthly, till their litigation be determined? Or does his Majesty seriously wish, and publish it to the world, that his subjects should give up the glorious right of representation, with all the benefits derived from that, and submit themselves to be absolute slaves of his sovereign will? Or is it rather meant to confine the legislative body to their present numbers, that they may be the cheaper bargain, whenever they shall become worth a purchase?
‘But how can we discuss a recent instruction to His Majesty’s Governor of Virginia in a way that respects both Majesty and truth? The instruction forbids him from agreeing to any law that divides a county unless the new county agrees to have no representative in the Assembly. That colony has not yet established a boundary to the west. Therefore, their western counties are of unclear size. Some of them are located hundreds of miles from their eastern borders. Is it possible that His Majesty hasn’t thought about the situation of those people who, to seek justice for any injuries, large or small, are required by the laws of that colony to travel to their county court, along with all their witnesses, each month until their case is resolved? Does His Majesty genuinely want his subjects to surrender their glorious right to representation, along with all its benefits, and instead submit to being absolute slaves to his sovereign will? Or is this meant to limit the legislative body to its current size, so they can be a cheaper deal whenever they become valuable?’
‘One of the articles of impeachment against Tresilian and the other Judges of Westminster Hall, in the reign of Richard the Second, for which they suffered death, as traitors to their country, was, that they had advised the King that he might dissolve his Parliament at any time: and succeeding Kings have adopted the opinion of these unjust Judges. Since the establishment, however, of the British constitution, at the glorious Revolution, on its free and ancient principles, neither his Majesty nor his ancestors have exercised such a power of dissolution in the island of Great Britain;* and, when his Majesty was petitioned by the united voice of his people there to dissolve the present Parliament, who had become obnoxious to them, his Ministers were heard to declare, in open Parliament, that his Majesty possessed no such power by the constitution. But how different their language, and his practice, here! To declare, as their duty required, the known rights of their country, to oppose the usurpation of every foreign judicature, to disregard the imperious mandates of a Minister or Governor, have been the avowed causes of dissolving Houses of Representatives in America. But if such powers be really vested in his Majesty, can he suppose they are there placed to awe the members from such purposes as these? When the representative body have lost the confidence of their constituents, when they have notoriously made sale of their most valuable rights, when they have assumed to themselves powers which the people never put into their hands, then, indeed, their continuing in office becomes dangerous to the state, and calls for an exercise of the power of dissolution. Such being the causes for which the representative body should, and should not, be dissolved, will it not appear strange, to an unbiassed observer, that that of Great Britain was not dissolved, while those of the colonies have repeatedly incurred that sentence?
‘One of the articles of impeachment against Tresilian and the other Judges of Westminster Hall during the reign of Richard the Second, for which they were executed as traitors to their country, was that they had advised the King he could dissolve his Parliament at any time. Subsequent Kings have followed the views of these unjust Judges. However, since the establishment of the British constitution at the glorious Revolution, based on its free and ancient principles, neither his Majesty nor his ancestors have exercised such a power of dissolution in Great Britain; and when his Majesty was petitioned by the united voice of his people there to dissolve the current Parliament, who had become unpopular, his Ministers publicly stated in Parliament that his Majesty held no such power under the constitution. But how different their language, and his practice, here! Declaring, as their duty required, the established rights of their country, opposing the usurpation of any foreign courts, and ignoring the commanding orders of a Minister or Governor have been the openly stated reasons for dissolving Houses of Representatives in America. But if such powers are indeed vested in his Majesty, can he really believe they are meant to intimidate members from acting on such matters? When the representative body loses the trust of their constituents, when they have clearly sold their most valuable rights, and when they have taken on powers the people never granted them, then, indeed, their remaining in office becomes a threat to the state and calls for the power of dissolution. Given these reasons for when the representative body should and should not be dissolved, wouldn't it seem odd to an unbiased observer that the one in Great Britain was not dissolved while those in the colonies have repeatedly faced that fate?
* Upon further investigation, I discovered two instances of dissolutions before the Parliament would have naturally concluded: specifically, the Parliament that was called to meet on August 24, 1698, was dissolved by King William on December 19, 1700, and a new one was called to meet on February 6, 1701, which was also dissolved on November 11, 1701, and a new one convened on December 30, 1701.
But your Majesty or your Governors have carried this power beyond every limit known or provided for by the laws. After dissolving one House of Representatives, they have refused to call another, so that, for a great length of time, the legislature provided by the laws has been out of existence. From the nature of things, every society must at all times possess within itself the sovereign powers of legislation. The feelings of human nature revolt against the supposition of a state so situated, as that it may not, in any emergency, provide against dangers which perhaps threaten immediate ruin. While those bodies are in existence to whom the people have delegated the powers of legislation, they alone possess, and may exercise, those powers. But when they are dissolved, by the lopping off one or more of their branches, the power reverts to the people, who may use it to unlimited extent, either assembling together in person, sending deputies, or in any other way they may think proper. We forbear to trace consequences further; the dangers are conspicuous with which this practice is replete.
But your Majesty or your Governors have pushed this power beyond any limits set by the laws. After dissolving one House of Representatives, they have refused to call another, resulting in a long period during which the legislature mandated by the laws has not existed. By its very nature, every society must always have the sovereign powers of legislation within itself. Human nature revolts against the idea of a state that cannot, in any emergency, take action against threats that may lead to immediate disaster. While the legislative bodies to which the people have delegated powers are in place, they alone possess and can exercise those powers. But when they are dissolved by removing one or more of their branches, the power returns to the people, who can use it to any extent, either by coming together in person, sending representatives, or in any other way they see fit. We will refrain from discussing the consequences further; the dangers associated with this practice are clear.
‘That we shall, at this time also, take notice of an error in the nature of our land-holdings, which crept in at a very early period of our settlement. The introduction of the feudal tenures into the kingdom of England, though ancient, is well enough understood to set this matter in a proper light. In the earlier ages of the Saxon settlement, feudal holdings were certainly altogether unknown, and very few, if any, had been introduced at the time of the Norman conquest. Our Saxon ancestors held their lands, as they did their personal property, in absolute dominion, disencumbered with any superior, answering nearly to the nature of those possessions which the Feudalists term Allodial. William the Norman first introduced that system generally. The lands which had belonged to those who fell in the battle of Hastings, and in the subsequent insurrections of his reign, formed a considerable proportion of the lands of the whole kingdom. These he granted out, subject to feudal duties, as did he also those of a great number of his new subjects, who, by persuasions or threats, were induced to surrender them for that purpose. But still much was left in the hands of his Saxon subjects, held of no superior, and not subject to feudal conditions. These, therefore, by express laws, enacted to render uniform the system of military defence, were made liable to the same military duties as if they had been feuds: and the Norman lawyers soon found means to saddle them, also, with all the other feudal burthens. But still they had not been surrendered to the King, they were not derived from his grant, and therefore they were not holden of him. A general principle, indeed, was introduced, that “all lands in England were held either mediately or immediately of the Crown:” but this was borrowed from those holdings which were truly feudal, and only applied to others for the purposes of illustration. Feudal holdings were, therefore, but exceptions out of the Saxon laws of possession, under which all lands were held in absolute right. These, therefore, still form the basis or groundwork of the common law, to prevail wheresoever the exceptions have not taken place. America was not conquered by William the Norman, nor its lands surrendered to him or any of his successors. Possessions there are, undoubtedly, of the Allodial nature. Our ancestors, however, who migrated hither, were laborers, not lawyers. The fictitious principle, that all lands belong originally to the King, they were early persuaded to believe real, and accordingly took grants of their own lands from the Crown. And while the Crown continued to grant for small sums and on reasonable rents, there was no inducement to arrest the error, and lay it open to public view. But his Majesty has lately taken on him to advance the terms of purchase and of holding to the double of what they were; by which means the acquisition of lands being rendered difficult, the population of our country is likely to be checked. It is time, therefore, for us to lay this matter before his Majesty, and to declare that he has no right to grant lands of himself. From the nature and purpose of civil institutions, all the lands within the limits which any particular society has circumscribed around itself, are assumed by that society, and subject to their allotment; this may be done by themselves assembled collectively, or by their legislature, to whom they may have delegated sovereign authority: and, if they are allotted in neither of these ways, each individual of the society may appropriate to himself such lands as he finds vacant, and occupancy will give him title.
‘We need to address an error regarding our land ownership, which began early in our settlement. Although the concept of feudal tenures in England is quite old, it’s understood well enough to clarify this issue. In the earlier days of the Saxon settlement, feudal holdings were completely unknown, and very few, if any, existed at the time of the Norman conquest. Our Saxon ancestors owned their lands, just like their personal property, with absolute control, free from any superior claims, resembling what feudalists call Allodial possessions. William the Norman was the first to widely introduce that system. The lands that belonged to those who died in the Battle of Hastings and in the following uprisings during his reign made up a significant part of the kingdom’s total land. He granted these lands, subject to feudal duties, just as he did for many of his new subjects, who were persuaded or threatened into surrendering their land for that purpose. However, a large portion remained in the hands of his Saxon subjects, held without any superior and not subject to feudal obligations. Therefore, by specific laws created to standardize military defense, they were made liable for the same military duties as if they were feudal lands. The Norman lawyers quickly found ways to impose all other feudal burdens on them as well. But since these lands weren’t surrendered to the King, they didn’t come from his grant, and thus weren’t held under him. A broad principle was established that “all lands in England are held either directly or indirectly from the Crown,” but this was taken from actual feudal holdings and only applied to others for illustrative purposes. Feudal holdings were exceptions to the Saxon laws of possession, under which all lands were held as absolute rights. Thus, these laws still form the foundation of common law, where the exceptions haven’t been applied. America wasn’t conquered by William the Norman, nor were its lands given to him or any of his successors. The possessions there are certainly Allodial. However, our ancestors who came here were laborers, not lawyers. Early on, they were led to believe the false principle that all lands originally belonged to the King, and they took grants for their lands from the Crown. And as long as the Crown continued to grant land for small sums and reasonable rents, there was no incentive to correct the misunderstanding and bring it to light. But lately, His Majesty has raised the purchase and holding terms to double what they were, making it difficult to acquire land and likely hindering our country’s population growth. Therefore, it’s time to bring this issue to His Majesty's attention and state that he has no right to grant land on his own. Given the nature and purpose of civil institutions, all the lands within the boundaries of any specific society are assumed by that society and are subject to their allocation; this can be done collectively by the society or through their legislature, to whom they may have assigned sovereign authority. If lands aren’t allocated in either of these ways, each individual within the society may claim any vacant lands they find, and occupancy will grant them title.’
‘That, in order to enforce the arbitrary measures before complained of, his Majesty has, from time to time, sent among us large bodies of armed forces, not made up of the people here, nor raised by the authority of our laws. Did his Majesty possess such a right as this, it might swallow up all our other rights whenever he should think proper. But his Majesty has no right to land a single armed man on our shores; and those whom he sends here are liable to our laws for the suppression and punishment of riots, routs, and unlawful assemblies, or are hostile bodies invading us in defiance of law. When, in the course of the late war, it became expedient that a body of Hanoverian troops should be brought over for the defence of Great Britain, his Majesty’s grandfather, our late sovereign, did not pretend to introduce them under any authority he possessed. Such a measure would have given just alarm to his subjects of Great Britain, whose liberties would not be safe if armed men of another country, and of another spirit, might be brought into the realm at any time, without the consent, of their legislature. He, therefore, applied to Parliament, who passed an act for that purpose, limiting the number to be brought in, and the time they were to continue. In like manner is his Majesty restrained in every part of the empire. He possesses indeed the executive power of the laws in every state; but they are the laws of the particular state, which he is to administer within that state, and not those of any one within the limits of another. Every state must judge for itself, the number of armed men which they may safely trust among them, of whom they are to consist, and under what restrictions they are to be laid. To render these proceedings still more criminal against our laws, instead of subjecting the military to the civil power, his Majesty has expressly made the civil subordinate to the military. But can his Majesty thus put down all law under his feet? Can he erect a power superior to that which erected himself? He has done it indeed by force; but let him remember that force cannot give right.
‘To impose the arbitrary measures we have previously complained about, the King has, time and again, sent large groups of armed forces among us, which are not composed of our people and were not raised by our laws. If the King had such a right, it could override all our other rights whenever he deemed it appropriate. However, the King has no right to land a single armed man on our shores; those he sends here are subject to our laws for dealing with riots, disturbances, and unlawful gatherings, or they are hostile forces invading us against the law. When it became necessary during the recent war to bring over a group of Hanoverian troops to defend Great Britain, the King’s grandfather, our late sovereign, did not claim to bring them in under any authority he possessed. Such action would have justifiably alarmed his subjects in Great Britain, whose freedoms would be at risk if armed individuals from another country and of a different mindset could enter the realm at any time without the legislature's consent. Therefore, he went to Parliament, which passed a law for that purpose, limiting both the number allowed in and the duration of their stay. In the same way, the King is restricted in every part of the empire. He does indeed hold the executive power of the laws in every state; however, those are the laws of each particular state that he is to enforce within that state, not those of any other state. Each state must determine how many armed men they can safely have among them, who that force should consist of, and what limitations should be placed on them. To make these actions even more unlawful according to our laws, instead of placing the military under civil authority, the King has specifically made the civil authority subordinate to the military. But can the King truly ignore all law? Can he create a power greater than that which installed him? He has indeed done so by force, but he should remember that force cannot provide legitimacy.
‘That these are our grievances, which we have thus laid before his Majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people, claiming their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their Chief Magistrate. Let those flatter, who fear: it is not an American art. To give praise where it is not due, might be well from the venal, but would ill beseem those who are asserting the rights of human nature. They know, and will, therefore, say, that Kings are the servants, not the proprietors of the people. Open your breast, Sire, to liberal and expanded thought. Let not the name of George the Third be a blot on the page of history. You are surrounded by British counsellors, but remember that they are parties. You have no ministers for American affairs, because you have none taken from among us, nor amenable to the laws on which they are to give you advice. It behoves you, therefore, to think and to act for yourself and your people. The great principles of right and wrong are legible to every reader: to pursue them, requires not the aid of many counsellors. The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest. Only aim to do your duty, and mankind will give you credit where you fail. No longer persevere in sacrificing the rights of one part of the empire, to the inordinate desires of another: but deal out to all, equal and impartial right. Let no act be passed by any one legislature, which may infringe on the rights and liberties of another. This is the important post in which fortune has placed you, holding the balance of a great, if a well poised empire. This, Sire, is the advice of your great American council, on the observance of which may, perhaps, depend your felicity and future fame, and the preservation of that harmony which alone can continue, both to Great Britain and America, the reciprocal advantages of their connection. It is neither our wish nor our interest to separate from her. We are willing, on our part, to sacrifice every thing which reason can ask, to the restoration of that tranquillity for which all must wish. On their part, let them be ready to establish union on a generous plan. Let them name their terms, but let them be just. Accept of every commercial preference it is in our power to give, for such things as we can raise for their use, or they make for ours. But let them not think to exclude us from going to other markets, to dispose of those commodities which they cannot use, nor to supply those wants which they cannot supply. Still less, let it be proposed, that our properties, within our own territories, shall be taxed or regulated by any power on earth, but our own. The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them. This, Sire, is our last, our determined resolution. And that you will be pleased to interpose, with that efficacy which your earnest endeavors may insure, to procure redress of these our great grievances, to quiet the minds of your subjects in British America against any apprehensions of future encroachment, to establish fraternal love and harmony through the whole empire, and that that may continue to the latest ages of time, is the fervent prayer of all British America,’
‘These are our grievances, which we present to His Majesty with the freedom of expression that a free people should have, asserting our rights as based on the laws of nature rather than as gifts from our Chief Magistrate. Let those flatter who fear; that’s not an American trait. Offering praise where it is undeserved may suit the corrupt, but it would not be appropriate for those defending the rights of humanity. They understand and will, therefore, assert that kings are the servants, not the owners of the people. Open your heart, Sire, to liberal and expansive ideas. Do not let the name of George the Third tarnish history. You are surrounded by British advisors, but remember that they have their own agendas. You have no ministers for American affairs because none have been chosen from among us nor are accountable to the laws they advise you on. Therefore, you must think and act for yourself and your people. The fundamental principles of right and wrong are clear to everyone: pursuing them does not require the assistance of many advisors. The essence of governance lies in the art of being honest. Simply aim to do your duty, and humanity will recognize your efforts even if you fall short. Do not continue to sacrifice the rights of one part of the empire to satisfy the excessive desires of another; treat everyone with equal and fair rights. No legislation should be passed by any one legislature that infringes upon the rights and freedoms of another. This is the significant position in which fate has placed you, balancing a vast, albeit well-ordered, empire. This, Sire, is the counsel of your esteemed American advisors, adherence to which may very well determine your happiness and future reputation, as well as the preservation of the harmony that is essential for both Great Britain and America to continue enjoying mutual benefits from their connection. We neither wish for nor have any interest in separating from her. We are ready to sacrifice anything that reason demands for restoring the peace that everyone desires. On their part, they should be prepared to establish unity on a generous basis. They can name their terms, but those terms must be fair. Accept every commercial preference we can offer in exchange for items that we can supply for their use or that they produce for ours. But let them not think of excluding us from accessing other markets to sell those goods they cannot use or to fulfill needs they cannot meet. Even less should it be suggested that our property within our territories should be taxed or controlled by any authority on earth, except our own. The God who granted us life also granted us liberty at the same time; force can destroy, but it cannot separate them. This, Sire, is our final, resolute determination. And it is our fervent prayer that you will intervene with the effectiveness that your sincere efforts can ensure, to seek redress for our significant grievances, to calm the concerns of your subjects in British America regarding any fears of future encroachment, to establish brotherly love and harmony throughout the entire empire, and that this may endure through the ages.’
[NOTE D.]—August, 1774., Instructions for the Deputies
Instructions for the Deputies appointed to meet in General Congress on the Part of this Colony.
Instructions for the Deputies assigned to attend General Congress on behalf of this Colony.
The unhappy disputes between Great Britain and her American colonies, which began about the third year of the reign of his present Majesty, and since, continually increasing, have proceeded to lengths so dangerous and alarming, as to excite just apprehensions in the minds of his Majesty’s faithful subjects of this colony, that they are in danger of being deprived of their natural, ancient, constitutional, and chartered rights, have compelled them to take the same into their most serious consideration; and, being deprived of their usual and accustomed mode of making known their grievances, have appointed us their representatives, to consider what is proper to be done in this dangerous crisis of American affairs. It being our opinion that the united wisdom of North America should be collected in a general congress of all the colonies, we have appointed the Honorable Peyton Randolph, Richard Henry Lee, George Washington, Patrick Henry, Richard Bland, Benjamin Harrison, and Edmund Pendleton, Esquires, deputies to represent this colony in the said Congress, to be held at Philadelphia, on the first Monday in September next.
The ongoing conflicts between Great Britain and her American colonies, which started around the third year of the reign of the current King, have increased over time to such a dangerous and alarming degree that they have raised serious concerns among his Majesty’s loyal subjects in this colony about the risk of losing their natural, historical, constitutional, and chartered rights. This situation has forced them to take these issues into serious consideration. With their usual ways of expressing their grievances denied, they have chosen us as their representatives to think about what should be done in this critical moment for America. We believe that the collective wisdom of North America should come together in a general congress of all the colonies. Therefore, we have appointed the Honorable Peyton Randolph, Richard Henry Lee, George Washington, Patrick Henry, Richard Bland, Benjamin Harrison, and Edmund Pendleton as deputies to represent this colony at the Congress, which will be held in Philadelphia on the first Monday in September next.
And that they may be the better informed of our sentiments, touching the conduct we wish them to observe on this important occasion, we desire that they will express, in the first place, our faith and true allegiance to his Majesty, King George the Third, our lawful and rightful sovereign; and that we are determined, with our lives and fortunes, to support him in the legal exercise of all his just rights and prerogatives. And, however misrepresented, we sincerely approve of a constitutional connection with Great Britain, and wish, most ardently, a return of that intercourse of affection and commercial connection, that formerly united both countries, which can only be effected by a removal of those causes of discontent, which have of late unhappily divided us.
And to better inform them of how we feel about the actions we want them to take during this important time, we ask that they first express our loyalty and true allegiance to His Majesty, King George the Third, our lawful and rightful sovereign; and that we are committed, with our lives and resources, to support him in the lawful exercise of all his just rights and privileges. Despite any misrepresentation, we genuinely support a constitutional relationship with Great Britain, and we earnestly wish for a return to the friendship and trade relationship that once brought both countries together, which can only happen by addressing the issues of discontent that have sadly divided us recently.
It cannot admit of a doubt, but that British subjects in America are entitled to the same rights and privileges, as their fellow subjects possess in Britain; and therefore, that the power assumed by the British Parliament, to bind America by their statutes, in all cases whatsoever, is unconstitutional, and the source of these unhappy differences.
There’s no doubt that British subjects in America are entitled to the same rights and privileges as their fellow subjects in Britain. Therefore, the power that the British Parliament claims to have to impose statutes on America in any situation is unconstitutional and the cause of these unfortunate disagreements.
The end of government would be defeated by the British Parliament exercising a power over the lives, the property, and the liberty of American subjects; who are not, and, from their local circumstances, cannot be, there represented. Of this nature, we consider the several acts of Parliament, for raising a revenue in America, for extending the jurisdiction of the courts of Admiralty, for seizing American subjects, and transporting them to Britain, to be tried for crimes committed in America, and the several late oppressive acts respecting the town of Boston and Province of the Massachusetts Bay.
The British Parliament would undermine self-governance by exercising power over the lives, property, and freedom of American citizens, who are not represented there and, due to their local circumstances, cannot be. We view several acts of Parliament—such as those aimed at raising revenue in America, expanding the jurisdiction of Admiralty courts, seizing American citizens, and sending them to Britain to be tried for crimes committed in America—as oppressive. Additionally, we consider the recent harsh laws concerning the town of Boston and the Province of Massachusetts Bay to fall into this category.
The original constitution of the American colonies possessing their assemblies with the sole right of directing their internal polity, it is absolutely destructive of the end of their institution, that their legislatures should be suspended, or prevented, by hasty dissolutions, from exercising their legislative powers.
The original constitution of the American colonies, which gave their assemblies the exclusive right to manage their own governance, is fundamentally undermined when their legislatures are interrupted or forced to dissolve quickly, preventing them from using their legislative powers.
Wanting the protection of Britain, we have long acquiesced in their acts of navigation, restrictive of our commerce, which we consider as an ample recompense for such protection; but as those acts derive their efficacy from that foundation alone, we have reason to expect they will be restrained, so as to produce the reasonable purposes of Britain, and not injurious to us.
Wanting protection from Britain, we have long accepted their navigation laws, which restrict our trade, believing that this is a fair exchange for their support. However, since these laws only work because of that support, we have reason to expect they will be limited to serve Britain's reasonable goals without harming us.
To obtain redress of these grievances, without which the people of America can neither be safe, free, nor happy, they are willing to undergo the great inconvenience that will be derived to them, from stopping all imports whatsoever, from Great Britain, after the first day of November next, and also to cease exporting any commodity whatsoever, to the same place, after the tenth day of August, 1775. The earnest desire we have to make as quick and full payment as possible of our debts to Great Britain, and to avoid the heavy injury that would arise to this country from an earlier adoption of the non-exportation plan, after the people have already applied so much of their labor to the perfecting of the present crop, by which means they have been prevented from pursuing other methods of clothing and supporting their families, have rendered it necessary to restrain you in this article of non-exportation; but it is our desire, that you cordially co-operate with our sister colonies in General Congress, in such other just and proper methods as they, or the majority, shall deem necessary for the accomplishment of these valuable ends.
To address these grievances, which are essential for the safety, freedom, and happiness of the people in America, they are prepared to endure the significant inconvenience of stopping all imports from Great Britain after the first day of November this year, and to halt all exports to the same country after the tenth day of August, 1775. Our strong wish to pay off our debts to Great Britain as quickly and completely as possible, and to avoid the severe damage this country would suffer from an earlier start on the non-exportation plan—especially since the people have already devoted so much effort to this year's crop, preventing them from seeking other means to provide for their families—makes it necessary to limit you regarding non-exportation. However, we wish for you to work closely with our sister colonies in General Congress in any other fair and appropriate ways that they, or the majority, see fit for achieving these important goals.
The proclamation issued by General Gage, in the government of the Province of the Massachusetts Bay, declaring it treason for the inhabitants of that province to assemble themselves to consider of their grievances, and form associations for their common conduct on the occasion, and requiring the civil magistrates and officers to apprehend all such persons, to be tried for their supposed offences, is the most alarming process that ever appeared in a British government; that the said General Gage hath, thereby, assumed, and taken upon himself, powers denied by the constitution to our legal sovereign; that he, not having condescended to disclose by what authority he exercises such extensive and unheard-of powers, we are at a loss to determine, whether he intends to justify himself as the representative of the King, or as the Commander in Chief of his Majesty’s forces in America. If he considers himself as acting in the character of his Majesty’s representative, we would remind him that the statute 25 Edward the Third has expressed and defined all treasonable offences, and that the legislature of Great Britain hath declared, that no offence shall be construed to be treason, but such as is pointed out by that statute, and that this was done to take out of the hands of tyrannical Kings, and of weak and wicked Ministers, that deadly weapon, which constructive treason had furnished them with, and which had drawn the blood of the best and honestest men in the kingdom; and that the King of Great Britain hath no right by his proclamation to subject his people to imprisonment, pains, and penalties.
The announcement made by General Gage, in the government of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, declaring it treason for the residents of that province to gather and discuss their grievances, and to form associations for their common actions regarding these issues, while requiring civil authorities and officers to arrest anyone involved and put them on trial for their alleged offenses, is the most shocking action ever taken under a British government. General Gage has, in doing this, claimed powers that the constitution denies to our legitimate sovereign. Since he has not revealed the authority by which he is exercising such broad and unprecedented powers, we cannot determine whether he intends to justify his actions as the representative of the King or as the Commander in Chief of His Majesty’s forces in America. If he believes he is acting as the King’s representative, we would remind him that statute 25 Edward the Third has clearly defined all treasonable offenses, and that the legislature of Great Britain has stated that no action shall be considered treason except as specified by that statute. This was established to prevent tyrannical kings and corrupt ministers from wielding the dangerous weapon of constructive treason, which has cost the lives of the best and most honest people in the kingdom. Furthermore, the King of Great Britain has no right, by his proclamation, to subject his people to imprisonment, suffering, and penalties.
That if the said General Gage conceives he is empowered to act in this manner, as the Commander in Chief of his Majesty’s forces in America, this odious and illegal proclamation must be considered as a plain and full declaration, that this despotic Viceroy will be bound by no law, nor regard the constitutional rights of his Majesty’s subjects, whenever they interfere with the plan he has formed for oppressing the good people of the Massachusetts Bay; and, therefore, that the executing, or attempting to execute, such proclamation, will justify resistance and reprisal.
That if General Gage thinks he has the authority to act this way as the Commander in Chief of the King’s forces in America, then this outrageous and illegal proclamation should be seen as a clear declaration that this tyrannical governor will follow no law and will ignore the constitutional rights of the King’s subjects whenever they conflict with his plan to oppress the decent people of Massachusetts Bay. Therefore, carrying out or trying to carry out such a proclamation will justify resistance and retaliation.
[NOTE E.]—Monticello, November 1, 1778.—[Re: Crimes and Punishment]
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
I have got through the bill ‘for proportioning crimes and punishments in cases heretofore capital,’ and now enclose it to you with a request that you will be so good, as scrupulously to examine and correct it, that it may be presented to our committee, with as few defects as possible. In its style, I have aimed at accuracy, brevity, and simplicity, preserving, however, the very words of the established law, wherever their meaning had been sanctioned by judicial decisions, or rendered technical by usage. The same matter, if couched in the modern statutory language, with all its tautologies, redundancies, and circumlocutions, would have spread itself over many pages, and been unintelligible to those whom it most concerns. Indeed, I wished to exhibit a sample of reformation in the barbarous style, into which modern statutes have degenerated from their ancient simplicity. And I must pray you to be as watchful over what I have not said, as what is said; for the omissions of this bill have all their positive meaning. I have thought it better to drop, in silence, the laws we mean to discontinue, and let them be swept away by the general negative words of this, than to detail them in clauses of express repeal. By the side of the text I have written the note? I made, as I went along, for the benefit of my own memory. They may serve to draw your attention to questions, to which the expressions or the omissions of the text may give rise. The extracts from the Anglo-Saxon laws, the sources of the Common law, I wrote in their original, for my own satisfaction;* but I have added Latin, or liberal English translations. From the time of Canute to that of the Magna Charta, you know, the text of our statutes is preserved to us in Latin only, and some old French.
I’ve gone through the bill ‘for proportioning crimes and punishments in cases previously deemed capital,’ and I’m enclosing it with a request that you carefully examine and correct it, so it can be presented to our committee with as few flaws as possible. In its style, I aimed for accuracy, brevity, and simplicity, while still using the exact wording of established law whenever its meaning has been confirmed by court decisions or made technical through use. The same content, if written in modern legal language—full of tautologies, redundancies, and roundabout phrases—would take up many pages and be unclear to those it affects most. In fact, I wanted to show an example of how modern statutes have lost their ancient clarity and become more complicated. I also ask you to pay attention to what I’ve left out, as those omissions carry significant meaning. I've decided it's better to quietly drop the laws we intend to eliminate and let them be removed by the general negative wording of this bill, rather than detail them in explicit repeal clauses. Alongside the text, I’ve written notes for my own reference as I went along. They might highlight questions that the wording or omissions of the text could raise. The excerpts from the Anglo-Saxon laws, which are the origins of Common law, I wrote in their original forms for my own satisfaction; however, I’ve added Latin or clear English translations. From the time of Canute to the Magna Carta, you know that the text of our statutes is preserved only in Latin and some old French.
* In this publication, the original Saxon words are included, but, due to the lack of Saxon letters, they are printed in regular type.
I have strictly observed the scale of punishments settled by the Committee, without being entirely satisfied with it. The Lex talionis, although a restitution of the Common law, to the simplicity of which we have generally found it so advantageous to return, will be revolting to the humanized feelings of modern times. An eye for an eye, and a hand for a hand, will exhibit spectacles in execution, whose moral effect would be questionable; and even the membrum pro membro of Bracton, or the punishment of the offending member, although long authorized by our law, for the same offence in a slave, has, you know, been not long since repealed, in conformity with public sentiment. This needs reconsideration.
I have closely followed the set punishments decided by the Committee, even though I'm not completely happy with them. The principle of "an eye for an eye," while a return to the simplicity of common law that we often find beneficial, clashes with the more civilized feelings of today. An eye for an eye, and a hand for a hand, would result in executions that raise serious moral questions; and even the punishment of “a member for a member,” as Bracton suggested, although long accepted in our law, was recently repealed for the same offense in a slave due to public opinion. This needs to be reconsidered.
I have heard little of the proceedings of the Assembly, and do not expect to be with you till about the close of the month. In the mean time, present me respectfully to Mrs. Wythe, and accept assurances of the affectionate esteem and respect of, Dear Sir, Your friend and servant,
I haven't heard much about what the Assembly is doing, and I don't expect to see you until around the end of the month. In the meantime, please give my best to Mrs. Wythe, and know that you have my warmest regards and respect. Dear Sir, Your friend and servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
George Wythe, Esq.
George Wythe, Attorney at Law














Bill for proportioning Crimes and Punishments, in Cases heretofore Capital.
Bill for Adjusting Crimes and Punishments in Cases Previously Considered Capital.
Whereas, it frequently happens that wicked and dissolute men, resigning themselves to the dominion of inordinate passions, commit violations on the lives, liberties, and property of others, and, the secure enjoyment of these having principally induced men to enter into society, government would be defective in its principal purpose, were it not to restrain such criminal acts, by inflicting due punishments on those who perpetrate them; but it appears, at the same time, equally deducible from the purposes of society, that a member thereof, committing an inferior injury, does not wholly forfeit the protection of his fellow-citizens, but, after suffering a punishment in proportion to his offence, is entitled to their protection from all greater pain, so that it becomes a duty in the legislature to arrange, in a proper scale, the crimes which it may be necessary for them to repress, and to adjust thereto a corresponding gradation of punishments.
Whereas, it often happens that bad and immoral people, giving in to uncontrolled urges, harm the lives, freedoms, and property of others, and since the safe enjoyment of these is what mainly motivates people to form societies, the government would fail in its main purpose if it didn’t limit such criminal behavior by imposing appropriate punishments on those who commit them; however, it also seems clear from the goals of society that a member who commits a lesser offense does not completely lose the protection of their fellow citizens, but after serving a punishment proportional to their crime, is entitled to their protection from more severe harm, so it becomes the duty of the legislature to categorize the crimes it needs to address appropriately and to align a corresponding system of punishments.
And whereas, the reformation of offenders, though an object worthy the attention of the laws, is not effected at all by capital punishments, which exterminate, instead of reforming, and should be the last melancholy resource against those whose existence is become inconsistent with the safety of their fellow-citizens, which also weaken the State, by cutting off so many who, if reformed, might be restored sound members to society, who, even under a course of correction, might be rendered useful in various labors for the public, and would be living and long continued spectacles to deter others from committing the like offences.
And while reforming offenders is a goal that deserves the attention of the law, it is not achieved through capital punishment, which eliminates rather than reforms. It should be a last, unfortunate option for those whose existence threatens the safety of their fellow citizens. This approach also weakens the State by removing so many individuals who, if given a chance to reform, could become valuable members of society. Even those undergoing correction could contribute meaningfully to various public tasks and serve as ongoing reminders to others to avoid committing similar offenses.
And forasmuch as the experience of all ages and countries hath shown, that cruel and sanguinary laws defeat their own purpose, by engaging the benevolence of mankind to withhold prosecutions, to smother testimony, or to listen to it with bias, when, if the punishment were only proportioned to the injury, men would feel it their inclination, as well as their duty, to see the laws observed.
And since the experiences of all times and places have shown that harsh and bloody laws undermine their own goals by causing people to hesitate in prosecuting, to silence evidence, or to hear it with prejudice, if the punishment were just aligned with the harm done, people would feel both inclined and obligated to uphold the law.
For rendering crimes and punishments, therefore, more proportionate to each other.
For making crimes and punishments more suitable to each other.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that no crime shall be henceforth punished by deprivation of life or limb,* except those hereinafter ordained to be so punished.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly that no crime will henceforth be punished by loss of life or bodily harm,* except for those specified to be punished in the following sections.
* This eliminates the punishment of cutting off the hand of someone who strikes another person or draws their sword in one of the higher courts of law. Stamf. P. C. 38; 33 H. 8. c. 12. In an earlier period of common law, it was punishable by death. ‘If anyone fights in the King’s house, he forfeits all his inheritance, and it is up to the King’s judgment whether he lives or dies: si quis in regis domo pugnet, perdat omnem suam ha; reditatem, et in regis sit arbitrio, possideat vitarn an non possideat.‘ LI. Inae. 6. &c.
*If a man do levy war** against the Commonwealth [in the same], or be adherent to the enemies of the Commonwealth [within the same],*** giving to them aid or comfort in the Commonwealth, or elsewhere, and thereof be convicted of open deed, by the evidence of two sufficient witnesses, or his own voluntary confession, the said cases, and no others,**** shall be adjudged treasons which extend to the Commonwealth, and the person so convicted shall suffer death by hanging,***** and shall forfeit his lands and goods to the Commonwealth.
*If a man wages war** against the Commonwealth [in the same], or supports the enemies of the Commonwealth [within the same],*** giving them aid or comfort in the Commonwealth, or elsewhere, and is convicted of these actions through the testimony of two reliable witnesses, or his own voluntary confession, the situations described, and no others,**** shall be considered treason that affects the Commonwealth, and the person convicted shall face execution by hanging,***** and shall lose his lands and possessions to the Commonwealth.*
* 25 E 3. st. 5. c. 2; 7 W. 3. c. 3, § 2. ** Although the crime of being an accomplice in treason isn’t explicitly defined here, Lord Coke states that participating in and supporting the treason described makes someone a principal in that treason. The rule is that in cases of treason, everyone involved is considered a principal. 3 inst. 138; 2 Inst. 590; H. 6. c. 5. *** These words in the English statute limit its application. A person siding with the enemies of the Commonwealth while abroad would definitely not be guilty of treason here if these words are kept. The treason convictions of that nature in England have been under the part of the statute that classifies plotting the king’s death as treason. Foster, 196, 197. But since we are excluding that part, we need to find other ways to address this serious situation.
**** The statute 25 E. 3. requires that all other cases of treason wait for Parliament's opinion. This effectively excludes all other forms of treason. Since we are removing that part of the statute, we need to use negative wording to prevent an overflow of common law treasons. I therefore remove the word 'it' and replace it with 'the said cases and no others.' I'm curious about how far these negative words might impact the previously mentioned accomplices. However, if their case falls under the statute and doesn’t need to wait for Parliament's opinion, it seems that it should also be covered by our act, and thus not be excluded by the negative wording.
If any person commit petty treason, or a husband murder his wife, a parent his child,* or a child his parent, he shall suffer death by hanging, and his body be delivered to anatomists to be dissected.
If anyone commits petty treason, or if a husband murders his wife, a parent his child,* or a child his parent, they will be sentenced to death by hanging, and their body will be given to anatomists for dissection.
* According to statute 21.Tac. 1. c. 27. and Act Ass. 1710, c. 12, if a mother conceals the death of an illegitimate child, it is considered murder. This is justified by the claim that shame can be such a strong emotion that it might drive a mother to kill her child to hide her disgrace. Therefore, the act of concealment suggests that she was motivated by shame, which leads to the assumption that she killed the child. The effect of this law is to turn what is merely an assumption of murder into a definitive guilt. To this, I would argue: 1. Many children die before or shortly after birth, so assuming that all those found dead have been murdered is a presumption more likely to lead to mistakes than truths, ultimately resulting in more unjust executions than lives saved. 2. If the child was stillborn, the mother would likely choose to hide the fact to preserve her reputation in the community. Thus, concealment doesn’t necessarily indicate guilt for murder. 3. If shame is a powerful emotion, isn't parental love too? Isn't it the strongest emotion out there? Isn’t it greater than the will to survive? While we draw assumptions from shame—one emotion—against the life of the defendant, shouldn’t we also weigh assumptions from parental love, an emotion equally powerful in favor of life? If hiding the truth is such a strong indication of murder that it outweighs all other possible evidence that could counter it, why not leave the evaluation of this strong assumption to the jury, who are meant to consider both presumptive and direct evidence? If the presumption from concealment can be disproven by clear or circumstantial evidence, why should lawmakers prevent that contrary evidence? One might argue that the crime is hard to prove since it usually happens in secret. My response is that circumstantial evidence is still viable; for example, signs of violence, the demeanor, and behavior of the accused, etc. If it's hard to get definite proof, does that mean we should cling to questionable evidence? Can we redefine what is debatable and force it into being undeniable? Can we make what isn't conclusive into something that is? Solon didn’t create a law against parricide because he thought it impossible for anyone to commit it, and the Persians believed the same, treating anyone who killed their alleged parents as bastards. Yet, while parental love is often stronger than filial love, we accept saticide based on the most questionable evidence, all while they dismissed any proof of a crime that isn’t inherently more against nature than what they viewed as impossible. See Beccaria, § 31.
Whosoever committeth murder by poisoning, shall suffer death by poison.
Whoever commits murder by poisoning will face death by poison.
Whosoever committeth murder by way of duel, shall suffer death by hanging; and if he were the challenger, his body, after death, shall be gibbeted.* He who removeth it from the gibbet, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor; and the officer shall see that it be replaced.
Whoever commits murder in a duel will be sentenced to death by hanging; and if he was the one who started the challenge, his body will be displayed on a gallows after death.* Anyone who removes it from the gallows will be guilty of a misdemeanor; and the officer will ensure it is put back.
* 25 G. 2. c. 37.
Whosoever shall commit murder in any other way, shall suffer death by hanging.
Whoever commits murder in any other way will be put to death by hanging.
And in all cases of petty treason and murder, one half of the lands and goods of the offender shall be forfeited to the next of kin to the person killed, and the other half descend and go to his own representatives. Save only, where one shall slay the challenger in a duel,* in which case, no part of his lands or goods shall be forfeited to the kindred of the party slain, but, instead thereof, a moiety shall go to the Commonwealth.
And in all cases of petty treason and murder, half of the offender's lands and goods will be forfeited to the next of kin of the person who was killed, and the other half will go to his heirs. However, if someone kills their challenger in a duel,* then none of their lands or goods will be forfeited to the family of the person who was killed; instead, half of it will go to the Commonwealth.
* Why should the estates of both parties in a duel not be forfeited? The deceased is just as guilty as a suicide.
The same evidence* shall suffice, and order and course** of trial be observed in cases of petty treason, as in those of other*** murders.
The same evidence* will be sufficient, and the order and process** of the trial will be followed in cases of petty treason, just like in other*** murders.
* Quære, can these words not be omitted? According to common law, one witness was enough in treason cases. Foster, 233. Plowd. 8. a. Mirror, c. 3. § 34. Waterhouse on Fortesc de Laud. 252. Carth. 144 per Holt. But Lord Coke disagrees, 3 Inst 26. The statutes 1 E. 6. c 12. & 5 E. 6. c. 11. first required two witnesses in treason cases. The clause against high treason mentioned above does the same for high treason; however, it seems that if the 1st and 5th E. 6. are disregarded, petty treason can be tried and proven, as per common law, with one witness. But quære, since Lord Coke disagrees, whose opinion should never be ignored. ** These words are meant to eliminate the peremptory challenge of thirty-five jurors. The same wording in 1 & 2 Ph. k. M. c. 10. is considered to have reinstated the peremptory challenge in high treason; therefore, they are sufficient to remove it. Foster, 237. *** Petty treason is legally seen as an aggravated form of murder. Foster, 107, 323. A pardon of all murders also pardons petty treason. 1 Hale P. C. 378. See 2 H. P. C. 340, 342. It is also included in the term ‘felony,’ meaning that a pardon of all felonies also pardons petty treason.
Whosoever shall be guilty of manslaughter,* shall, for the first offence, be condemned to hard labor** for seven years, in the public works, shall forfeit one half of his lands and goods to the next of kin to the person slain; the other half to be sequestered during such term, in the hands and to the use of the Commonwealth, allowing a reasonable part of the profits for the support of his family. The second offence shall be deemed murder.
Whoever is found guilty of manslaughter shall, for the first offense, be sentenced to hard labor for seven years on public works, shall forfeit half of their lands and belongings to the nearest relative of the victim; the other half will be held for the duration of the sentence by the Commonwealth, with a reasonable portion of the profits used to support their family. A second offense will be considered murder.
* Manslaughter is punishable by law with branding on the hand and loss of personal property. ** It's best to establish only basic principles in this law so it doesn't constantly change; to implement the details, create a bill ‘for the employment and management of criminals condemned to work for the Commonwealth,’ which can serve as an Appendix to this. In it, all necessary specifics can be outlined; and as experience highlights the need for updates, these can be made without altering this fundamental law. See More’s Utopia p. 50 for some useful suggestions. In such a bill, fugitives might be required to work two days for every day they are absent.
And where persons, meaning to commit a trespass* only, or larceny, or other unlawful deed, and doing an act from which involuntary homicide hath ensued, have heretofore been adjudged guilty of manslaughter, or of murder, by transferring such their unlawful intention to an act much more penal than they could have in probable contemplation; no such case shall hereafter be deemed manslaughter, unless manslaughter was intended, nor murder, unless murder was intended.
And where individuals, intending to commit a trespass, theft, or some other illegal act, inadvertently cause a death through their actions, they have previously been found guilty of manslaughter or murder for transferring their unlawful intention to a much more serious act than they could have reasonably expected; no such cases will be considered manslaughter in the future unless manslaughter was intended, nor will they be considered murder unless murder was intended.
* Shooting a wild bird and accidentally killing a person is considered homicide by misadventure. Shooting at a hen without intending to take it is classified as manslaughter, but if there's an intention to take it, it's considered murder. 6 Sta. tr. 222. Some believe that shooting at someone else's poultry and accidentally causing their house to catch fire is considered arson. Dalt. c. 116 1 Hale’s P. C. 569, contra.
In other cases of homicide, the law will not add to the miseries of the party, by punishments or forfeitures.*
In other cases of homicide, the law won't add to the suffering of the individual through punishments or forfeitures.*
* Beccaria, § 32. Suicide. Homicides are classified as: 1. Justifiable. 2. Excusable. 3. Felonious. For the last category, punishments have already been established. The first category is considered completely guiltless, or even praiseworthy. The second category may involve some blame in certain situations. These should prompt the person to show remorse; for instance, killing someone in defense of property or oneself, which falls under excusable homicide. While there may be cases where these actions are commendable, they often occur in response to minor threats, like retaliating for a slap, a kick, a flick, etc., or when someone enters a house, not with the intent to steal, but perhaps for other reasons. Bracton states, ‘If someone kills a nighttime thief, they would only be free from punishment if they could not spare him without risking their own safety; if they could, it would be viewed differently.’ ‘Also, if someone defends themselves against an intruder in their home, and the intruder is killed, they will remain unpunished and unpursued if they could not defend themselves in any other way; for it is said that one who doesn’t respect peace is not worthy of it.’ L.3. c.23. § 3. ‘A person who kills a robber is not liable, whether at night or during the day, if they cannot avoid danger any other way; however, they are liable if they can. Additionally, they are not liable if it was a matter of misfortune, nor if there was no intent or will to kill, nor malice or guilt found in them.’ L.3. c.36. § 1. The statute 24 H. 8. c. 5 is therefore simply a declaration of common law. For more on the general topic, see Puffend. 2. 5. § 10, 11, 12, 16, 17. Excusable homicides occur by misadventure or in self-defense. Some lawyers believe that common law initially punished these with death, and that the statutes from Marlbridge, c. 26, and Gloucester, c. 9, first removed this by granting them a right to a pardon and a writ for restoring their goods. See 2 Inst, 148. 315; 3 Inst. 55. Bracton, L. 3. c. 4. § 2. Fleta L, 1. c. 23. § 14, 15; 21 E. 3. 23. However, it's believed it was never capital. 1 H. P. C. 425; 1 Hawk. 75; Foster, 282; 4 Bl. 188. It's also uncertain whether, under common law, the party lost all their personal property in this case or only paid a compensatory amount. Foster, ubi supra, has doubts and believes it’s irrelevant, as the statute of Gloucester offers the party royal mercy, which applies to both forfeiture and life. To me, there seems no justification for labeling these as excusable homicides, while killing a person in defense of property is seen as justifiable homicide. The latter carries more guilt than acts of misadventure or self-defense. Suicide is punishable under the law by the forfeiture of personal property. This bill exempts it from such forfeiture. A person who dies by suicide harms the state less than someone who leaves behind their possessions. If the latter isn't punished, then neither should the former. Regarding the example, we need not worry about its impact. People are generally too attached to life to frequently act on suicidal impulses. In any case, the implied punishment of confiscation won't stop it. For if someone is found who can calmly decide to end their life, who is so tired of their existence that they prefer to experience what comes after death, can we really think that in such a mindset, they would be influenced by the loss to their family from confiscation? That most people disapprove of this harshness is evident from the consistent trend of juries declaring suicides to be in a state of insanity; this is their only way to prevent the forfeiture. Therefore, let's abolish it.
Whenever sentence of death shall have been pronounced against any person for treason or murder, execution shall be done on the next day but one after such sentence, unless it be Sunday, and then on the Monday following.*
Whenever a death sentence is given to someone for treason or murder, the execution will take place two days later, unless that day is Sunday, in which case it will occur on the following Monday.*
* Beccaria, § 19; 25 G. 2. c. 37.
Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape,* Polygamy,** or Sodomy,*** with man or woman, shall be punished, if a man, by castration,**** if a woman, by cutting through the cartilage of her nose, a hole of one half inch in diameter at the least.
Whomever is found guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy, with either a man or a woman, shall be punished: if a man, by castration; if a woman, by cutting a hole at least half an inch in diameter through the cartilage of her nose.
* 13 E. 1. c. 34. Forcible abduction of a woman with means is a felony according to 3 H. 7, c 2; 3. Inst. 61; 4 Bl. 208. If goods are taken, it will be considered a felony as to those goods, even without this statute; and regarding the abduction of the woman, it’s questionable if it would be better to leave that, and also kidnapping, (4 Bl. 219) to the Common Law remedies, such as fine, imprisonment, and pillory, (Raym. 474; 2 Show. 221; Skin. 47; Comb. 10) the writs of Homine replegiando, Capias in Withernam, Habeas corpus, and the action of trespass? Rape was considered a felony under Common Law. (3 Inst. 60 but see 2 Inst. 181). For its definition, see 2 Inst. 180. Bracton L.3. 28. § 1. states that the punishment for rape is ‘amissio membrorum, ut sit membrum pro membra, quia virgo, cum corrumpitur, membrum amittit, et ideo corruptor puniatur in eo in quo deliquit; oculos igitur amittat propter aspectum decoris quo virginem concupivit; amittat et testiculos qui calorem stupri induxerunt. Olim quidem corruptores virginitatis et castitatis suspendebantur et eorum fautores, &c. Modernis tamen temporibus aliter observatur,’ &.c. And Fleta, ‘Solet justiciarius pro quolibet mahemio ad amissionem testiculorum vel oculorum convictum condemnare, sed non sine errore, eo quod id judicium nisi in corruptione virginum tantum competebat; nam pro virginitatis corruptione solebant abscidi et merito judicari, ut sic pro membro quod abstulit, membrum per quod deliquit amitteret, viz. testiculos, qui calorem stupri induxerunt,’ &c. Fleta. L. 1. c. 40. § 4. ‘If a slave forces a bondmaid, compensation should be made with his own staff. If anyone rapes a maid,’ & c. Ll.Æliridi. 25. ‘They purge women by force resulting in the loss of members.’ LI. Gul. Conq. 19. ** 1 Jac. 1. c. 11. Polygamy was not penal until the statute of 1 Jac. The law simply voided the act. 4 Bl. 163. 3 Inst. 88. *** 25. H. 8. c. 6. Buggery has two forms: 1. With mankind, 2. with beasts. Buggery is the overarching category, of which Sodomy and Bestiality are specific types. 12 Co. 37. states, In Dyer, 304. a man was indicted and found guilty of raping a girl who was seven years old. The court questioned whether it could be considered rape of such a young girl; however, had she been nine years old, it would have been treated differently. 14 Eliz. Therefore, the statute 18 Eliz. c. 6, states, ‘For the clear declaration of law, be it enacted, that if any person shall unlawfully and carnally know and abuse any female child under the age of ten years, &c. he shall suffer as a felon, without the allowance of clergy.’ Lord Hale, however, 1 P. C. 630. believes it is considered rape, independent of that statute, to carnally know a girl under twelve, which is the age of consent. Yet, 4 Bl. 212. seems to dismiss this opinion; and since it relied on the wording of 3 E. 1. c. 13. and this section is omitted in our law, the offense of carnally knowing a girl under twelve, or ten years of age, will not be treated any differently from other offenses. Co. 37. states ‘note that Sodomy includes acts with mankind.’ But Finch’s L. B. 3. c. 24. states, ‘Sodomitry is a carnal copulation against nature, to be it between individuals of the same sex or with animals.’ 12 Co 36. states, ‘It appears from ancient legal authorities that this was a felony.’ Yet, the 25 H. 8. explicitly declares it a felony, suggesting it was previously not recognized as such. Britton, c, 9. claims that Sodomites are to be burned. F. N. B. 269. b. Fleta, L 1. c. 37. states, ‘Those guilty of buggery and sodomy in the land shall be buried alive.’ The Mirror categorizes it as treason. Bestiality cannot progress, and therefore, it cannot cause significant harm to society, which is the real measure of criminality in foro cirili, and will always be justly and harshly punished, by universal mockery. Thus, it can be overlooked. It was historically punished by death, as it has been more recently. LI Ælfrid. 31. and 25 H. 8. c. 6. see Beccaria, § 31. Montesq. ****Bracton, Fleta, &c.
But no one shall be punished for Polygamy, who shall have married after probable information of the death of his or her husband or wife, or after his or her husband or wife hath absented him or herself, so that no notice of his or her being alive hath reached such person for seven years together, or hath suffered the punishments before prescribed for rape, polygamy, or sodomy.
But no one will be punished for polygamy if they married after having reasonable evidence of their spouse's death or after their spouse has been absent without any notice of being alive for seven years, or if they have already faced penalties for rape, polygamy, or sodomy.
Whosoever, on purpose, and of malice forethought, shall maim* another, or shall disfigure him by cutting out or disabling the tongue, slitting or cutting off a nose, lip, or ear, branding, or otherwise, shall be maimed, or disfigured in like** sort: or if that cannot be for want of the same part, then as nearly as may be, in some other part of at least equal value and estimation, in the opinion of a jury, and moreover, shall forfeit one half of his lands and goods to the sufferer.
Whoever, intentionally and with malice, harms another person or disfigures them by cutting out or disabling the tongue, slicing or cutting off a nose, lip, or ear, branding, or in any other way, shall be harmed or disfigured in a similar manner. If that is not possible due to the unavailability of the same part, then as closely as possible, in some other part of at least equal value and significance, according to a jury's opinion, and in addition, shall lose half of their lands and possessions to the victim.
```html * 22 & 23 Car. 2, c. 1. Maiming was a felony at common law. Britton, c 95. It can be said that a person has been maimed when they have sustained an injury to any part of their body that renders them incapable of fighting: for example, if an arm is amputated, or a leg is lost, or if the skin from the skull is removed, or if someone has lost their front teeth, or if they have been castrated, and such a person can be punished for maiming. Flela, L. 1. c. 40. 'And we want no maiming to be punished except for the loss of a member that makes a person weaker in combat, such as, from the eye, or from the hand, or from the foot, or from the head being crushed, or from the front teeth.' Britton, c. 25. For further definitions, see Braclon, L. 3. c. 24 § 3. 4. Finch, L. B. 3. c. 12; Co. L. 126. a b 288. a; 3 Bl. 121; 4 Bl 205; Stamf. P C. L. 1. c. 41. I do not see any of these definitions limit the offense to intentional and malicious acts. 22 & 23 Car. 2. c. 1, known as the Coventry act, includes the terms 'on purpose and with malice forethought.' The common law also does not impose the same punishment for disfiguring as for maiming. ** The punishment was by retaliation. 'And as soon as someone is accused of such a felony and awaits judgment, the judgment shall be such that they lose the same member as they caused to be lost to the complainant. If the complaint is made against a woman who has caused a man to lose his members, in such a case, she will lose a hand by judgment, just as the member she caused to be lost.' Britton, c 25. Flela, B 1. c. 40; LI. Ælfr. 19. 40. ```
Whosoever shall counterfeit* any coin, current by law within this Commonwealth, or any paper bills issued in the nature of money, or of certificates of loan on the credit of this Commonwealth, or of all or any of the United States of America, or any Inspectors’ notes for tobacco, or shall pass any such counterfeited coin, paper, bills, or notes, knowing them to be counterfeit; or, for the sake of lucre shall diminish,** case, or wash any such coin, shall be condemned to hard labor six years in the public works, and shall forfeit all his lands and goods to the Commonwealth.
Whoever counterfeits any coin that is legal currency within this Commonwealth, or any paper bills that function as money, or any loan certificates based on the credit of this Commonwealth, or any part of the United States of America, or any tobacco inspector notes, or who passes off any of these counterfeit coins, paper, bills, or notes while knowing they're fake; or, for profit, reduces, alters, or washes any of these coins, will be sentenced to six years of hard labor in public works and will have all their land and possessions confiscated by the Commonwealth.
* 25E.3. st 5. c. 2; 5 El c. 11; 18 El. c. 1; 8 and 9 W. 3. c. 26; 15. and 16 G 2. c. 28; 7 Ann. q. 25. According to the laws of Æthelstan and Canute, this was punished by cutting off the hand. ‘If the counterfeiter is caught, let his hand be cut off, he who committed the foul deed and put it upon the mint.’ In modern English, ‘if the counterfeiter is found, cut off the hand with which he committed the crime and put it on the mint machinery.’ LI,iEthelst. 14. ‘And let him suffer for this false act, let his hand be cut off for the false deed he committed.’ ‘And if anyone besides this, commits a false act, let him lose the hand with which he crafted the false coin.’ LI. Cnuti, 8. It had been punishable by death under LI. Æthelredi, under fine. According to those of H. 1. ‘If one is found with a false coin—let my justice be done, at least from the right hand and from the testicles.’ Year 1108. ‘It is truly a hardship to hear how severe the king was against the wrongdoers. For nearly all the moneyers of all England he made to be executed, and their right hands cut off, because they had secretly corrupted the coin.’ Wilkins ib. and year 1125. When common law became established, it seems it was punished by death. ‘There is another kind of crime that falls under the name of forgery, and affects the crown of the lord king, and mandates the utmost punishment, as with those who manufacture false coins, and who turn something not reproachable into something reproachable; such as the makers of false money.’ Bract. L. 3. c. 3. § 2. Fleta, L. 1. c. 22 § 4. Lord Hale thinks it was considered petty treason at common law. 1 H. P. C. 220, 224. The act of bringing in counterfeit money with the intent to use it for trade and payment is treason, according to 25 E. 3. But the best proof of the intention is the act of passing it, and why not allow space for repentance here, as in other cases of intended felonies? 1 H P. C. 229. ** Clipping, filing, rounding, impairing, scaling, lightening (the terms in the statutes) are considered ‘diminishing’; gilding is included under ‘casing’; coloring under ‘washing’; and falsifying or marking is counterfeiting.’
Whosoever committeth Arson,* shall be condemned to hard labor five years in the public works, and shall make good the loss of the sufferers threefold.**
Whoever commits arson shall be sentenced to five years of hard labor in public works and shall compensate the victims three times the amount of their losses.
*43 El. c. 13. limited to four counties. 22 ^ 23 Car. 2. c. 7; 9 G. 1. c. 22, 9 G. 3. c. 29. ** Arson was considered a felony at Common Law—3 Inst. 66; it was punished by a fine, Ll. Æthelst. 6. However, LI. Cnuti, 61, classifies it as an ‘inexpiable sin.’ Literally, ‘House break and burn, and open theft, and manifest murder, and treachery against a lord, after the world's law is without remedy.’ Bracton states it was punishable by death. ‘If someone, in a turbulent insurrection, commits arson wrongfully and feloniously, whether out of enmity or for the purpose of plundering, let them be punished with a capital penalty or sentence.’ Bract. L. 3. c. 27. He defines it as committed by burning ‘alien property.’ Ib. Britton, c. 9. ‘Those who commit felonies during peacetime and burn hay or other houses, and those who are caught in this act, shall be punished in the same way for the crime they committed.’ Fleia, L. I. c. 37, is a copy of Bracton. The Mirror, c. 1. § 8 states, ‘Arsons are those that burn towns, homes, human dwellings, animal houses, or other property, due to their felonies in times of peace for hatred or vengeance.’ Again, c. 2. § 11, pointing out the words of the accuser ‘I say that Sebright, etc. intentionally set fire.’ Coke, 3 Inst. 67 states, ‘The ancient authors extended this felony further than just houses, namely to stacks of corn, carts of coal, wood, or other goods.’ He defines it as committed, not only on the inside of houses that are part of the mansion, but also on the outside, including barns, stables, cowhouses, sheepfolds, dairies, mills, and similar structures that are part of the mansion house.’ But ‘burning a barn, which is not part of a mansion-house, is not a felony,’ unless there is corn or hay inside it. Ib. The acts of 22 k. 23 Car. 2. and 9 G. 1. are the main statutes against arson. They expand the offense beyond Common Law.
If any person shall, within this Commonwealth, or, being a citizen thereof, shall without the same, wilfully destroy,* or run** away with any sea-vessel, or goods laden on board thereof, or plunder or pilfer any wreck, he shall be condemned to hard labor five years in the public works, and shall make good the loss of the sufferers threefold.
If anyone within this Commonwealth, or a citizen of it, deliberately destroys or steals any sea vessel or the goods on board, or loot any wreck, they will be sentenced to five years of hard labor in public works and must compensate the victims threefold for their losses.
* Ann. st. 2. c. 9. 12 Ann. c. 18. 4 G. 1. c. 12. 26 G. 2. c. 19. ** 11 h 12 W.3. c.7.
Whosoever committeth Robbery,* shall be condemned to hard labor four years in the public works, and shall make double reparation to the persons injured.
Whoever commits robbery will be sentenced to four years of hard labor on public works and must pay double in restitution to the victims.
* Robbery was a serious crime under common law. 3 Inst. 68. 'An unforgivable sin,' according to the Laws of Cnut 61. [See earlier in Arson.] It was punishable by death. Brit c. 15, 'Regarding robbers and thieves and similar offenders, they should be thoroughly investigated—and those robbers should be judged to death.' Fleta states, 'If anyone is convicted of robbing or taking a man's goods, he will face the death penalty by the king's judgment.' L. 1. c. 39. See also Bract. L. 3. c. 32 § I.
Whatsoever act, if committed on any mansion-house, would be deemed Burglary,* shall be Burglary, if committed on any other house; and he who is guilty of Burglary, shall be condemned to hard labor four years in the public works, and shall make double reparation to the persons injured.
Whatever act would be considered Burglary if done in any mansion-house, will also be deemed Burglary if done in any other house; and anyone guilty of Burglary will be sentenced to four years of hard labor in public works and must provide double compensation to the injured parties.
* Burglary was considered a felony under common law. It wasn't differentiated by ancient writers, except for the Mirror, from simple house-breaking. Burglary and house-breaking were referred to as 'Hamsockne.' 'We also mention violations of the peace and the immunity of a home; if anyone does this in the future, they will lose everything they have, and it will be up to the king whether they have their life.' 'This concerns breach of the peace and home invasion; if it happens beyond this, the person shall lose all that they own and it's up to the King's judgment whether they owe their life.' *LI. Eadmundi, c. 6* and see *LI. Cnuti. 61.* 'Burglars' in the notes pertain to arson. A burglar was also called a Burgessor. 'And let it be inquired of Burgessours; all those who feloniously, during peace, break into churches or other homes, or the walls or doors of our cities or our Burghs, are counted as Burgessours.' *Britt. c. 10.* 'Burglary is the nighttime invasion of someone’s dwelling, or church, or even the walls or gates of a city or borough, to commit some felony. I say particularly, following the more recent cases; for the ancients did not include this.' *Spelm. Gloss, verb. Burglaria.* It was punishable by death. This is cited from the office of a Coroner. It can occur in both outer and inner houses, though not necessarily under the same roof or next to each other, as long as they are within the curtilage or homestead. *4 BI. 225.* Since under common law all felonies were eligible for clergy, the statutes *23 H. 8. c. 1; 5 E. 6. c. 9;* and *18 El. c. 7* first distinguished them by removing the clerical privilege from the principals, and *3 & 4 W. M. c. 9* from accessories before the fact. No statute clearly defines what burglary is. The *12 Ann. c. 7* resolves the uncertainty regarding whether breaking after entry constitutes burglary. Bacon’s Elements confirmed it, and *T. H. P. C. 554* denied it. Our bill should differentiate them by various levels of punishment.
Whatsoever act, if committed in the night time, shall constitute the crime of Burglary, shall, if committed in the day, be deemed House-breaking;* and whosoever is guilty thereof, shall be condemned to hard labor three years in the public works, and shall make reparation to the persons injured.
Any act committed at night will be considered the crime of Burglary, while the same act committed during the day will be classified as House-breaking; anyone found guilty of this will be sentenced to three years of hard labor on public works and will be required to compensate the injured parties.
* Under common law, the crime of house-breaking wasn't treated differently from burglary, nor was either of them seen as separate from any other type of theft. Initially, laws removed the benefit of clergy from burglary, creating a major distinction between the two offenses. However, later statutes have taken the benefit of clergy away from many instances of house-breaking, nearly merging the two crimes again. These include 23 H. 8. c. 1; 1 E. 6. c. 12; 5 & 6 E. 6. c. 9; 3 & 4 W. M. c. 9; 39 El. c. 15; 10 & 11 W. 3. c. 23; 12 Ann. c. 7. See Burr. 428; 4 Bl. 240. The factors that define the offense in these statutes appear to have been sporadic and not well-organized. Once we determine the types of buildings where burglary can take place and the elements that make up that crime, it would be more effective to define house-breaking using the same criteria, distinguishing the two crimes only by the time they occur and the level of punishment they carry.
Whosoever shall be guilty of Horse-stealing,* shall be condemned to hard labor three years in the public works, and shall make reparation to the person injured.
Whoever is found guilty of horse theft shall be sentenced to three years of hard labor on public works and must compensate the victim for any damages.
* The crime of horse theft is clearly different from other types of theft because these animals usually roam freely, making the temptation to steal them very strong and the ease of doing so quite notable. See 1 E. 6. c. 12; 23 E. 6. c. 33; 31 El. c. 12.
Grand Larceny* shall be where the goods stolen are of the value of five dollars; and whosoever shall be guilty thereof, shall be forthwith put in the pillory for one half hour, shall be condemned to hard labor** two years in the public works, and shall make reparation to the person injured.
Grand Larceny* will occur when the stolen goods are worth five dollars or more; anyone found guilty of this will immediately be put in the pillory for half an hour, sentenced to hard labor** for two years in public works, and required to compensate the victim.
* The difference between grand and petty theft is really old. Initially, 8 pennies were what made theft grand. LI. Ælhelst. c. 1. ‘No mercy shall be shown to any thief who is caught, above 12 years old, and with goods worth more than 8 pennies.’ Later, in the same king's reign, it was raised to 12 pennies. ‘No mercy shall be shown to any thief over 12 pennies, and older than 12 years—so that we may kill him and take everything he owns, and especially take the value of the stolen goods from his heir, and then divide what remains into two parts, one part for the wife, if she is innocent and unaware of the crime; the other half is split, half for the king and half for the community.’ LI. Æthelst. Wilkins, p. 65. VOL. I. 17 ** LI. Inse, c. 7. ‘If someone steals in such a way that his wife and child do not know, he shall pay a penalty of 60 shillings. However, if he steals with witnesses from all of his heirs, they shall all become enslaved.’ Ina was King of the West Saxons and began his reign in A.D. 688. After the unification of the Heptarchy, i.e., during the reign of Æthelst. between 924 and 940, we see it punishable by death as stated above. It was also the case between 1017 and 1035, i.e., during the time of Cnut. LI. Cnuti 61. mentioned in notes on Arson. During William the Conqueror's time, it seems to have been punishable only by a fine. LI. Gul. Cohq. apud Wilk. p. 218. 220. However, this alternative punishment was removed by LI. H. 1. in the year 1108. ‘If anyone is caught in theft or robbery, he shall be hanged: removing the wergild, that is, the monetary redemptions by law.’ Larceny is defined as the illegal taking and carrying away of someone else's personal property. 1. Regarding the taking, the 3 & 4 VV. M. c. 9. § 5 is not an addition to Common law but simply a clarification of it; because if the care or use, and not the possession, of items is given, taking them is larceny under Common law. The 33 H. 6. c. 1 and 21 11. 8. c. 7., indeed, expanded the Common law by making it larceny for a servant to convert his master's belongings. But one might question whether this should be more emphasized than other breaches of trust in general. 2. Regarding the subject of larceny, 4 G. 2. c.32; 6 G. 3. c. 36 48; 43 El. c. 7; 15 Car. 2. c. 2; 23 G. 2. c. 26; 31 G. 2. c. 35; 9 G. 3. c. 41; 25 G. 2. c. 10. have broadened larceny to include various types of items, either real or attached to real estate. However, the list is unorganized, and in this country, where natural products are so abundant that they hardly seem like a breach of civility or good manners to the people, one might wonder if it would not overly expand the scope of criminal law? The same can be questioned for 9 G. J. c. 22; 13 Car. 2. c. 10; 10 G. 2. c. 32; 5 G. 3. c. 14; 22 h 23 Car. 2. c. 25; 37 E. 3. c. 19. making it a felony to steal wild animals.
Petty Larceny shall be, where the goods stolen are of less value than five dollars; and whosoever shall be guilty thereof, shall be forthwith put in the pillory for a quarter of an hour, shall be condemned to hard labor one year in the public works, and shall make reparation to the person injured.
Petty theft is defined as when the stolen goods are worth less than five dollars; anyone found guilty of this will be immediately put in the stocks for fifteen minutes, sentenced to a year of hard labor on public projects, and required to compensate the victim.
Robbery or theft of bonds, promissory notes, bills of exchange, or any documents for payment of money or tobacco, lottery tickets, paper money, or loan certificates based on this Commonwealth’s or any of the United States’ credit, as well as inspectors’ notes for tobacco, will be punished just like robbery or theft of the actual money or tobacco represented by those documents. 2 G. 2. c. 25 §3; 7 G 3. c. 50.
Buyers* and receivers of goods taken by way of robbery or larceny, knowing them to have been so taken, shall be deemed accessaries to such robbery or larceny after the fact.
Buyers and receivers of goods obtained through robbery or theft, who are aware that these goods were acquired in such a manner, will be considered accessories to that robbery or theft after the fact.
* 3 &. 4 W. & M. c. 9. § 4; 5 Ann. c. 31. § 5; 4 G. 1. c. 11. § 1.
Prison breakers,* also, shall be deemed accessaries after the fact, to traitors or felons whom they enlarge from prison.**
Prison breakers will also be considered accessories after the fact to traitors or criminals whom they release from prison.
* 1 E. 2. ** Breaking out of prison at common law was a capital offense, regardless of the crime for which the person was imprisoned. 'Because for the quality of the crime for which they were imprisoned, if they conspired (to escape by breaking their chains or breaking out of prison), they should be punished more than according to the cause for which they were detained, namely with the ultimate punishment, even if the crime that got them imprisoned proves them innocent.' Bracton L. 3, c. 9. § 4. Britt. c. 11. Fleta, L. 1. c. 26. § 4. However, in the Y. B. Hill. 1 H. 7. 2, Hussey states that, according to Billing and Choke and all the Justices, it was considered a felony only for outsiders, not for the prisoner themselves. S. C. Fitz. Abr. Co-ron. 48. They are the main felons, not accessories, ib. Whether it was considered a felony for the prisoner under common law is debated. Stam. P. C. 30. b. The Mirror c. 5. § 1. states, 'It is forbidden to escape from prison, or to break out of jail for a mortal sin, for this usage is not guaranteed by any law, nor is it practiced anywhere except in this realm, and in France, where [however] it is guaranteed to do so by the law of nature.' 2 Inst. 589. The statute 1 E. 2, 'on those who break out of prison,' 'restricted the judgment of life and limb for prison breaking to cases where the offense of the prisoner required such judgment.' It is not only futile but morally wrong for a lawmaker to create laws that go against the laws of nature and back them up with the threat of death. This is essentially manufacturing crimes to punish them. The law of nature drives everyone to escape confinement; therefore, it should not be punishable. The lawmaker should confine the criminal with walls, not with paper. Regarding outsiders breaking into prison to free an offender, they should, and can fairly be considered accessories after the fact. Since this bill does not mention the prisoner freeing themselves by breaking out, they will benefit from the first section of the bill, which abolishes the judgment of life and death at common law.
All attempts to delude the people, or to abuse their understanding by exercise of the pretended arts of witchcraft, conjuration, enchantment, or sorcery, or by pretended prophecies, shall be punished by ducking and whipping, at the discretion of a jury, not, exceeding fifteen stripes.*
All efforts to trick the people or to misuse their understanding through supposed witchcraft, magic, enchantment, or sorcery, or through false prophecies, will be punished by dunking and whipping, as decided by a jury, not exceeding fifteen stripes.*
* ‘If witches, or weirds, man-swearers, or murder-doers, or foul, defiled, open whore-queens—wherever they might be found in the land—then force them off the earth and cleanse the nation, or banish them from the land, unless they repent and truly improve.’ LI. Ed. et Guthr. c. 11. ‘Women practicing barbaric sacrifices, or those responsible for death, and cannot deny it, shall face the death penalty.’ LI. Aethelst. c. 6. apud Lambard. LI. Aelfr. 30. LI. Cnuti. c. 4. ‘Even the same judgment applies to witches, and sorceresses,’ etc. as stated above. Fleta tit et ubi supra. 3 Inst. 44. Trial of witches before Hale, in 1664. The statutes 33 H. 8. c. 8, 5. El. c. 16, and 1. Jac. 1. c. 12 seem to only confirm Common law. 9 G. 2. c. 25 punishes them with the pillory and a year’s imprisonment. 3 E. 6 c 15. 5 El. c. 15 punishes vain, fantastical, and false prophecies with fines and imprisonment.
If the principal offenders be fled,* or secreted from justice, in any case not touching life or member, the accessaries may, notwithstanding, be prosecuted as if their principal were convicted.**
If the main offenders have fled or are hiding from justice, in any situation that doesn’t involve life or limb, the accomplices can still be prosecuted as if their principal had been convicted.
* 1 Ann. c. 9. § 2. **Just as every act of treason includes a misprision of treason, every felony encompasses a misprision or misdemeanor. 1 Hale P. C. 652. 75S. ‘Although it was a felony, it also contains a misprision.’ 2 R. 3.10. Therefore, both the principal and the accomplice can be prosecuted in any case for either felony or misprision under common law. Since capital cases aren’t covered here, accomplices to those will naturally be tried for misprisons if the main offender flees.
If any offender stand mute of obstinacy,* or challenge preremp-torily more of the jurors than by law he may, being first warned of the consequence thereof, the court shall proceed as if he had confessed the charge,**
If any offender remains silent out of stubbornness,* or challenges more jurors than allowed by law, after being warned of the consequences, the court will proceed as if he had admitted to the charge.**
* 3E. I.e. 12. ** Whether the judgment of penance was part of common law. See 2 Inst. 178.2. H. P. C. 321. 4 Bl. 322. It was given when standing mute: but if more than the legal number is challenged, whether that leads to the judgment or a death sentence is uncertain. 2 H. P. C. 316. Question: wouldn’t it be better to consider the extra challenge as simply invalid and to continue with the trial? Also question, in the case of silence.
Pardon and privilege of clergy shall henceforth be abolished, that none may be induced to injure through hope of impunity. But if the verdict be against the defendant, and the court, before whom the offence is heard and determined, shall doubt that it may be untrue for defect of testimony, or other cause, they may direct a new trial to be had.*
Pardon and privilege for clergy will be abolished going forward, so that no one can be tempted to harm others believing they won't be punished. However, if the verdict is against the defendant, and the court, which hears and decides the case, has doubts about its truth due to lack of evidence or other reasons, they can order a new trial to take place.*
‘When a clergyman is convicted of a crime and is degraded, it does not follow that he faces additional punishment for one or more offenses committed before the degradation. Degradation itself is a sufficient punishment, as it is a significant loss of status, unless he has been convicted of apostasy, in which case he would first be degraded and then handed over to secular authority for burning, as happened at the council in Oxford convened by the late Archbishop of Canterbury concerning a deacon who converted to Judaism; after being degraded by the bishop, he was immediately delivered to the flames by secular hands.’ Bract. L. 3. c. 9. § 2. 'And the same judgment (i.e., whether they are witches and sorcerers, sodomites, and notorious criminals) applies.’ Britt. c. 9. ‘However, apostate Christians, those involved in sorcery, and similar individuals should be condemned and burned.’ Fleta, L. 1. c. 37. § 2. see 3 Inst. 39; 12 Rep. 92; 1 H. P. C. 393. The extent of clerical privilege under Common Law regarding crimes appears quite unclear. It did not apply in cases where the judgment was not a matter of life or limb. Note in 2. H. P. C. 326. This therefore excluded it in cases of trespass, petty larceny, or killing in self-defense. In cases of high treason against the King, it seems privilege was not allowed. Note 1 H. P. C. 185. Hence, treasons not directly against the King’s person, petty treasons, and felonies seem to have been instances where it could be invoked; and even then, not for ambush, destruction of fields, or burning of homes. The statute de Clero, 25 E. 3. st. 3. c. 4. clarified the law on this matter. Regarding individuals, it applied to all clerks at all times. 2 H. P. C. 374. It also included nuns. Fitz. Abr. Coron. 461. 22 E. 3. The clerical dress and tonsure were seen as proof of someone being a clerk. 26 Assiz. 19 & 20 E. 2. Fitz. Coron. 233. According to 9 E. 4. 28. b. 34 H. 6. 49. a. b., simply being able to read was considered evidence. This allowed many laypeople to have this immunity, and repeatedly. The statute 4 H. 7. c. 13. mandated that genuine clerks, upon a second arraignment, present their credentials, and that all others should be branded on the hand with M. or T. upon the first acceptance of clergy and would not be allowed to claim it a second time. A heretic, Jew, or Turk (as they could not receive orders) was ineligible for clergy. H Co. Rep. 29. b. However, a Greek, or other foreigner, reading from a book in his native language could. Bro. Clergie. 20. So could a blind man, provided he could speak Latin. Ib. 21. qu, 11. Rep. 29. b. The orders that gave a person this privilege were bishops, priests, deacons, and sub-deacons, with the latter being considered clerks in minor orders. 2 H. P. C. 373. However, it remains to be questioned whether this distinction is based on the statute 23. H. 8. c. 1; 25. H. 8. c. 32. By disregarding all the statutes, it seems that only clerks would be entitled to this privilege, and they would be entitled repeatedly.
No attainder shall work corruption of blood in any case.
No attainder will cause any corruption of blood in any case.
In all cases of forfeiture, the widow’s dower shall be saved to her, during her title thereto; after which it shall be disposed of as if no such saving had been.
In every case of forfeiture, the widow's dower will be protected for her while she holds the title to it; after that, it will be handled as if no protection had been given.
The aid of Counsel,* and examination of their witnesses on oath, shall be allowed to defendants in criminal prosecutions.
The assistance of a lawyer and the questioning of their witnesses under oath will be permitted for defendants in criminal cases.
* 1 Ann. ch. 9.
Slaves guilty of any offence* punishable in others by labor in the public works, shall be transported to such parts in the West Indies, South America, or Africa, as the Governor shall direct, there to be continued in slavery.
Slaves found guilty of any offense* that would be punished by labor on public works in other cases will be sent to locations in the West Indies, South America, or Africa, as directed by the Governor, where they will remain in slavery.
* Manslaughter, counterfeiting, arson, theft of vessels, robbery, burglary, breaking and entering, horse theft, larceny.
[NOTE F.]—Coinage for the United States
On the Establishment of a Money Unit, and of a Coinage for the United States.
On the Creation of a Currency and Coinage for the United States.
In fixing the Unit of Money, these circumstances are of principal importance.
In determining the Unit of Money, these factors are of primary importance.
I. That it be of convenient size to be applied as a measure to the common money transactions of life.
I. That it be of convenient size to be used as a standard for everyday money transactions.
II. That its parts and multiplies be in an easy proportion to each other, so as to facilitate the money arithmetic;
II. That its components and multiples are in an easy proportion to each other, making it easier to do the money calculations;
III. That the Unit and its parts, or divisions, be so nearly of the value of some of the known coins, as that they may be of easy adoption for the people.
III. That the Unit and its parts, or divisions, be close in value to some of the known coins, so that they can be easily accepted by the people.
The Spanish Dollar seems to fulfil all these conditions.
The Spanish Dollar seems to meet all these conditions.
I. Taking into our view all money transactions, great and small, I question if a common measure of more convenient size than the Dollar could be proposed. The value of 100, 1000, 10,000 dollars is well estimated by the mind; so is that of the tenth or the hundredth of a dollar. Few transactions are above or below these limits. The expediency of attending to the size of the Money Unit will be evident to any one who will consider how inconvenient it would be to a manufacturer or merchant, if instead of the yard for measuring cloth, either the inch or the mile had been made the Unit of Measure.
I. Looking at all money transactions, big and small, I wonder if there could be a more convenient size than the Dollar proposed. The values of 100, 1000, and 10,000 dollars are easily understood, as are the tenths and hundredths of a dollar. Few transactions fall outside these ranges. It will be clear to anyone that it would be awkward for a manufacturer or merchant if the unit of measurement for cloth were the inch or the mile instead of the yard.
II. The most easy ratio of multiplication and division is that by ten. Every one knows the facility of Decimal Arithmetic. Every one remembers, that, when learning Money-Arithmetic, he used to be puzzled with adding the farthings, taking out the fours and carrying them on; adding the pence, taking out the twelves and carrying them on; adding the shillings, taking out the twenties and carrying them on; but when he came to the pounds, where he had only tens to carry forward, it was easy and free from error. The bulk of mankind are school-boys through life. These little perplexities are always great to them. And even mathematical heads feel the relief of an easier, substituted for a more difficult process. Foreigners, too, who trade or travel among us, will find a great facility in understanding our coins and accounts from this ratio of subdivision. Those who have had occasion to convert the Livres, sols, and deniers of the French; the Gilders, stivers, and frenings of the Dutch; the Pounds, shillings, pence, and farthings of these several States, into each other, can judge how much they would have been aided, had their several subdivisions been in a decimal ratio. Certainly, in all cases, where we are free to choose between easy and difficult modes of operation, it is most rational to choose the easy. The Financier, therefore, in his report, well proposes that our Coins should be in decimal proportions to one another. If we adopt the Dollar for our Unit, we should strike four coins, one of gold, two of silver, and one of copper, viz.
II. The easiest way to multiply and divide is by ten. Everyone knows how simple Decimal Arithmetic is. Everyone remembers that when learning to deal with money, they used to get confused with adding the farthings, keeping track of the fours and carrying them over; adding the pence, keeping track of the twelves and carrying them over; adding the shillings, keeping track of the twenties and carrying them over; but when they got to the pounds, where they only had tens to carry forward, it became easy and error-free. Most people remain like schoolboys throughout life. These small confusions always seem significant to them. Even those good at math appreciate the relief of an easier process instead of a more complex one. Foreigners who trade or travel with us will also find it much easier to understand our coins and accounts due to this method of subdivision. Those who have had to convert the Livres, sols, and deniers of France; the Gilders, stivers, and frenings of the Netherlands; or the Pounds, shillings, pence, and farthings of these various states into one another know how much they would have benefited from having their subdivisions in a decimal system. Certainly, whenever we have the option between easy and difficult ways of doing things, it makes sense to choose the easier one. Therefore, the Financier rightly suggests in his report that our Coins should be in decimal proportions to each other. If we adopt the Dollar as our Unit, we should create four coins: one in gold, two in silver, and one in copper, namely:
1. A golden piece, equal in value to ten dollars:
1. A gold piece worth ten dollars:
2. The Unit or Dollar itself, of silver:
2. The Unit or Dollar itself, made of silver:
3. The tenth of a Dollar, of silver also:
3. A dime, made of silver too:
4. The hundreth of a Dollar, of copper.
4. The hundredth of a dollar, made of copper.
Compare the arithmetical operations, on the same sum of money expressed in this form, and expressed in the pound sterling and its divisions.
Compare the arithmetic operations on the same amount of money presented in this way, and presented in pounds sterling and its divisions.

A bare inspection of the above operations, will evince the labor which is occasioned by subdividing the Unit into 20ths, 240ths, and 960ths, as the English do, and as we have done; and the ease of subdivision in a decimal ratio. The same difference arises in making payment. An Englishman, to pay £8 13s. 11d. 1/2qrs. must find, by calculation, what combination of the coins of his country will pay this sum; but an American, having the same sum to pay, thus expressed $38.65, will know, by inspection only, that three golden pieces, eight units or dollars, six tenths, and five coppers, pay it precisely.
A quick look at the operations above shows the effort involved in breaking the Unit down into 20ths, 240ths, and 960ths, just like the English do and we have done; and how easy it is to divide in a decimal system. The same issue comes up when making payments. An Englishman who needs to pay £8 13s. 11d. 1/2qrs. has to figure out which coins will make that amount; meanwhile, an American with the same amount expressed as $38.65 can tell at a glance that three gold coins, eight dollars, six dimes, and five cents will get the job done exactly.
III. The third condition required is, that the Unit, its multiples, and subdivisions, coincide in value with some of the known coins so nearly, that the people may, by a quick reference in the mind, estimate their value. If this be not attended to, they will be very long in adopting the innovation, if ever they adopt it. Let us examine, in this point of view, each of the four coins proposed.
III. The third requirement is that the Unit, along with its multiples and subdivisions, should closely match the value of some of the known coins, so that people can quickly estimate their worth in their minds. If this isn't considered, it will take a long time for them to accept the change—if they ever do. Let's take a look at each of the four proposed coins from this perspective.
1. The golden piece will be 1/5 more than a half joe and 1/15 more than a double guinea. It will be readily estimated, then, by reference to either of them; but more readily and accurately as equal to ten dollars.
1. The gold coin will be 1/5 more than half a joe and 1/15 more than a double guinea. It can easily be assessed in relation to either of them; but it will be more easily and accurately considered equal to ten dollars.
2. The Unit, or Dollar, is a known coin, and the most familiar of all to the minds of the people. It is already adopted from South to North; has identified our currency, and therefore happily offers itself as a Unit already introduced. Our public debt, our requisitions, and their apportionments, have given it actual and long possession of the place of Unit. The course of our commerce, too, will bring us more of this than of any other foreign coin, and therefore renders it more worthy of attention. I know of no Unit which can be proposed in competition with the Dollar, but the Pound. But what is the Pound? 1547 grains of fine silver in Georgia; 1289 grains in Virginia, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire; 1031 grains in Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey; 966 grains in North Carolina and New York. Which of these shall we adopt? To which State give that pre-eminence of which all are so jealous? And on which impose the difficulties of a new estimate of their corn, their cattle, and other commodities? Or shall we hang the pound sterling, as a common badge, about all their necks? This contains 1718 grains of pure silver. It is difficult to familiarize a new coin to the people; it is more difficult to familiarize them to a new coin with an old name. Happily, the Dollar is familiar to them all, and is already as much referred to for a measure of value, as their respective provincial pounds.
2. The Unit, or Dollar, is a widely recognized coin and the most familiar to the people. It’s already been accepted from South to North; it has defined our currency, and therefore happily serves as a Unit that is already in use. Our public debt, our requests, and their distributions have established its long-standing role as the Unit. The flow of our commerce will bring us more of this than any other foreign coin, making it more deserving of our attention. I can't think of any Unit that could compete with the Dollar except the Pound. But what’s the Pound? 1547 grains of fine silver in Georgia; 1289 grains in Virginia, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire; 1031 grains in Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey; 966 grains in North Carolina and New York. Which one should we choose? Which State should have the honor that all are so protective of? And which one should we burden with the challenges of re-evaluating their grain, livestock, and other goods? Or should we label them with the pound sterling as a common symbol? This contains 1718 grains of pure silver. It’s hard to get people used to a new coin; it’s even harder to get them used to a new coin with an old name. Luckily, the Dollar is familiar to everyone and is already referred to as a measure of value, just like their respective regional pounds.
3. The tenth will be precisely the Spanish bit, or half pistereen. This is a coin perfectly familiar to us all. When we shall make a new coin, then, equal in value to this, it will be of ready estimate with the people.
3. The tenth will be exactly the Spanish bit, or half pistereen. This is a coin that we're all very familiar with. When we create a new coin that matches its value, it will be easily recognized by everyone.
4. The hundredth, or copper, will differ little from the copper of the four Eastern States, which is 1/108 of a dollar; still less from the penny of New York and North Carolina, which is 1/96 of a dollar; and somewhat more from the penny or copper of Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland, which is 1/90 of a dollar. It will be about the medium between the old and the new coppers of these States, and will therefore soon be substituted for them both. In Virginia, coppers have never been in use. It will be as easy, therefore, to introduce them there of one value as of another. The copper coin proposed, will be nearly equal to three fourths of their penny, which is the same with the penny lawful of the Eastern States.
4. The hundredth, or copper, will be very similar to the copper from the four Eastern States, which is 1/108 of a dollar; even less so than the penny from New York and North Carolina, which is 1/96 of a dollar; and slightly more than the penny or copper from Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland, which is 1/90 of a dollar. It will be about the average between the old and the new coppers of these States, and will soon replace both. In Virginia, coppers have never been used. Therefore, it will be just as easy to introduce them there at one value as at another. The proposed copper coin will be almost equal to three-fourths of their penny, which is the same as the lawful penny of the Eastern States.
A great deal of small change is useful in a State, and tends to reduce the price of small articles. Perhaps it would not be amiss to coin three, more pieces of silver, one of the value of five tenths, or half a dollar, one of the value of two tenths, which would be equal to the Spanish pistereen, and one of the value of five coppers, which would be equal to the Spanish half-bit. We should then have five silver coins, viz.
A lot of small change is helpful in a state, and it helps lower the prices of small items. It might be a good idea to create three more silver coins: one worth fifty cents, one worth twenty cents, which would be equivalent to the Spanish pistereen, and one worth five cents, equal to the Spanish half-bit. This way, we would have five silver coins, namely:
1. The Unit or Dollar:
The Unit or Dollar:
2. The half dollar or five tenths:
2. The half dollar or 0.50:
3. The double tenth, equal to 2/10, or one fifth of a dollar, or to the pistereen:
3. The double tenth, which is 2/10, or one-fifth of a dollar, or to the pistereen:
4. The tenth, equal to a Spanish bit:
4. The tenth, equivalent to a Spanish bit:
5. The five copper piece, equal to 5/100 or one twentieth of a dollar, or the half-bit.
5. The five copper coins, worth 5/100 or one-twentieth of a dollar, or the half-bit.
The plan reported by the Financier is worthy of his sound judgment. It admits, however, of objection, in the size of the Unit. He proposes that this shall be the 1440th part of a dollar; so that it will require 1440 of his units to make the one before proposed. He was led to adopt this by a mathematical attention to our old currencies, all of which this Unit will measure without leaving a fraction. But as our object is to get rid of those currencies, the advantage derived from this coincidence will soon be past, whereas the inconveniences of this Unit will for ever remain, if they do not altogether prevent its introduction. It is defective in two of the three requisites of a Money Unit. 1. It is inconvenient in its application to the ordinary money transactions. 10,000 dollars will require eight figures to express them, to wit, 14,400,000 units. A horse or bullock of eighty dollars’ value, will require a notation of six figures, to wit, 115,200 units. As a money of account, this will be laborious, even when facilitated by the aid of decimal arithmetic: as a common measure of the value of property, it will be too minute to be comprehended by the people. The French are subjected to very laborious calculations, the Livre being their ordinary money of account, and this but between 1/5 and 1/6 of a dollar; but what will be our labors, should our money of account be 1/1440 of a dollar only? 2. It is neither equal, nor near to any of the known coins in value.
The plan put forward by the Financier is based on sound judgment. However, there are objections regarding the size of the Unit. He suggests that it should be the 1440th part of a dollar, meaning it will take 1440 of his units to equal one proposed dollar. He arrived at this choice by looking at our old currencies, which this Unit will perfectly measure without leaving any fractions. But since our goal is to move away from those currencies, the benefit from this connection will soon disappear, while the drawbacks of this Unit will persist, potentially preventing its adoption altogether. It fails to meet two of the three essential requirements for a Money Unit. 1. It’s impractical for everyday financial transactions. For example, 10,000 dollars would need eight digits to represent it: 14,400,000 units. An eighty-dollar horse or cow would need six digits: 115,200 units. As a currency for accounting, this will be cumbersome, even with the help of decimal arithmetic; as a standard measure of property value, it will be too small for people to grasp. The French deal with very complicated calculations, as the Livre is their usual currency, which is only about 1/5 to 1/6 of a dollar. But how much more complicated will our situation be if our unit is only 1/1440 of a dollar? 2. It is neither equivalent to nor close in value to any known coins.
If we determine that a Dollar shall be our Unit, we must then say with precision what a Dollar is. This coin, struck at different times, of different weights and fineness, is of different values. Sir Isaac Newton’s assay and representation to the Lords of the Treasury, in 1717, of those which he examined, make their values as follows:
If we decide that a Dollar will be our Unit, we must clearly define what a Dollar is. This coin, minted at various times, with different weights and purity, holds different values. Sir Isaac Newton’s analysis and report to the Lords of the Treasury in 1717 on those he examined list their values as follows:

The Seville coin . . . . 387 grains of pure silver The Mexico coin . . . . 385 1/2 ” The Pillar coin . . . . 385 3/4 ” The new Seville coin . . 308 7/10 ”
The Financier states the old Dollar as containing 376 grains of fine silver, and the new 365 grains. If the Dollars circulating among us be of every date equally, we should examine the quantity of pure metal in each, and from them form an average for our Unit. This is a work proper to be committed to mathematicians as well as merchants, and which should be decided on actual and accurate experiment.
The Financier states that the old Dollar contains 376 grains of fine silver, while the new one has 365 grains. If the Dollars in circulation among us are from every date equally, we should look at the amount of pure metal in each and use that to find an average for our Unit. This task is best left to mathematicians and merchants, and it should be determined through thorough and precise testing.
The quantum of alloy is also to be decided. Some is necessary, to prevent the coin from wearing too fast; too much, fills our pockets with copper, instead of silver. The silver coin assayed by Sir Isaac Newton, varied from 1 1/2 to 76 pennyweights alloy, in the pound troy of mixed metal. The British standard has 18 dwt.; the Spanish coins assayed by Sir Isaac Newton, have from 18 to 19 1/2 dwt.; the new French crown has in fact 19 1/2, though by edict it should have 20 dwt., that is 1/12.
The amount of alloy needs to be determined as well. Some is necessary to stop the coins from wearing out too quickly; too much, though, fills our pockets with copper instead of silver. The silver coin analyzed by Sir Isaac Newton had an alloy content that varied from 1.5 to 76 pennyweights in a pound troy of mixed metal. The British standard has 18 dwt.; the Spanish coins analyzed by Sir Isaac Newton ranged from 18 to 19.5 dwt.; the new French crown actually has 19.5, even though by regulation it should contain 20 dwt., which is 1/12.
The taste of our countrymen will require, that their furniture plate should be as good as the British standard. Taste cannot be controlled by law. Let it then give the law, in a point which is indifferent to a certain degree. Let the Legislatures fix the alloy of furniture plate at 18 dwt., the British standard, and Congress that of their coin at one ounce in the pound, the French standard. This proportion has been found convenient for the alloy of gold coin, and it will simplify the system of our mint to alloy both metals in the same degree. The coin too, being the least pure, will be the less easily melted into plate. These reasons are light, indeed, and, of course, will only weigh, if no heavier ones can be opposed to them.
The taste of our fellow countrymen demands that their furniture plate matches the British standard. Taste can't be dictated by law. So, let it set the standard in a matter that is somewhat flexible. Let's have the Legislatures establish the alloy of furniture plate at 18 dwt., the British standard, and Congress set their coin at one ounce in the pound, the French standard. This ratio has proven convenient for the gold coin alloy, and it will simplify our mint's system to use the same degree for both metals. Since the coin is the least pure, it will be less likely to be melted down into plate. These arguments may seem light, and they will only carry weight if no stronger ones can be presented against them.
The proportion between the values of gold and silver is a mercantile problem altogether. It would be inaccurate to fix it by the popular exchanges of a half Joe for eight dollars, a Louis for four French crowns, or five Louis for twenty-three dollars. The first of these, would be to adopt the Spanish proportion between gold and silver; the second, the French; the third, a mere popular barter, wherein convenience is consulted more than accuracy. The legal proportion in Spain is 16 for 1; in England, 15 1/2 for 1; in France, 15 for 1. The Spaniards and English are found, in experience, to retain an over proportion of gold coins, and to lose their silver. The French have a greater proportion of silver. The difference at market has been on the decrease. The Financier states it at present, as at 141/2 for one. Just principles will lead us to disregard legal proportions altogether; to inquire into the market price of gold, in the several countries with which we shall principally be connected in commerce, and to take an average from them. Perhaps we might, with safety, lean to a proportion somewhat above par for gold, considering our neighborhood and commerce with the sources of the coins, and the tendency which the high price of gold in Spain has, to draw thither all that of their mines, leaving silver principally for our and other markets. It is not impossible that 15 for 1, may be found an eligible proportion. I state it, however, as a conjecture only.
The relationship between the values of gold and silver is mainly a business issue. It wouldn't be accurate to set it based on common exchanges like trading half a Joe for eight dollars, a Louis for four French crowns, or five Louis for twenty-three dollars. The first scenario reflects the Spanish ratio between gold and silver, the second refers to the French ratio, and the last is a simple barter where convenience matters more than precision. The legal ratio in Spain is 16 to 1; in England, it's 15 1/2 to 1; in France, it's 15 to 1. Experience shows that Spaniards and the English tend to keep more gold coins and lose their silver, while the French hold a larger amount of silver. The market difference has been narrowing, with current estimates around 14 1/2 to 1. Rational principles suggest we should ignore legal ratios altogether, look into the market price of gold in the countries we mainly trade with, and find an average based on that. It might be reasonable to consider a ratio slightly above par for gold, given our proximity to the sources of these coins and the tendency for high gold prices in Spain to attract all their mine output, leaving silver mainly for our market and others. It's possible that a ratio of 15 to 1 could be a suitable choice, but I'm presenting it as merely a guess.
As to the alloy for gold coin, the British is an ounce in the pound; the French, Spanish, and Portuguese differ from that, only from a quarter of a grain, to a grain and a half. I should, therefore, prefer the British, merely because its fraction stands in a more simple form, and facilitates the calculations into which it enters.
As for the alloy used in gold coins, the British standard is one ounce per pound; the French, Spanish, and Portuguese standards vary by just a quarter of a grain to a grain and a half. I would prefer the British standard simply because its fraction is simpler and makes calculations easier.
Should the Unit be fixed at 365 grains of pure silver, gold at 15 for 1, and the alloy of both be one twelfth, the weights of the coins will be as follows:
Should the unit be fixed at 365 grains of pure silver, gold at 15 to 1, and the alloy of both be one twelfth, the weights of the coins will be as follows:

The quantity of fine silver which shall constitute the Unit, being-settled, and the proportion of the value of gold, to that of silver; a table should be formed from the assay before suggested, classing the several foreign coins according to their fineness, declaring the worth of a pennyweight or grain in each class, and that they shall be lawful tenders at those rates, if not clipped or otherwise diminished; and where diminished, offering their value for them at the mint, deducting the expense of re-coinage. Here the Legislatures should co-operate with Congress, in providing that no money be received or paid at their treasuries, or by any of their officers, or any bank, but on actual weight; in making it criminal, in a high degree, to diminish their own coins, and, in some smaller degree, to offer them in payment when diminished.
The amount of fine silver that will make up the Unit is settled, along with the ratio of gold's value to silver's. A table should be created from the previously suggested assay, classifying various foreign coins by their fineness and stating the value of a pennyweight or grain in each category. These coins should be accepted as legal tender at those rates, provided they are not clipped or otherwise reduced in value; if they are diminished, their worth should be offered at the mint, subtracting the cost of re-coining. Here, the Legislatures should work with Congress to ensure that no money is received or paid at their treasuries, or by any of their officials or any bank, except based on actual weight; and they should make it a serious crime to diminish their own coins, and somewhat less serious to use them for payment when they are reduced in value.
That this subject may be properly prepared and in readiness for Congress to take up at their meeting in November, something must now be done. The present session drawing to a close, they probably would not choose to enter far into this undertaking themselves. The Committee of the States, however, during the recess, will have time to digest it thoroughly, if Congress will fix some general principles for their government. Suppose they be instructed,—
That this topic can be properly prepared and ready for Congress to discuss at their meeting in November, something needs to be done now. With the current session coming to an end, they likely wouldn't want to get too involved in this task themselves. However, the Committee of the States will have time to thoroughly consider it during the break, if Congress establishes some general principles for their guidance. Let's say they are instructed,—
To appoint proper persons to assay and examine, with the utmost accuracy practicable, the Spanish milled dollars of different dates in circulation with us.
To assign suitable people to test and inspect, with the highest accuracy possible, the Spanish milled dollars of various dates that are in circulation with us.
To assay and examine, in like manner, the fineness of all the other coins which may be found in circulation within these states.
To test and check the purity of all the other coins that might be in circulation within these states.
To report to the Committee the result of these assays, by them to be laid before Congress.
To inform the Committee about the results of these tests, which will then be presented to Congress.
To appoint, also, proper persons to inquire what are the proportions between the values of fine gold and fine silver, at the markets of the several countries with which we are, or probably may be, connected in commerce; and what would be a proper proportion here, having regard to the average of their values at those markets, and to other circumstances, and to report the same to the Committee, by them to be laid before Congress.
To also assign suitable individuals to investigate the ratios between the values of pure gold and pure silver in the markets of the various countries we currently trade with or may potentially trade with; and to determine what would be an appropriate ratio here, considering the average values in those markets, along with other factors, and to report this to the Committee, who will then present it to Congress.
To prepare an Ordinance for establishing the Unit of Money within these States; for subdividing it; and for striking coins of gold, silver, and copper, on the following principles.
To create a law for setting up the Unit of Money in these States; for breaking it down into smaller units; and for minting coins made of gold, silver, and copper, based on the following principles.
That the Money Unit of these States shall be equal in value to a Spanish milled dollar containing so much fine silver as the assay, before directed, shall show to be contained, on an average, in dollars of the several dates in circulation with us.
That the currency of these States shall be equal in value to a Spanish milled dollar containing the amount of fine silver that the assay, as previously directed, will show is contained, on average, in dollars of the various dates currently in circulation with us.
That this Unit shall be divided into tenths and hundredths; that there shall be a coin of silver of the value of a Unit; one other of the same metal, of the value of one tenth of a Unit; one other of copper, of the value of the hundredth of a Unit.
That this Unit will be divided into tenths and hundredths; that there will be a silver coin valued at one Unit; another silver coin valued at one tenth of a Unit; and one copper coin valued at one hundredth of a Unit.
That there shall be a coin of gold of the value of ten units, according to the report before directed, and the judgment of the Committee thereon.
That there will be a gold coin worth ten units, according to the report mentioned earlier and the Committee's decision on it.
That the alloy of the said coins of gold and silver shall be equal in weight to one eleventh part of the fine metal.
That the mix of the mentioned coins made of gold and silver must weigh the same as one eleventh of the pure metal.
That there be proper devices for these coins.
That there be appropriate designs for these coins.
That measures be proposed for preventing their diminution, and also their currency, and that of any others, when diminished.
That measures be put forward to prevent their decrease, as well as their value and that of any others when diminished.
That the several foreign coins be described and classed in the said Ordinance, the fineness of each class stated, and its value by weight estimated in Units and decimal parts of Units.
That the various foreign coins be described and categorized in the mentioned Ordinance, the fineness of each category stated, and its value estimated by weight in Units and decimal parts of Units.
And that the said draught of an Ordinance be reported to Congress at their next meeting, for their consideration and determination.
And that the draft of an Ordinance be submitted to Congress at their next meeting for their review and decision.
Supplementary Explanations.
Additional Information.
The preceding notes having been submitted to the consideration of the Financier, he favored me with his opinion and observations on them, which render necessary the following supplementary explanations.
The previous notes were shared with the Financier, and he provided me with his thoughts and comments on them, which require the following additional explanations.
I observed in the preceding notes, that the true proportion of value between gold and silver was a mercantile problem altogether, and that, perhaps, fifteen for one, might be found an eligible proportion. The Financier is so good as to inform me, that this would be higher than the market would justify. Confident of his better information on this subject, I recede from that idea.*
I noted in the earlier observations that the actual value ratio between gold and silver is primarily a trade issue, and that maybe a ratio of fifteen to one could be a reasonable proportion. The Financier kindly informs me that this would be more than the market would support. Trusting his superior knowledge on this matter, I’m stepping back from that idea.*
* In a Newspaper, which frequently gives good details in political economy, I find, under the Hamburg head, that the present market price of Gold and Silver is, in England, 15.5 for 1: in Russia, 15: in Holland, 14.75: in Savoy, 14.96: in Fiance, 14.42: in Spain, 14.3: in Germany, 14.155: the average of which is 14.615 or 14 1/2. I would still incline to give a little more than the market price for gold, because of its superior convenience in transportation.
* In a newspaper that often provides good insights into political economy, I see under the Hamburg section that the current market prices for gold and silver are as follows: in England, 15.5 to 1; in Russia, 15; in Holland, 14.75; in Savoy, 14.96; in France, 14.42; in Spain, 14.3; and in Germany, 14.155. The average comes out to 14.615 or about 14.5. I would still be inclined to pay a bit more than the market price for gold due to its greater convenience in transportation.
He also informs me, that the several coins in circulation among us, have already been assayed with accuracy, and the result published in a work on that subject. The assay of Sir Isaac Newton had superseded, in my mind, the necessity of this operation as to the older coins, which were the subject of his examination. This later work, with equal reason, may be considered as saving the same trouble as to the latter coins.
He also tells me that the various coins in circulation have already been accurately tested, and the results published in a book on the topic. Sir Isaac Newton's analysis had removed, in my view, the need for this process regarding the older coins he examined. This more recent work can reasonably be seen as saving us the same effort for the newer coins.
So far, then, I accede to the opinions of the Financier. On the other hand, he seems to concur with me, in thinking his smallest fractional division too minute for a Unit, and, therefore, proposes to transfer that denomination to his largest silver coin, containing 1000 of the units first proposed, and worth about 4s. 2d. lawful, or 25/36 of a dollar. The only question then remaining between us is, whether the Dollar, or this coin, be best for the Unit. We both agree that the ease of adoption with the people, is the thing to be aimed at.
So far, I agree with the Financier's opinions. On the other hand, he seems to agree with me in thinking that his smallest fractional division is too small for a Unit, and therefore, he suggests moving that designation to his largest silver coin, which contains 1000 of the originally proposed units and is worth about 4s. 2d. in legal currency, or 25/36 of a dollar. The only question left between us is whether the Dollar or this coin is better for the Unit. We both agree that making it easy for the people to adopt is what we should aim for.
1. As to the Dollar, events have overtaken and superseded the question. It is no longer a doubt whether the people can adopt it with ease; they have adopted it, and will have to be turned out of that, into another track of calculation, if another Unit be assumed. They have now two Units, which they use with equal facility, viz. the Pound of their respective state, and the Dollar. The first of these is peculiar to each state; the second, happily, common to all. In each state, the people have an easy rule for converting the pound of their state into dollars, or dollars into pounds; and this is enough for them, without knowing how this may be done in every state of the Union. Such of them as live near enough the borders of their state to have dealings with their neighbors, learn also the rule of their neighbors: Thus, in Virginia and the Eastern States, where the dollar is 6s. or 3/10 of a pound, to turn pounds into dollars, they multiply by 10, and divide by 3. To turn dollars into pounds, they multiply by 3, and divide by 10. Those in Virginia who live near to Carolina, where the dollar is 8s. or 4/10 of a pound, learn the operation of that state, which is a multiplication by 4, and division by 10, et e converso. Those who live near Maryland, where the dollar is 7s. 6d. or 3/8 of a pound, multiply by 3, and divide by 8, et e converso. All these operations are easy, and have been found by experience, not too much for the arithmetic of the people, when they have occasion to convert their old Unit into dollars, or the reverse.
1. As for the Dollar, events have moved past the question. It's no longer a concern whether people can adopt it easily; they have adopted it and will need to be redirected if another unit is introduced. They currently use two units with equal ease: the Pound of their state and the Dollar. The first is unique to each state, while the second is fortunately common to all. In each state, there is a straightforward method for converting the local pound into dollars or dollars into pounds, which is sufficient for them without needing to know how it's done in every state in the Union. Those who live close to their state borders and deal with their neighbors also learn the conversion method for those areas. For example, in Virginia and the Eastern States, where the dollar is 6s. or 3/10 of a pound, to convert pounds to dollars, they multiply by 10 and divide by 3. To convert dollars to pounds, they multiply by 3 and divide by 10. Those in Virginia near North Carolina, where the dollar is 8s. or 4/10 of a pound, learn that conversion involves multiplying by 4 and dividing by 10, and vice versa. Those living near Maryland, where the dollar is 7s. 6d. or 3/8 of a pound, multiply by 3 and divide by 8, and vice versa. All these calculations are simple and have proven manageable for the public when they need to convert their old unit into dollars or the other way around.
2. As to the Unit of the Financier; in the States where the dollar is 3/10 of a pound, this Unit will be 5/24. Its conversion into the pound then, will be by a multiplication by 5, and a division by 24. In the States where the dollar is 3/8 of a pound, this Unit will be 25/96 of a pound, and the operation must be to multiply by 25, and divide by 96, et e converso. Where the dollar is 4/10 of a pound, this Unit will be 5/18. The simplicity of the fraction, and of course the facility of conversion and reconversion, is therefore against this Unit, and in favor of the dollar, in every instance. The only advantage it has over the dollar, is, that it will in every case express our farthing without a remainder; whereas, though the dollar and its decimals will do this in many cases, it will not in all. But, even in these, by extending your notation one figure farther, to wit, to thousands, you approximate a perfect accuracy within less than the two thousandth part of a dollar; an atom in money which every one would neglect. Against this single inconvenience, the other advantages of the dollar are more than sufficient to preponderate. This Unit will present to the people a new coin, and whether they endeavor to estimate its value by comparing it with a Pound, or with a Dollar, the Units they now possess, they will find the fraction very compound, and of course less accommodated to their comprehension and habits than the dollar. Indeed the probability is, that they could never be led to compute in it generally.
2. Regarding the Unit of the Financier; in the States where the dollar is 3/10 of a pound, this Unit will be 5/24. To convert it to pounds, you'll multiply by 5 and divide by 24. In the States where the dollar is 3/8 of a pound, this Unit will be 25/96 of a pound, and the calculation requires multiplying by 25 and dividing by 96, et e converso. Where the dollar is 4/10 of a pound, this Unit will be 5/18. The simplicity of the fraction and the ease of conversion back and forth are disadvantages for this Unit compared to the dollar in every situation. The only edge it has over the dollar is that it can express our farthing without leaving a remainder; whereas, while the dollar and its decimals can do this in many cases, it doesn’t work for all. However, even in those situations, by extending your notation an extra digit to the thousands, you can achieve nearly perfect accuracy to within less than two-thousandths of a dollar; a tiny amount in currency that most would ignore. Against this minor inconvenience, the other benefits of the dollar more than outweigh it. This Unit will introduce a new coin to the people, and whether they try to value it by comparing it to a pound or a dollar, the Units they already have, they will find the fraction very complicated, making it less understandable and practical for them than the dollar. In fact, it's probable that they would never generally adopt it for calculations.
The Financier supposes that the 1/100 of a dollar is not sufficiently small, where the poor are purchasers or vendors. If it is not, make a smaller coin. But I suspect that it is small enough. Let us examine facts, in countries where we are acquainted with them. In Virginia, where our towns are few, small, and of course their demand for necessaries very limited, we have never yet been able to introduce a copper coin at all. The smallest coin which any body will receive there, is the half-bit, or 1/20 of a dollar. In those states where the towns are larger and more populous, a more habitual barter for small wants, has called for a copper coin of 1/90 or 1/96 or 1/108 of a dollar. In England, where the towns are many and pouplous, and where ages of experience have matured the conveniences of intercourse, they have found that some wants may be supplied for a farthing, or 1/208 of a dollar, and they have accommodated a coin to this want. This business is evidently progressive. In Virginia we are far behind. In some other states, they are farther advanced, to wit, to the appreciation of 1/90, 1/96 or 1/108 of a dollar. To this most advanced state, then, I accommodated my smartest coin in the decimal arrangement, as a money of payment, corresponding with the money of account. I have no doubt the time will come when a smaller coin will be called for. When that comes, let it be made. It will probably be the half of the copper I propose, that is to say 5/1000 or.005 of a dollar, this being very nearly the farthing of England. But it will be time enough to make it, when the people shall be ready to receive it.
The Financier believes that 1/100 of a dollar is not small enough for the poor who are either buying or selling. If it isn’t, we should create a smaller coin. However, I think it’s small enough already. Let’s look at the facts in the places we know about. In Virginia, where we have few and small towns, the demand for necessities is very limited. We have never been able to introduce a copper coin at all. The smallest coin that anyone will accept there is the half-bit, or 1/20 of a dollar. In states with larger and more populated towns, people often barter for small needs, creating a demand for a copper coin worth 1/90, 1/96, or 1/108 of a dollar. In England, where there are many large towns and where decades of experience have improved trade, they found that some needs can be met with a farthing, or 1/208 of a dollar, and created a coin for that. This situation is clearly evolving. In Virginia, we're lagging behind. In some other states, they’re further along, having recognized the value of 1/90, 1/96, or 1/108 of a dollar. To match this more advanced state, I’ve suggested my smallest coin in a decimal system as a method of payment, which aligns with the accounting system. I’m sure that one day we will need a smaller coin. When that time comes, let it be created. It will likely be half of the copper I propose, that is, 5/1000 or .005 of a dollar, which is very close to the farthing in England. But it’s only time to make it when the people are ready to accept it.
My proposition then, is, that our notation of money shall be decimal, descending ad libitum of the person noting; that the Unit of this notation shall be a Dollar; that coins shall be accommodated to it from ten dollars to the hundredth of a dollar; and that, to set this on foot, the resolutions be adopted which were proposed in the notes, only substituting an inquiry into the fineness of the coins in lieu of an assay of them.
My suggestion is that we use a decimal system for money, going down as much as the person writing wants; that the basic unit will be a Dollar; that coins will range from ten dollars to one-hundredth of a dollar; and that to get this started, we should adopt the resolutions proposed in the notes, only replacing the coin assay with a look into the quality of the coins.
[NOTE G.]
I have sometimes asked myself, whether my country is the better for my having lived at all. I do not know that it is. I have been the instrument of doing the following things; but they would have been done by others; some of them, perhaps, a little better.
I sometimes wonder if my country is any better because I’ve lived here at all. I really don’t know if it is. I’ve helped achieve a few things, but they would have been accomplished by others; some of them maybe even a bit better.
The Rivanna had never been used for navigation; scarcely an empty canoe had ever passed down it. Soon after I came of age I examined its obstructions, set on foot a subscription for removing them, got an act of Assembly passed, and the thing effected, so as to be used completely and fully for carrying down all our produce.
The Rivanna had never been used for navigation; hardly an empty canoe had ever gone down it. Soon after I turned 18, I looked into its obstacles, started a fund to remove them, got a law passed, and made it so that it could be fully used to transport all our products.
The Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration of Independence.
I proposed the demolition of the Church establishment, and the freedom of religion. It could only be done by degrees; to wit, the act of 1776, c. 2. exempted dissenters from contributions to the Church, and left the Church clergy to be supported by voluntary contributions of their own sect; was continued from year to year, and made perpetual 1779, c. 36. I prepared the act for religious freedom in 1777, as part of the revisal, which was not reported to the Assembly till 1779, and that particular law not passed till 1785, and then by the efforts of Mr. Madison.
I suggested tearing down the Church establishment and allowing freedom of religion. This could only happen gradually; specifically, the act of 1776, c. 2, exempted dissenters from paying fees to the Church and required clergy to be supported by voluntary contributions from their own congregations. This was continued annually and made permanent by 1779, c. 36. I drafted the act for religious freedom in 1777 as part of the review, but it wasn't presented to the Assembly until 1779, and that specific law didn't pass until 1785, thanks to the efforts of Mr. Madison.
The act putting an end to entails.
The law that ended consequences.
The act prohibiting the importation of slaves.
The law banning the import of slaves.
The act concerning citizens, and establishing the natural right of man to expatriate himself at will.
The law regarding citizens, which establishes the natural right of individuals to leave their country whenever they choose.
The act changing the course of descents, and giving the inheritance to all the children, &c. equally, I drew as part of the revisal.
The act that changes the inheritance rules by giving equal shares to all the children, etc., was included as part of the review.
The act for apportioning crimes and punishments, part of the same work, I drew. When proposed to the Legislature by Mr. Madison, in 1785, it failed by a single vote. G. K. Taylor afterwards, in 1796, proposed the same subject; avoiding the adoption of any part of the diction of mine, the text of which had been studiously drawn in the technical terms of the law, so as to give no occasion for new questions by new expressions. When I drew mine, public labor was thought the best punishment to be substituted for death. But, while I was in France, I heard of a society in England who had successfully introduced solitary confinement, and saw the drawing of a prison at Lyons, in France, formed on the idea of solitary confinement. And, being applied to by the Governor of Virginia for the plan of a Capitol and Prison, I sent him the Lyons plan, accompanying it with a drawing on a smaller scale, better adapted to our use. This was in June, 1786. Mr. Taylor very judiciously adopted this idea, (which had now been acted on in Philadelphia, probably from the English model,) and substituted labor in confinement, to the public labor proposed by the Committee of revisal; which themselves would have done, had they been to act on the subject again. The public mind was ripe for this in 1796, when Mr. Taylor proposed it, and ripened chiefly by the experiment in Philadelphia; whereas, in 1785, when it had been proposed to our Assembly, they were not quite ripe for it.
The law for determining crimes and punishments, which is part of the same work, was my creation. When Mr. Madison proposed it to the Legislature in 1785, it failed by just one vote. Later, in 1796, G. K. Taylor brought up the same topic; he avoided using any of my wording, which had been carefully crafted in legal terminology to prevent any new questions from arising. At the time I created mine, public labor was seen as the best alternative to the death penalty. However, while I was in France, I learned about a group in England that had successfully implemented solitary confinement and saw a design for a prison in Lyons, France, based on that concept. When the Governor of Virginia asked me for a plan for a Capitol and Prison, I sent him the Lyons design, along with a smaller scale drawing that was more suited for our needs. This was in June 1786. Mr. Taylor wisely adopted this idea, which had already been put into practice in Philadelphia, likely based on the English model, and replaced public labor with labor during confinement, something the revisal Committee would have done had they addressed the matter again. By 1796, when Mr. Taylor proposed it, public opinion was receptive to this change, largely due to the experiment in Philadelphia, whereas in 1785, when it was proposed to our Assembly, they were not quite ready for it.
In 1789 and 1790, I had a great number of olive plants, of the best kind, sent from Marseilles to Charleston, for South Carolina and Georgia. They were planted, and are flourishing; and, though not yet multiplied, they will be the germ of that cultivation in those States.
In 1789 and 1790, I had a large number of high-quality olive plants sent from Marseilles to Charleston, for South Carolina and Georgia. They were planted and are thriving; and, although they haven't multiplied yet, they will be the foundation for that cultivation in those states.
In 1790, I got a cask of heavy upland rice, from the river Denbigh, in Africa, about lat. 9° 30’ North, which I sent to Charleston, in hopes it might supersede the culture of the wet rice, which renders South Carolina and Georgia so pestilential through the summer. It was divided, and a part sent to Georgia. I know not whether it has been attended to in South Carolina; but it has spread in the upper parts of Georgia, so as to have become almost general, and is highly prized. Perhaps it may answer in Tennessee and Kentucky. The greatest service which can be rendered any country is, to add an useful plant to its culture; especially a bread grain; next in value to bread is oil.
In 1790, I received a barrel of heavy upland rice from the Denbigh River in Africa, around lat. 9° 30’ North, which I sent to Charleston, hoping it would replace the cultivation of wet rice that makes South Carolina and Georgia so unhealthy during the summer. It was divided, with a portion sent to Georgia. I’m not sure if it’s been considered in South Carolina, but it has taken off in the northern parts of Georgia, becoming nearly universal and is highly valued. It might also work well in Tennessee and Kentucky. The greatest benefit a country can receive is the addition of a useful plant to its agriculture; particularly a staple grain; next in importance to grain is oil.
Whether the Act for the more general diffusion of knowledge will ever be carried into complete effect, I know not. It was received, by the legislature, with great enthusiasm at first; and a small effort was made in 1796, by the act to establish public schools, to carry a part of it into effect, viz. that for the establishment of free English schools; but the option given to the courts has defeated the intention of the Act.*
Whether the Act for spreading knowledge more widely will ever be fully implemented, I can’t say. It was initially welcomed by lawmakers with a lot of excitement; and a small attempt was made in 1796, through the act to create public schools, to put part of it into action, specifically regarding the creation of free English schools. However, the choice given to the courts has undermined the purpose of the Act.*
* It seems, from the blank space at the bottom of this paper, that a continuation was planned. In fact, the casual way the above notes are written suggests that they were meant to be just reminders, to be used in a more final version.
[NOTE H.]
Sir,
Dude,
New York, October 13, 1789.
New York, Oct 13, 1789.
In the selection of characters to fill the important offices of Government in the United States, I was naturally led to contemplate the talents and dispositions which I knew you to possess and entertain for the service of your country; and without being able to consult your inclination, or to derive any knowledge of your intentions from your letters, either to myself or to any other of your friends, I was determined, as well by motives of private regard, as a conviction of public propriety, to nominate you for the Department of State, which, under its present organization, involves many of the most interesting objects of the Executive authority.
In choosing people for key government positions in the United States, I naturally thought about the skills and qualities I know you have and your commitment to serving your country. Without being able to ask for your preferences or gather any insights about your plans from your letters to me or to any of your friends, I decided—both out of personal respect and a sense of public duty—to recommend you for the Department of State. This role, as it currently stands, includes many of the most important responsibilities of the Executive branch.
But grateful as your acceptance of this commission would be to me, I am, at the same time, desirous to accommodate your wishes, and I have, therefore, forborne to nominate your successor at the court of Versailles until I should be informed of your determination.
But while I would be grateful for your acceptance of this commission, I also want to respect your wishes. Therefore, I have held off on nominating your successor at the court of Versailles until I know your decision.
Being on the eve of a journey through the Eastern States, with a view to observe the situation of the country, and in a hope of perfectly re-establishing my health, which a series of indispositions has much impaired, I have deemed it proper to make this communication of your appointment, in order that you might lose no time, should it be your wish to visit Virginia during the recess of Congress, which will probably be the most convenient season, both as it may respect your private concerns, and the public service.
As I'm about to start a trip through the Eastern States to check out the situation in the country and hopefully restore my health, which has been quite poor lately, I thought it would be a good idea to inform you about your appointment. This way, you won't miss the chance to visit Virginia during Congress's break, which will likely be the best time for both your personal matters and public duties.
Unwilling, as I am, to interfere in the direction of your choice of assistants, I shall only take the liberty of observing to you, that, from warm recommendations which I have received in behalf of Roger Alden, Esq., Assistant Secretary to the late Congress, I have placed all the papers thereunto belonging under his care. Those papers which more properly appertain to the office of Foreign Affairs, are under the superintendence of Mr. Jay, who has been so obliging as to continue his good offices, and they are in the immediate charge of Mr. Remsen.
Unwilling as I am to interfere with your choice of assistants, I just want to mention that, based on strong recommendations I've received for Roger Alden, Esq., Assistant Secretary to the late Congress, I've entrusted all related papers to him. The papers that more properly belong to the office of Foreign Affairs are supervised by Mr. Jay, who has been kind enough to continue helping, and they are directly handled by Mr. Remsen.
With sentiments of very great esteem and regard, I have the honor to be, Sir,
With sincere respect and admiration, I am honored to be, Sir,
Your most obedient servant,
Sincerely yours,
George Washington.
George Washington.
The Honorable Thomas Jefferson.
Hon. Thomas Jefferson.
I take the occasion to acknowledge the receipt of your several favors of the 4th and 5th of December of the last, and 10th of May of the present year, and to thank you for the communications therein. G. W.
I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge that I've received your letters dated December 4th and 5th of last year, and May 10th of this year, and to thank you for the information you shared in them. G. W.
New York, November 30, 1789.
New York, Nov 30, 1789.
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
You will perceive by the inclosed letter (which was left for you at the office of Foreign Affairs when I made a journey to the Eastern States), the motives, on which I acted with regard to yourself, and the occasion of my explaining them at that early period.
You will see from the enclosed letter (which was left for you at the Foreign Affairs office when I traveled to the Eastern States) the reasons behind my actions concerning you and why I felt the need to explain them at that early time.
Having now reason to hope, from Mr. Trumbull’s report, that you will be arrived at Norfolk before this time (on which event I would most cordially congratulate you), and having a safe conveyance by Mr. Griffin, I forward your commission to Virginia; with a request to be made acquainted with your sentiments as soon as you shall find it convenient to communicate them to me. With sentiments of very great esteem and regard,
Having reason to hope, based on Mr. Trumbull’s report, that you have arrived in Norfolk by now (and I would warmly congratulate you on that), and having a reliable way to send it through Mr. Griffin, I’m forwarding your commission to Virginia. I’d also appreciate it if you could share your thoughts with me whenever it’s convenient for you. With much respect and regard,
I am, dear Sir,
I am, dear Sir,
Your most obedient, humble servant,
Your most devoted, humble servant,
George Washington.
George Washington
The Honorable Thomas Jefferson.
Hon. Thomas Jefferson.
CORRESPONDENCE
LETTER I.—TO DR. WILLIAM SMALL, May 7, 1775
TO DR. WILLIAM SMALL.
To Dr. William Small.
May 7, 1775.
May 7, 1775.
Dear Sir,
Dear [Name],
Within this week we have received the unhappy news of an action of considerable magnitude, between the King’s troops and our brethren of Boston, in which, it is said, five hundred of the former, with the Earl of Percy, are slain. That such an action has occurred, is undoubted, though perhaps the circumstances may not have reached us with truth. This accident has cut off our last hope of reconciliation, and a phrenzy of revenge seems to have seized all ranks of people. It is a lamentable circumstance, that the only mediatory power, acknowledged by both parties, instead of leading to a reconciliation his divided people, should pursue the incendiary purpose of still blowing up the flames, as we find him constantly doing, in every speech and public declaration. This may, perhaps, be intended to intimidate into acquiescence, but the effect has been most unfortunately otherwise. A little knowledge of human nature, and attention to its ordinary workings, might have foreseen that the spirits of the people here were in a state, in which they were more likely to be provoked, than frightened, by haughty deportment. And to fill up the measure of irritation, a proscription of individuals has been substituted in the room of just trial. Can it be believed, that a grateful people will suffer those to be consigned to execution, whose sole crime has been the developing and asserting their rights? Had the Parliament possessed the power of reflection, they would have avoided a measure as impotent, as it was inflammatory. When I saw Lord Chatham’s bill, I entertained high hope that a reconciliation could have been brought about. The difference between his terms, and those offered by our Congress, might have been accommodated, if entered on, by both parties, with a disposition to accommodate. But the dignity of Parliament, it seems, can brook no opposition to its power. Strange, that a set of men, who have made sale of their virtue to the minister, should yet talk of retaining dignity. But I am getting into politics, though I sat down only to ask your acceptance of the wine: and express my constant wishes for your happiness.
This week, we received the sad news of a significant confrontation between the King's troops and our fellow countrymen in Boston, where it's reported that five hundred soldiers, along with the Earl of Percy, were killed. It's clear that this event took place, although the details might not have been accurately conveyed to us. This incident has dashed our last hopes for reconciliation, and a frenzy of revenge seems to have taken hold of people across all levels of society. It’s unfortunate that the only person recognized by both sides as a mediator, instead of promoting unity among his divided people, seems to be actively encouraging further conflict, as evidenced by his constant speeches and public statements. This might be his way of trying to intimidate people into submission, but the outcome has been quite the opposite. A bit of understanding of human nature and how people typically respond could have predicted that the mood here was more likely to ignite anger than fear when faced with arrogance. To make matters worse, we've seen individuals being targeted without fair trials. Can anyone seriously believe that a grateful populace will allow those who have simply sought to assert their rights to be condemned to death? If Parliament had paused to reflect, they would have chosen not to pursue such a futile and inflammatory action. When I saw Lord Chatham’s bill, I felt hopeful that a reconciliation was possible. The differences between his proposal and what our Congress suggested could have been resolved if both sides were willing to compromise. But it seems that the dignity of Parliament cannot tolerate any challenge to its authority. It's odd that a group of men who've compromised their integrity for the minister still claim to uphold dignity. But I digress into politics when I originally intended only to share this wine with you and to express my ongoing wishes for your happiness.
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER II.—TO JOHN RANDOLPH, August 25,1775
TO JOHN RANDOLPH, ESQ.,
TO JOHN RANDOLPH, ESQ.,
Monticello,
Monticello
August 25,1775.
August 25, 1775.
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
I am sorry the situation of our country should render it not eligible to you to remain longer in it. I hope the returning wisdom of Great Britain will, ere long, put an end to this unnatural contest. There may be people to whose tempers and dispositions contention is pleasing, and who, therefore, wish a continuance of confusion; but to me it is of all states but one, the most horrid: My first wish is a restoration of our just rights; my second, a return of the happy period, when, consistently with duty, I may withdraw myself totally from the public stage, and pass the rest of my days in domestic ease and tranquillity, banishing every desire of ever hearing what passes in the world. Perhaps, (for the latter adds considerably to the warmth of the former wish,) looking with fondness towards a reconciliation with Great Britain, I cannot help hoping you may be able to contribute towards expediting this good work. I think it must be evident to yourself, that the Ministry have been deceived by their officers on this side of the water, who (for what purpose, I cannot tell) have constantly represented the American opposition as that of a small faction, in which the body of the people took little part. This, you can inform them, of your own knowledge, is untrue. They have taken it into their heads, too, that we are cowards, and shall surrender at discretion to an armed force. The past and future operations of the war must confirm or undeceive them on that head. I wish they were thoroughly and minutely acquainted with every circumstance relative to America, as it exists in truth. I am persuaded, this would go far towards disposing them to reconciliation. Even those in Parliament who are called friends to America, seem to know nothing of our real determinations. I observe, they pronounced in the last Parliament, that the Congress of 1774 did not mean to insist rigorously on the terms they held out, but kept something in reserve, to give up: and, in fact, that they would give up every thing but the article of taxation. Now, the truth is far from this, as I can affirm, and put my honor to the assertion. Their continuance in this error may perhaps produce very ill consequences. The Congress stated the lowest terms they thought possible to be accepted, in order to convince the world they were not unreasonable. They gave up the monopoly and regulation of trade, and all acts of Parliament prior to 1764, leaving to British generosity to render these, at some future time, as easy to America as the interest of Britain would admit. But this was before blood was spilt. I cannot affirm, but have reason to think, these terms would not now be accepted. I wish no false sense of honor, no ignorance of our real intentions, no vain hope that partial concessions of right will be accepted, may induce the Ministry to trifle with accommodation, till it shall be out of their power ever to accommodate. If, indeed, Great Britain, disjoined from her colonies, be a match for the most potent nations of Europe, with the colonies thrown into their scale, they may go on securely. But if they are not assured of this, it would be certainly unwise, by trying the event of another campaign, to risk our accepting a foreign aid, which perhaps may not be obtainable but on condition of everlasting avulsion from Great Britain. This would be thought a hard condition to those who still wish for reunion with their parent country. I am sincerely one of those, and would rather be in dependence on Great Britain, properly limited, than on any nation upon earth, or than on no nation. But I am one of those, too, who, rather than submit to the rights of legislating for us, assumed by the British Parliament, and which late experience has shown they will so cruelly exercise, would lend my hand to sink the whole island in the ocean.
I'm sorry that the situation in our country has made it impossible for you to stay here any longer. I hope that Great Britain will soon find its sanity and end this unnatural conflict. Some people might enjoy the chaos and want it to continue, but to me, it's the worst state of affairs. My first wish is for the restoration of our rightful privileges, and my second is for a return to happier times when I can fully withdraw from public life and spend the rest of my days in peace at home, free from any desire to know what’s happening in the world. Perhaps, since the desire for reconciliation with Great Britain fuels my first wish, I truly hope you can help speed up this process. It must be clear to you that the Ministry has been misled by their officials on this side of the ocean, who—for reasons I can't understand—keep portraying the American opposition as a small faction with little public support. You can tell them, based on your own experience, that this is false. They've also convinced themselves that we're cowards who will submit to an armed force without a fight. The events of this war will prove them wrong or confirm their beliefs. I wish they were fully aware of the actual situation in America as it really is. I'm convinced that this understanding would help them be open to reconciliation. Even those in Parliament who claim to be friends of America seem ignorant of our true intentions. I noticed they claimed in the last Parliament that the Congress of 1774 didn't intend to strictly enforce the demands they made but had reserved something to concede, suggesting they would accept everything except taxation. This is far from the truth, and I stake my honor on it. Their persistence in this misunderstanding could lead to very bad outcomes. The Congress presented the most reasonable terms they thought could be accepted to show the world they were not unreasonable. They gave up control over trade and all acts of Parliament before 1764, leaving it to British goodwill to make these terms as favorable to America as British interests allowed. But this was before any blood was shed. I can't say for sure, but I suspect these terms wouldn't be accepted now. I hope that no misguided sense of honor, ignorance of our real intentions, or unrealistic hopes for partial rights will lead the Ministry to delay negotiations until it’s too late to negotiate anything. If Great Britain, separated from its colonies, truly believes it can compete with the strongest nations in Europe, they might feel secure going forward. But if they're not sure of that, it would be a mistake to risk another campaign, potentially forcing us to seek foreign aid that might come with the cost of permanently separating from Great Britain. That would be a tough pill to swallow for those of us who still hope for a reunion with our mother country. I am genuinely one of those people and would prefer a limited dependence on Great Britain over dependence on any other nation or none at all. However, I am also someone who, rather than accept the British Parliament's claim to legislate for us, which we've seen them abuse, would be willing to see the entire island sink into the ocean.
If undeceiving the Minister, as to matters of fact, may change his disposition, it will perhaps be in your power, by assisting to do this, to render service to the whole empire at the most critical time, certainly, that it has ever seen. Whether Britain shall continue the head of the greatest empire on earth, or shall return to her original station in the political scale of Europe, depends perhaps on the resolutions of the succeeding winter. God send they may be wise and salutary for us all. I shall be glad to hear from you as often as you may be disposed to think of things here. You may be at liberty, I expect; to communicate some things, consistently with your honor and the duties you will owe to a protecting nation. Such a communication among individuals may be mutually beneficial to the contending parties. On this or any future occasion, if I affirm to you any facts, your knowledge of me will enable you to decide on their credibility; if I hazard opinions on the dispositions of men or other speculative points, you can only know they are my opinions. My best wishes for your felicity attend you wherever you go; and believe me to be, assuredly,
If clearing things up with the Minister about the facts could change his mind, it might be in your power to help do this and serve the entire empire at this critical moment in its history. Whether Britain will continue to lead the greatest empire on earth or revert to its original position in the European political scene might depend on the decisions made this coming winter. I hope those decisions will be wise and beneficial for all of us. I would love to hear from you as often as you feel inclined to share your thoughts about things here. I expect you may feel free to communicate some things, in line with your honor and the responsibilities you have to a protecting nation. Such exchanges between individuals could be beneficial for both sides involved. In this or any future discussions, if I share any facts with you, your knowledge of me will help you judge their credibility. If I share opinions about people's motivations or other speculative matters, you will only know that they are my opinions. My best wishes for your happiness go with you wherever you are; and please believe me to be, undoubtedly,
Your friend and servant,
Your friend and servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER III.—TO JOHN RANDOLPH, November 29, 1775
TO JOHN RANDOLPH, ESQ..
To John Randolph, Esq.
Philadelphia,
Philly,
November 29, 1775.
November 29, 1775.
Dear Sir,
Dear [Recipient's Name],
I am to give you the melancholy intelligence of the death of our most worthy Speaker, which happened here on the 22nd of the last month. He was struck with an apoplexy, and expired within five hours.
I have to share the sad news of the death of our esteemed Speaker, which occurred here on the 22nd of last month. He suffered a stroke and passed away within five hours.
I have it in my power to acquaint you that the success of our arms has corresponded with the justness of our cause. Chambly and St. Johns were taken some weeks ago, and in them the whole regular army in Canada, except about forty or fifty men. This day certain intelligence has reached us that our General, Montgomery, is received into Montreal: and we expect every hour to be informed that Quebec has opened its arms to Colonel Arnold, who, with eleven hundred men, was sent from Boston up the Kennebec, and down the Chaudiere river to that place. He expected to be there early this month. Montreal acceded to us on the 13th, and Carleton set out, with the shattered remains of his little army, for Quebec, where we hope he will be taken up by Arnold. In a short time, we have reason to hope, the delegates of Canada will join us in Congress, and complete the American union as far as we wish to have it completed. We hear that one of the British transports has arrived at Boston; the rest are beating off the coast, in very bad weather. You will have heard, before this reaches you, that Lord Dunmore has commenced hostilities in Virginia. That people bore with every thing, till he attempted to burn the town of Hampton. They opposed and repelled him, with considerable loss on his side, and none on ours. It has raised our countrymen into a perfect phrenzy. It is an immense misfortune to the whole empire to have a King of such a disposition at such a time. We are told, and every thing proves it true, that he is the bitterest enemy we have. His Minister is able, and that satisfies me that ignorance, or wickedness, somewhere, controls him. In an earlier part of this contest, our petitions told him, that from our King there was but one appeal. The admonition was despised, and that appeal forced on us. To undo his empire, he has but one truth more to learn; that, after colonies have drawn the sword, there is but one step more they can take. That step is now pressed upon us by the measures adopted, as if they were afraid we would not take it. Believe me, dear Sir, there is not in the British empire a man who more cordially loves a union with Great Britain than I do. But, by the God that made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the British Parliament propose; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America. We want neither inducement nor power to declare and assert a separation. It is will alone which is wanting, and that is growing apace under the fostering hand of our King. One bloody campaign will probably decide everlastingly our future course; I am sorry to find a bloody campaign is decided on. If our winds and waters should not combine to rescue their shores from slavery, and General Howe’s reinforcement should arrive in safety, we have hopes he will be inspirited to come out of Boston and take another drubbing: and we must drub him soundly before the sceptred tyrant will know we are not mere brutes, to crouch under his hand, and kiss the rod with which he deigns to scourge us.
I have the power to inform you that our military success has matched the righteousness of our cause. Chambly and St. Johns were captured a few weeks ago, taking with them almost the entire regular army in Canada, aside from about forty or fifty men. Today we received reliable news that our General, Montgomery, has entered Montreal. We expect to hear any moment that Quebec has welcomed Colonel Arnold, who was sent from Boston with eleven hundred men, traveling up the Kennebec and down the Chaudière River to that city. He planned to arrive there early this month. Montreal joined us on the 13th, and Carleton left with the remnants of his small army for Quebec, where we hope Arnold will catch up with him. Soon, we have reason to believe that the delegates from Canada will join us in Congress and finalize the American union to the extent we wish it to be completed. We hear that one of the British transports has reached Boston; the others are struggling against the bad weather off the coast. By now, you've probably heard that Lord Dunmore has started fighting in Virginia. The people tolerated everything until he tried to burn down the town of Hampton. They stood up to him and pushed him back, inflicting substantial losses on his side and none on ours. This has sparked a complete frenzy among our countrymen. It is a huge misfortune for the entire empire to have a king with such a temperament at this time. We are being told, and everything suggests it is true, that he is our fiercest enemy. His minister is capable, which makes me think that ignorance or wickedness is controlling him somewhere. Earlier in this conflict, our petitions indicated that there was only one appeal left to our king. That warning was ignored, leading us to be forced into that appeal. To undo his empire, there’s just one more truth he needs to learn: when colonies draw the sword, there’s only one further step they can take. That step is now being pushed onto us by the measures taken, as if there’s a fear we wouldn’t take it. Believe me, dear Sir, no one in the British Empire loves a union with Great Britain more than I do. But, by the God who created me, I will cease to exist before I agree to a connection on the terms proposed by the British Parliament; and in this, I believe I represent the sentiments of America. We require neither motivation nor strength to declare and assert our separation. What we lack is simply the will, and that is quickly growing under the watchful hand of our king. One bloody campaign will likely determine our future path forever; I regret to see that a bloody campaign has been decided upon. If our winds and waters do not come together to free their shores from bondage, and if General Howe’s reinforcements arrive safely, we hope he will be encouraged to come out of Boston and face another defeat: and we must defeat him soundly before the crowned tyrant realizes we are not mere beasts to submit to his hand and kiss the rod he uses to whip us.
Yours, &c.
Yours, etc.
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER IV.—TO BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, August 13, 1777
TO DR. BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, PARIS.
To Dr. Benjamin Franklin, Paris.
Virginia,
Virginia,
August 13, 1777.
August 13, 1777.
Honorable Sir,
Dear Sir,
I forbear to write you news, as the time of Mr. Shore’s departure being uncertain, it might be old before you receive it, and he can, in person, possess you of all we have. With respect to the State of Virginia in particular, the people seem to have laid aside the monarchical, and taken up the republican government, with as much ease as would have attended their throwing off an old and putting on a new suit of clothes. Not a single throe has attended this important transformation. A half dozen aristocratical gentlemen, agonizing under the loss of pre-eminence, have sometimes ventured their sarcasms on our political metamorphosis. They have been thought fitter objects of pity than of punishment. We are at present in the complete and quiet exercise of well organized government, save only that our courts of justice do not open till the fall. I think nothing can bring the security of our continent and its cause into danger, if we can support the credit of our paper. To do that, I apprehend one of two steps must be taken. Either to procure free trade by alliance with some naval power able to protect it; or, if we find there is no prospect of that, to shut our ports totally to all the world, and turn our colonies into manufactories. The former would be most eligible, because most conformable to the habits and wishes of our people. Were the British Court to return to their senses in time to seize the little advantage which still remains within their reach from this quarter, I judge that, on acknowledging our absolute independence and sovereignty, a commercial treaty beneficial to them, and perhaps even a league of mutual offence and defence, might, not seeing the expense or consequences of such a measure, be approved by our people, if nothing in the mean time, done on your part, should prevent it. But they will continue to grasp at their desperate sovereignty, till every benefit short of that is for ever out of their reach. I wish my domestic situation had rendered it possible for me to join you in the very honorable charge confided to you. Residence in a polite Court, society of literati of the first order, a just cause and an approving God, will add length to a life for which all men pray, and none more than
I hesitate to send you news since Mr. Shore’s departure is uncertain, and by the time you receive it, it might be outdated. He can update you in person about everything we have. Regarding the State of Virginia, the people seem to have easily switched from monarchy to republican government, as if they were changing into a new suit. This significant change has occurred without any struggle. A few aristocratic gentlemen, distressed by losing their former status, have occasionally expressed their sarcastic remarks about our political shift. However, they are more often seen as objects of pity rather than deserving punishment. Right now, we are enjoying the smooth running of a well-organized government, although our courts won’t be open until fall. I believe nothing can jeopardize the safety of our continent and its cause if we can maintain the integrity of our currency. To achieve that, I think we need to take one of two actions. We either need to secure free trade through an alliance with a naval power that can protect it, or, if that seems unlikely, completely close our ports to everyone and turn our colonies into manufacturing centers. The first option would be preferable since it aligns better with our people's habits and desires. If the British government were to regain some sense and take advantage of the limited opportunity still available to them here, I think that if they acknowledged our complete independence and sovereignty, they could approve a commercial treaty beneficial to them. They might even agree to a mutual defense agreement, without realizing the costs or consequences of such a step, provided that nothing on your end hinders it in the meantime. However, they will continue to cling to their desperate claims of sovereignty until every benefit short of that is permanently out of reach. I wish my personal situation had allowed me to join you in the very honorable role entrusted to you. Being in a refined court, surrounded by leading intellectuals, fighting for a just cause with the approval of God, will extend a life that everyone wishes for, and none more than
Your most obedient
Your obedient servant
and humble servant,
and humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER V.—TO PATRICK HENRY, March 27, 1779
TO HIS EXCELLENCY PATRICK HENRY.
TO HIS EXCELLENCY PATRICK HENRY.
Albemarle,
Albemarle,
March 27, 1779.
March 27, 1779.
Sir,
Hey,
A report prevailing here, that in consequence of some powers from Congress, the Governor and Council have it in contemplation to remove the Convention troops, [The troops under Burgoyne, captured at Saratoga.] either wholly or in part, from their present situation, I take the liberty of troubling you with some observations on that subject. The reputation and interest of our country, in general, may be affected by such a measure; it would, therefore, hardly be deemed an indecent liberty, in the most private citizen, to offer his thoughts to the consideration of the Executive. The locality of my situation, particularly, in the neighborhood of the present barracks, and the public relation in which I stand to the people among whom they are situated, together with a confidence, which a personal knowledge of the members of the Executive gives me, that they Will be glad of information from any quarter, on a subject interesting to the public, induce me to hope that they will acquit me of impropriety in the present representation.
A report going around here suggests that, due to some powers granted by Congress, the Governor and Council are considering moving the Convention troops, [The troops under Burgoyne, captured at Saratoga.] either fully or partially, from their current location. I’d like to share some thoughts on this matter. The reputation and interests of our country as a whole could be impacted by such a move; therefore, it shouldn’t be considered inappropriate for even an ordinary citizen to offer their perspective to the Executive. My specific situation, being close to the current barracks and the public role I have with the local people, along with my personal connections to the members of the Executive, gives me confidence that they would appreciate any relevant information on a matter that concerns the public. I hope they won't find my comments out of place.
By an article in the Convention of Saratoga, it is stipulated, on the part of the United States, that the officers shall not be separated from their men. I suppose the term officers, includes general as well as regimental officers. As there are general officers who command all the troops, no part of them can be separated from these officers without a violation of the article: they cannot, of course, be separated from one another, unless the same general officer could be in different places at the same time. It is true, the article adds the words, ‘as far as circumstances will admit.’ This was a necessary qualification; because, in no place in America, I suppose, could there have been found quarters for both officers and men together; those for the officers to be according to their rank. So far, then, as the circumstances of the place where they should be quartered, should render a separation necessary, in order to procure quarters for the officers, according to their rank, the article admits that separation. And these are the circumstances which must have been under the contemplation of the parties; both of whom, and all the world beside (who are ultimate judges in the case), would still understand that they were to be as near in the environs of the camp, as convenient quarters could be procured; and not that the qualification of the article destroyed the article itself and laid it wholly at our discretion. Congress, indeed, have admitted of this separation; but are they so far lords of right and wrong as that our consciences may be quiet with their dispensation? Or is the case amended by saying they leave it optional in the Governor and Council to separate the troops or not? At the same time that it exculpates not them, it is drawing the Governor and Council into a participation in the breach of faith. If indeed it is only proposed, that a separation of the troops shall be referred to the consent of their officers; that is a very different matter. Having carefully avoided conversation with them on public subjects, I cannot say, of my own knowledge, how they would relish such a proposition. I have heard from others, that they will choose to undergo any thing together, rather than to be separated, and that they will remonstrate against it in the strongest terms. The Executive, therefore, if voluntary agents in this measure, must be drawn into a paper war with them, the more disagreeable, as it seems that faith and reason will be on the other side. As an American, I cannot help feeling a thorough mortification, that our Congress should have permitted an infraction of our public honor; as a citizen of Virginia, I cannot help hoping and confiding, that our supreme Executive, whose acts will be considered as the acts of the Commonwealth, estimate that honor too highly to make its infraction their own act. I may be permitted to hope, then, that if any removal takes place, it will be a general one: and, as it is said to be left to the Governor and Council to determine on this, I am satisfied, that, suppressing every other consideration, and weighing the matter dispassionately, they will determine upon this sole question, Is it for the benefit of those for whom they act, that, the Convention troops should be removed from among them? Under the head of interest, these circumstances, viz. the expense of building barracks, said to have been £25,000, and of removing the troops backwards and forwards, amounting to I know not how much, are not to be pre-termitted, merely because they are Continental expenses; for we are a part of the Continent; we must pay a shilling of every dollar wasted. But the sums of money, which, by these troops, or on their account, are brought into, and expended in this State, are a great and local advantage. This can require no proof. If, at the conclusion of the war, for instance, our share of the Continental debt should be twenty millions of dollars, or say that we are called on to furnish an annual quota of two millions four hundred thousand dollars, to Congress, to be raised by tax, it is obvious that we should raise these given sums with greater or less ease, in proportion to the greater or less quantity of money found in circulation among us. I expect that our circulating money is, by the presence of these troops, at the rate of $30,000 a week, at the least. I have heard, indeed, that an objection arises to their being kept within this state, from the information of the commissary that they cannot be subsisted here. In attending to the information of that officer, it should be borne in mind that the county of King William and its vicinities are one thing, the territory of Virginia another. If the troops could be fed upon long letters, I believe the gentleman at the head of that department in this country would be the best commissary upon earth. But till I see him determined to act, not to write; to sacrifice his domestic ease to the duties of his appointment, and apply to the resources of this country, wheresoever they are to be had, I must entertain a different opinion of him. I am mistaken, if, for the animal sub-sistence of the troops hitherto, we are not principally indebted to the genius and exertions of Hawkins, during the very short time he lived after his appointment to that department, by your board. His eye immediately pervaded the whole state; it was reduced at once to a regular machine, to a system, and the whole put into movement and animation by the fiat of a comprehensive mind. If the Commonwealth of Virginia cannot furnish these troops with bread, I would ask of the commissariat, which of the thirteen is now become the grain colony? If we are in danger of famine from the addition of four thousand mouths, what is become of that surplus of bread, the exportation of which used to feed the West Indies and Eastern States, and fill the colony with hard money? When I urge the sufficiency of this State, however, to subsist these troops, I beg to be understood, as having in contemplation the quantity of provisions necessary for their real use, and not as calculating what is to be lost by the wanton waste, mismanagement, and carelessness of those employed about it. If magazines of beef and pork are suffered to rot by slovenly butchering, or for want of timely provision and sale; if quantities of flour are exposed by the commissaries entrusted with the keeping it, to pillage and destruction; and if, when laid up in the Continental stores, it is still to be embezzled and sold, the land of Egypt itself would be insufficient for their supply, and their removal would be necessary, not to a more plentiful country, but to more able and honest commissaries. Perhaps, the magnitude of this question, and its relation to the whole state, may render it worth while to await, the opinion of the National Council, which is now to meet within a few weeks. There is no danger of distress in the mean time, as the commissaries affirm they have a great sufficiency of provisions for some time to come. Should the measure of removing them into another State be adopted, and carried into execution, before the meeting of Assembly, no disapprobation of theirs will bring them back, because they will then be in the power of others, who will hardly give them up.
By an agreement made at the Convention of Saratoga, the United States has stated that officers cannot be separated from their men. I assume that "officers" refers to both general and regimental officers. Since there are general officers who command all the troops, no part of the troops can be separated from these officers without violating the agreement; they obviously can't be separated from one another unless the same general officer could be in different places at the same time. It's true that the agreement adds the phrase, "as far as circumstances will admit." This was a necessary clarification because, in no place in America, I believe, could there have been accommodations for both officers and men together, especially with the officers needing to be housed according to their ranks. Therefore, if the circumstances at the location where they need to be housed require a separation to provide quarters for the officers according to their ranks, the agreement allows for that separation. These are the circumstances that the parties must have considered; both of whom, and everyone else (who are the ultimate judges in the situation), would still understand that they should be as close as possible in the area of the camp, as long as suitable quarters can be found; and not that the qualification of the agreement undermines the agreement itself and leaves it entirely to our discretion. Congress has indeed acknowledged this separation; but are they so far above right and wrong that our consciences can be at ease with their decision? Or does it improve the situation by stating they leave it up to the Governor and Council to decide whether to separate the troops or not? At the same time that this doesn't absolve them, it pulls the Governor and Council into a breach of trust. If it’s only suggested that a separation of the troops should depend on the consent of their officers; that's a much different issue. Having carefully avoided discussions with them about public matters, I can't say from my own knowledge how they would feel about such a proposal. I have heard from others that they would prefer to endure anything together rather than be separated, and that they would strongly protest against it. Therefore, if the Executive willingly participates in this decision, they must prepare for a conflict with them, which is more unpleasant as it seems that integrity and reason will be on the other side. As an American, I cannot help but feel a deep embarrassment that our Congress would allow a violation of our public honor; as a citizen of Virginia, I cannot help but hope and trust that our supreme Executive, whose actions will be viewed as the acts of the Commonwealth, values that honor too highly to make its violation their own action. So I may hope that if any removal happens, it will be a general one: and since it is said that the Governor and Council are to make this decision, I am confident that, suppressing all other considerations and weighing the matter dispassionately, they will focus solely on the question of whether it's in the best interest of those they represent for the Convention troops to be removed from among them. Under the category of interest, these factors—the expense of building barracks, reported to be £25,000, and the costs of moving the troops back and forth, which I don't know how to quantify—should not be overlooked just because they are Continental expenses; we are part of the Continent; we must bear a share of every dollar wasted. However, the money that these troops, or their presence, brings into and spends in this State is a significant local benefit. This needs no proof. If, at the end of the war, for example, our share of the Continental debt is twenty million dollars, or say we are expected to provide an annual quota of two million four hundred thousand dollars to Congress through taxes, it's clear that we would be able to raise these amounts with more or less ease depending on how much money is circulating among us. I expect that the presence of these troops is injecting about $30,000 a week into our economy at the very least. I have heard, however, that there are objections to them being kept in this state based on information from the commissary that they cannot be fed here. It's important to remember that King William County and its surroundings are one thing, while the territory of Virginia is another. If the troops could be sustained on long letters, I believe that the person overseeing that department in this country would be the best commissary on earth. But until I see him willing to act, not just write; to sacrifice his comfort for the duties of his role, and draw upon the resources of this country wherever they may be found, I must have a different opinion of him. I would be mistaken if I thought that for the actual subsistence of the troops thus far, we weren't mainly indebted to the skill and efforts of Hawkins during the short time he was in charge of that department, thanks to your board. His vision quickly covered the entire state; it was swiftly organized, made systematic, and all set in motion by the authority of a comprehensive mind. If the Commonwealth of Virginia cannot provide these troops with bread, I would like to ask the commissariat which of the thirteen has now become the grain colony? If we are in danger of famine because of an additional four thousand mouths, what happened to that surplus of bread that used to be exported to feed the West Indies and Eastern States, and fill the colony with hard currency? When I argue for this State's ability to feed these troops, I should clarify that I mean the amount of food genuinely needed for their use, not what might be lost due to careless waste and mismanagement by those in charge. If stores of beef and pork are allowed to spoil because of careless butchering, or due to a lack of timely provision and sale; if quantities of flour are put in jeopardy by the commissaries responsible for managing it, exposing it to theft and destruction; and if, when stocked in the Continental stores, it still faces embezzlement and sale, then even the land of Egypt would not suffice to sustain them, and their relocation would be necessary, not to a more abundant country, but to more capable and trustworthy commissaries. Perhaps, given the importance of this issue and its relevance to the entire state, it's worth waiting for the opinion of the National Council, which is set to meet in a few weeks. There's no risk of shortages in the meantime, as the commissaries claim they have plenty of provisions for some time ahead. If the action of moving them to another State is adopted and executed before the Assembly meets, no disapproval from them will bring them back, because they will then fall under the authority of others who are unlikely to give them up.
Want of information as to what may be the precise measure proposed by the Governor and Council, obliges me to shift my ground, and take up the subject in every possible form. Perhaps they have not thought to remove the troops out of this State altogether, but to some other part of it. Here, the objections arising from the expenses of removal, and of building new barracks, recur. As to animal food, it may be driven to one part of the country as easily as to another: that circumstance, therefore, may be thrown out of the question. As to bread, I suppose they will require about forty or forty-five thousand bushels of grain a year. The place to which it is to be brought to them, is about the centre of the State. Besides that the country round about is fertile, all the grain made in the counties adjacent to any kind of navigation, may be brought by water to within twelve miles of the spot. For these twelve miles, wagons must be employed; I suppose half a dozen will be a plenty. Perhaps this part of the expense might have been saved, had the barracks been built on the water; but it is not sufficient to justify their being abandoned now they are built. Wagonage, indeed, seems to the commissariat, an article not worth economizing. The most wanton and studied circuity of transportation has been practised: to mention only one act, they have bought quantities of flour for these troops in Cumberland, have ordered it to be wagoned down to Manchester, and wagoned thence up to the barracks. This fact happened to fall within my own knowledge. I doubt not there are many more such, in order either to produce their total removal, or to run up the expenses of the present situation, and satisfy Congress that the nearer they are brought to the commissary’s own bed, the cheaper they will be subsisted. The grain made in the Western counties may be brought partly in wagons, as conveniently to this as to any other place; perhaps more so, on account of its vicinity to one of the best passes through the Blue Ridge; and partly by water, as it is near to James river, to the navigation of which, ten counties are adjacent above the falls. When I said that the grain might be brought hither from all the counties of the State, adjacent to navigation, I did not mean to say it would be proper to bring it from all. On the contrary, I think the commissary should be instructed, after the next harvest, not to send one bushel of grain to the barracks from below the falls of the rivers, or from the northern counties. The counties on tide water are accessible to the calls for our own army. Their supplies ought, therefore, to be husbanded for them. The counties in the northwestern parts of the State are not only within reach for our own grand army, but peculiarly necessary for the support of Macintosh’s army; or for the support of any other northwestern expedition, which the uncertain conduct of the Indians should render necessary; insomuch that if the supplies of that quarter should be misapplied to any other purpose, it would destroy in embryo every exertion, either for particular or general safety there. The counties above tide water, in the middle and southern and western parts of the country, are not accessible to calls for either of those purposes, but at such an expense of transportation as the article would not bear. Here, then, is a great field, whose supplies of bread cannot be carried to our army, or, rather, which will raise no supplies of bread, because there is no body to eat them. Was it not, then, wise in Congress to remove to that field four thousand idle mouths, who must otherwise have interfered with the pasture of our own troops? And, if they are removed to any other part of the country, will it not defeat this wise purpose? The mills on the waters of James river, above the falls, open to canoe navigation, are very many. Some of them are of great note, as manufacturers. The barracks are surrounded by mills. There are five or six round about Charlottesville. Any two or three of the whole might, in the course of the winter, manufacture flour sufficient for the year. To say the worst, then, of this situation, it is but twelve miles wrong. The safe custody of these troops is another circumstance worthy consideration. Equally removed from the access of an eastern or western enemy; central to the whole State, so that, should they attempt an irruption in any direction, they must pass through a great extent of hostile country; in a neighborhood thickly inhabited by a robust and hardy people, zealous in the American cause, acquainted with the use of arms, and the defiles and passes by which they must issue: it would seem, that in this point of view, no place could have been better chosen.
Lack of information about the exact plan proposed by the Governor and Council forces me to rethink my approach and discuss the issue in every possible way. They might not have considered moving the troops out of this state entirely, but rather relocating them within it. Here, the concerns about the costs of moving them and building new barracks come up again. When it comes to food, it can be transported to one part of the country just as easily as to another, so that shouldn't be a factor to worry about. Regarding bread, I estimate they will need around forty to forty-five thousand bushels of grain a year. The location where this will be delivered is roughly in the center of the state. Besides the surrounding area's fertility, all the grain produced in counties near navigable waters can be brought by boat within twelve miles of the site. For the last twelve miles, wagons will be needed; I assume half a dozen will be enough. Perhaps this part of the cost could have been avoided if the barracks had been built by the water, but that shouldn’t justify abandoning them now that they’re constructed. The commissary seems to regard wagon transport as an expense not worth cutting. They have been using unnecessarily complicated routes for transportation. For instance, they purchased large quantities of flour for these troops in Cumberland, ordered it to be transported by wagon to Manchester, and then moved it by wagon again to the barracks. I know this happened personally. I'm sure there are many other instances intended either to facilitate their complete removal or to inflate the costs of the current arrangement, convincing Congress that the closer they are to the commissary's own base, the cheaper it will be to support them. The grain from the western counties can be transported partly by wagons, as easily to this location as anywhere else—perhaps even more so, due to its proximity to one of the best passes through the Blue Ridge. Additionally, it can be carried by water since it is close to the James River, which is navigable and has ten adjacent counties above the falls. When I mentioned that grain could come from all counties in the state near navigable waters, I didn't mean to imply it would be appropriate to source it from all of them. On the contrary, I believe the commissary should be directed, after the next harvest, not to send any grain to the barracks from below the river falls or from the northern counties. The counties along the tidewater can meet the needs of our army. Their supplies should, therefore, be preserved for them. The counties in the northwestern part of the state are not only reachable for our main army but are also crucial for supporting Macintosh’s army or any other northwestern mission necessitated by the unpredictable actions of the Indians. Misusing the supplies from that area for any other purpose would jeopardize all efforts for local and general safety. The counties above the tidewater in the central, southern, and western parts of the state cannot provide supplies for either of those purposes without transportation costs that make it impractical. So, we have a significant area where the supply of bread cannot be brought to our army or, more accurately, that will not yield any bread supplies because there’s no one to consume it. Was it not wise for Congress to send four thousand idle mouths to that region, who otherwise would have consumed the forage meant for our troops? And if they are moved to any other part of the country, won’t that undermine this smart plan? The mills on the waters of the James River, above the falls, are numerous and accessible by canoe. Some of them are well-known for their production. The barracks are surrounded by mills, with five or six around Charlottesville. Just two or three of these could produce enough flour to last the entire year during the winter. To be blunt, this situation is only twelve miles off. The secure location of these troops is another important factor to consider. It's equally distant from the reach of either an eastern or western enemy and centrally located within the entire state, so if they attempted an attack from any direction, they would have to pass through a vast area of hostile territory, surrounded by a robust and determined local population that supports the American cause, knows how to use arms, and is familiar with the paths they would have to take. From this perspective, it seems no better location could have been chosen.
Their health is also of importance. I would not endeavor to show that their lives are valuable to us, because it would suppose a possibility, that humanity was kicked out of doors in America, and interest only attended to. The barracks occupy the top and brow of a very high hill, (you have been untruly told they were in a bottom.) They are free from fog, have four springs which seem to be plentiful, one within twenty yards of the piquet, two within fifty yards, and another within two hundred and fifty, and they propose to sink wells within the piquet. Of four thousand people, it should be expected, according to the ordinary calculations, that one should die every day. Yet, in the space of near three months, there have been but four deaths among them; two infants under three weeks old, and two others by apoplexy. The officers tell me, the troops were never before so healthy since they were embodied.
Their health is important too. I wouldn't try to argue that their lives matter to us because that would suggest a possibility that humanity has been disregarded in America, focusing only on self-interest. The barracks sit atop a very high hill (you've been misinformed; they aren't in a low area). They’re free from fog and have four springs nearby, one just twenty yards from the post, two within fifty yards, and another two hundred and fifty yards away. They also plan to dig wells within the post. With a population of four thousand, you would expect, based on standard calculations, that one person would die every day. However, in nearly three months, there have been only four deaths among them: two infants under three weeks old and two others from stroke. The officers tell me the troops have never been this healthy since they were formed.
But is an enemy so execrable, that, though in captivity, his wishes and comforts are to be disregarded and even crossed? I think not. It is for the benefit of mankind to mitigate the horrors of war as much as possible. The practice, therefore, of modern nations, of treating captive enemies with politeness and generosity, is not only delightful in contemplation, but really interesting to all the world, friends, foes, and neutrals. Let us apply this: the officers, after considerable hardships, have all procured quarters comfortable and satisfactory to them. In order to do this, they were obliged, in many instances, to hire houses for a year certain, and at such exorbitant rents, as were sufficient to tempt independent owners to go out of them, and shift as they could. These houses, in most cases, were much out of repair. They have repaired them at a considerable expense. One of the general officers has taken a place for two years, advanced the rent for the whole time, and been obliged, moreover, to erect additional buildings for the accommodation of part of his family, for which there was not room in the house rented. Independent of the brick work, for the carpentry of these additional buildings, I know he is to pay fifteen hundred dollars. The same gentleman, to my knowledge, has-paid to one person, three thousand six hundred, and seventy dollars, for different articles to fix himself commodiously. They have generally laid in their stocks of grain and other provisions, for it is well known that officers do not live on their rations. They have purchased cows, sheep, &c, set in to farming, prepared their gardens, and have a prospect of comfort and quiet before them. To turn to the soldiers: the environs of the barracks are delightful, the ground cleared, laid off in hundreds of gardens, each enclosed in its separate paling; these well prepared, and exhibiting, a fine appearance. General Riedesel, alone, laid out upwards of two hundred pounds in garden seeds, for the German troops only. Judge what an extent of ground these seeds would cover. There is little doubt that their own gardens will furnish them a great abundance of vegetables through the year. Their poultry, pigeons, and other preparations of that kind, present to the mind the idea of a company of farmers, rather than a camp of soldiers. In addition to the barracks built for them by the public, and now very comfortable, they have built great numbers for themselves, in such messes as fancied each other: and the whole corps, both officers and men, seem now, happy and satisfied with their situation. Having thus found the art of rendering captivity itself comfortable, and carried it into execution, at their own great expense and labor, their spirit sustained by the prospect of gratifications rising before their eyes, does not every sentiment of humanity revolt against the proposition of stripping them of all this, and removing them into new situations, where from the advanced season of the year, no preparations can be made for carrying themselves comfortably through the heats of summer; and when it is known that the necessary advances for the conveniences already provided, have exhausted their funds and left them unable to make the like exertions anew. Again; review this matter as it may regard appearances. A body of troops, after staying a twelvemonth at Boston, are ordered to take a march of seven hundred miles to Virginia, where, it is said, they may be plentifully subsisted. As soon as they are there, they are ordered on some other march, because, in Virginia, it is said, they cannot be subsisted. Indifferent nations will charge this either to ignorance, or to whim and caprice; the parties interested, to cruelty. They now view the proposition in that light, and it is said, there is a general and firm persuasion among them, that they were marched from Boston with no other purpose than to harass and destroy them with eternal marches. Perseverance in object, though not by the most direct way, is often more laudable than perpetual changes, as often as the object shifts light. A character of steadiness in our councils is worth more than the subsistence of four thousand people.
But is an enemy so detestable that, even in captivity, we should ignore and even go against their wishes and comforts? I think not. It's beneficial for humanity to lessen the horrors of war as much as possible. Therefore, the practice of modern nations treating captured enemies with kindness and generosity is not only commendable but genuinely significant to everyone—friends, foes, and neutrals alike. Let’s consider this: the officers, after enduring considerable hardships, have all secured quarters that are comfortable and satisfactory. To achieve this, they often had to rent houses for a full year at such outrageous rates that they tempted independent owners to vacate and find other arrangements. Most of these houses needed a lot of repairs, which they have managed at a significant cost. One of the generals has rented a place for two years, prepaid for the entire duration, and also had to build additional facilities to accommodate part of his family, as there wasn’t enough space in the rented house. On top of the brickwork, I know he is set to pay fifteen hundred dollars for the carpentry of these extra buildings. This same individual has, to my knowledge, paid one person three thousand six hundred seventy dollars for various items to make his stay comfortable. They have generally stocked up on grains and other provisions, as it’s well known that officers don’t survive on rations alone. They have bought cows, sheep, etc., taken up farming, and prepared their gardens, looking forward to comfort and tranquility. Turning to the soldiers: the area around the barracks is pleasant, the land cleared, laid out in hundreds of gardens, each enclosed in its own fence; these gardens are well-kept and look great. General Riedesel alone spent over two hundred pounds on garden seeds, just for the German troops. Just imagine how much land those seeds would cover. There’s little doubt that their gardens will provide them with a good supply of vegetables throughout the year. Their poultry, pigeons, and other similar arrangements make them seem more like a group of farmers than a band of soldiers. Besides the barracks built for them by the government, which are now quite comfortable, they have constructed many for themselves, based on their preferences, and the entire unit, both officers and men, now appears happy and content with their situation. Having managed to make captivity comfortable and executed it at their own significant cost and effort, and being motivated by the promise of rewards ahead of them, doesn’t every sense of humanity rebel against the idea of stripping them of all this and relocating them to new locations where, due to the late season, they won’t be able to prepare for a comfortable summer? Especially when it’s known that the necessary expenditures for the conveniences they’ve already secured have drained their resources, leaving them unable to make similar efforts again. Once more; let’s review this situation from an external perspective. A group of troops, after staying in Boston for a year, is ordered to march seven hundred miles to Virginia, where they are supposedly well-fed. Once they arrive, they’re sent on yet another march because, in Virginia, they cannot be properly sustained. Indifferent nations would attribute this to ignorance or random whims; the affected parties, however, see it as cruelty. They now perceive the situation this way, and there’s a widespread belief among them that they were marched from Boston solely to wear them out and torment them with endless marches. Sticking to a goal, even if not through the most straightforward path, is often more admirable than constant changes whenever the objective shifts slightly. A sense of consistency in our decisions holds more value than the sustenance of four thousand people.
There could not have been a more unlucky concurrence of circumstances than when these troops first came. The barracks were unfinished for want of laborers, the spell of weather the worst ever known within the memory of man, no stores of bread laid in, the roads, by the weather and number of wagons, soon rendered impassable: not only the troops themselves were greatly disappointed, but the people in the neighborhood were alarmed at the consequences which a total failure of provisions might produce. In this worst state of things, their situation was seen by many and disseminated through the country, so as to occasion a general dissatisfaction, which even seized the minds of reasonable men, who, if not infected with the contagion, must have foreseen that the prospect must brighten, and that great advantages to the people must necessarily arise. It has, accordingly, so happened. The planters, being more generally sellers than buyers, have felt the benefit of their presence in the most vital part about them, their purses, and are now sensible of its source. I have too good an opinion of their love of order, to believe that a removal of these troops would produce any irregular proofs of their disapprobation, but I am well assured it would be extremely odious to them.
There couldn’t have been a more unfortunate set of circumstances than when these troops first arrived. The barracks were incomplete due to a lack of workers, the weather was the worst anyone could remember, there were no supplies of bread stocked, and the roads quickly became impassable because of the rain and the number of wagons. Not only were the troops themselves very disappointed, but the local people were worried about what a total lack of supplies could lead to. In this dire situation, many recognized their plight, and news spread throughout the area, causing widespread dissatisfaction, which even affected reasonable individuals who, although not caught up in the panic, should have realized things would improve and that great benefits would eventually come to the community. And indeed, that has happened. The planters, being more often sellers than buyers, have noticed the financial benefits of the troops' presence, especially in their wallets, and are now aware of its source. I have too much faith in their respect for order to think that removing these troops would lead to any chaotic expressions of disapproval, but I am certain it would be highly unpopular with them.
To conclude. The separation of these troops would be a breach of public faith; therefore suppose it impossible. If they are removed to another State, it is the fault of the commissaries; if they are removed to any other part of the State, it is the fault of the commissaries; and in both cases, the public interest and public security suffer, the comfortable and plentiful subsistence of our own army is lessened, the health of the troops neglected, their wishes crossed, and their comforts torn from them, the character of whim and caprice, or, what is worse, of cruelty, fixed on us as a nation, and, to crown the whole, our own people disgusted with such a proceeding.
To wrap up, separating these troops would break public trust, so let's consider it impossible. If they are moved to another state, it's the commissaries' fault; if they are moved anywhere else in the state, that's also the commissaries' fault. In both situations, it harms public interest and security, reduces the comfort and abundance our own army relies on, neglects the health of the troops, disregards their wishes, and strips away their comforts. This gives our nation a reputation for being whimsical or, worse, cruel, and ultimately, it disgusts our own people with such actions.
I have thus taken the liberty of representing to you the facts and the reasons, which seem to militate against the separation or removal of these troops. I am sensible, however, that the same subject may appear to different persons in very different lights. What I have urged as reasons, may, to sounder minds, be apparent fallacies. I hope they will appear, at least, so plausible, as to excuse the interposition of
I have taken the liberty of presenting to you the facts and the reasons that seem to argue against the separation or removal of these troops. I understand, however, that the same topic may seem very different to different people. What I've pointed out as reasons might, to sharper minds, seem like obvious mistakes. I hope they come across as at least somewhat reasonable enough to justify my involvement in
your Excellency’s
your Excellency
most obedient
most compliant
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Jefferson
LETTER VI.—TO JOHN PAGE, January 22, 1779
TO JOHN PAGE.
To John Page.
Williamsburg,
Williamsburg,
January 22, 1779.
January 22, 1779.
Dear Page,
Dear Page,
I received your letter by Mr. Jamieson. It had given me much pain, that the zeal of our respective friends should ever have placed you and me in the situation of competitors. I was comforted, however, with the reflection, that it was their competition, not ours, and that the difference of the numbers which decided between us, was too insignificant to give you a pain, or me a pleasure, had our dispositions towards each other been such as to admit those sensations. I know you too well to need an apology for any thing you do, and hope you will for ever be assured of this; and as to the constructions of the world, they would only have added one to the many sins for which they are to go to the devil. As this is the first, I hope it will be the last, instance of ceremony between us. A desire to see my family, which is in Charles City, carries me thither to-morrow, and I shall not return till Monday. Be pleased to present my compliments to Mrs. Page, and add this to the assurances I have ever given you, that I am, dear Page,
I got your letter from Mr. Jamieson. It really hurt me that our enthusiastic friends put us in a position where we had to compete with each other. However, I found some comfort in realizing that this competition came from them, not from us, and that the difference in numbers that decided between us was too small to cause you any pain or me any pleasure, especially if we felt differently about each other. I know you well enough that I don’t need to apologize for anything you do, and I hope you always feel that way. As for the world's opinions, they would just add to the many wrongs they’ll have to answer for. Since this is the first time we've had to be formal with each other, I hope it will be the last. I'm heading to see my family in Charles City tomorrow, and I won't be back until Monday. Please give my regards to Mrs. Page and add this to the assurances I’ve always given you that I am, dear Page,
your affectionate friend,
your loving friend,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER VII.—TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, June 23, 1779
TO HIS EXCELLENCY GENERAL WASHINGTON.
To His Excellency General Washington.
Williamsburg,
Williamsburg
June 23, 1779.
June 23, 1779.
Sir,
Hey,
I have the pleasure to enclose you the particulars of Colonel Clarke’s success against St. Vincennes, as stated in his letter but lately received; the messenger, with his first letter, having been killed. I fear it will be impossible for Colonel Clarke to be so strengthened, as to enable him to do what he desires. Indeed, the express who brought this letter, gives us reason to fear, St. Vincennes is in danger from a large body of Indians, collected to attack it, and said, when he came from Kaskaskias, to be within thirty leagues of the place. I also enclose you a letter from Colonel Shelby, stating the effect of his success against the seceding Cherokees and Chuccamogga. The damage done them, was killing half a dozen, burning eleven towns, twenty thousand bushels of corn, collected probably to forward the expeditions which were to have been planned at the council which was to meet Governor Hamilton at the mouth of Tennessee, and taking as many goods as sold for twenty-five thousand pounds. I hope these two blows coming together, and the depriving them of their head, will, in some measure, effect the quiet of our frontiers this summer. We have intelligence, also, that Colonel Bowman, from Kentucky, is in the midst of the Shawnee country, with three hundred men, and hope to hear a good account of him. The enclosed order being in its nature important, and generally interesting, I think it proper to transmit it to you, with the reasons supporting it.* It will add much to our satisfaction, to know it meets your approbation.
I’m pleased to share the details of Colonel Clarke’s success against St. Vincennes, as mentioned in his recently received letter; the messenger who delivered his first letter was killed. I worry it will be impossible for Colonel Clarke to receive the support he needs to achieve his goals. In fact, the courier who brought this letter has given us reason to believe that St. Vincennes is at risk from a large group of Indians gathering to attack, and he said they were about thirty leagues away when he left Kaskaskias. I’m also including a letter from Colonel Shelby, detailing the impact of his success against the rebellious Cherokees and Chuccamogga. The damage inflicted on them included the deaths of about six people, the burning of eleven towns, and the destruction of twenty thousand bushels of corn, likely gathered for upcoming plans at a council meeting with Governor Hamilton at the mouth of the Tennessee River, along with confiscating goods worth twenty-five thousand pounds. I hope these two significant blows and the removal of their leader will help bring some peace to our frontiers this summer. We’ve also received news that Colonel Bowman, from Kentucky, is in the heart of Shawnee territory with three hundred men, and we’re hopeful for good news about him. The enclosed order is important and of general interest, so I thought it best to forward it to you, along with the reasons behind it. It would greatly please us to know that you approve of it.
I have the honor to be, with every sentiment of private respect and public gratitude,
I am honored to express my personal respect and public gratitude,
Sir, your most obedient
Your obedient servant,
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
P. S. The distance of our northern and western counties from the scene of southern service, and the necessity of strengthening our western quarter, have induced the Council to direct the new levies from the counties of Yohogania, Ohio, Monongalia, Frederick, Hampshire, Berkeley, Rockingham, and Greenbrier, amounting to somewhat less than three hundred men, to enter into the ninth regiment at Pittsburg. The aid they may give there, will be so immediate and important, and what they could do to the southward, would be so late, as, I hope, will apologize for their interference. T. J.
P.S. The distance of our northern and western counties from the southern service area, along with the need to strengthen our western region, has led the Council to instruct the new recruits from the counties of Yohogania, Ohio, Monongalia, Frederick, Hampshire, Berkeley, Rockingham, and Greenbrier, totaling just under three hundred men, to join the ninth regiment in Pittsburgh. The support they can provide there will be immediate and crucial, while any assistance they could offer to the south would come too late, I hope this will justify their involvement. T. J.
* For Colonel Clarke's letter and the order mentioned, see Appendix A.
LETTER VIII.—TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, July 17, 1779
TO HIS EXCELLENCY GENERAL WASHINGTON
To His Excellency General Washington
Williamsburg,
Williamsburg,
July 17, 1779.
July 17, 1779.
Sir,
Sir,
I some time ago enclosed to you a printed copy of an order of Council, by which Governor Hamilton was to be confined in irons, in close jail, which has occasioned a letter from General Phillips, of which the enclosed is a copy. The General seems to think that a prisoner on capitulation cannot be put in close confinement, though his capitulation should not have provided against it. My idea was, that all persons taken in war, were to be deemed prisoners of war. That those who surrender on capitulation (or convention) are prisoners of war also, subject to the same treatment with those who surrender at discretion, except only so far as the terms of their capitulation or convention shall have guarded them. In the capitulation of Governor Hamilton (a copy of which I enclose), no stipulation is made as to the treatment of himself, or those taken with him. The Governor, indeed, when he signs, adds a flourish of reasons inducing him to capitulate, one of which is the generosity of his enemy. Generosity, on a large and comprehensive scale, seems to dictate the making a signal example of this gentleman; but waving that, these are only the private motives inducing him to surrender, and do not enter into the contract of Colonel Clarke. I have the highest idea of those contracts which take place between nation and nation, at war, and would be the last on earth to do any thing in violation of them. I can find nothing in those books usually recurred to as testimonials of the laws and usages of nature and nations, which convicts the opinions I have above expressed of error. Yet there may be such an usage as General Phillips seems to suppose, though not taken notice of by these writers. I am obliged to trouble your Excellency on this occasion, by asking of you information on this point. There is no other person, whose decision will so authoritatively decide this doubt in the public mind, and none with which I am disposed so implicitly to comply. If you shall be of opinion that the bare existence of a capitulation, in the case of Governor Hamilton, privileges him from confinement, though there be no article to that effect in the capitulation, justice shall most assuredly be done him. The importance of this point, in a public view, and my own anxiety under a charge of violation of national faith by the Executive of this Commonwealth, will, I hope, apologize for my adding this to the many troubles with which I know you to be burdened. I have the honor to be, with the most profound respect, your Excellency’s most obedient
I sent you a printed copy of a council order some time ago, which states that Governor Hamilton was to be confined in irons in close jail. This has led to a letter from General Phillips, and I’ve enclosed a copy of it. The General appears to believe that a prisoner taken under surrender cannot be placed in close confinement, even if their surrender didn't explicitly stipulate against it. My understanding is that all individuals captured in war should be classified as prisoners of war. Those who surrender under terms (or agreement) also fall under this category and should be treated similarly to individuals who surrender without conditions, except where their surrender terms specifically protect them. In the capitulation of Governor Hamilton (a copy of which I enclose), there’s no provision regarding the treatment of him or his companions. In fact, when he signs, he adds justifications for his surrender, one being the generosity of his enemy. Broadly speaking, generosity seems to suggest making a notable example out of him; however, these are merely personal reasons for his surrender and don’t factor into Colonel Clarke’s agreement. I hold the highest regard for agreements made between nations at war, and I would never intentionally violate them. I can find nothing in the texts often referred to as guidelines on the laws and practices of nature and nations that suggests my views are wrong. However, there may be customs that General Phillips believes in, even if they aren't documented by these authors. I must trouble you for clarification on this issue. There's no one else whose opinion would carry as much weight in resolving this uncertainty, and nobody else I'm willing to follow so completely. If you believe that the mere existence of a capitulation in Governor Hamilton’s case prevents his confinement, even without a specific clause to that effect, I will ensure that justice is served for him. The significance of this matter from a public perspective and my own concern about a possible breach of national trust by the Executive of this Commonwealth will hopefully excuse my adding this to the many burdens I know you carry. I have the honor to remain, with the deepest respect, your Excellency’s most obedient.
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
P. S. I have just received a letter from Colonel Bland, containing information of numerous desertions from the Convention troops, not less than four hundred in the last fortnight. He thinks he has reason to believe it is with the connivance of some of their officers. Some of these have been retaken, all of them going northwardly. They had provided themselves with forged passports, and with certificates of having taken the oath of fidelity to the State; some of them forged, others really given by weak magistrates. I give this information to your Excellency, as perhaps it may be in your power to have such of them intercepted as shall be passing through Pennsylvania and Jersey.
P. S. I just got a letter from Colonel Bland, informing me about a lot of desertions from the Convention troops—at least four hundred in the last two weeks. He believes some of their officers might be involved. Some of these deserters have been caught, and they were all heading north. They managed to get fake passports and certificates claiming they had sworn loyalty to the State; some were fake, while others were genuinely issued by incompetent officials. I’m sharing this info with you, Your Excellency, as it might be possible for you to intercept those who are trying to pass through Pennsylvania and Jersey.
Your letter enclosing the opinion of the board of war in the case of Allison and Lee, has come safe to hand, after a long passage. It shall be answered by next post. T. J.
Your letter with the board of war's opinion on the case of Allison and Lee has arrived safely after a long delay. I will respond by the next mail. T. J.
LETTER IX.—TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, October 1, 1779
TO HIS EXCELLENCY GENERAL WASHINGTON.
To His Excellency General Washington.
Williamsburg,
Williamsburg,
October 1, 1779.
October 1, 1779.
Sir,
Sir,
On receipt of your letter of August 6th, during my absence, the Council had the irons taken off the prisoners of war. When your advice was asked, we meant it should decide with us; and upon my return to Williamsburg, the matter was taken up and the enclosed advice given. [See Appendix, note B.] A parole was formed, of which the enclosed is a copy, and tendered to the prisoners. They objected to that part of it which restrained them from saying any thing to the prejudice of the United States, and insisted on ‘freedom of speech.’ They were, in consequence, remanded to their confinement in the jail, which must be considered as a voluntary one, until they can determine with themselves to be inoffensive in word as well as deed. A flag sails hence to-morrow to New York, to negotiate the exchange of some prisoners. By her I have written to General Phillips on this subject, and enclosed to him copies of the within; intending it as an answer to a letter I received from him on the subject of Governor Hamilton.
Upon receiving your letter from August 6th, while I was away, the Council had the restraints removed from the prisoners of war. When we sought your input, we intended for it to guide our decision; upon my return to Williamsburg, the issue was addressed and the enclosed advice was given. [See Appendix, note B.] A parole was drafted, of which the enclosed is a copy, and offered to the prisoners. They objected to the clause that prevented them from saying anything negative about the United States and insisted on ‘freedom of speech.’ As a result, they were returned to their confinement in jail, which must be seen as voluntary, until they agree to be non-offensive in both word and action. A flag is set to leave for New York tomorrow to negotiate the exchange of some prisoners. Through her, I’ve written to General Phillips regarding this matter and included copies of the enclosed materials, intending it as a response to a letter I received from him about Governor Hamilton.
I have the honor to be, Sir,
I am honored to be, Sir,
your most obedient
your most loyal
and most humble servant,
your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER X.—TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, October 2, 1779
TO HIS EXCELLENCY GENERAL WASHINGTON.
To His Excellency General Washington.
Williamsburg,
Williamsburg
October 2, 1779.
October 2, 1779.
Sir,
Hey,
Just as the letter accompanying this was going off, Colonel Mathews arrived on parole from New York, by the way of headquarters, bringing your Excellency’s letter on this subject, with that of the British commissary of prisoners. The subject is of great importance, and I must, therefore, reserve myself to answer after further consideration. Were I to speak from present impressions, I should say it was happy for Governor Hamilton that a final determination of his fate was formed before this new information. As the enemy have released Captain Willing from his irons, the Executive of this State will be induced perhaps not to alter their former opinion. But it is impossible they can be serious in attempting to bully us in this manner. We have too many of their subjects in our power, and too much iron to clothe them with, and, I will add, too much resolution to avail ourselves of both, to fear their pretended retaliation. However, I will do myself the honor of forwarding to your Excellency the ultimate result of Council on this subject.
Just as the letter that goes with this was being sent out, Colonel Mathews arrived on parole from New York, passing through headquarters, bringing your Excellency’s letter on this matter, along with one from the British commissary of prisoners. This topic is very important, and so I need to reserve my response until I've given it more thought. If I were to speak based on my immediate thoughts, I would say it was fortunate for Governor Hamilton that a final decision about his fate was reached before this new information came in. Since the enemy has released Captain Willing from his shackles, the state leaders might decide not to change their earlier stance. However, it’s hard to believe they’re serious about trying to intimidate us like this. We have too many of their people in our control and too much iron to use on them, and I’ll also say we have too much determination to use both, to worry about their supposed retaliation. Nevertheless, I will honorably send your Excellency the final outcome from the Council on this matter.
In consequence of the information in the letter from the British commissary of prisoners, that no officers of the Virginia line should be exchanged till Governor Hamilton’s affair should be settled, we have stopped our flag, which was just hoisting anchor with a load of privates for New York. I must, therefore, ask the favor of your Excellency to forward the enclosed by flag, when an opportunity offers, as I suppose General Phillips will be in New York before it reaches you.
In light of the letter from the British commissary of prisoners stating that no officers from the Virginia line will be exchanged until the situation with Governor Hamilton is resolved, we have halted our flag, which was about to set sail with a load of privates for New York. Therefore, I kindly ask your Excellency to send the enclosed by flag when a chance arises, as I expect General Phillips will be in New York before it gets to you.
I have the honor to be, Sir, with the greatest esteem,
I am honored to be, Sir, with the highest respect,
your most obedient
your most loyal
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XI.—TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, Oct. 8, 1779
TO HIS EXCELLENCY GENERAL WASHINGTON.
To His Excellency General Washington.
In Council, Oct. 8, 1779.
In Council, Oct. 8, 1779.
Sir,
Hey,
In mine of the second of the present month, written in the instant of Colonel Mathews’ delivery of your letter, I informed you what had been done on the subject of Governor Hamilton and his companions previous to that moment. I now enclose you an advice of Council, [See Appendix, note C.] in consequence of the letter you were pleased to enclose me, from the British commissary of prisoners, with one from Lord Rawdon; also a copy of my letter to Colonel Mathews, enclosing, also, the papers therein named. The advice of Council to allow the enlargement of prisoners, on their giving a proper parole, has not been recalled, nor will be, I suppose, unless something on the part of the enemy should render it necessary. I rather expect, however, that they will see it their interest to discontinue this kind of conduct. I am afraid I shall hereafter, perhaps be obliged to give your Excellency some trouble in aiding me to obtain information of the future usage of our prisoners. I shall give immediate orders for having in readiness every engine which the enemy have contrived for the destruction of our unhappy citizens, captivated by them. The presentiment of these operations is shocking beyond expression. I pray Heaven to avert them: but nothing in this world will do it, but a proper conduct in the enemy. In every event, I shall resign myself to the hard necessity under which I shall act.
On the second of this month, just after Colonel Mathews delivered your letter, I informed you about what had been done regarding Governor Hamilton and his companions up to that point. I’m now enclosing a Council notice, [See Appendix, note C.] in response to the letter you kindly forwarded to me from the British commissary of prisoners, along with one from Lord Rawdon; I’m also including a copy of my letter to Colonel Mathews, which includes the mentioned documents. The Council’s advice to allow the release of prisoners, provided they give a proper parole, has not been revoked, nor do I expect it will be unless the enemy makes it necessary. However, I anticipate they will see that it's in their best interest to stop this kind of behavior. I'm afraid I may have to trouble your Excellency in the future to help me get information about the ongoing treatment of our prisoners. I'll give immediate orders to prepare every means the enemy has devised for the destruction of our unfortunate citizens they have captured. The thought of these actions is unbearably horrifying. I pray Heaven to prevent them: but nothing in this world will achieve that except for appropriate behavior from the enemy. In any case, I will accept the harsh necessity of the actions I must take.
I have the honor to be, with great regard and esteem,
I am honored to be, with great respect and appreciation,
your Excellency’s
your Excellence’s
most obedient and
most compliant and
most humble servant,
your humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XII.—TO COLONEL MATHEWS, October, 1779
TO COLONEL MATHEWS.
To Colonel Mathews.
In Council, October, 1779.
In Council, October 1779.
Sir,
Hey there,
The proceedings respecting Governor Hamilton and his companions, previous to your arrival here, you are acquainted with. For your more precise information, I enclose you the advice of Council, of June the 16th, of that of August the 28th, another of September the 19th, on the parole tendered them the 1st instant, and Governor Hamilton’s letter of the same day, stating his objections, in which he persevered: from that time his confinement has become a voluntary one. You delivered us your letters the next day, when, the post being just setting out, much business prevented the Council from taking them into consideration. They have this day attended to them, and found their resolution expressed in the enclosed advice bearing date this day. It gives us great pain that any of our countrymen should be cut off from the society of their friends and tenderest connections, while it seems as if it was in our power, to administer relief. But we trust to their good sense for discerning, and their spirit for bearing up against the fallacy of this appearance. Governor Hamilton and his companions were imprisoned and ironed, 1st. In retaliation for cruel treatment of our captive citizens by the enemy in general. 2nd. For the barbarous species of warfare which himself and his savage allies carried on in our western frontier. 3d. For particular acts of barbarity, of which he himself was personally guilty, to some of our citizens in his power. Any one of these charges was sufficient to justify the measures we took. Of the truth of the first, yourselves are witnesses. Your situation, indeed, seems to have been better since you were sent to New York; but reflect on what you suffered before that, and knew others of our countrymen to suffer, and what you know is now suffered by that more unhappy part of them, who are still confined on board the prison-ships of the enemy. Proofs of the second charge, we have under Hamilton’s own hand: and of the third, as sacred assurances as human testimony is capable of giving. Humane conduct on our part, was found to produce no effect; the contrary, therefore, was to be tried. If it produces a proper lenity to our citizens in captivity, it will have the effect we meant; if it does not, we shall return a severity as terrible as universal. If the causes of our rigor against Hamilton were founded in truth, that rigor was just, and would not give right to the enemy to commence any new hostilities on their part: and all such new severities are to be considered, not as retaliation, but as original and unprovoked. If those causes were, not founded in truth, they should have denied them. If, declining the tribunal of truth and reason, they choose to pervert this into a contest of cruelty and destruction, we will contend with them in that line, and measure out misery to those in our power, in that multiplied proportion which the advantage of superior numbers enables us to do. We shall think it our particular duty, after the information we gather from the papers which have been laid before us, to pay very constant attention to your situation, and that of your fellow prisoners. We hope that the prudence of the enemy will be your protection from injury; and we are assured that your regard for the honor of your country would not permit you to wish we should suffer ourselves to be bullied into an acquiescence, under every insult and cruelty they may choose to practise, and a fear to retaliate, lest you should be made to experience additional sufferings. Their officers and soldiers in our hands are pledges for your safety: we are determined to use them as such. Iron will be retaliated by iron, but a great multiplication on distinguished objects; prison-ships by prison-ships, and like for like in general. I do not mean by this to cover any officer who has acted, or shall act, improperly. They say Captain Willing was guilty of great cruelties at the Natchez; if so, they do right in punishing him. I would use any powers I have, for the punishment of any officer of our own, who should be guilty of excesses unjustifiable under the usages of civilized nations. However, I do not find myself obliged to believe the charge against Captain Willing to be true, on the affirmation of the British commissary, because, in the next breath, he affirms no cruelties have as yet been inflicted on him. Captain Willing has been in irons.
The details about Governor Hamilton and his companions before you got here are already known to you. For more specific information, I’m enclosing the Council’s advice from June 16, August 28, and September 19, regarding the parole offered to them on the 1st of this month, along with Governor Hamilton’s letter from the same day, where he listed his objections and remained firm in his stance. Since then, his imprisonment has become voluntary. You delivered your letters to us the next day, and since the post was just about to leave, the Council couldn’t consider them right away due to other pressing business. They’ve reviewed them today and have expressed their resolution in the enclosed advice dated today. It deeply pains us that any of our fellow countrymen should be kept from their friends and loved ones when it seems we might be able to help. But we trust their good sense will help them see through this illusion, and their strength will support them in enduring it. Governor Hamilton and his companions were detained and shackled for several reasons: 1st. In retaliation for the cruel treatment of our captured citizens by the enemy as a whole. 2nd. For the brutal warfare he and his savage allies conducted on our western frontier. 3rd. For specific acts of barbarity he personally committed against some of our citizens under his control. Any one of these reasons would justify our actions. You yourself have witnessed the truth of the first. Your circumstances seem to have improved since you were sent to New York, but consider what you endured before that and what others from our country went through, as well as what you know the less fortunate among them are still facing on the enemy’s prison ships. We have proof of the second charge in Hamilton’s own words, and we have strong assurances regarding the third that human testimony can provide. Our humane treatment has shown no results; therefore, we had to try a different approach. If it leads to better treatment for our citizens in captivity, it will achieve our aim; if not, we will respond with severity that is as dreadful as it is widespread. If our reasons for being stern with Hamilton are true, then that sternness is justified and won’t give the enemy any right to start new hostilities on their end. All such new harshness should be seen not as retaliation, but as original and unwarranted. If our reasons aren’t true, they should have denied them. If they prefer to turn this into a contest of cruelty and destruction, we will respond in kind, inflicting misery to the extent our superior numbers allow us to do. After reviewing the documents presented to us, we consider it our duty to closely monitor your situation and that of your fellow prisoners. We hope the enemy's restraint will protect you from harm, and we are confident that your commitment to your country’s honor won’t lead you to wish we allow ourselves to be intimidated into compliance with every insult and cruelty they may choose to impose, fearing retaliation might cause you additional suffering. The officers and soldiers we have are guarantees for your safety; we intend to use them as such. Iron will be met with iron, but we will amplify the response on key targets; prison ships will be answered with prison ships, treating like for like in general. I’m not saying this to excuse any officer who has acted or will act improperly. They say Captain Willing committed severe atrocities at Natchez; if that’s true, then he should be punished. I would use any authority I have to penalize any of our own officers found guilty of actions that are unjustifiable under the standards of civilized nations. However, I don’t feel it’s necessary to accept the charge against Captain Willing as true based solely on the British commissary’s statement, especially since he immediately claims that no cruelties have yet been inflicted on him. Captain Willing has been in chains.
I beg you to be assured, there is nothing consistent with the honor of your country, which we shall not, at all times, be ready to do for the relief of yourself and companions in captivity. We know, that ardent spirit and hatred for tyranny, which brought you into your present situation, will enable you to bear up against it with the firmness, which has distinguished you as a soldier, and to look forward with pleasure to the day, when events shall take place, against which the wounded spirits of your enemies will find no comfort, even from reflections on the most refined of the cruelties with which they have glutted themselves.
I assure you, there is nothing that goes against the honor of your country that we won’t always be willing to do to help you and your fellow captives. We know that the passionate spirit and hatred for oppression that brought you to your current situation will help you endure it with the strength that has defined you as a soldier, and to look forward with hope to the day when events will unfold that will offer no solace to the wounded spirits of your enemies, not even from thoughts of the most refined cruelties they have indulged in.
I am, with great respect,
I respectfully
your most obedient
your devoted
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XIII.—TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, November 28, 1779
TO HIS EXCELLENCY GENERAL WASHINGTON.
To His Excellency General Washington.
Willlamsburg, November 28, 1779.
Williamsburg, November 28, 1779.
Sir,
Hey,
Your Excellency’s letter on the discriminations which have been heretofore made, between the troops raised within this state, and considered as part of our quota, and those not so considered, was delivered me four days ago. I immediately laid it before the Assembly, who thereupon came to the resolution I now do myself the honor of enclosing you. The resolution of Congress, of March 15th, 1779, which you were so kind as to enclose, was never known in this state till a few weeks ago, when we received printed copies of the Journals of Congress. It would be a great satisfaction to us, to receive an exact return of all the men we have in Continental service, who come within the description of the resolution, together with our state troops in Continental service. Colonel Cabell was so kind as to send me a return of the Continental regiments, commanded by Lord Sterling, of the first and second Virginia State regiments, and of Colonel Gist’s regiment. Besides these are the following, viz. Colonel Harrison’s regiment of artillery, Colonel Bayler’s horse, Colonel Eland’s horse, General Scott’s new levies, part of which are gone to Carolina, and part are here, Colonel Gibson’s regiment stationed on the Ohio, Heath and Ohara’s independent companies at the same stations. Colonel Taylor’s regiment of guards to the Convention troops: of these, we have a return. There may, possibly, be others not occurring to me. A return of all these would enable us to see what proportion of the Continental army is contributed by us. We have, at present, very pressing calls to send additional numbers of men to the southward. No inclination is wanting in either the Legislature or Executive, to aid them or strengthen you: but we find it very difficult to procure men. I herewith transmit to your Excellency some recruiting commissions, to be put into such hands as you may think proper, for re-enlisting such of our soldiery as are not already engaged for the war. The Act of Assembly authorizing these instructions, requires that the men enlisted should be reviewed and received by an officer to be appointed for that purpose; a caution, less necessary in the case of men now actually in Service, therefore, doubtless able-bodied, than in the raising new recruits. The direction, however, goes to all cases, and, therefore, we must trouble your Excellency with the appointment of one or more officers of review. Mr. Moss, our agent, receives orders, which accompany this, to pay the bounty money and recruiting money, and to deliver the clothing. We have, however, certain reason to fear he has not any great sum of money on hand; and it is absolutely out of our power, at this time, to supply him, or to say, with certainty, when we shall be able to do it. He is instructed to note his acceptances under the draughts, and to assure payment as soon as we shall have it in our power to furnish him, as the only substitute for money. Your Excellency’s directions to the officer of review, will probably procure us the satisfaction of being informed, from time to time, how many men shall be re-enlisted.
Your Excellency’s letter about the unfair treatment of the troops raised in our state, which are considered part of our quota, versus those that are not, was delivered to me four days ago. I immediately presented it to the Assembly, which then reached the resolution that I am honored to enclose. The resolution from Congress dated March 15th, 1779, which you kindly enclosed, was not known to us until a few weeks ago when we received printed copies of the Journals of Congress. It would greatly please us to receive an accurate count of all the men we have in Continental service who fall under the description of the resolution, along with our state troops in Continental service. Colonel Cabell was kind enough to send me a report of the Continental regiments commanded by Lord Sterling, as well as the first and second Virginia State regiments and Colonel Gist’s regiment. In addition, there are Colonel Harrison’s artillery regiment, Colonel Bayler’s cavalry, Colonel Eland’s cavalry, General Scott’s new recruits—some of whom have gone to Carolina while others are here—Colonel Gibson’s regiment stationed on the Ohio, and Heath and Ohara’s independent companies at the same stations. Colonel Taylor’s guard regiment for the Convention troops: we have a report on these. There may be others that I’m not recalling. A report on all of these would help us understand what portion of the Continental army we are contributing. Right now, we have urgent requests to send more men south. There is no lack of willingness from either the Legislature or the Executive to assist or strengthen you, but we find it very challenging to recruit men. I am sending you some recruiting commissions to be given to whoever you deem appropriate for re-enlisting any of our soldiers who are not already committed for the duration of the war. The Act of Assembly that authorizes these instructions requires that the enlisted men be reviewed and accepted by an officer assigned for that purpose—a precaution that is less necessary for men already in service, who are presumably able-bodied, than it is when raising new recruits. However, this requirement applies to all cases, so we must trouble your Excellency with the appointment of one or more reviewing officers. Mr. Moss, our agent, has received orders with this letter to pay the bounty and recruiting money and to provide clothing. However, we have reason to believe he does not have a large sum of money available, and it is entirely beyond our means at this moment to provide him with funds or to say when we will be able to do so. He is instructed to track his acceptances under the drafts and to guarantee payment as soon as we can supply him with the necessary funds, as the only alternative to money. Your Excellency’s directions to the reviewing officer will likely give us the satisfaction of knowing, periodically, how many men will be re-enlisted.
By Colonel Mathews I informed your Excellency fully of the situation of Governor Hamilton and his companions. Lamothe and Dejean have given their paroles, and are at Hanover Court-House: Hamilton, Hay, and others, are still obstinate; therefore, still in close confinement, though their irons have never been on, since your second letter on the subject. I wrote full information of this matter to General Phillips also, from whom I had received letters on the subject. I cannot, in reason, believe that the enemy, on receiving this information either from yourself or General Phillips, will venture to impose any new cruelties on our officers in captivity with them. Yet their conduct, hitherto, has been most successfully prognosticated by reversing the conclusions of right reason. It is, therefore, my duty, as well as it was my promise to the Virginia captives, to take measures for discovering any change which may be made in their situation. For this purpose, I must apply for your Excellency’s interposition. I doubt not but you have an established mode of knowing, at all times, through your commissary of prisoners, the precise state of those in the power of the enemy. I must, therefore, pray you to put into motion any such means you have, for obtaining knowledge of the situation of Virginia officers in captivity. If you should think proper, as I could wish, to take upon yourself to retaliate any new sufferings which may be imposed on them, it will be more likely to have-due weight, and to restore the unhappy on both sides, to that benevolent treatment for which all should wish.
By Colonel Mathews, I fully informed your Excellency about Governor Hamilton and his associates. Lamothe and Dejean have given their paroles and are at Hanover Court-House; Hamilton, Hay, and others remain stubborn and are still in confinement, although they haven’t been shackled since your second letter on the issue. I also sent detailed information about this matter to General Phillips, from whom I received correspondence regarding it. I cannot reasonably believe that the enemy, upon receiving this information from either you or General Phillips, would dare to impose any new cruelty on our officers in their captivity. However, their behavior so far has defied all logical expectations. Thus, it is my duty, just as it was my promise to the Virginia captives, to take steps to find out about any changes in their situation. For this, I must seek your Excellency’s intervention. I have no doubt that you have a reliable method of keeping track, through your commissary of prisoners, of the exact situation of those under the enemy's control. Therefore, I kindly ask you to activate any resources you have to gather information on the status of Virginia officers in captivity. If you deem it appropriate, as I hope you would, to retaliate for any new suffering they may endure, it would carry more weight and help restore humane treatment for everyone involved, which we all wish for.
I have the honor to be, &c. &c.
I have the honor to be, &c. &c.
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XIV.—TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, December 10,1779
TO HIS EXCELLENCY GENERAL WASHINGTON.
To His Excellency General Washington.
Williamsburg, December 10,1779.
Williamsburg, December 10, 1779.
Sir,
Hey,
I take the liberty of putting under cover to your Excellency some letters to Generals Phillips and Reidesel, uninformed whether they are gone into New York or not, and knowing that you can best forward them in either case.
I’m taking the liberty of sending some letters to your Excellency for Generals Phillips and Reidesel, not sure if they’ve gone to New York or not, and knowing that you can best forward them in either situation.
I also trouble you with a letter from the master of the flag in this State, to the British commissary of prisoners in New York, trusting it will thus be more certainly conveyed than if sent to Mr. Adams. It is my wish the British commissary should return his answer through your Excellency, or your commissary of prisoners, and that they should not propose, under this pretext, to send another flag, as the mission of the present flag is not unattended with circumstances of suspicion; and a certain information of the situation of ourselves and our allies here, might influence the measures of the enemy.
I’m also sending you a letter from the master of the flag in this state to the British commissary of prisoners in New York, hoping it will be delivered more reliably than if sent to Mr. Adams. I’d like the British commissary to send his reply through your Excellency or your commissary of prisoners, and I want to make sure they don’t propose sending another flag under this pretext, since the current flag's mission has some suspicious circumstances. Any solid information about our situation and our allies here could affect the enemy's decisions.
Perhaps your commissary of prisoners can effect the former method of answer.
Perhaps your prison commissary can implement the former method of response.
I enclose to you part of an Act of Assembly ascertaining the quantity of land, which shall be allowed to the officers and soldiers at the close of the war, and providing means of keeping that country vacant which has been allotted for them.
I’m including part of a legislative act that determines the amount of land that will be given to the officers and soldiers after the war ends, and sets up a way to keep the allocated land unoccupied.
I am advised to ask your Excellency’s attention to the case of Colonel Bland, late commander of the barracks in Albemarle. When that gentleman was appointed to that command, he attended the Executive here and informed them he must either decline it, or be supported in such a way as would keep up that respect which was essential to his command; without, at the same time, ruining his private fortune.
I have been told to bring to your attention the situation of Colonel Bland, the former commander of the barracks in Albemarle. When he was appointed to that position, he met with the Executive here and let them know that he would either have to turn it down or receive support in a way that would maintain the respect necessary for his role without compromising his personal finances.
The Executive were sensible he would be exposed to great and unavoidable expense: they observed, his command would be in a department separate from any other, and that he actually relieved a Major General from the same service. They did not think themselves authorized to say what should be done in this case, but undertook to represent the matter to Congress, and, in the mean time, gave it as their opinion that he ought to be allowed a decent table. On this, he undertook the office, and in the course of it incurred expenses which seemed to have been unavoidable, unless he would have lived in such a way as is hardly reconcileable to the spirit of an officer, or the reputation of those in whose service he is. Governor Henry wrote on the subject to Congress; Colonel Bland did the same; but we learn they have concluded the allowance to be unprecedented, and inadmissible in the case of an officer of his rank. The commissaries, on this, have called on Colonel Bland for reimbursement. A sale of his estate was about to take place, when we undertook to recommend to them to suspend their demand, till we could ask the favor of you to advocate this matter so far with Congress, as you may think it right; otherwise the ruin of a very worthy officer must inevitably follow. I have the honor to be, with the greatest respect and esteem,
The Executive understood that he would face significant and unavoidable expenses. They noted that his command would be in a separate department and that he actually took over the responsibilities from a Major General in the same service. They didn’t feel authorized to dictate what should happen in this situation, but they promised to raise the issue with Congress and, in the meantime, expressed their opinion that he should be allowed a reasonable budget for meals. With that, he accepted the position and ended up incurring expenses that seemed unavoidable unless he was willing to live in a way that wouldn’t align with the values of an officer or the reputation of those he served. Governor Henry wrote to Congress about this; Colonel Bland did the same. However, we’ve learned that they concluded the allowance was without precedent and not applicable for an officer of his rank. In response, the commissaries have asked Colonel Bland for reimbursement. A sale of his estate was about to happen when we suggested that they hold off on their demand until we could ask you for your support in advocating for this matter with Congress, as you see fit; otherwise, a very worthy officer’s ruin is likely. I have the honor to be, with the greatest respect and esteem,
your Excellency’s
your Excellency
most obedient servant,
most obedient servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XV.—TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, February 10, 1780
TO HIS EXCELLENCY GENERAL WASHINGTON.
To His Excellency General Washington.
Williamsburg, February 10, 1780.
Williamsburg, February 10, 1780.
Sir,
Sir,
It is possible you may have heard, that in the course of last summer an expedition was meditated, by our Colonel Clarke, against Detroit: that he had proceeded so far as to rendezvous a considerable body of Indians, I believe four or five thousand, at St. Vincennes; but, being disappointed in the number of whites he expected, and not choosing to rely principally on the Indians, he was obliged to decline it. We have a tolerable prospect of reinforcing him this spring, to the number which he thinks sufficient for the enterprise. We have informed him of this, and left him to decide between this object, and that of giving vigorous chastisement to those tribes of Indians, whose eternal hostilities have proved them incapable of living on friendly terms with us. It is our opinion, his inclination will lead him to determine on the former. The reason of my laying before your Excellency this matter, is, that it has been intimated to me that Colonel Broadhead is meditating a similar expedition. I wished, therefore, to make you acquainted with what we had in contemplation. The enterprising and energetic genius of Clarke is not altogether unknown to you. You also know (what I am a stranger to) the abilities of Broadhead, and the particular force with which you will be able to arm him for such an expedition. We wish the most hopeful means should be used for removing so uneasy a thorn from our side. As yourself, alone, are acquainted with all the circumstances necessary for well informed decision, I am to ask the favor of your Excellency, if you should think Broadhead’s undertaking it most likely to produce success, that you will be so kind as to intimate to us to divert Clarke to the other object, which is also important to this State. It will, of course, have weight with you in forming your determination, that our prospect of strengthening Clarke’s hands, sufficiently, is not absolutely certain. It may be necessary, perhaps, to inform you, that these two officers cannot act together, which excludes the hopes of ensuring success by a joint expedition.
You might have heard that last summer our Colonel Clarke planned an expedition against Detroit. He managed to gather a significant number of Native Americans, around four or five thousand, at St. Vincennes. However, he was let down by the number of white troops he expected, and since he didn't want to rely mostly on the Native Americans, he had to cancel it. We have a good chance of sending him reinforcements this spring, enough to meet the requirements he believes are necessary for the mission. We've informed him of this and left it to him to choose between this goal and taking strong action against those tribes whose ongoing hostility has shown they can't live peacefully with us. We think he will likely choose the former. The reason I'm bringing this to your attention, Your Excellency, is that I've been told Colonel Broadhead is planning a similar expedition. I wanted to make you aware of our intentions. You are likely familiar with Clarke’s ambitious and dynamic nature. You also know—something I'm not familiar with—Broadhead's skills and the specific forces you can provide him for such a mission. We hope the best strategies will be used to eliminate this persistent issue. Since you are the only one who knows all the details necessary for a well-informed decision, I kindly ask, if you believe Broadhead's mission is more likely to succeed, that you let us know so we can steer Clarke towards the other important objective for this State. It will, of course, be a factor in your decision that our ability to sufficiently strengthen Clarke is not guaranteed. Additionally, I should mention that these two officers cannot operate together, which rules out the possibility of a successful joint mission.
I have the honor to be, with the most sincere esteem,
I am honored to express my highest regard,
your Excellency’s most obedient
Your Excellency's most obedient
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XVI.—TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, June 11, 1780
TO HIS EXCELLENCY GENERAL WASHINGTON.
To His Excellency General Washington.
Richmond, June 11, 1780.
Richmond, June 11, 1780.
Sir,
Dude,
Major Galvan, as recommended by your Excellency, was despatched to his station without delay, and has been furnished with every thing he desired, as far as we were able. The line of expresses formed between us is such, as will communicate intelligence from one to the other in twenty-three hours. I have forwarded to him information of our disasters in the South, as they have come to me.
Major Galvan, as your Excellency suggested, was sent to his post right away and has been provided with everything he requested, as much as we could manage. The network of couriers set up between us is designed to share updates from one another within twenty-three hours. I've passed on to him details about our setbacks in the South, as they've reached me.
Our intelligence from the southward is most lamentably defective. Though Charleston has been in the hands of the enemy a month, we hear nothing of their movements which can be relied on. Rumors are, that they are penetrating northward. To remedy this defect, I shall immediately establish a line of expresses from hence to the neighborhood of their army, and send thither a sensible, judicious person, to give us information of their movements. This intelligence will, I hope, be conveyed to us at the rate of one hundred and twenty miles in the twenty-four hours. They set out to their stations to-morrow. I wish it were possible, that a like speedy line of communication could be formed from hence to your Excellency’s head-quarters. Perfect and speedy information of what is passing in the South, might put it in your power, perhaps, to frame your measures by theirs. There is really nothing to oppose the progress of the enemy northward, but the cautious principles of the military art. North Carolina is without arms. We do not abound. Those we have, are freely imparted to them; but such is the state of their resources, that they have not been able to move a single musket from this State to theirs. All the wagons we can collect, have been furnished to the Marquis de Kalb, and are assembled for the march of twenty-five hundred men, under General Stevens, of Culpeper, who will move on the 19th instant. I have written to Congress to hasten supplies of arms and military stores for the southern states, and particularly to aid us with cartridge paper and boxes, the want of which articles, small as they are, renders our stores useless. The want of money cramps every effort. This will be supplied by the most unpalatable of all substitutes, force. Your Excellency will readily conceive, that after the loss of one arm, our eyes are turned towards the other, and that we comfort ourselves, if any aids can be furnished by you, without defeating the operations more beneficial to the general union, they will be furnished. At the same time, I am happy to find that the wishes of the people go no further, as far as I have an opportunity of learning their sentiments. Could arms be furnished, I think this State and North Carolina would embody from ten to fifteen thousand militia immediately, and more if necessary.
Our intelligence from the south is unfortunately lacking. Even though Charleston has been under enemy control for a month, we have no reliable information about their movements. There are rumors that they are advancing north. To address this issue, I will quickly establish a line of couriers from here to the vicinity of their army and send a knowledgeable, level-headed person to keep us informed about their activities. I hope this information can reach us at a speed of one hundred and twenty miles in twenty-four hours. They will set off for their stations tomorrow. I wish it were possible to create a similar fast line of communication from here to your Excellency’s headquarters. Having accurate and timely information about what’s happening in the South might allow you to strategize accordingly. Right now, the only thing standing in the way of the enemy’s progress north is cautious military strategy. North Carolina is unarmed. We don’t have an abundance of resources. The arms we do have are shared with them, but due to their resource situation, they haven’t been able to move a single musket from our state to theirs. All the wagons we can gather have been supplied to the Marquis de Kalb and are assembled for the march of twenty-five hundred men under General Stevens from Culpeper, who will depart on the 19th. I’ve written to Congress to expedite the delivery of arms and military supplies for the southern states, especially requesting cartridge paper and boxes, which, despite being small items, are critical to making our supplies usable. The shortage of funds is hindering all our efforts. We will resort to the least favorable substitute, which is force. Your Excellency can easily understand that after losing one resource, we are now looking at another, and we find some comfort in knowing that if you can provide any assistance without undermining more beneficial operations for the general cause, it will be given. At the same time, I’m pleased to see that the people’s desires don’t extend further than what I’ve been able to gather about their opinions. If arms could be provided, I believe this state and North Carolina could quickly assemble between ten to fifteen thousand militia, and more if needed.
I hope, ere long, to be able to give you a more certain statement of the enemy’s as well as our situation, which I shall not fail to do. I enclose you a letter from Major Galvan, being the second I have forwarded to you.
I hope to soon provide you with a clearer update on both the enemy's situation and ours, which I will definitely do. I'm including a letter from Major Galvan, the second one I have sent you.
With sentiments of the most perfect esteem and respect,
With feelings of the utmost esteem and respect,
I have the honor to be
I have the privilege to be
your Excellency’s
your Excellency
most obedient, humble servant,
most obedient, humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XVII.—TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, July 2, 1780
TO HIS EXCELLENCY GENERAL WASHINGTON.
TO HIS EXCELLENCY GENERAL WASHINGTON.
Richmond, July 2, 1780.
Richmond, July 2, 1780.
Sir,
Sir,
I have received from the Committee of Congress, at headquarters, three letters calling for aids of men and provisions. I beg leave to refer you to my letter to them, of this date, on those subjects. I thought it necessary, however, to suggest to you the preparing an arrangement of officers for the men; for, though they are to supply our battalions, yet, as our whole line officers, almost, are in captivity, I suppose some temporary provision must be made. We cheerfully transfer to you every power which the Executive might exercise on this occasion. As it is possible you may cast your eye on the unemployed officers now within the State, I write to General Muhlenburg, to send you a return of them. I think the men will be rendezvoused within the present month. The bill, indeed, for raising them is not actually passed, but it is in its last stage, and no opposition to any essential parts of it. I will take care to notify you of its passage.
I have received three letters from the Congressional Committee at headquarters asking for manpower and supplies. I want to point you to my letter to them sent today regarding these issues. However, I thought it was important to suggest that you prepare a plan for assigning officers to the troops. Even though these troops will bolster our battalions, most of our line officers are currently captive, so we must make some temporary arrangements. We happily grant you all the powers that the Executive could use in this situation. Since you might consider the available officers in the State, I’m reaching out to General Muhlenburg to send you a list of them. I believe the troops will gather this month. The bill to raise them hasn't officially passed yet, but it’s in its final stages and there’s no significant opposition to any key parts. I will make sure to inform you once it passes.
I have, with great pain, perceived your situation; and, the more so, as being situated between two fires, a division of sentiment has arisen, both in Congress and here, as to which the resources of this country should be sent. The removal of General Clinton to the northward, must, of course, have great influence on the determination of this question; and I have no doubt but considerable aids may be drawn hence for your army, unless a larger one should be embodied in the South, than the force of the enemy there seems to call for. I have the honor to be, with every sentiment of respect and esteem,
I have, with great difficulty, noticed your situation; and even more so, since being caught between two conflicting sides, there's a split in opinion both in Congress and here about where the resources of this country should be sent. The relocation of General Clinton to the north will undoubtedly affect the decision on this matter; and I have no doubt that substantial support can be provided for your army from here, unless a larger force is gathered in the South than what the enemy there appears to require. I am honored to express, with utmost respect and esteem,
your Excellency’s
your Excellence's
most obedient, humble servant,
most loyal, humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
[See Appendix, Note D.]
[See Appendix, Note D.]
LETTER XVIII.—TO GENERAL EDWARD STEVENS, August 4, 1780
TO GENERAL EDWARD STEVENS.
TO GENERAL EDWARD STEVENS.
Richmond, August 4, 1780.
Richmond, August 4, 1780.
Sir,
Hey,
Your several favors of July the 16th, 21st, and 22nd, are now before me. Our smiths are engaged in making five hundred axes and some tomahawks for General Gates. About one hundred of these will go by the wagons now taking in their loads. As these are for the army in general, no doubt but you will participate of them. A chest of medicine was made up for you in Williamsburg, and by a strange kind of forgetfulness, the vessel ordered to bring that, left it and brought the rest of the shop. It is sent for again, and I am not without hopes will be here in time to go by the present wagons. They will carry some ammunition and the axes, and will make up their load with spirits. Tents, I fear, cannot be got in this country; we have, however, sent out powers to all the trading towns here, to take it wherever they can find it. I write to General Gates, to try whether the duck in North Carolina cannot be procured by the Executive of that State on Continental account; for, surely, the whole army, as well our militia as the rest, is Continental. The arms you have to spare may be delivered to General Gates’s order, taking and furnishing us with proper vouchers. We shall endeavor to send our drafts armed. I cannot conceive how the arms before sent could have got into so very bad order; they certainly went from hence in good condition. You wish to know how far the property of this State in your hands is meant to be subject to the orders of the commander in chief. Arms and military stores we mean to be perfectly subject to him. The provisions going from this country will be for the whole army. If we can get any tents, they must be appropriated to the use of our own troops. Medicine, sick stores, spirits, and such things, we expect shall be on the same footing as with the northern army. There, you know, each State furnishes its own troops with these articles, and, of course, has an exclusive right to what is furnished. The money put into your hands, was meant as a particular resource for any extra wants of our own troops, yet in case of great distress, you would probably not see the others suffer without communicating part of it for their use. We debit Congress with this whole sum. There can be nothing but what is right in your paying Major Mazaret’s troops out of it. I wish the plan you have adopted for securing a return of the arms from the militia, may answer. I apprehend any man, who has a good gun on his shoulder, would agree to keep it, and have the worth of it deducted out of his pay, more especially when the receipt of the pay is at some distance. What would you think of notifying to them, further, that a proper certificate that they are discharged, and have returned their arms, will be required before any pay is issued to them. A roll, kept and forwarded, of those so discharged, and who have delivered up their arms, would supply accidental losses of their certificates. We are endeavoring to get bayonet belts made. The State quarter-master affirms the cartouch boxes sent from this place, (nine hundred and fifty-nine in number,) were all in good condition. I therefore suppose the three hundred you received in such very bad order, must have gone from the continental quarter-master at Petersburg, or, perhaps, have been pillaged, on the road, of their flaps, to mend shoes, &c. I must still press the return of as many wagons as possible. All you will send, shall be loaded with spirits or something else for the army. By their next return, we shall have a good deal of bacon collected. The enclosed is a copy of what was reported to me, as heretofore sent by the wagons.
Your several requests from July 16th, 21st, and 22nd are now before me. Our blacksmiths are busy making five hundred axes and some tomahawks for General Gates. About a hundred of these will go with the wagons currently loading. Since these are for the army in general, you will no doubt benefit from them. A chest of medicine was prepared for you in Williamsburg, but strangely, the ship that was supposed to bring it forgot and took the rest of the supplies instead. It's been sent for again, and I hope it will arrive in time to go with the current wagons. They will carry some ammunition and the axes, and will complete their load with spirits. I’m afraid we can’t get any tents in this area; however, we have sent out requests to all the trading towns to find them wherever they can. I’m writing to General Gates to see if the government of North Carolina can obtain duck fabric on behalf of the Continental Army, as the whole army, including our militia, is part of it. The arms you have available can be given to General Gates upon request, and you should provide us with appropriate receipts. We will try to send our troops fully armed. I can’t understand how the previous arms could have become so badly damaged; they surely left here in good condition. You want to know how much control the commander in chief has over the property of this State in your hands. We intend for arms and military supplies to be fully under his direction. The supplies leaving this area will be for the entire army. If we can get any tents, they should be allocated for our own troops. We expect that medicine, sick supplies, spirits, and similar items will be handled the same way as with the northern army. As you know, each State provides its own troops with these supplies and thus has exclusive rights to what is provided. The money in your hands was intended as a specific resource for any additional needs of our own troops; however, in case of great need, you might not want to let the others go without a portion for their use. We will charge this entire amount to Congress. It is entirely appropriate for you to pay Major Mazaret’s troops from it. I hope the plan you have put in place for ensuring the return of arms from the militia works out. I suspect that anyone who has a good gun would prefer to keep it and have its value deducted from their pay, especially when the payment is not received right away. How about notifying them that a proper certificate proving they are discharged and have returned their arms will be required before they receive any pay? Keeping and forwarding a list of those who have been discharged and have returned their arms would help with any accidental losses of their certificates. We are working on getting bayonet belts made. The State quarter-master insists that the cartridge boxes sent from here (nine hundred and fifty-nine in total) were all in good condition. Therefore, I believe the three hundred you received in such poor condition must have come from the continental quarter-master in Petersburg, or perhaps they were damaged on the way, losing their flaps for mending shoes, etc. I still urge you to return as many wagons as possible. Everything you send will be loaded with spirits or other supplies for the army. By their next return, we should have a good amount of bacon collected. Enclosed is a copy of what was reported to me as being previously sent by the wagons.
I am. Sir, with the greatest esteem,
I am. Sir, with the utmost respect,
your most obedient, humble servant,
your devoted, humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XIX.—TO MAJOR GENERAL GATES, August 15, 1780
TO MAJOR GENERAL GATES.
To Major General Gates.
Richmond, August 15, 1780.
Richmond, August 15, 1780.
Sir,
Sir,
Your favor of August 3rd is just now put into my hand. Those formerly received have been duly answered, and my replies will, no doubt, have reached you before this date. My last letter to you was by Colonel Drayton.
Your letter from August 3rd just got to me. I've already answered the ones I received earlier, and my replies have probably reached you by now. My last letter to you was sent with Colonel Drayton.
I spoke fully with you on the difficulty of procuring wagons here, when I had the pleasure of seeing you, and for that reason pressed the sending back as many as possible. One brigade of twelve has since returned, and is again on its way with medicine, military stores, and spirit. Any others which come, and as fast as they come, shall be returned to you with spirit and bacon. I have ever been informed, that the very plentiful harvests of North Carolina would render the transportation of flour from this State, as unnecessary as it would be tedious, and that, in this point of view, the wagons should carry hence only the articles before mentioned, which are equally wanting with you. Finding that no great number of wagons is likely to return to us, we will immediately order as many more to be bought and sent on, as we possibly can. But to prevent too great expectations, I must again repeat, that I fear no great number can be got. I do assure you, however, that neither attention nor expense shall be spared, to forward to you every support for which we can obtain means of transportation. You have, probably, received our order on Colonel Lewis to deliver you any of the beeves he may have purchased.
I talked with you about the challenges of getting wagons here when I had the pleasure of seeing you, and that's why I pushed to send back as many as possible. One brigade of twelve has returned and is on its way again with medicine, military supplies, and spirits. Any additional wagons that arrive will be sent back to you with spirits and bacon. I’ve always been told that the abundant harvests in North Carolina make it unnecessary and cumbersome to transport flour from this state, so the wagons should only carry the mentioned items, which you need as well. Since it seems that not many wagons are likely to come back to us, we will immediately order as many more as we can to be purchased and sent over. But to manage expectations, I must stress again that I doubt we can obtain a large number. I assure you, however, that we won’t spare any effort or expense to send you every support we can manage. You’ve probably already received our order to Colonel Lewis to deliver any cattle he may have purchased for you.
Tents, I fear, it is in vain to expect, because there is not in this country stuff to make them. We have agents and commissioners in constant pursuit of stuff, but hitherto researches have been fruitless. Your order to Colonel Carrington shall be immediately communicated. A hundred copies of the proclamation shall also be immediately printed and forwarded to you. General Muhlenburg is come to this place, which he will now make his headquarters. I think he will be able to set into motion, within a very few days, five hundred regulars, who are now equipped for their march, except some blankets still wanting, but I hope nearly procured and ready to be delivered.
I’m afraid it’s pointless to expect tents because there’s nothing in this country to make them. We have agents and commissioners constantly looking for materials, but so far, they haven’t had any luck. Your order to Colonel Carrington will be communicated immediately. A hundred copies of the proclamation will also be printed and sent to you right away. General Muhlenburg has arrived here and will set up his headquarters. I believe he’ll be able to mobilize five hundred regulars within just a few days; they’re ready for their march except for a few blankets still missing, but I hope those are nearly obtained and ready to go.
I sincerely congratulate you on your successful advances on the enemy, and wish to do every thing to second your enterprises, which the situation of this country, and the means and powers put into my hands, enable me to do.
I genuinely congratulate you on your successful efforts against the enemy and want to do everything I can to support your endeavors, which the circumstances in this country and the resources and authority I've been given allow me to do.
I am, Sir, with sincere respect and esteem,
I am, Sir, with genuine respect and admiration,
your most obedient
your most obedient servant
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XX.—TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, September 8, 1780
TO HIS EXCELLENCY GENERAL WASHINGTON.
To His Excellency General Washington.
Richmond, September 8, 1780.
Richmond, Sept 8, 1780.
Sir,
Hey,
As I know the anxieties you must have felt, since the late misfortune to the South, and our latter accounts have not been quite so unfavorable as the first, I take the liberty of enclosing you a statement of this unlucky affair, taken from letters from General Gates, General Stevens, and Governor Nash, and, as to some circumstances, from an officer who was in the action.* Another army is collecting; this amounted, on the 23rd ultimo, to between four and five thousand men, consisting of about five hundred Maryland regulars, a few of Hamilton’s artillery, and Porterfield’s corps, Armand’s legion, such of the Virginia militia as had been reclaimed, and about three thousand North Carolina militia, newly embodied. We are told they will increase these to eight thousand. Our new recruits will rendezvous in this State between the 10th and 25th instant. We are calling out two thousand militia, who, I think, however, will not be got to Hillsborough till the 25th of October. About three hundred and fifty regulars marched from Chesterfield a week ago. Fifty march to-morrow, and there will be one hundred or one hundred and fifty more from that post, when they can be cleared of the hospital. This is as good a view as I can give you of the force we are endeavoring to collect; but they are unarmed. Almost the whole small arms seem to have been lost in the late rout. There are here, on their way southwardly, three thousand stand of arms, sent by Congress, and we have still a few in our magazine. I have written pressingly, as the subject well deserves, to Congress, to send immediate supplies, and to think of forming a magazine here, that in case of another disaster, we may not be left without all means of opposition.
As I understand the worries you must have experienced since the recent troubles in the South, and since our latest reports have been somewhat less negative than the first, I’m taking the liberty of sharing a summary of this unfortunate situation, drawn from letters by General Gates, General Stevens, and Governor Nash, as well as from an officer who was present during the battle.* Another army is being assembled; as of the 23rd of last month, it numbered between four and five thousand men, comprising about five hundred regulars from Maryland, some of Hamilton’s artillery, Porterfield’s corps, Armand’s legion, the Virginia militia that has been rallied, and roughly three thousand newly-formed North Carolina militia. We’ve heard they plan to boost this to eight thousand. Our new recruits will gather in this state between the 10th and 25th of this month. We are mobilizing two thousand militia, but I believe they won’t reach Hillsborough until the 25th of October. About three hundred and fifty regulars marched from Chesterfield a week ago. Fifty more will march tomorrow, and there will be another one hundred or one hundred and fifty from that location when they’re cleared from the hospital. This is the best overview I can provide of the force we’re trying to gather, but they are unarmed. Almost all the small arms seem to have been lost in the recent defeat. There are currently three thousand weapons on their way south, sent by Congress, and we still have a few in our supply depot. I have urgently written to Congress, as this matter truly requires attention, to request immediate supplies and to consider establishing a supply depot here, so we are not left without any means of defense in the event of another setback.
[* The circumstances of the defeat of General Gates’s army, near Camden in August, 1780, being historically well-known, this statement is omitted.]
I enclosed to your Excellency, some time ago, a resolution of the Assembly, instructing us to send a quantity of tobacco to New York for the relief of our officers there, and asking the favor of you to obtain permission. Having received no answer, I fear my letter or your answer has miscarried. I therefore take the liberty of repeating my application to you.
I sent your Excellency a resolution from the Assembly a while back, instructing us to send some tobacco to New York for the support of our officers there, and asking you to help us get permission. Since I haven't received a response, I'm concerned that either my letter or your reply didn’t go through. So, I'm taking the liberty of following up on my request.
I have the honor to be, with the most profound respect,
I am honored to be, with the deepest respect,
your Excellency’s most obedient
your Excellency’s most respectful
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XXI.—TO GENERAL EDWARD STEVENS, September 12,1780
TO GENERAL EDWARD STEVENS.
To General Edward Stevens.
Richmond, September 12,1780.
Richmond, September 12, 1780.
Sir,
Sir,
Your letters of August 27th and 30th are now before me. The subsequent desertions of your militia have taken away the necessity of answering the question, how they shall be armed. On the contrary, as there must now be a surplus of arms, I am in hopes you will endeavor to reserve them, as we have not here a sufficient number by fifteen hundred or two thousand, for the men who will march hence, if they march in numbers equal to our expectations. I have sent expresses into all the counties from which those militia went, requiring the county lieutenants to exert themselves in taking them; and such is the detestation with which they have been received, that I have heard from many counties they were going back of themselves. You will of course, hold courts martial on them, and make them soldiers for eight months. If you will be so good as to inform me, from time to time, how many you have, we may, perhaps, get the supernumerary officers in the State, to take command of them. By the same opportunities, I desired notice to be given to the friends of the few remaining with you, that they had lost their clothes and blankets, and recommended, that they should avail themselves of any good opportunity to send them supplies.
Your letters from August 27th and 30th have been received. The recent desertions from your militia have removed the need to address how they should be armed. Instead, since there should now be an excess of arms, I hope you will try to keep them, as we are short by about fifteen hundred to two thousand for the men who will march from here, assuming they march in numbers we expect. I have sent messages to all the counties that supplied those militia members, instructing the county leaders to do their best to bring them back; the backlash against them has been so strong that I’ve heard reports from many counties that they are attempting to return on their own. Of course, you will hold courts martial for them and make them soldiers for eight months. If you could kindly keep me updated on how many you have, we might be able to assign the extra officers in the State to take command of them. At the same time, I requested that notice be given to the friends of the few remaining with you that they have lost their clothes and blankets, and I suggested that they take any good opportunity to send them supplies.
We approve of your accommodating the hospital with medicines, and the Maryland troops with spirits. They really deserve the whole, and I wish we had means of transportation for much greater quantities, which we have on hand and cannot convey. This article we could furnish plentifully to you and them. What is to be done for wagons, I do not know. We have not now one shilling in the treasury to purchase them. We have ordered an active quarter-master to go to the westward, and endeavor to purchase on credit, or impress a hundred wagons and teams. But I really see no prospect of sending you additional supplies, till the same wagons return from you, which we sent on with the last. I informed you in my last letter, we had ordered two thousand militia more, to rendezvous at Hillsborough on the 25th of October. You will judge yourself, whether in the mean time you can be more useful by remaining where you are, with the few militia left and coming in, or by returning home, where, besides again accommodating yourself after your losses, you may also aid us in getting those men into motion, and in pointing out such things as are within our power, and may be useful to the service. And you will act accordingly. I am with great friendship and esteem, dear Sir,
We appreciate your support for the hospital with medications and for the Maryland troops with spirits. They truly deserve all of it, and I wish we had a way to transport much larger amounts, which we currently have available but can’t move. We could supply you and them with plenty of this. I’m not sure what we can do about wagons; we currently have no money in the treasury to buy any. We’ve sent an active quartermaster westward to try to buy a hundred wagons and teams on credit or to impress them. However, I honestly don’t see any way to send you more supplies until those wagons come back from you, which we sent last time. I mentioned in my last letter that we ordered two thousand more militia to gather at Hillsborough on October 25th. You'll need to decide whether you can be more useful staying where you are with the few militia remaining and coming in, or by returning home. There, aside from getting yourself back on track after your losses, you can also help us get those men moving and identify what we have that might be beneficial for the cause. You will act accordingly. I am with great friendship and respect, dear Sir,
your most obedient, humble servant,
your most obedient servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XXII.—TO GENERAL EDWARD STEVENS, September 15, 1780
TO GENERAL EDWARD STEVENS.
To General Edward Stevens.
Richmond, September 15, 1780.
Richmond, September 15, 1780.
Sir,
Sir,
I beg leave to trouble you with a private letter, on a little matter of my own, having no acquaintance at camp, with whom I can take that, liberty. Among the wagons impressed, for the use of your militia, were two of mine. One of these, I know is safe, having been on its way from hence to Hillsborough, at the time of the late engagement. The other, I have reason to believe, was on the field. A wagon-master, who says he was near it, informs me the brigade quarter-master cut out one of my best horses, and made his escape on him, and that he saw my wagoner loosening his own horse to come off, but the enemy’s horse were then coming up, and he knows nothing further. He was a negro man, named Phill, lame in one arm and leg. If you will do me the favor to inquire what is become of him, what horses are saved, and to send them to me, I shall be much obliged to you. The horses were not public property, as they were only impressed and not sold. Perhaps your certificate of what is lost, may be necessary for me. The wagon-master told me, that the public money was in my wagon, a circumstance, which, perhaps, may aid your inquiries. After apologizing for the trouble, I beg leave to assure you, that I am, with great sincerity,
I’d like to take a moment to reach out to you with a personal letter about a small issue of mine, since I don't have any acquaintances at camp to discuss this with. Among the wagons taken for your militia's use were two of mine. I know one of them is safe, as it was on its way from here to Hillsborough during the recent battle. The other, I believe, was in the middle of it. A wagon master nearby told me the brigade quartermaster took one of my best horses and made off with it, and he saw my wagon driver trying to untie his own horse to escape, but the enemy’s horses were approaching, and he doesn’t know what happened after that. The driver is a Black man named Phill, who is lame in one arm and leg. I would really appreciate it if you could find out what happened to him, which horses were saved, and send them back to me. The horses weren't government property since they were only taken temporarily and not sold. Your note about what was lost might be helpful for me. The wagon master mentioned that there was public money in my wagon, which could assist in your inquiries. I apologize for the inconvenience, and I want to assure you that I sincerely appreciate your help.
your friend and servant,
your friend and servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XXIII.—TO MAJOR GENERAL GATES, September 23, 1780
TO MAJOR GENERAL GATES.
To Major General Gates.
Richmond, September 23, 1780.
Richmond, September 23, 1780.
Sir,
Dude,
I have empowered Colonel Carrington to have twelve boats, scows, or batteaux, built at Taylor’s Ferry, and to draw on me for the cost. I recommended the constructing them so as to answer the transportation of provisions along that river, as a change of position of the two armies may render them unnecessary at Taylor’s Ferry, and I am thoroughly persuaded, that, unless we can find out some channel of transportation by water, no supplies of bread, of any consequence can be sent you from this State for a long time to come. The want of wagons is a bar insuperable, at least in any reasonable time. I have given orders to have Fry and Jefferson’s map, and Henry’s map of Virginia, sought for and purchased. As soon as they can be got, I will forward them. I have also written to General Washington on the subject of wintering the French fleet in the Chesapeake. Our new levies rendezvous in large numbers. As General Washington had constituted them in eight battalions, and allotted none to Colonel Harrison, we think to deliver him about four hundred drafts of another kind, who are to serve eighteen months also. Unless Congress furnish small arms, we cannot arm more than half the men who will go from this State. The prize you mention of tents and blankets is very fortunate. It is absolutely out of our power to get these articles, to any amount, in this country, nor have we clothing for our new levies. They must, therefore, go to you clothed as militia, till we can procure and send on supplies. They will be as warm in their present clothing at Hillsborough, as at Chesterfield Court House.
I have authorized Colonel Carrington to have twelve boats, scows, or batteaux built at Taylor’s Ferry and to charge the expenses to me. I suggested constructing them to facilitate the transportation of supplies along that river, as shifting the positions of the two armies might make them unnecessary at Taylor’s Ferry. I firmly believe that unless we can find a way to transport goods by water, we won't be able to send significant supplies of bread from this State for a long time. The shortage of wagons is an insurmountable barrier, at least within a reasonable timeframe. I've ordered that Fry and Jefferson’s map, along with Henry’s map of Virginia, be sought after and purchased. Once they're available, I will send them to you. I've also communicated with General Washington about the possibility of wintering the French fleet in the Chesapeake. Our new recruits are gathering in large numbers. Since General Washington organized them into eight battalions and allocated none to Colonel Harrison, we plan to provide him with around four hundred additional drafts, who will also serve for eighteen months. Unless Congress supplies small arms, we can’t arm more than half the men coming from this State. The prize you mentioned of tents and blankets is very fortunate. It’s completely beyond our ability to obtain these items in any significant quantity in this area, nor do we have clothing for our new recruits. Therefore, they will need to come to you dressed as militia until we can acquire and send supplies. They will be just as warm in their current clothing at Hillsborough as they would be at Chesterfield Court House.
We have an agent collecting all the beeves which can be got from the counties round about Portsmouth, to send off to you.
We have someone gathering all the cattle available from the counties around Portsmouth to send to you.
They have there also plentiful crops of corn growing. We have instructed him to try whether means of conveying it down into the Sounds, and up some of the rivers of North Carolina, or by land to Meherrin river, and thence down Chowan, and up Roanoke, cannot be rendered practicable.
They also have a lot of corn growing there. We've told him to find out if it’s possible to transport it down to the Sounds, up some of the rivers in North Carolina, or over land to the Meherrin River, and then down the Chowan and up the Roanoke.
I am, with every sentiment of esteem and respect,
I hold you in high regard and have great respect for you,
your most obedient
your most obedient servant
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
P.S. I enclose a certificate, acknowledging satisfaction for the money furnished Colonel Kosciusko. T. J.
P.S. I'm including a certificate that confirms satisfaction for the funds provided to Colonel Kosciusko. T. J.
LETTER XXIV.—TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, September 23, 1780
TO HIS EXCELLENCY GENERAL WASHINGTON.
TO GENERAL WASHINGTON.
Richmond, September 23, 1780.
Richmond, Sept 23, 1780.
Sir,
Sir,
I yesterday forwarded to you a letter from Colonel Wood, informing you of his situation. That post has, for some time past, been pretty regularly supplied, and I hope will continue to be for some time to come. A person whose punctuality can be relied on, offers to contract for victualling it. If we can agree on terms, and the Assembly will strengthen our hands sufficiently, we think to adopt that method, as the only one to be relied on with certainty. I have heard it hinted that Colonel Wood thinks of quitting that post. I should be exceedingly sorry, indeed, were he to do it. He has given to those under his charge, the most perfect satisfaction, and, at the same time, used all the cautions which the nature of his charge has required. It is principally owing to his prudence and good temper that the late difficulties have been passed over, almost without a murmur. Any influence which your Excellency shall think proper to me, for retaining him in his present situation, will promote the public good, and have a great tendency to keep up a desirable harmony with the officers of that corps. Our new recruits are rendezvousing very generally. Colonel Harrison was uneasy at having none of them assigned to his corps of artillery, who have very much distinguished themselves in the late unfortunate action, and are reduced almost to nothing. We happened to have about four hundred drafts, raised in the last year, and never called out and sent on duty by their county lieutenants, whom we have collected and are collecting. We think to deliver these to Colonel Harrison: they are to serve eighteen months from the time of rendezvous. The numbers of regulars and militia ordered from this State into the southern service, are about seven thousand. I trust we may count that fifty-five hundred will actually proceed: but we have arms for three thousand only. If, therefore, we do not speedily receive a supply from Congress, we must countermand a proper number of these troops. Besides this supply, there should certainly be a magazine laid in here, to provide against a general loss as well as daily waste. When we deliver out those now in our magazine, we shall have sent seven thousand stand of our own into the southern service, in the course of this summer. We are still more destitute of clothing, tents, and wagons for our troops. The southern army suffers for provisions, which we could plentifully supply, were it possible to find means of transportation. Despairing of this, we directed very considerable quantities, collected on the navigable waters, to be sent northwardly by the quarter-master. This he is now doing; slowly, however. Unapprized what may be proposed by our allies to be done with their fleet in the course of the ensuing winter, I would beg leave to intimate to you, that if it should appear to them eligible that it should winter in the Chesapeake, they can be well supplied with provisions, taking their necessary measures in due time. The waters communicating with that bay furnish easy, and (in that case) safe transportation, and their money will call forth what is denied to ours.
I forwarded you a letter from Colonel Wood yesterday, updating you on his situation. That post has been regularly supplied for a while now, and I hope it will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Someone known for their reliability has offered to contract for provisioning it. If we can agree on terms and the Assembly will give us enough support, we plan to go with this method, as it’s the only one we can count on for sure. I've heard that Colonel Wood is considering leaving that post. I would be very sorry if he did. He has provided complete satisfaction to those under his command and has taken all the necessary precautions required by his position. It's mainly due to his prudence and good nature that the recent difficulties have been handled with almost no complaints. Any influence you think appropriate to keep him in his current role will benefit the public good and help maintain harmony with the officers of that unit. Our new recruits are gathering quite well. Colonel Harrison was concerned that none of them were assigned to his artillery unit, which has distinguished itself in the recent unfortunate battle and is nearly depleted. We happened to have about four hundred drafts raised last year that have not been called out and sent on duty by their county lieutenants, and we are in the process of collecting them. We plan to give these to Colonel Harrison; they will serve for eighteen months from the time they gather. The number of regulars and militia sent from this State to the southern service is about seven thousand. I trust we can count on fifty-five hundred to actually go, but we only have arms for three thousand. If we don't receive a supply from Congress soon, we will have to cancel a significant number of these troops. Additionally, there should definitely be a stockpile secured here to guard against a general loss as well as everyday waste. Once we distribute the arms we have in our stockpile, we will have sent seven thousand of our own into the southern service over the course of this summer. We are even more in need of clothing, tents, and wagons for our troops. The southern army is suffering from a lack of provisions, which we could easily supply if we could find transportation means. Giving up on this, we directed significant amounts collected from navigable waters to be sent north by the quartermaster. He is currently doing this, though slowly. Unsure of what our allies might propose regarding their fleet this winter, I want to suggest that if they find it suitable to winter in the Chesapeake, they can be well supplied with provisions if they take the necessary actions in time. The waters leading to that bay provide easy and (in that case) safe transportation, and their funds will secure what is unavailable to us.
I am, with all possible esteem and respect, your Excellency’s
I am, with all my respect and admiration, your Excellency’s
most obedient and humble servant,
most loyal and humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XXV.—TO HIS EXCELLENCY GENERAL WASHINGTON, September 26,1780
TO HIS EXCELLENCY GENERAL WASHINGTON.
Richmond, September 26,1780.
Richmond, September 26, 1780.
Sir,
Sir,
The enclosed copy of a letter from Lord Cornwallis [See Appendix, note E.] to Colonel Balfour, was sent me by Governor Rutledge: lest you should not have seen it, I do myself the pleasure of transmitting it, with a letter from General Harrington to General Gates giving information of some late movements of the enemy.
The enclosed copy of a letter from Lord Cornwallis [See Appendix, note E.] to Colonel Balfour was sent to me by Governor Rutledge. In case you haven't seen it, I'm pleased to forward it along with a letter from General Harrington to General Gates, which provides some updates on the enemy's recent movements.
I was honored yesterday with your favor of the 5th instant, on the subject of prisoners, and particularly Lieutenant Governor Hamilton. You are not unapprized of the influence of this officer with the Indians, his activity and embittered zeal against us. You also, perhaps, know how precarious is our tenure of the Illinois country, and how critical is the situation of the new counties on the Ohio. These circumstances determined us to detain Governor Hamilton and Major Hay within our power, when we delivered up the other prisoners. On a late representation from the people of Kentucky, by a person sent here from that country, and expressions of what they had reason to apprehend from these two prisoners, in the event of their liberation, we assured them they would not be parted with, though we were giving up our other prisoners. Lieutenant Colonel Dabusson, aid to Baron de Kalb, lately came here on his parole, with an offer from Lord Rawdon, to exchange him for Hamilton. Colonel Towles is now here with a like proposition for himself, from General Phillips, very strongly urged by the General. These, and other overtures, do not lessen our opinion of the importance of retaining him; and they have been, and will be, uniformly rejected. Should the settlement, indeed, of a cartel become impracticable, without the consent of the States to submit their separate prisoners to its obligation, we will give up these two prisoners, as we would any thing, rather than be an obstacle to a general good. But no other circumstance would, I believe, extract them from us. These two gentlemen, with a Lieutenant Colonel Elligood, are the only separate prisoners we have retained, and the last, only on his own request, and not because we set any store by him. There is, indeed, a Lieutenant Governor Rocheblawe of Kaskaskia, who has broken his parole and gone to New York, whom we must shortly trouble your Excellency to demand for us, as soon as we can forward to you the proper documents. Since the forty prisoners sent to Winchester, as mentioned in my letter of the 9th ultimo, about one hundred and fifty more have been sent thither, some of them taken by us at sea, others sent on by General Gates.
I was honored yesterday to receive your message from the 5th regarding prisoners, specifically Lieutenant Governor Hamilton. You are aware of this officer's influence with the Indians and his active, hostile stance against us. You likely also know how uncertain our hold is on the Illinois territory and how critical the situation is for the new counties along the Ohio River. Given these circumstances, we decided to keep Governor Hamilton and Major Hay under our control when we released the other prisoners. Recently, the people of Kentucky expressed concerns through a representative they sent here about what they feared could happen if these two prisoners were set free. We assured them that we wouldn’t let them go, even while we released our other prisoners. Lieutenant Colonel Dabusson, an aide to Baron de Kalb, recently came here on his parole with an offer from Lord Rawdon to exchange him for Hamilton. Colonel Towles is also here with a similar proposal for himself based on General Phillips' strong recommendation. These offers, among others, do not change our view on the importance of keeping Hamilton, and we have consistently turned them down. If establishing a formal exchange agreement becomes impossible without the states agreeing to commit their individual prisoners, we will release these two prisoners if it means contributing to a greater good. But I don’t think anything else would persuade us to part with them. These two gentlemen, along with Lieutenant Colonel Elligood, are the only separate prisoners we have held, and we only kept the last one at his own request, not because we think highly of him. There is also Lieutenant Governor Rocheblawe of Kaskaskia, who has broken his parole and gone to New York, and we will need your Excellency to request his return for us as soon as we can send you the necessary documents. Since the forty prisoners sent to Winchester, as I mentioned in my letter on the 9th of last month, about one hundred and fifty more have been sent there, some apprehended by us at sea and others forwarded by General Gates.
The exposed and weak state of our western settlements, and the danger to which they are subject from the northern Indians, acting under the influence of the British post at Detroit, render it necessary for us to keep from five to eight hundred men on duty for their defence. This is a great and perpetual expense. Could that post be reduced and retained, it would cover all the States to the southeast of it. We have long meditated the attempt under the direction of Colonel Clarke, but the expense would be so great, that whenever we have wished to take it up, this circumstance has obliged us to decline it. Two different estimates make it amount to two millions of pounds, present money. We could furnish the men, provisions, and every necessary, except powder, had we the money, or could the demand from us be so far supplied from other quarters, as to leave it in our power to apply such a sum to that purpose; and, when once done, it would save annual expenditures to a great amount. When I speak of furnishing the men, I mean they should be militia; such being the popularity of Colonel Clarke, and the confidence of the western people in him, that he could raise the requisite number at any time. We, therefore, beg leave to refer this matter to yourself, to determine whether such an enterprise would not be for the general good, and if you think it would, to authorize it at the general expense. This is become the more reasonable, if, as I understand, the ratification of the Confederation has been rested on our cession of a part of our western claim; a cession which (speaking my private opinion) I verily believe will be agreed to, if the quantity demanded is not unreasonably great. Should this proposition be approved of, it should be immediately made known to us, as the season is now coming on, at which some of the preparations must be made. The time of execution, I think, should be at the time of the breaking up of the ice in the Wabash, and before the lakes open. The interval, I am told, is considerable.
The vulnerable and weak condition of our western settlements, along with the threats from northern Native Americans influenced by the British post at Detroit, makes it necessary to keep between five to eight hundred men on duty for their protection. This is a significant and ongoing expense. If that post could be diminished and maintained, it would secure all the states southeast of it. We have long considered this effort under Colonel Clarke’s direction, but the costs are so high that each time we’ve wanted to pursue it, we’ve had to back down because of this factor. Two different estimates suggest it would total two million pounds in today’s money. We could provide the men, supplies, and everything else needed, except for gunpowder, if we had the budget, or if other sources could supply us to the extent that we could allocate such an amount for this purpose; and once completed, it would significantly reduce annual expenses. When I say we could provide the men, I mean they should be militia; Colonel Clarke is so well-liked and trusted by the people in the west that he could gather the needed number at any time. Therefore, we respectfully ask you to consider whether such an initiative would be beneficial for all, and if so, to approve it at the general expense. This request becomes more reasonable if, as I understand it, the approval of the Confederation depends on our giving up part of our western claim; a concession which (this is my personal opinion) I truly believe will be agreed upon if the demand is not excessively large. If this proposal is accepted, we should be informed right away since the season is approaching when some preparations must be made. I think execution should take place when the ice in the Wabash is breaking up, and before the lakes thaw. I’ve been told there’s a significant gap between these times.
I have the honor to be, &c.
I have the honor to be, &c.
your most obedient and humble servant,
your most obedient and humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XXVI.—TO MAJOR GENERAL GATES, October 4, 1780
TO MAJOR GENERAL GATES.
To Major General Gates.
Richmond, October 4, 1780.
Richmond, October 4, 1780.
Sir,
Sir,
My letter of September 23rd answered your favors received before that date, and the present serves to acknowledge the receipt of those of September 24th and 27th. I retain in mind, and recur, almost daily, to your requisitions of August; we have, as yet, no prospect of more than one hundred tents. Flour is ordered to be manufactured, as soon as the season will render it safe; out of which, I trust, we can furnish not only your requisition of August, but that of Congress of September 11th. The corn you desire, we could furnish when the new crops come in, fully, if water transportation can be found; if not, we shall be able only to send you what lies convenient to the southern boundary, in which neighborhood the crops have been much abridged by a flood in Roanoke. We have no rice. Rum and other spirits, we can furnish to a greater amount than you require, as soon as our wagons are in readiness, and shall be glad to commute into that article some others which we have not, particularly sugar, coffee, and salt. The vinegar is provided. Colonel Finnie promised to furnish to Colonel Muter, a list of the shades, hoes, &c. which could be furnished from the Continental stores. This list has never yet come to hand. It is believed the Continental stores here will fall little short of your requisition, except in the article of axes, which our shops are proceeding on. Your information of September 24th, as to the quality of the axes, has been notified to the workmen, and will, I hope, have a proper effect on those made hereafter. Application has been made to the courts, to have the bridges put in a proper state, which they have promised to do. We are endeavoring again to collect wagons. About twenty are nearly finished at this place. We employed, about three weeks ago, agents to purchase, in the western counties, a hundred wagons and teams. Till these can be got, it will be impossible to furnish any thing from this place. I am exceedingly pleased to hear of your regulation for stopping our wagons at Roanoke. This will put it in our power to repair and replace them, to calculate their returns, provide loads, and will be a great encouragement to increase their number, if possible, as their departure hence will no longer produce the idea of a final adieu to them.
My letter from September 23rd responded to your messages received before that date, and this one is to confirm the receipt of your letters from September 24th and 27th. I still keep in mind, and think about almost daily, your requests from August; we currently expect to have no more than one hundred tents. Flour production is scheduled to start as soon as the weather permits; I believe this will allow us to meet not only your August request but also the one from Congress on September 11th. We could provide the corn you requested when the new crops come in, if we can find a way to transport it by water; otherwise, we'll only be able to send what is nearby to the southern border, where the crops have suffered due to flooding in Roanoke. We do not have any rice. We can supply more rum and other spirits than you need as soon as our wagons are ready, and we would gladly trade some of those for items we lack, especially sugar, coffee, and salt. The vinegar is ready. Colonel Finnie promised to send Colonel Muter a list of the tools and supplies that could be sourced from the Continental stores. We have not yet received this list. It is thought that the Continental stores here will fall just short of your request, except for axes, which are currently being made in our shops. Your note from September 24th about the quality of the axes has been communicated to the workers, and I hope it will improve future production. We have reached out to the courts to have the bridges repaired, and they have assured us they will take care of it. We are again trying to gather wagons. About twenty are almost done here. Three weeks ago, we hired agents to acquire one hundred wagons and teams from the western counties. Until we have these, it will be impossible to supply anything from here. I’m very glad to hear about your decision to stop our wagons at Roanoke. This will allow us to repair and replace them, plan their returns, arrange loads, and will greatly encourage us to increase their numbers, if possible, since their departure from here will no longer feel like a final farewell.
Colonel Senf arrived here the evening before the last. He was employed yesterday and to-day, in copying some actual and accurate surveys, which we had had made of the country round about Portsmouth, as far as Cape Henry to the eastward, Nansemond river to the westward, the Dismal Swamp to the southward, and northwardly, the line of country from Portsmouth by Hampton and York to Williamsburg, and including the vicinities of these three last posts. This will leave him nothing to do, but to take drawings of particular places, and the soundings of such waters as he thinks material. He will proceed on this business to-morrow, with a letter to General Nelson, and powers to call for the attendance of a proper vessel.
Colonel Senf arrived here the evening before last. He was busy yesterday and today copying some accurate and current surveys we had done of the area around Portsmouth, extending east to Cape Henry, west to the Nansemond River, south to the Dismal Swamp, and north along the route from Portsmouth through Hampton and York to Williamsburg, including the areas around these last three posts. This will leave him with nothing to do but take drawings of specific locations and soundings of any waters he deems important. He will continue this work tomorrow, with a letter to General Nelson and the authority to request a suitable vessel's attendance.
I suppose that your drafts in favor of the quarter-master, if attended with sixty days’ grace, may be complied with to a certain amount. We will certainly use our best endeavors to answer them. I have only to desire that they may be made payable to the quarter-master alone, and not to the bearer. This is to prevent the mortification of seeing an unapprized individual taken in by an assignment of them, as if they were ready money. Your letter to Colonel Finnie will go to Williamsburg immediately. Those to Congress, with a copy of the papers enclosed to me, went yesterday by express. I will take order as to the bacon you mention. I fear there is little of it, and that not capable of being long kept. You are surely not uninformed, that Congress required the greater part of this article to be sent northward, which has been done. I hope, by this time, you receive supplies of beeves from our commissary, Mr. Eaton, who was sent three weeks or a month ago, to exhaust of that article the counties below, and in the neighborhood of Portsmouth; and from thence, was to proceed to other counties, in order, as they stood exposed to an enemy.
I think your requests for the quartermaster, if given sixty days' grace, might be partially accepted. We will definitely do our best to accommodate them. I just ask that they be made payable only to the quartermaster, not to the bearer. This is to avoid the embarrassment of seeing someone unknowing get deceived by an assignment of them, as if they were cash. Your letter to Colonel Finnie will be sent to Williamsburg right away. The ones to Congress, along with a copy of the papers I received, were sent yesterday via express. I'll take care of the bacon you mentioned. I'm afraid there isn't much of it, and it won't last long. Surely you know that Congress required most of this supply to be sent north, which has been done. I hope by now you’re receiving beef from our commissary, Mr. Eaton, who was sent three to four weeks ago to gather that supply from the counties below and near Portsmouth; he was then going to move on to other counties based on their vulnerability to an enemy.
The arrival of the French West India fleet (which, though not authentically communicated, seems supported by so many concurring accounts from individuals, as to leave scarcely room for doubt,) will, I hope, prevent the enemy from carrying into effect the embarkation they had certainly intended from New York, though they are strengthened by the arrival of Admiral Rodney, at that place, with twelve sail of the line and four frigates, as announced by General Washington to Congress, on the 19th ultimo. The accounts of the additional French fleet are varied from sixteen to nineteen ships of the line, besides frigates. The number of the latter has never been mentioned. The extracts of letters, which you will see in our paper of this day, are from General Washington, President Huntington, and our Delegates in Congress to me. That from Bladensburg is from a particular acquaintance of mine, whose credit cannot be doubted. The distress we are experiencing from want of leather to make shoes, is great. I am sure you have thought of preventing it in future, by the appointment of a commissary of hides, or some other good regulation for saving and tanning the hides, which the consumption of your army will afford.
The arrival of the French West India fleet (which, while not officially confirmed, seems supported by so many matching accounts from people that there’s hardly any doubt) will, I hope, stop the enemy from carrying out the embarkation they definitely planned from New York, even though they are bolstered by the arrival of Admiral Rodney there, with twelve ships of the line and four frigates, as General Washington informed Congress on the 19th of last month. The reports about the additional French fleet vary from sixteen to nineteen ships of the line, plus frigates. The number of frigates has never been specified. The excerpts from letters you’ll see in our paper today are from General Washington, President Huntington, and our Delegates in Congress to me. The one from Bladensburg is from a close acquaintance of mine, whose reliability is unquestionable. The hardship we’re suffering due to the lack of leather for making shoes is significant. I'm sure you've considered preventing this in the future by appointing a commissary of hides or some other effective regulation for saving and tanning the hides that your army will use.
I have the honor to be, with all possible esteem and respect, Sir,
I am honored to be, with all due respect and admiration, Sir,
your most obedient
your most loyal
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XXVII.—TO GENERAL GATES, October 15, 1780
TO GENERAL GATES.
TO GENERAL GATES.
Richmond, October 15, 1780.
Richmond, October 15, 1780.
Sir,
Dude,
I am rendered not a little anxious by the paragraph of yours of the 7th instant, wherein you say, ‘It is near a month since I received any letter from your Excellency; indeed, the receipt of most that I have written to you, remains unacknowledged.’ You ought, within that time, to have received my letter of September the 3rd, written immediately on my return to this place, after a fortnight’s absence; that of September the 11th, acknowledging the receipt of yours which covered drafts for money; that of September the 23rd, on the subject of batteaux at Taylor’s Ferry, wagons, maps of Virginia, wintering the French fleet in the Chesapeake, our new levies, and provisions from our lower counties; and that of October the 4th, in answer to yours of September the 24th and 27th. I begin to apprehend treachery in some part of our chain of expresses, and beg the favor of you, in your next, to mention whether any, and which of these letters have come to hand. This acknowledges the receipt of yours of September the 28th, and October the 3rd, 5th, and 7th. The first of these was delivered four or five days ago by Captain Drew. He will be permitted to return as you desire, as we would fulfil your wishes in every point in our power, as well as indulge the ardor of a good officer. Our militia from the western counties are now on their march to join you. They are fond of the kind of service in which Colonel Morgan is generally engaged, and are made very happy by being informed you intend to put them under him. Such as pass by this place, take muskets in their hands. Those from the,southern counties, beyond the Blue Ridge, were advised to carry their rifles. For those who carry neither rifles nor muskets, as well as for our eighteen months men, we shall send on arms as soon as wagons can be procured. In the mean time, I had hoped that there were arms for those who should first arrive at Hillsborough, as by General Steven’s return, dated at his departure thence, there were somewhere between five and eight hundred muskets (I speak from memory, not having present access to the return) belonging to this State, either in the hands of the few militia who were there, or stored. Captain Fauntleroy, of the cavalry, gives me hopes he shall immediately forward a very considerable supply of accoutrements, for White’s and Washington’s cavalry. He told me yesterday he had received one hundred and thirteen horses for that service, from us. Besides these, he had rejected sixty odd, after we had purchased them, at £3000 apiece. Nelson’s two troops were returned to me, deficient only twelve horses, since which, ten have been sent to him by Lieutenant Armstead. I am not a little disappointed, therefore, in the number of cavalry fit for duty, as mentioned in the letter you enclosed me. Your request (as stated in your letter of the 7th) that we will send no men into the field, or even to your camp, that are not well furnished with shoes, blankets, and every necessary for immediate service, would amount to a stoppage of every man; as we have it not in our power to furnish them with real necessaries completely. I hope they will be all shod. What proportion will have blankets I cannot say: we purchase every one which can be found out; and now I begin to have a prospect of furnishing about half of them with tents, as soon as they can be made and forwarded. As to provisions, our agent, Eaton, of whom I before wrote, informs me in a letter of the 5th instant, he shall immediately get supplies of beef into motion, and shall send some corn by a circuitous navigation. But till we receive our wagons from the western country, I cannot hope to aid you in bread. I expect daily to see wagons coming in to us. The militia were ordered to rendezvous at Hillsborough, expecting they would thence be ordered by you into service. I send you herewith a copy of Henry’s map of Virginia. It is a mere cento of blunders. It may serve to give you a general idea of the courses of rivers, and positions of counties. We are endeavoring to get you a copy of Fry and Jefferson’s; but they are now very scarce. I also enclose you some newspapers, in which you will find a detail of Arnold’s apostacy and villany.
I'm feeling quite anxious about your letter from the 7th of this month, where you mention, ‘It’s been nearly a month since I last heard from you; in fact, most of what I've written remains unacknowledged.’ By now, you should have received my letter from September 3rd, sent right after I got back to this place following a two-week absence; the letter from September 11th, which confirmed the receipt of yours that included money drafts; the letter from September 23rd discussing boats at Taylor’s Ferry, wagons, maps of Virginia, wintering the French fleet in the Chesapeake, our new troops, and provisions from our lower counties; and the letter from October 4th, responding to yours from September 24th and 27th. I'm starting to suspect that there might be some issues with our communication network, so please let me know in your next message whether any of these letters reached you. This message confirms receipt of yours from September 28th, and October 3rd, 5th, and 7th. The first one was delivered a few days ago by Captain Drew. He can return as you requested, as we want to fulfill your wishes in every way we can and support a good officer. Our militia from the western counties are currently on their way to join you. They are eager for the kind of service Colonel Morgan typically leads and are thrilled to hear that you plan to assign them to him. Those passing through this area are carrying muskets. The troops from the southern counties, beyond the Blue Ridge, have been advised to bring their rifles. For those without rifles or muskets, as well as our eighteen-month troops, we will send arms as soon as we can secure wagons. In the meantime, I had hoped there would be arms available for those arriving first at Hillsborough, as General Steven’s report, dated at his departure, indicated that there were about five to eight hundred muskets (I’m recalling from memory, so this might be off) either with the few militia present or stored. Captain Fauntleroy from the cavalry assures me he’ll quickly send a significant supply of gear for White’s and Washington’s cavalry. He mentioned yesterday that he received one hundred and thirteen horses for that service from us. Additionally, he rejected over sixty after we had purchased them at £3000 each. Nelson’s two troops came back to me, short only twelve horses, after which Lieutenant Armstead sent ten to him. I'm quite disappointed in the number of cavalry available for duty compared to what was mentioned in the letter you sent me. Your request (as mentioned in your letter from the 7th) that we send no men into the field or even to your camp unless they’re fully equipped with shoes, blankets, and other essentials would effectively stop every man from marching, as we can't provide them with all the necessary supplies. I hope they will all have shoes. I can't say how many will have blankets: we are buying every one we can find; and now I’m beginning to see a possibility of providing about half of them with tents as soon as they can be made and sent out. Regarding provisions, our agent, Eaton, who I mentioned before, informed me in a letter dated the 5th that he’ll immediately start getting supplies of beef moving and will send some corn via a roundabout route. However, until we receive our wagons from the western region, I can’t hope to assist you with bread. I expect to see wagons arriving any day now. The militia was ordered to gather at Hillsborough, expecting they will then be dispatched by you. I'm sending you a copy of Henry’s map of Virginia. It’s filled with errors. It might help you get a general idea of the rivers and counties' locations. We’re trying to get you a copy of Fry and Jefferson’s map, but they’re currently very hard to find. I also enclosed some newspapers, where you’ll find details about Arnold’s betrayal and misdeeds.
I am, with all sentiments of sincere respect and esteem, Sir,
I am, with all feelings of genuine respect and regard, Sir,
your most obedient
your loyal servant
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
P. S. Just as I was closing my letter, yours of the 9th instant was put into my hands. I enclose by this express, a power to Mr. Lambe, quarter-master, to impress, for a month, ten wagons from each of the counties of Brunswick, Mecklenburg, Lunenburg, Charlotte, and Halifax, and direct him to take your orders, whether they shall go first to you, or come here. If the latter, we can load them with arms and spirits. Before their month is out, I hope the hundred wagons from the westward will have come in. We will otherwise provide a relief for these. I am perfectly astonished at your not having yet received my letters before mentioned. I send you a copy of that of the 4th of October, as being most material. I learn, from one of General Muhlenburg’s family, that five wagons have set out from hence, with three hundred stand of arms, &c. However, the General writes to you himself. T.J.
P.S. Just as I was wrapping up my letter, I received yours from the 9th. I'm sending along a power of attorney to Mr. Lambe, the quartermaster, to requisition ten wagons for a month from each of the counties of Brunswick, Mecklenburg, Lunenburg, Charlotte, and Halifax, and I’ve directed him to follow your instructions on whether they should go to you first or come here. If they come here, we can load them up with arms and supplies. Before the month is over, I expect the hundred wagons from the west will arrive. If not, we'll make arrangements to support these. I'm really surprised you haven't received my earlier letters. I'm including a copy of the one from October 4th since it’s quite important. I heard from someone in General Muhlenburg’s family that five wagons have left here with three hundred weapons, etc. However, the General is writing to you himself. T.J.
LETTER XXVIII.—TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, October 22, 1780
TO HIS EXCELLENCY GENERAL WASHINGTON.
To His Excellency General Washington.
Richmond, October 22, 1780.
Richmond, October 22, 1780.
Sir,
Sir,
I have this morning received certain information of the arrival of a hostile fleet in our bay, of about sixty sail. The debarkation of some light-horse, in the neighborhood of Portsmouth, seems to indicate that as the first scene of action. We are endeavoring to collect as large a body to oppose them as we can arm: this will be lamentably inadequate, if the enemy be in any force. It is mortifying to suppose that a people, able and zealous to contend with their enemy, should be reduced to fold their arms for want of the means of defence. Yet no resources, that we know of, ensure us against this event. It has become necessary to divert to this new object, a considerable part of the aids we had destined for General Gates. We are still, however, sensible of the necessity of supporting him, and have left that part of our country nearest him uncalled on, at present, that they may reinforce him as soon as arms can be received. We have called to the command of our forces, Generals Weeden and Muhlenburg, of the line, and Nelson and Stevens of the militia. You will be pleased to make to these such additions as you may think proper. As to the aids of men, I ask for none, knowing that if the late detachment of the enemy shall have left it safe for you to spare aids of that kind, you will not await my application. Of the troops we shall raise, there is not a single man who ever saw the face of an enemy. Whether the Convention troops will be removed or not, is yet undetermined. This must depend on the force of the enemy, and the aspect of their movements.
I received some information this morning about the arrival of a hostile fleet in our bay, consisting of about sixty ships. The landing of some cavalry near Portsmouth seems to suggest that this will be the first area of conflict. We are trying to gather as many forces as we can arm to oppose them, but this will be sadly insufficient if the enemy is strong. It’s frustrating to think that a people eager and capable of fighting back should be forced to stand by with no means of defense. Unfortunately, we don't have any resources that can guarantee we won't face this situation. We've had to redirect a significant portion of the support we had planned for General Gates to address this new threat. However, we still recognize the need to back him up, so we've left the part of our region closest to him untouched for now, so they can reinforce him as soon as we can get arms. We’ve appointed Generals Weeden and Muhlenburg to command our forces, along with Nelson and Stevens from the militia. Please make any necessary additions to their teams. As for requesting more men, I won’t ask for any, knowing that if the recent enemy detachment has left it safe for you to send more support, you won't wait for my request. The troops we’ll raise will consist entirely of recruits who have never faced an enemy. It’s still undecided whether the Convention troops will be moved. This will depend on the enemy's strength and their movements.
I have the honor to be
I have the honor to be
your Excellency’s most obedient,
your Excellency's loyal,
humble servant,
humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XXIX.—TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, October 25,1780
TO HIS EXCELLENCY GENERAL WASHINGTON.
To General Washington.
Richmond, October 25,1780.
Richmond, October 25, 1780.
Sir,
Sir,
I take the liberty of enclosing to you letters from Governor Hamilton, for New York. On some representations received by Colonel Towles, that an indulgence to Governor Hamilton and his companions to go to New York, on parole, would produce the happiest,effect on the situation of our officers in Long Island, we have given him, Major Hay, and some of the same party at Winchester, leave to go there on parole. The two former go by water, the latter by land.
I’m taking the liberty of sending you letters from Governor Hamilton for New York. Based on some information Colonel Towles received, we believe that allowing Governor Hamilton and his companions to go to New York as part of their parole would greatly improve the situation for our officers in Long Island. So, we have granted him, Major Hay, and a few others from the same group at Winchester permission to go there on parole. The first two are traveling by water, while the latter is going by land.
By this express I hand on, from General Gates to Congress, intelligence of the capture of Augusta, in Georgia, with considerable quantities of goods; and information, which carries a fair appearance, of the taking of Georgetown, in South Carolina, by a party of ours, and that an army of six thousand French and Spaniards had landed at Sunbury. This is the more credible, as Cornwallis retreated from Charlotte on the 12th instant, with great marks of precipitation. Since my last to you, informing you of an enemy’s fleet, they have landed eight hundred men in the neighborhood of Portsmouth, and some more on the bay side of Princess Anne. One thousand infantry landed at New-ports-news, on the morning of the 23rd, and immediately took possession of Hampton. The horse were proceeding up the road. Such a corps as Major Lee’s would be of infinite service to us. Next to a naval force, horse seems to be the most capable of protecting a country so intersected by waters.
By this message, I’m passing along information from General Gates to Congress about the capture of Augusta, Georgia, along with a significant amount of goods. There's also credible news about our forces taking Georgetown, South Carolina, and that an army of six thousand French and Spanish troops have landed at Sunbury. This seems likely since Cornwallis retreated from Charlotte on the 12th with clear signs of haste. Since my last update to you regarding the enemy fleet, they’ve landed eight hundred men near Portsmouth and some more on the bay side of Princess Anne. One thousand infantry landed at Newports News on the morning of the 23rd and quickly took control of Hampton. The cavalry was moving up the road. A unit like Major Lee’s would be tremendously helpful to us. After a naval force, cavalry seems to be the best way to protect a country so crisscrossed by waterways.
I am, with the most sincere esteem,
I am, with the utmost respect,
your Excellency’s most obedient
your Excellency’s loyal servant
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XXX.—TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, October 26, 1780
TO HIS EXCELLENCY GENERAL WASHINGTON.
TO HIS EXCELLENCY GENERAL WASHINGTON.
Richmond, October 26, 1780.
Richmond, October 26, 1780.
Sir,
Sir,
The Executive of this State think it expedient, under our present circumstances, that the prisoners of war under the Convention of Saratoga, be removed from their present situation. It will be impossible, as long as they remain with us, to prevent the hostile army from being reinforced by numerous desertions from this corps; and this expectation may be one among the probable causes of this movement of the enemy. Should, moreover, a rescue of them be attempted, the extensive disaffection which has of late been discovered, and the almost total want of arms in the hands of our good people, render the success of such an enterprise by no means desperate. The fear of this, and the dangerous convulsions to which such an attempt would expose us, divert the attention of a very considerable part of our militia, from an opposition to an invading enemy. An order has been, therefore, this day issued to Colonel Wood, to take immediate measures for their removal; and every aid has been and will be given him, for transporting, guarding, and subsisting them on the road, which our powers can accomplish. Notice hereof is sent to his Excellency Governor Lee, on whose part, I doubt not, necessary preparations will be made.
The state's leadership believes that, given our current situation, it makes sense to relocate the prisoners of war as per the Saratoga Convention. As long as they stay with us, it's going to be impossible to stop the enemy army from gaining strength through numerous desertions from this group. This expectation could be one of the reasons for the enemy's recent movements. Additionally, if there’s an attempt to rescue them, the significant unrest that has recently come to light, along with the near-total lack of weapons among our citizens, means that such an operation could potentially succeed. This threat, along with the chaotic consequences it could cause, shifts a large part of our militia’s focus away from defending against an invading force. Therefore, an order has been issued today to Colonel Wood to take immediate action to move them. We are providing him with all the support possible for transporting, guarding, and providing for them on the journey. Notice has been sent to Governor Lee, and I have no doubt he will make the necessary preparations.
I have the honor to be, with the greatest esteem and respect,
I am honored to express my highest esteem and respect,
your Excellency’s most obedient
your Excellency’s most loyal
and most humble servant,
your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XXXI.—TO GENERAL GATES, October 28, 1780
TO GENERAL GATES.
TO GENERAL GATES.
Richmond, October 28, 1780.
Richmond, October 28, 1780.
Sir,
Hey,
Your letters of the 14th, 20th, and 21st have come to hand, and your despatches to Congress have been regularly forwarded. I shall attend to the caveat against Mr. Ochiltree’s bill. Your letter to Colonel Senf remains still in my hands, as it did not come till the enemy had taken possession of the ground, on which I knew him to have been, and I have since no certain information where a letter might surely find him. My proposition as to your bills in favor of the quarter-master, referred to yours of September 27th. I have notified to the Continental quarter-master, your advance of nine hundred dollars to Cooper. As yet, we have received no wagons. I wish Mr. Lambe may have supplied you. Should those from the western quarter not come in, we will authorize him or some other, to procure a relief, in time, for those first impressed. We are upon the eve of a new arrangement as to our commissary’s and quarter-master’s departments, as the want of money, introducing its substitute, force, requires the establishment of a different kind of system.
Your letters from the 14th, 20th, and 21st have arrived, and your reports to Congress have been sent along as usual. I'll take care of the objection to Mr. Ochiltree’s bill. Your letter to Colonel Senf is still with me because it arrived only after the enemy took control of the area where I knew he was, and I haven't had reliable information on where he can be found since. My suggestion regarding your bills for the quartermaster refers back to your message from September 27th. I've informed the Continental quartermaster about your advance of nine hundred dollars to Cooper. So far, we haven't received any wagons. I hope Mr. Lambe has been able to assist you. If those from the west don’t arrive, we will authorize him or someone else to arrange for some replacements soon for those who were initially impressed. We are on the verge of a new setup for our commissary and quartermaster departments, as the lack of funds, necessitating force, calls for a different kind of system.
Since my first information to you of the arrival of an enemy, they have landed about eight hundred men near Portsmouth, some on the bay side of Princess Anne, one thousand at Hampton, and still retained considerable part on board their ships. Those at Hampton, after committing horrid depredations, have again retired to their ships, which, on the evening of the 26th, were strung along the Road from New-ports-news, to the mouth of Nansemond, which seems to indicate an intention of coming up James river. Our information is, that they have from four to five thousand men, commanded by General Leslie, and that they have come under convoy of one forty-gun ship, and some frigates (how many, has never been said), commanded by Commodore Rodney. Would it not be worth while to send out a swift boat from some of the inlets of Carolina, to notify the French Admiral that his enemies are in a net, if he has leisure to close the mouth of it? Generals Muhlenburg and Nelson are assembling a force to be ready for them, and General Weeden has come to this place, where he is at present employed in some arrangements. We have ordered the removal of the Saratoga prisoners, that we may have our hands clear for these new guests.
Since I first informed you about the arrival of an enemy, they have landed around eight hundred men near Portsmouth, some on the bay side of Princess Anne, and a thousand at Hampton, while still keeping a significant portion on their ships. Those at Hampton, after causing severe damage, have retreated back to their ships, which, on the evening of the 26th, were lined up along the Road from Newports News to the mouth of Nansemond, suggesting they intend to move up James River. Our information suggests they have between four to five thousand men, led by General Leslie, and they arrived under the escort of one forty-gun ship and some frigates (the exact number is unknown), commanded by Commodore Rodney. Wouldn't it be a good idea to send a fast boat from one of the inlets in Carolina to inform the French Admiral that his enemies are trapped, if he has time to close it off? Generals Muhlenburg and Nelson are gathering a force to prepare for them, and General Weeden has arrived here, where he is currently working on some arrangements. We have ordered the transfer of the Saratoga prisoners so that we can keep our resources clear for these new arrivals.
I have the honor to be, with the most perfect esteem and respect, Sir,
I am honored to be, with the utmost esteem and respect, Sir,
your most obedient
your most faithful
and most humble servant,
and most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Th: Jefferson.
LETTER XXXII.—TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, November 3,1780
TO HIS EXCELLENCY GENERAL WASHINGTON.
To His Excellency General Washington.
Richmond, November 3,1780.
Richmond, November 3, 1780.
Sir,
Sir,
Since I had the honor of writing to your Excellency, on the 25th ultimo, the enemy have withdrawn their forces from the north side of James river, and have taken post at Portsmouth, which, we learn, they are fortifying. Their highest post is Suffolk, where there is a very narrow and defensible pass between Nansemond river and the Dismal Swamp, which covers the country below, from being entered by us. More accurate information of their force, than we at first had, gives us reason to suppose them to be from twenty-five hundred to three thousand strong, of which, between sixty and seventy are cavalry. They are commanded by General Leslie, and were convoyed by the Romulus, of forty guns, the Blonde, of thirty-two guns, the Delight sloop, of sixteen, a twenty-gun ship of John Goodwick’s, and two row-galleys, commanded by Commodore Grayton. We are not assured, as yet, that they have landed their whole force. Indeed, they give out themselves, that after drawing the force of this State to Suffolk, they mean, to go to Baltimore. Their movements had induced me to think they came with an expectation of meeting with Lord Cornwallis in this country, that his precipitate retreat has left them without a concerted object, and that they were waiting further orders. Information of this morning says, that being informed of Lord Cornwallis’s retreat, and a public paper having been procured by them, wherein were printed the several despatches which brought this intelligence from General Gates, they unladed a vessel and sent, her off to Charleston immediately. The fate of this army of theirs hangs on a very slender naval force, indeed.
Since I had the privilege of writing to you on the 25th of last month, the enemy has pulled back their troops from the north side of the James River and has set up camp at Portsmouth, where we hear they are fortifying their position. Their main stronghold is Suffolk, which has a very narrow and defensible passage between the Nansemond River and the Dismal Swamp, protecting the area below from our entry. More detailed information about their numbers than we initially had suggests they have between two thousand five hundred and three thousand troops, of which about sixty to seventy are cavalry. They are led by General Leslie and were accompanied by the Romulus, which has forty guns, the Blonde with thirty-two guns, the Delight sloop with sixteen, a twenty-gun ship owned by John Goodwick, and two row-galleys commanded by Commodore Grayton. We are not yet certain that they have landed their entire force. In fact, they claim that after drawing the forces of this State to Suffolk, they plan to head to Baltimore. Their movements made me think they expected to meet Lord Cornwallis here, but his hasty retreat has left them without a clear plan, and they seem to be waiting for further instructions. Information from this morning indicates that after learning about Lord Cornwallis’s retreat, and obtaining a public document that included several dispatches detailing this news from General Gates, they unloaded a ship and sent it off to Charleston immediately. The future of their army depends on a very limited naval force, indeed.
The want of barracks at Fort Frederick, as represented by Colonel Wood, the difficulty of getting wagons sufficient to move the whole Convention troops, and the state of uneasiness in which the regiment of guards is, have induced me to think it would be better to move these troops in two divisions; and as the whole danger of desertion to the enemy, and correspondence with the disaffected in our southern counties, is from the British only (for from the Germans we have no apprehensions on either head), we have advised Colonel Wood to move on the British in the first division, and to leave the Germans in their present situation, to form a second division, when barracks may be erected at Fort Frederick. By these means, the British may march immediately under the guard of Colonel Crochet’s battalion, while Colonel Taylor’s regiment of guards remains with the Germans. I cannot suppose this will be deemed such a separation as is provided against by the Convention, nor that their officers will wish to have the whole troops crowded into barracks, probably not sufficient for half of them. Should they, however, insist on their being kept together, I suppose it would be the opinion that the second division should follow the first as soon as possible, and that their being exposed, in that case, to a want of covering, would be justly imputable to themselves only. The delay of the second division will lessen the distress for provisions, which may, perhaps, take place on their first going to the new post, before matters are properly arranged.
The lack of barracks at Fort Frederick, as pointed out by Colonel Wood, the challenge of getting enough wagons to transport all the Convention troops, and the restless state of the guard regiment have led me to think that it would be better to move these troops in two groups. Since the main risk of desertion to the enemy and communication with the disaffected in our southern counties comes only from the British (we have no concerns about the Germans), we've advised Colonel Wood to engage the British in the first group, while leaving the Germans in their current position to form a second group when barracks can be built at Fort Frederick. This way, the British can march immediately under the protection of Colonel Crochet’s battalion, while Colonel Taylor’s guard regiment stays with the Germans. I don’t believe this will be viewed as the kind of separation that the Convention opposes, nor do I think their officers will want all troops crammed into barracks that probably won’t have enough space for even half of them. However, if they insist on keeping everyone together, I think the consensus will be that the second group should follow the first as soon as possible, and any resulting lack of shelter would be their own responsibility. The delay of the second group will reduce the strain on supplies, which might be an issue when they first move to the new location, before everything is properly set up.
I have the honor to be, with great esteem and respect,
I am honored to be here, with great esteem and respect,
your Excellency’s most obedient
your Excellency's most obedient
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XXXIII.—TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, November 10, 1780
TO HIS EXCELLENCY GENERAL WASHINGTON.
To His Excellency General Washington.
Richmond, November 10, 1780.
Richmond, Nov 10, 1780.
Sir,
Hey,
I enclose your Excellency a copy of an intercepted letter from Major General Leslie to Lord Cornwallis. [See Appendix, note F.] It was taken from a person endeavoring to pass through the country from Portsmouth towards Carolina. When apprehended, and a proposal made to search him, he readily consented to be searched, but, at the same time, was observed to put his hand into his pocket and carry something towards his mouth, as if it were a quid of tobacco: it was examined, and found to be a letter, of which the enclosed is a copy, written on silk paper, rolled up in gold-beater’s skin, and nicely tied at each end, so as not to be larger than a goose quill. As this is the first authentic disclosure of their purpose in coming here, and may serve to found, with somewhat more of certainty, conjectures respecting their future movements, while their disappointment in not meeting with Lord Cornwallis may occasion new plans at New York, I thought it worthy of communication to your Excellency.
I’m sending you a copy of an intercepted letter from Major General Leslie to Lord Cornwallis. [See Appendix, note F.] It was taken from a person trying to travel through the area from Portsmouth to Carolina. When he was stopped and asked to be searched, he agreed without hesitation, but it was noticed that he reached into his pocket and brought something to his mouth, as if it were a chew of tobacco. It was checked and found to be a letter, of which the enclosed is a copy, written on silk paper, rolled up in gold-beater’s skin, and neatly tied at both ends so that it was no bigger than a goose quill. Since this is the first genuine revelation of their intentions in coming here, and it could help make more accurate guesses about their future movements, especially since their disappointment in not finding Lord Cornwallis might lead to new plans in New York, I thought it was important to share this with you.
Some deserters were taken yesterday, said to be of the British Convention troops, who had found means to get to the enemy at Portsmouth, and were seventy or eighty miles on their way back to the barracks, when they were taken. They were passing under the guise of deserters from Portsmouth.
Some deserters were captured yesterday, believed to be from the British Convention troops, who managed to reach the enemy at Portsmouth and were about seventy or eighty miles into their journey back to the barracks when they were caught. They were pretending to be deserters from Portsmouth.
I have the honor to be, with the greatest esteem and respect,
I am honored to be, with the highest esteem and respect,
your Exellency’s most obedient
your Excellency’s most obedient
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XXXIV.—TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, November 26, 1780
TO HIS EXCELLENCY GENERAL WASHINGTON.
To His Excellency General Washington.
Richmond, November 26, 1780.
Richmond, November 26, 1780.
Sir,
Hey,
I have been honored with your Excellency’s letter of the 8th instant. Having found it impracticable to move, suddenly, the whole Convention troops, British and German, and it being represented that there could not, immediately, be covering provided for them all at Fort Frederick, we concluded to march off the British first, from whom was the principal danger of desertion, and to permit the Germans, who show little disposition to join the enemy, to remain in their present quarters till something further be done. The British, accordingly, marched the 20th instant. They cross the Blue Ridge at Rock Fish gap, and proceed along that valley. I am to apprize your Excellency, that the officers of every rank, both British and German, but particularly the former, have purchased within this State some of the finest horses in it. You will be pleased to determine, whether it be proper that they carry them within their lines. I believe the Convention of Saratoga entitles them to keep the horses they then had. But I presume none of the line below the rank of field-officers, had a horse. Considering the British will be now at Fort Frederick, and the Germans in Albemarle, Alexandria seems to be the most central point to which there is navigation. Would it not, therefore, be better that the flag-vessel, solicited by General Phillips, should go to that place? It is about equally distant from the two posts. The roads to Albemarle are good. I know not how those are which lead to Fort Frederick. Your letter referring me to General Green, for the mode of constructing light, portable boats, unfortunately did not come to hand till he had left us. We had before determined to have something done in that way, and as they are still unexecuted, we should be greatly obliged by any draughts or hints, which could be given by any person within the reach of your Excellency.
I have received your Excellency’s letter dated the 8th of this month. Since it has proven difficult to quickly move all the Convention troops, both British and German, and it has been indicated that immediate accommodations cannot be provided for everyone at Fort Frederick, we decided to first march off the British troops, as they pose the main risk of desertion, while allowing the Germans, who show little interest in joining the enemy, to stay in their current quarters until further actions are taken. The British thus marched on the 20th. They crossed the Blue Ridge at Rock Fish Gap and continued along that valley. I want to inform your Excellency that officers of all ranks, especially the British, have bought some of the finest horses in this state. Please decide whether it is appropriate for them to take those horses within their lines. I believe the Convention of Saratoga allows them to keep the horses they had at that time. However, I doubt anyone below the rank of field officers had a horse. Considering the British will now be at Fort Frederick and the Germans in Albemarle, Alexandria seems to be the most central location accessible by water. Would it not be better for the flag vessel requested by General Phillips to go there? It is about equally distant from both posts. The roads to Albemarle are good, but I’m not sure about those leading to Fort Frederick. Your letter mentioned consulting General Green for constructing light, portable boats, but unfortunately, I didn’t receive that information until he had already left. We had previously decided to do something in that regard, and since those plans are still unfulfilled, we would greatly appreciate any designs or suggestions that anyone within your Excellency’s reach could provide.
I received advice, that on the 22nd instant, the enemy’s fleet got all under way, and were standing toward the Capes: as it still remained undecided, whether they would leave the bay, or turn up it, I waited the next stage of information, that you might so far be enabled to judge of their destination. This I hourly expected, but it did not come till this evening, when I am informed they all got out to sea in the night of the 22nd. What course they steered afterwards, is not known. I must do their General and Commander the justice to say, that in every case to which their attention and influence could reach, as far as I have been well-informed, their conduct was such as does them the greatest honor. In the few instances of wanton and unnecessary devastation, they punished the aggressors.
I got word that on the 22nd, the enemy’s fleet set sail and was headed toward the Capes. Since it was still unclear whether they would leave the bay or move further up, I waited for more info so you could better assess their destination. I expected this update any hour, but it didn’t arrive until this evening, when I learned they all got out to sea on the night of the 22nd. What direction they took afterward is unknown. I have to give credit to their General and Commander for handling things well. From everything I’ve learned, their actions have been quite honorable. In the few cases of unnecessary destruction, they punished those responsible.
I have the honor to be,
I have the honor to be,
your Excellency’s
your Excellency
most obedient, humble servant,
most loyal and humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XXXV.—TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, December 15,1780
TO HIS EXCELLENCY GENERAL WASHINGTON.
To His Excellency General Washington.
Richmond, December 15,1780.
Richmond, December 15, 1780.
Sir,
Sir,
I had the honor of writing to your Excellency on the subject of an expedition contemplated by this State, against the British post at Detroit, and of receiving your answer of October the 10th. Since the date of my letter, the face of things has so far changed, as to leave it no longer optional in us to attempt or decline the expedition, but compels us to decide in the affirmative, and to begin our preparations immediately. The army the enemy at present have in the South, the reinforcements still expected there, and their determination to direct their future exertions to that quarter, are not unknown to you. The regular force proposed on our part to counteract those exertions, is such, either from the real or supposed inability of this State, as by no means to allow a hope that it may be effectual. It is, therefore, to be expected that the scene of war will either be within our country, or very nearly advanced to it; and that our principal dependence is to be on militia, for which reason it becomes incumbent to keep as great a proportion of our people as possible, free to act in that quarter. In the mean time, a combination is forming in the westward, which, if not diverted, will call thither a principal and most valuable part of our militia. From intelligence received, we have reason to expect that a confederacy of British and Indians, to the amount of two thousand men, is formed for the purpose of spreading destruction and dismay through the whole extent of our frontier, in the ensuing spring. Should this take place, we shall certainly lose in the South all aids of militia beyond the Blue Ridge, besides the inhabitants who must fall a sacrifice in the course of the savage irruptions.
I had the honor of writing to you about an expedition planned by this State against the British post at Detroit and received your response on October 10th. Since my letter, the situation has changed enough that we can no longer choose to proceed or not with the expedition; we must decide to go ahead and start our preparations immediately. You're aware of the enemy's current army in the South, the reinforcements still expected there, and their intention to focus their efforts in that area. The regular force we propose to send to counteract these efforts is insufficient, either due to the actual or perceived limitations of this State, giving us little hope that it will be effective. Therefore, we should expect that the conflict will either occur within our territory or very close to it; our main reliance will be on militia, which is why we need to keep as many of our people available as possible to act in that area. Meanwhile, a coalition is forming to the west, which, if not stopped, will draw away a significant and valuable portion of our militia. From the information we've gathered, we expect that a group of British and Indians, around two thousand strong, is being organized to wreak havoc and terror throughout our entire frontier next spring. If this happens, we will definitely lose all militia support beyond the Blue Ridge in the South, in addition to the civilians who will become victims of the brutal attacks.
There seems to be but one method of preventing this, which is to give the western enemy employment in their own country. The regular force Colonel Clarke already has, with a proper draft from the militia beyond the Allegany, and that of three or four of our most northern counties, will be adequate to the reduction of Fort Detroit, in the opinion of Colonel Clarke; and he assigns the most probable reasons for that opinion. We have, therefore, determined to undertake it, and commit it to his direction. Whether the expense of the enterprise shall be defrayed by the Continent or State, we will leave to be decided hereafter by Congress, in whose justice we can confide as to the determination. In the mean time, we only ask the loan of such necessaries as, being already at Fort Pitt, will save time and an immense expense of transportation. These articles shall either be identically or specifically returned; should we prove successful, it is not improbable they may be where Congress would choose to keep them. I am, therefore, to solicit your Excellency’s order to the commandant at Fort Pitt, for the articles contained on the annexed list, which shall not be called for until every thing is in readiness; after which, there can be no danger of their being wanted for the post at which they are: indeed, there are few of the articles essential for the defence of the post.
There seems to be only one way to prevent this, which is to give the western enemy jobs in their own country. Colonel Clarke already has a regular force, and with a proper draft from the militia beyond the Allegheny and from three or four of our northern counties, it will be enough to reduce Fort Detroit, according to Colonel Clarke’s opinion. He provides the most likely reasons for that belief. We have, therefore, decided to go ahead with it and put it under his direction. Whether the cost of the operation will be covered by the Continent or State, we will leave that decision to Congress later, as we trust their judgment on the matter. In the meantime, we only ask to borrow some supplies that are already at Fort Pitt, which will save us time and a huge cost in transportation. These items will either be returned exactly as they were or replaced specifically; if we are successful, they may end up where Congress would like to keep them. I am, therefore, requesting your Excellency’s order to the commandant at Fort Pitt for the items on the attached list, which won’t be needed until everything is ready. After that, there will be no risk of them being needed for the post they are at; in fact, few of the items are essential for the defense of the post.
I hope your Excellency will think yourself justified in lending us this aid without awaiting the effect of an application elsewhere, as such a delay would render the undertaking abortive, by postponing it to the breaking up of the ice in the lake. Independent of the favorable effects which a successful enterprise against Detroit must produce to the United States in general, by keeping in quiet the frontier of the northern ones, and leaving our western militia at liberty to aid those of the South, we think the like friendly offices performed by us to the Sates, whenever desired, and almost to the absolute exhausture of our own magazines, give well founded hopes that we may be accommodated on this occasion. The supplies of military stores which have been furnished by us to Fort Pitt itself, to the northern army, and, most of all, to the southern, are not altogether unknown to you. I am the more urgent for an immediate order, because Colonel Clarke awaits here your Excellency’s answer by the express, though his presence in the western country to make preparations for the expedition is so very necessary, if you enable him to undertake it. To the above, I must add a request to you to send for us to Pittsburg, persons proper to work the mortars, &c, as Colonel Clarke has none such, nor is there one in this State. They shall be in the pay of this State from the time they leave you. Any money necessary for their journey, shall be repaid at Pittsburg, without fail, by the first of March.
I hope your Excellency feels justified in providing us this support without waiting for the outcome of an application elsewhere, as such a delay would ruin the effort by pushing it to when the ice in the lake is melting. Besides the positive impact a successful mission against Detroit would have for the United States overall—by stabilizing the northern frontier and allowing our western militia to assist those in the South—we believe that the friendly assistance we've provided to the States, whenever requested, and nearly depleting our own supplies, gives us solid reasons to hope for your support on this matter. The military supplies we've delivered to Fort Pitt, the northern army, and especially to the southern forces are not unknown to you. I'm particularly pressing for an immediate order because Colonel Clarke is waiting for your Excellency’s reply through the messenger, even though his presence in the western region is crucial for preparing the expedition if you approve it. Additionally, I have to request that you send suitable individuals from Pittsburgh to operate the mortars, as Colonel Clarke doesn't have anyone, and there isn't anyone in this State. They will be paid by this State as soon as they leave you. Any expenses for their journey will be reimbursed in Pittsburgh by the first of March, without fail.
At the desire of the General Assembly, I take the liberty of transmitting to you the enclosed resolution; and have the honor to be, with the most perfect esteem and regard,
At the request of the General Assembly, I am sending you the enclosed resolution; and I have the honor to be, with the highest respect and regard,
your Excellency’s most obedient
your Excellency's most obedient
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XXXVI.—TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, January 10, 1781
TO HIS EXCELLENCY GENERAL WASHINGTON.
To His Excellency General Washington.
Richmond, January 10, 1781.
Richmond, January 10, 1781.
Sir,
Hey,
It may seem odd, considering the important events which have taken place in this State within the course of ten days, that I should not have transmitted an account of them to your Excellency; but such has been their extraordinary rapidity, and such the unremitted attention they have required from all concerned in government, that I do not recollect the portion of time which I could have taken to commit them to paper.
It might seem strange, given the significant events that have happened in this state over the last ten days, that I haven't sent you a report about them; however, their incredibly fast pace and the constant attention they demanded from everyone involved in the government have made it difficult for me to recall any time I could have spent writing them down.
On the 31st of December, a letter from a private gentleman to General Nelson came to my hands, notifying, that in the morning of the preceding day, twenty-seven sail of vessels had entered the Capes; and from the tenor of the letter, we had reason to expect, within a few hours, further intelligence; whether they were friends or foes, their force, and other circumstances. We immediately despatched General Nelson to the lower country, with powers to call on the militia in that quarter, or act otherwise as exigencies should require; but waited further intelligence, before we would call for militia from the middle or upper country. No further intelligence came till the 2nd instant, when the former was confirmed; it was ascertained they had advanced up James river to Wanasqueak bay. All arrangements were immediately taken for calling in a sufficient body of militia for opposition. In the night of the 3rd, we received advice that they were at anchor opposite Jamestown; we then supposed Williamsburg to be their object. The wind, however, which had hitherto been unfavorable, shifted fair, and the tide being also in their favor, they ascended the river to Kennons’ that evening, and, with the next tide, came up to Westover, having, on their way, taken possession of some works we had at Hood’s, by which two or three of their vessels received some damage, but which were of necessity abandoned by the small garrison of fifty men placed there, on the enemy’s landing to invest the works. Intelligence of their having quitted the station at Jamestown, from which we supposed they meant to land for Williamsburg, and of their having got in the evening to Kennon’s, reached us the next morning at five o’clock, and was the first indication of their meaning to penetrate towards this place or Petersburg. As the order for drawing miliatia here had been given but two days, no opposition was in readiness. Every effort was therefore necessary, to withdraw the arms and other military stores, records, &c. from this place. Every effort was, accordingly, exerted to convey them to the foundery five miles, and to a laboratory six miles, above this place, till about sunset of that day, when we learned the enemy had come to an anchor at Westover that morning. We then knew that this, and not Petersburg was their object, and began to carry across the river every thing remaining here, and to remove what had been transported to the foundery and laboratory to Westham, the nearest crossing, seven miles above this place, which operation was continued till they had approached very near. They marched from Westover, at two o’clock in the afternoon of the 4th, and entered Richmond at one o’clock in the afternoon of the 5th. A regiment of infantry and about thirty horse continued on, without halting, to the foundery. They burnt that, the boring mill, the magazine, and two other houses, and proceeded to Westharn; but nothing being in their power there, they retired to Richmond. The next morning they burned some buildings of public and private property, with what stores remained in them, destroyed a great quantity of private stores, and about twelve o’clock, retired towards Westover, where they encamped within the Neck, the next day.
On December 31st, I received a letter from a private individual addressed to General Nelson, informing us that on the morning of the previous day, twenty-seven ships had entered the Capes. Based on the letter's content, we expected more updates within a few hours regarding whether they were allies or enemies, their size, and other details. We immediately sent General Nelson to the lower country, giving him the authority to call upon the militia there or take other actions as needed, but we held off on calling for militia from the middle or upper country until we got more information. No additional news came until January 2nd, confirming the previous report; it was determined they had moved up the James River to Wanasqueak Bay. We quickly made arrangements to call in enough militia to oppose them. That night, we learned they were anchored across from Jamestown; we then thought they were targeting Williamsburg. However, the wind, which had been unfavorable, shifted, and with the tide also in their favor, they moved up the river to Kennon's that evening, and with the next tide, reached Westover, having taken over some works we had at Hood’s along the way, which caused some damage to a couple of their ships. However, those works were abandoned by the small garrison of fifty men there when the enemy landed to take control. We received word the next morning at five o'clock that they had left their position at Jamestown, where we believed they intended to land for Williamsburg, and that they had reached Kennon’s the evening before. This was our first indication that they might move towards this place or Petersburg. Since the order to call in militia had only been given two days prior, we weren’t prepared for any resistance. Therefore, we needed to do everything possible to move arms, military supplies, records, etc., from here. Efforts were made to transport them to a foundry five miles away and a laboratory six miles away until about sunset, when we learned the enemy had anchored at Westover that morning. We then realized that their target was this place, not Petersburg, and began to move everything remaining here across the river, also relocating what had already been taken to the foundry and laboratory to Westham, the closest crossing, seven miles upstream. This process continued until they got very close. They marched from Westover at 2 PM on the 4th and entered Richmond at 1 PM on the 5th. A regiment of infantry and about thirty cavalry moved on without stopping to the foundry. They burned that, the boring mill, the magazine, and two other buildings, then proceeded to Westham, but since there was nothing of value there, they returned to Richmond. The following morning, they burned some public and private buildings along with whatever supplies were left in them, destroyed a large quantity of private goods, and around noon headed back towards Westover, where they camped within the Neck the following day.
The loss sustained is not yet accurately known. As far as I have been able to discover, it consisted, at this place, of about three hundred muskets, some soldiers’ clothing to a small amount, some quarter-master’s stores, of which one hundred and twenty sides of leather was the principal article, part of the artificers’ tools, and three wagons. Besides which, five brass four-pounders, which we had sunk in the river, were discovered to them, raised and carried off. At the foundery, we lost the greater part of the papers belonging to the Auditor’s office, and of the books and papers of the Council office. About five or six tons of powder, as we conjecture, was thrown into the canal, of which there will be a considerable saving by re-manufacturing it. The roof of the foundery was burned, but the stacks of chimneys and furnaces not at all injured. The boring mill was consumed. Within less than forty-eight hours from the time of their landing, and nineteen from our knowing their destination, they had penetrated thirty-three miles, done the whole injury, and retired. Their numbers, from the best intelligence I have had, are about fifteen hundred infantry, and as to their cavalry, accounts vary from fifty to one hundred and twenty; and the whole commanded by the parricide Arnold. Our militia, dispersed over a large tract of country, can be called in but slowly. On the day the enemy advanced to this place, two hundred only were embodied. They were of this town and its neighborhood, and were too few to do any thing. At this time, they are assembled in pretty considerable numbers on the south side of James river, but are not yet brought to a point. On the north side are two or three small bodies, amounting in the whole to about nine hundred men. The enemy were, at four o’clock yesterday evening, still remaining in their encampment at Westover and Berkeley Neck. In the mean while, Baron Steuben, a zealous friend, has descended from the dignity of his proper command, to direct our smallest movements. His vigilance has in a great measure supplied the want of force in preventing the enemy from crossing the river, which might have been very fatal. He has been assiduously employed in preparing equipments for the militia, as they should assemble, in pointing them to a proper object, and in other offices of a good commander. Should they loiter a little longer, and he be able to have a sufficient force, I still flatter myself they will not escape with total impunity. To what place they will point their next exertions, we cannot even conjecture. The whole country on the tide waters and some distance from them, is equally open to similar insult.
The exact loss is still unclear. From what I've gathered, it included about three hundred muskets, a small amount of soldiers’ clothing, some quartermaster supplies—mostly one hundred and twenty sides of leather—part of the tools for the artificers, and three wagons. Additionally, five brass four-pound cannons that we had sunk in the river were found, raised, and taken by them. At the foundry, we lost most of the documents from the Auditor’s office and the books and papers from the Council office. We estimate that about five or six tons of powder were thrown into the canal, which can be recycled, saving us a lot. The roof of the foundry burned down, but the chimneys and furnaces were not damaged. The boring mill was destroyed. Less than forty-eight hours after they landed, and nineteen hours after we found out their goal, they had advanced thirty-three miles, caused all this damage, and then retreated. From the best information I have, their numbers are around fifteen hundred infantry, and their cavalry counts vary from fifty to one hundred twenty, all under the command of the traitor Arnold. Our militia, spread out over a large area, can only be gathered slowly. On the day the enemy approached, only two hundred were assembled, made up of people from this town and nearby areas, which was too few to make an impact. Currently, they are gathered in significant numbers on the south side of the James River, but they haven't yet coordinated. On the north side, there are two or three small groups, totaling about nine hundred men. The enemy was still in their camp at Westover and Berkeley Neck as of four o'clock yesterday evening. Meanwhile, Baron Steuben, a devoted ally, has stepped down from his higher command to coordinate our smaller movements. His vigilance has largely compensated for our lack of forces in preventing the enemy from crossing the river, which could have been disastrous. He has been diligently working on equipping the militia as they assemble, directing them toward a clear goal, and fulfilling other important leadership tasks. If they take a little longer and he can gather enough forces, I still hope they won't get away without consequences. We can't even guess where they will strike next. The entire region along the tidewaters and even further inland is equally vulnerable to similar attacks.
I have the honor to be, with every sentiment of respect,
I’m honored to be, with the utmost respect,
your Excellency’s most obedient
your Excellency’s most respectful
and most humble servant,
your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Th: Jefferson.
LETTER XXXVII.—TO THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS, Jan. 15, 1781
TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS.
TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS.
Richmond, January 15,1781.
Richmond, January 15, 1781.
Sir,
Hey,
As the dangers which threaten our western frontiers, the ensuing spring, render it necessary that we should send thither Colonel Crocket’s battalion, at present on guard at Fredericktown, but raised for the western service, I thought it necessary to give your Excellency previous information thereof, that other forces may be provided in time to succeed to their duties. Captain Read’s troop of horse, if necessary, may be continued a while longer on guard.
As the threats to our western borders escalate this coming spring, it's essential for us to send Colonel Crocket’s battalion, currently stationed in Fredericktown but recruited for western duty. I felt it was important to inform you, Your Excellency, about this in advance so that other forces can be prepared in time to take over their responsibilities. If needed, Captain Read’s cavalry unit can remain on guard a bit longer.
I have the honor to be, with the greatest respect,
I am honored to be, with the utmost respect,
your Excellency’s most obedient
your Excellency’s most loyal
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XXXVIII.—TO THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS, Jan. 15, 1781
TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS.
TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS.
Sir,
Sir,
Richmond, January 15, 1781.
Richmond, January 15, 1781.
I received some time ago from Major Forsyth, and afterwards from you, a requisition to furnish one half the supplies of provision for the Convention troops, removed into Maryland. I should sooner have done myself the honor of writing to you on this subject, but that I hoped to have laid it before you more fully than could be done in writing, by a gentleman who was to pass on other public business to Philadelphia. The late events in this State having retarded his setting out, I think it my duty no longer to postpone explanation on this head.
I received a request some time ago from Major Forsyth, and then from you, to provide half of the supplies needed for the Convention troops that have been moved into Maryland. I would have preferred to discuss this directly with you rather than through writing, as I planned to have a gentleman, who was heading to Philadelphia for other business, present it in person. However, recent events in this state have delayed his departure, so I believe it's important to explain this matter to you now.
You cannot be unapprized of the powerful armies of our enemy, at this time in this and the southern States, and that their future plan is to push their successes in the same quarter, by still larger reinforcements. The forces to be opposed to these must be proportionably great, and these forces must be fed. By whom are they to be fed? Georgia and South Carolina are annihilated, at least, as to us. By the requisition to us to send provisions into Maryland, it is to be supposed that none are to come to the southern army, from any State north of this; for it would seem inconsistent, that while we should be sending north, Maryland, and other states beyond that, should be sending their provisions south. Upon North Carolina, then, already exhausted by the ravages of two armies, and on this State, are to depend for subsistence those bodies of men, who are to oppose the greater part of the enemy’s force in the United States, the subsistence of the German, and of half the British Conventioners. To take a view of this matter on the Continental requisitions of November the 4th, 1780, for specific quotas of provisions, it is observable that North Carolina and Virginia are to furnish 10,475,740 pounds of animal food, and 13,529 barrels of flour, while the States north of these will yield 25,293,810 pounds of animal food, and 106,471 barrels of flour.
You can't be unaware of the powerful armies our enemy has right now in this and the southern states, and their future plan is to continue their success in that area with even larger reinforcements. The forces we need to counter them must also be significantly large, and these forces need to be supplied. Who is going to supply them? Georgia and South Carolina are effectively out of the picture for us. With the request for us to send provisions to Maryland, it seems safe to assume that none will come to the southern army from any state north of here; it wouldn't make sense for us to be sending supplies north while Maryland and other states beyond are sending their supplies south. So, North Carolina, which has already been drained by the devastation of two armies, along with this state, will supply the sustenance for the troops that are supposed to confront most of the enemy's force in the United States, the German troops, and half of the British Convention Army. Looking at the Continental requisitions from November 4, 1780, for specific quotas of provisions, it's clear that North Carolina and Virginia are expected to provide 10,475,740 pounds of meat and 13,529 barrels of flour, while the states to the north will supply 25,293,810 pounds of meat and 106,471 barrels of flour.
If the greater part of the British armies be employed in the South, it is to be supposed that the greater part of the American force will be sent there to oppose them. But should this be the case, while the distribution of the provisions is so very unequal, would it be proper to render it still more so, by withdrawing a part of our contributions to the support of posts northward of us? It would certainly be a great convenience to us, to deliver a portion of our specifics at Fredericktown, rather than in Carolina: but I leave it to you to judge, whether this would be consistent with the general good or safety. Instead of sending aids of any kind to the northward, it seems but too certain that unless very timely and substantial assistance be received from thence, our enemies are yet far short of the ultimate term of their successes. I beg leave, therefore, to refer to you, whether the specifics of Maryland, as far as shall be necessary, had not better be applied to the support of the posts within it, for which its quota is much more than sufficient, or, were it otherwise, whether those of the States north of Maryland had not better be called on, than to detract any thing from the resources of the southern opposition, already much too small for the encounter to which it is left. I am far from wishing to count or measure our contributions by the requisitions of Congress. Were they ever so much beyond these. I should readily strain them in aid of any one of our sister States. But while they are so short of those calls to which they must be pointed in the first instance, it would be great misapplication to divert them to any other purpose: and I am persuaded you will think me perfectly within the line of duty, when I ask a revisal of this requisition.
If most of the British armies are positioned in the South, we can assume that the majority of the American forces will be sent there to oppose them. But if that’s the case, while the distribution of supplies is already so uneven, would it be wise to make it even more so by pulling back some of our contributions for the support of the posts to the north? It would certainly be easier for us to send some of our supplies to Fredericktown instead of Carolina, but I leave it to you to decide if that aligns with the overall good or safety. Instead of sending any kind of aid to the north, it seems quite certain that unless we receive timely and significant support from there, our enemies are still far from achieving their ultimate goals. Therefore, I ask you whether it would be better to use the resources of Maryland, to the extent needed, to support the posts within its borders, where its allocation is more than enough, or, if that's not the case, whether we should call on the States north of Maryland instead of taking away from the already insufficient resources for the southern opposition. I'm not trying to count or measure our contributions based on Congress's requisitions. Even if they exceeded those, I would gladly push beyond them to help any of our sister States. But while our contributions fall short of what they should be initially aimed at, it would be a significant misapplication to redirect them for any other purpose. I trust you will agree that it is my duty to request a review of this requisition.
I have the honor to be, with the greatest respect, Sir,
I am honored to be, with the utmost respect, Sir,
your most obedient and most humble servant,
your most obedient and humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XXXIX.—TO THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS, Jan. 17, 1781
TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS.
TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS.
Richmond, January 17, 1781.
Richmond, Jan 17, 1781.
Sir,
Sir,
I do myself the honor of transmitting to your Excellency a resolution of the General Assembly of this Commonwealth, entered into in consequence of the resolution of Congress of September the 6th, 1780, on the subject of the Confederation. I shall be rendered very happy if the other States of the Union, equally impressed with the necessity of that important convention, shall be willing to sacrifice equally to its completion. This single event, could it take place shortly, would overweigh every success which the enemy have hitherto obtained, and render desperate the hopes to which those successes have given birth.
I have the honor of sending you a resolution from the General Assembly of this Commonwealth, following the resolution from Congress on September 6, 1780, regarding the Confederation. I would be very pleased if the other states in the Union, sharing the same urgency for this crucial convention, are willing to put in the effort needed to complete it. This one event, if it could happen soon, would outweigh every victory the enemy has achieved so far and crush the hopes that those victories have inspired.
I have the honor to be, with the most real esteem and respect,
I am honored to express my genuine esteem and respect,
your Excellency’s most obedient and most humble servant,
your Excellency’s most obedient and humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XL.—TO THE VIRGINIA DELEGATES IN CONGRESS, Jan. 18, 1781
TO THE VIRGINIA DELEGATES IN CONGRESS.
TO THE VIRGINIA DELEGATES IN CONGRESS.
Richmond, January 18, 1781.
Richmond, January 18, 1781.
Gentlemen,
Guys,
I enclose you a Resolution of Assembly, directing your conduct as to the navigation of the Mississippi.
I’m sending you a Resolution of Assembly that outlines how you should handle the navigation of the Mississippi.
The loss of powder lately sustained by us (about five tons), together with the quantities sent on to the southward, have reduced our stock very low indeed. We lent to Congress, in the course of the last year (previous to our issues for the southern army), about ten tons of powder. I shall be obliged to you to procure an order from the board of war, for any quantity from five to ten tons, to be sent us immediately from Philadelphia or Baltimore, and to inquire into and hasten, from time to time, the execution of it. The stock of cartridge-paper is nearly exhausted. I do not know whether Captain Irish, or what other officer, should apply for this. It is essential that a good stock should be forwarded, and without a moment’s delay. If there be a rock on which we are to split, it is the want of muskets, bayonets, and cartouch-boxes.
The recent loss of about five tons of powder, along with the amounts we've sent south, has really depleted our supply. Last year, before we issued any for the southern army, we lent Congress around ten tons of powder. I would appreciate it if you could get an order from the board of war for any amount between five to ten tons to be sent to us immediately from Philadelphia or Baltimore, and to check on it regularly to ensure it’s executed. Our stock of cartridge paper is nearly gone. I’m not sure if Captain Irish or another officer should handle this request. It’s crucial that we receive a good supply as soon as possible, without delay. If there’s one major issue we might face, it’s the lack of muskets, bayonets, and cartridge boxes.
The occurrences, since my last to the President, are not of any magnitude. Three little rencounters have happened with the enemy. In the first, General Smallwood led on a party of two or three hundred militia, and obliged some armed vessels of the enemy to retire from a prize they had taken at Broadway’s, and renewing his attack the next day with a four-pounder or two (for on the first day he had only muskets), he obliged some of their vessels to fall down from City Point to their main fleet at Westover. The enemy’s loss is not known; ours was four men wounded. One of the evenings, during their encampment at Westover and Berkeley, their light-horse surprised a party of about one hundred or one hundred and fifty militia at Charles City Court House, killed and wounded four, and took, as has been generally said, about seven or eight. On Baron Steuben’s approach towards Hood’s, they embarked at Westover; the wind, which, till then, had set directly up the river from the time of their leaving Jamestown, shifted in the moment to the opposite point. Baron Steuben had not reached Hood’s by eight or ten miles, when they arrived there. They landed their whole army in the night, Arnold attending in person. Colonel Clarke (of Kaskaskias) had been sent on with two hundred and forty men by Baron Steuben, and having properly disposed of them in ambuscade, gave them a deliberate fire, which killed seventeen on the spot, and wounded thirteen. They returned it in confusion, by which we had three or four wounded, and our party being so small and without bayonets, were obliged to retire on the enemy’s charging with bayonets. They fell down to Cobham, whence they carried all the tobacco there (about sixty hogsheads); and the last intelligence was, that on the 16th they were standing for New-ports-news. Baron Steuben is of opinion, they are proceeding to fix a post in some of the lower counties. Later information has given no reason to believe their force more considerable than we at first supposed. I think, since the arrival of the three transports which had been separated in a storm, they may be considered as about two thousand strong. Their naval force, according to the best intelligence, is the Charon, of forty-four guns, Commodore Symmonds, the Amphitrite, Iris, Thames, and Charlestown frigates, the Forvey, of twenty guns, two sloops of war, a privateer ship, and two brigs. We have about thirty-seven hundred militia embodied, but at present they are divided into three distant encampments: one under General Weeden, at Fredericksburg, for the protection of the important works there; another under General Nelson, at and near Williamsburg; and a third under Baron Steuben, at Cabin Point. As soon as the enemy fix themselves, these will be brought to a point.
The events since my last update to the President aren't significant. Three minor skirmishes have occurred with the enemy. In the first encounter, General Smallwood led a group of two or three hundred militia and forced some enemy vessels to retreat from a prize they had taken at Broadway’s. The next day, after returning with a few cannons (since he originally only had muskets), he succeeded in pushing some of their vessels from City Point back to their main fleet at Westover. We don't know the enemy's losses, but ours included four wounded. One evening, while they were camped at Westover and Berkeley, their cavalry ambushed around one hundred to one hundred fifty militia at Charles City Court House, killing or injuring four and reportedly capturing about seven or eight. When Baron Steuben moved towards Hood’s, the enemy left Westover; the wind, which had previously been blowing upstream since they left Jamestown, suddenly shifted direction. Baron Steuben was still eight to ten miles away from Hood’s when the enemy arrived there. They landed their entire army at night, with Arnold overseeing the operation. Colonel Clarke (from Kaskaskias) was sent ahead with two hundred forty men by Baron Steuben, and after setting up an ambush, they opened fire, killing seventeen instantly and wounding thirteen. The enemy returned fire in a panic, resulting in three or four of our men being wounded. Our smaller group, without bayonets, had to retreat when the enemy charged with bayonets. They moved down to Cobham, where they took all the tobacco there (about sixty hogsheads). The latest news is that on the 16th, they were heading toward Newport News. Baron Steuben believes they plan to establish a post in one of the lower counties. Recent information hasn’t suggested that their force is larger than we initially thought. I estimate that since the arrival of three transports separated by a storm, they might have around two thousand troops. Their naval force, according to the best information, consists of the Charon with forty-four guns, Commodore Symmonds, along with the Amphitrite, Iris, Thames, and Charlestown frigates, the Forvey with twenty guns, two sloops of war, a privateer ship, and two brigs. We have about thirty-seven hundred militia assembled, but they’re currently split into three separate camps: one under General Weeden at Fredericksburg to protect the important works there, another under General Nelson at and around Williamsburg, and a third under Baron Steuben at Cabin Point. Once the enemy establishes themselves, these forces will be consolidated.
I have the honor to be, with very great respect, gentlemen,
I am honored to be here, with deep respect, gentlemen,
your most obedient servant,
yours sincerely,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XLI.—TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, February 8, 1781
TO HIS EXCELLENCY GENERAL WASHINGTON.
To His Excellency General Washington.
Richmond, February 8, 1781.
Richmond, February 8, 1781.
Sir,
Hey there,
I have just received intelligence, which, though from a private hand, I believe is to be relied on, that a fleet of the enemy’s ships have entered Cape Fear river, that eight of them had got over the bar, and many others were lying off; and that it was supposed to be a reinforcement to Lord Cornwallis, under the command of General Prevost. This account, which had come through another channel, is confirmed by a letter from General Parsons at Halifax, to the gentleman who forwards it to me. I thought it of sufficient importance to be communicated to your Excellency by the stationed expresses. The fatal want of arms puts it out of our power to bring a greater force into the field, than will barely suffice to restrain the adventures of the pitiful body of men they have at Portsmouth. Should any more be added to them, this country will be perfectly open to them, by land as well as water.
I just got some information, which, although from a private source, I believe can be trusted, that a fleet of enemy ships has entered Cape Fear River, with eight of them crossing the bar, and many others waiting offshore; it's thought to be a reinforcement for Lord Cornwallis, led by General Prevost. This report, which came through another source, is backed up by a letter from General Parsons in Halifax to the person who relayed it to me. I considered it important enough to share with your Excellency via the stationed couriers. The critical lack of arms limits our ability to deploy a larger force than what’s barely enough to handle the actions of the small group they have at Portsmouth. If they get any more troops, this region will be completely vulnerable to them, both by land and by sea.
I have the honor to be, with all possible respect,
I am honored to be, with all due respect,
Your Excellency’s most obedient
Your Excellency's most loyal
and most humble servant,
your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XLII.—TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, February 12, 1781
TO HIS EXCELLENCY GENERAL WASHINGTON.
To His Excellency General Washington.
Richmond, February 12, 1781.
Richmond, February 12, 1781.
Sir,
Hey,
The enclosed extract from a letter from Governor Nash, which I received this day, being a confirmation of the intelligence I transmitted in a former letter, I take the liberty of transmitting it to your Excellency. I am informed, through a private channel, on which I have considerable reliance, that the enemy had landed five hundred troops under the command of a Major Craig, who were joined by a number of disaffected; that they had penetrated forty miles; that their aim appeared to be the magazine at Kingston, from which place they were about twenty miles distant.
The attached excerpt from a letter from Governor Nash, which I received today, confirms the information I shared in a previous letter, and I’m sending it to you, Your Excellency. I’ve been told through a reliable private source that the enemy has landed five hundred troops led by Major Craig, who were joined by some discontented individuals; they have advanced forty miles and seem to be aiming for the magazine at Kingston, which is about twenty miles away from their current location.
Baron Steuben transmits to your Excellency a letter from General Greene, by which you will learn the events which have taken place in that quarter since the defeat of Colonel Tarleton, by General Morgan. These events speak best for themselves, and no doubt will suggest what is necessary to be done to prevent the successive losses of State after State, to which the want of arms, and of a regular soldiery, seem more especially to expose those in the South.
Baron Steuben is sending your Excellency a letter from General Greene, which will update you on what has happened in that area since General Morgan defeated Colonel Tarleton. The events described speak for themselves and will certainly indicate what needs to be done to avoid the ongoing losses of state after state, which seem especially vulnerable in the South due to a lack of arms and a regular army.
I have the honor to be, with every sentiment of respect, your Excellency’s most obedient and most humble servant,
I am honored to be, with all due respect, your Excellency's most obedient and humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XLIII.—TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, February 17, 1781
TO HIS EXCELLENCY GENERAL WASHINGTON.
To His Excellency General Washington.
Richmond, February 17, 1781.
Richmond, Feb 17, 1781.
Sir,
Hey,
By a letter from General Greene, dated Guilford Court House, February 10th, we are informed that Lord Cornwallis had burned his own wagons in order to enable himself to move with greater facility, and had pressed immediately on. The prisoners taken at the Cow-pens, were happily saved by the accidental rise of a water-course, which gave so much time as to withdraw them from the reach of the enemy. Lord Cornwallis had advanced to the vicinities of the Moravian towns, and was still moving on rapidly. His object was supposed to be to compel General Greene to an action, which, under the difference of force they had, would probably be ruinous to the latter. General Greene meant to retire by the way of Boyd’s Ferry, on the Roanoke. As yet he had lost little or no stores or baggage, but they were far from being safe. In the instant of receiving this intelligence, we ordered a reinforcement of militia to him, from the most convenient counties in which there was a hope of finding any arms. Some great event must arise from the present situation of things, which, for a long time, will determine the condition of southern affairs.
In a letter from General Greene, dated Guilford Court House, February 10th, we learn that Lord Cornwallis burned his own wagons to move more easily and pressed on immediately. Fortunately, the prisoners captured at the Cowpens were saved by an unexpected rise in a water course, which provided enough time to get them out of reach of the enemy. Lord Cornwallis had advanced to the areas near the Moravian towns and was still moving quickly. It was believed his goal was to force General Greene into battle, which, given their difference in forces, could be disastrous for Greene. General Greene planned to retreat via Boyd’s Ferry on the Roanoke. So far, he had lost little or no supplies or baggage, but they were still not safe. Upon receiving this information, we ordered a reinforcement of militia for him from the nearest counties where there was a chance of finding any weapons. Something significant is likely to come from the current situation, which will determine the future of southern affairs for a long time.
Arnold lies close in his quarters. Two days ago, I received information of the arrival of a sixty-four gun ship and two frigates in our bay, being part of the fleet of our good ally at Rhode Island. Could they get at the British fleet here, they are sufficient to destroy them; but these being drawn up into Elizabeth river, into which the sixty-four cannot enter, I apprehend they could do nothing more than block up the river. This, indeed, would reduce the enemy, as we could cut off their supplies by land; but the operation being tedious, would probably be too dangerous for the auxiliary force. Not having yet had any particular information of the designs of the French Commander, I cannot pretend to say what measures this aid will lead to.
Arnold lies close in his quarters. Two days ago, I got word that a sixty-four gun ship and two frigates arrived in our bay, as part of our ally's fleet from Rhode Island. If they could reach the British fleet here, they’d be strong enough to take them out; but since the British are positioned in Elizabeth River, which the sixty-four can't enter, I fear they can only block the river. This would indeed weaken the enemy, as we could cut off their land supplies; however, this operation would be slow and likely too risky for the auxiliary force. Since I haven’t received any specific updates on the French Commander's plans, I can’t assume what actions this support will lead to.
Our proposition to the Cherokee Chiefs, to visit Congress, for the purpose of preventing or delaying a rupture with that nation, was too late. Their distresses had too much ripened their alienation from us, and the storm had gathered to a head, when Major Martin got back. It was determined to carry the war into their country, rather than await it in ours, and thus disagreeably circumstanced, the issue has been successful.
Our proposal to the Cherokee Chiefs to visit Congress, in order to prevent or delay a conflict with that nation, came too late. Their hardships had already deepened their distance from us, and tensions had reached a boiling point by the time Major Martin returned. It was decided to take the fight to their territory instead of waiting for it to come to ours, and under these unfortunate circumstances, the outcome has been successful.
The militia’ of this State and North Corolina penetrated into their country, burned almost every town they had, amounting to about one thousand houses in the whole, destroyed fifty thousand bushels of grain, killed twenty-nine, and took seventeen prisoners. The latter are mostly women and children.
The militia of this State and North Carolina invaded their territory, burned nearly every town they had, totaling around one thousand houses, destroyed fifty thousand bushels of grain, killed twenty-nine people, and captured seventeen prisoners. Most of the captives are women and children.
I have the honor to be, &c. your Excellency’s
I have the honor to be, &c. your Excellency’s
most obedient, humble servant,
most devoted, humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
P.S. Since writing the above, I have received information which, though not authentic, deserves attention: that Lord Cornwallis had got to Boyd’s Ferry on the 14th. I am issuing orders, in consequence, to other counties, to embody and march all the men they can arm. In this fatal situation, without arms, there will be no safety for the Convention troops but in their removal, which I shall accordingly order. The prisoners of the Cowpens were at New London (Bedford Court House) on the 14th. T. J.
P.S. Since writing the above, I've received information that, while not verified, is worth noting: Lord Cornwallis reached Boyd’s Ferry on the 14th. I'm issuing orders to other counties to gather and send all the men they can arm. In this dangerous situation, without weapons, the Convention troops can only be safe by relocating, which I will order. The prisoners from the Cowpens were at New London (Bedford Court House) on the 14th. T. J.
LETTER XLIV.—TO GENERAL GATES, February 17, 1781
TO GENERAL GATES.
TO GENERAL GATES.
Richmond, February 17, 1781.
Richmond, Feb 17, 1781.
Dear General,
Dear General,
The situation of affairs here and in Carolina is such as must shortly turn up important events, one way orihe other. By letter from General Greene, dated Guilford Court House, February the 10th, I learn that Lord Cornwallis, rendered furious by the affair of the Cowpens and the surprise of Georgetown, had burned his own wagons, to enable himself to move with facility, had pressed on to the vicinity of the Moravian towns, and was still advancing: The prisoners taken at the Cowpens were saved by a hair’s-breadth accident, and Greene was retreating. His force, two thousand regulars, and no militia; Cornwallis, three thousand. General Davidson was killed in a skirmish. Arnold lies still at Portsmouth with fifteen hundred men. A French sixty-four gun ship and two frigates, of thirty-six each, arrived in our bay three days ago. They would suffice to destroy the British shipping here (a forty, four frigates, and a twenty), could they get at them. But these are withdrawn up Elizabeth river, which the sixty-four cannot enter. We have ordered about seven hundred riflemen from Washington, Montgomery, and Bedford, and five hundred common militia from Pittsylvania and Henry, to reinforce General Greene; and five hundred new levies will march from Chesterfield Court House in a few days. I have no doubt, however, that the southwestern counties will have turned out in greater numbers before our orders reach them.
The situation here and in Carolina is about to lead to significant events soon, one way or the other. In a letter from General Greene dated February 10th from Guilford Court House, I learned that Lord Cornwallis, furious about the Cowpens incident and the surprise at Georgetown, had burned his own wagons to move more easily. He pressed on to the area near the Moravian towns and was still advancing. The prisoners taken at the Cowpens were saved by a narrow accident, and Greene was retreating. He had two thousand regular troops and no militia; Cornwallis had three thousand. General Davidson was killed in a skirmish. Arnold is still at Portsmouth with fifteen hundred men. A French 64-gun ship and two 36-gun frigates arrived in our bay three days ago. They would be capable of destroying the British shipping here (a 40-gun ship, four frigates, and a 20-gun ship) if they could reach them. But those ships are now up the Elizabeth River, which the 64-gun ship cannot enter. We have ordered about seven hundred riflemen from Washington, Montgomery, and Bedford, along with five hundred regular militia from Pittsylvania and Henry, to reinforce General Greene; and five hundred new recruits will march from Chesterfield Court House in a few days. However, I have no doubt that the southwestern counties will have rallied in greater numbers before our orders reach them.
I have been knocking at the door of Congress for aids of all kinds, but especially of arms, ever since the middle of summer. The speaker, Harrison, is gone to be heard on that subject. Justice, indeed, requires that we should be aided powerfully. Yet if they would repay us the arms we have lent them, we should give the enemy trouble, though abandoned to ourselves.
I have been reaching out to Congress for help of all kinds, but especially for weapons, since the middle of summer. The speaker, Harrison, has gone to discuss that issue. Justice truly demands that we receive strong support. However, if they would return the weapons we’ve lent them, we could still give the enemy a hard time, even if we’re left to fend for ourselves.
After repeated applications, I have obtained a warrant for your advance money, £18,000, which I have put into the hands of Mr. McAlister, to receive the money from the Treasurer, and carry it to you.
After several attempts, I've secured a warrant for your advance payment of £18,000, which I've given to Mr. McAlister to collect from the Treasurer and deliver to you.
I am, with very sincere esteem,
I sincerely respect,
Dear Sir, your friend and servant,
Dear Sir, your friend and servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XLV.—TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, February 26,1781
TO HIS EXCELLENCY GENERAL WASHINGTON.
TO HIS EXCELLENCY GENERAL WASHINGTON.
Richmond, February 26,1781.
Richmond, February 26, 1781.
Sir,
Hey,
I gave you information in my last letter, that General Greene had crossed the Dan, at Boyd’s Ferry, and that Lord Cornwallis had arrived at the opposite shore. Large reinforcements of militia having embodied both in front and rear of the enemy, he is retreating with as much rapidity as he advanced; his route is towards Hillsborough. General Greene re-crossed the Dan on the 21st, in pursuit of him. I have the pleasure to inform you, that the spirit of opposition was as universal, as could have been wished for. There was no restraint on the numbers that embodied, but the want of arms.
I shared with you in my last letter that General Greene crossed the Dan at Boyd's Ferry and that Lord Cornwallis arrived on the other side. With large groups of militia gathering both in front and behind the enemy, he is retreating as quickly as he advanced; his path is toward Hillsborough. General Greene crossed back over the Dan on the 21st to pursue him. I’m happy to report that the resistance was as widespread as we could have hoped for. The only limitation on the number of people who gathered was the lack of weapons.
The British at Portsmouth lie close in their lines. The French squadron keep them in by water, and since their arrival, as they put it out of the power of the enemy to cut off our retreat by sending up Nansemond river, our force has been moved down close to their lines.
The British at Portsmouth are positioned closely together. The French squadron is blocking them by water, and since they've arrived, they've made it impossible for the enemy to cut off our retreat by sending forces up the Nansemond River. Our troops have been moved down closer to their lines.
I have the honor to be, with the greatest respect,
I am honored to be here, with the utmost respect,
your most obedient
your most respectful
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XLVI.—TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, March 8, 1781
TO HIS EXCELLENCY GENERAL WASHINGTON.
To His Excellency General Washington.
Richmond, March 8, 1781.
Richmond, March 8, 1781.
Sir,
Hey there,
I had the pleasure of receiving a letter from General Greene, dated High-rock Ford, February 29th (probably March the 1st), who informs me, that, on the night of the 24th, Colonel M’Call surprised a subaltern’s guard at Hart’s Mill, killed eight, and wounded and took nine prisoners, and that on the 25th, General Pickens and Lieutenant Colonel Lee routed a body of near three hundred tories, on the Haw river, who were in arms to join the British army, killed upwards of one hundred, and wounded most of the rest; which had a very happy effect on the disaffected in that country.
I was pleased to get a letter from General Greene, dated High-rock Ford, February 29th (likely March 1st), informing me that on the night of the 24th, Colonel M’Call surprised a subaltern's guard at Hart’s Mill, killing eight and wounding and capturing nine prisoners. On the 25th, General Pickens and Lieutenant Colonel Lee defeated a group of nearly three hundred loyalists on the Haw River who were armed and ready to join the British army, killing over one hundred and wounding most of the rest. This had a very positive effect on the people who were uncertain in that area.
By a letter from Major Magill, an officer of this State, whom I had sent to General Greene’s head-quarters, for the purpose of giving us regular intelligence, dated Guilford County, March 2nd, I am informed that Lord Cornwallis, on his retreat, erected the British standard at Hillsborough; that numbers of disaffected, under the command of Colonel Piles, were resorting to it, when they were intercepted by General Pickens and Lieutenant Colonel Lee, as mentioned by General Greene; and that their commanding officer was among the slain: that Lord Cornwallis, after destroying every thing he could, moved down the Haw river from Hillsborough: that General Greene was within six miles of him: that our superiority in the goodness, though not in the number of our cavalry, prevented the enemy from moving with rapidity, or foraging. Having been particular in desiring Major Magill to inform me what corps of militia, from this State, joined General Greene, he accordingly mentioned, that seven hundred under General Stevens, and four hundred from Botetourt, had actually joined him; that Colonel Campbell was to join, him that day with six hundred, and that Colonel Lynch, with three hundred from Bedford, was shortly expected: the last three numbers being riflemen. Besides these mentioned by Major Magill, General Lawson must, before this, have crossed Roanoke with a body of militia, the number of which has not been stated to me. Report makes them a thousand, but I suppose the number to be exaggerated. Four hundred of our new levies left Chesterfield Court House on the 25th of February, and probably would cross the Roanoke about the 1st or 2nd of March.
By a letter from Major Magill, an officer from this State, whom I had sent to General Greene’s headquarters to keep us updated, dated March 2nd in Guilford County, I learned that Lord Cornwallis, during his retreat, raised the British flag at Hillsborough; that many discontented locals, led by Colonel Piles, were gathering there when they were intercepted by General Pickens and Lieutenant Colonel Lee, as mentioned by General Greene; and that their commanding officer was killed in the conflict. Lord Cornwallis, after destroying everything he could, moved down the Haw River from Hillsborough; General Greene was within six miles of him, and our advantage in the quality of our cavalry, though not in numbers, prevented the enemy from moving quickly or foraging. I specifically asked Major Magill to tell me what militia units from this State joined General Greene, and he reported that seven hundred under General Stevens and four hundred from Botetourt had actually joined him; Colonel Campbell was set to join him that day with six hundred, and Colonel Lynch, with three hundred from Bedford, was expected soon—the last three groups being riflemen. In addition to those mentioned by Major Magill, General Lawson must have already crossed the Roanoke with a militia group, although I haven't been given the exact number. Reports suggest they are about a thousand, but I suspect that figure is inflated. Four hundred of our new recruits left Chesterfield Court House on February 25th and would probably cross the Roanoke around March 1st or 2nd.
I was honored with your Excellency’s letter of February the 21st, within seven days after its date. We have, accordingly, been making every preparation on our part, which we are able to make. The militia proposed to co-operate, will be upwards of four thousand from this State, and one thousand or twelve hundred from Carolina, said to be under General Gregory. The enemy are, at this time, in a great measure blockaded by land, there being a force on the east side of Elizabeth river. They suffer for provisions, as they are afraid to venture far, lest the French squadron should be in the neighborhood, and come upon them. Were it possible to block up the river, a little time would suffice to reduce them by want and desertions, and would be more sure in its event than an attempt by storm. I shall be very happy to have it in my power to hand you a favorable account of these two armies in the South.
I was honored to receive your Excellency’s letter dated February 21st, just seven days after it was sent. We have, accordingly, been making all the preparations we can. The militia that has offered to help will be over four thousand from this State, and one to twelve hundred from Carolina, said to be under General Gregory. The enemy is currently mostly blockaded by land, with a force on the east side of the Elizabeth River. They are struggling for supplies since they’re afraid to venture far, in case the French squadron is nearby and attacks them. If it were possible to block the river, a little time would be enough to weaken them through starvation and desertions, and it would be more effective than trying to storm them. I would be very happy to provide you with a positive update on these two armies in the South.
I have the honor to be, with the greatest esteem and respect,
I am honored to be, with the highest esteem and respect,
your Excellency’s most obedient
your Excellency's most obedient
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XLVII.—TO THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS, March 19,1781
TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS.
TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS.
Richmond, March 19,1781;
Richmond, March 19, 1781;
Sir,
Sir,
I have the honor of enclosing to your Excellency a copy of a letter from General Greene, with some other intelligence received, not doubting your anxiety to know the movements in the South.
I’m pleased to share with you a copy of a letter from General Greene, along with some other information we've received, knowing you're eager to stay updated on the events happening in the South.
I find we have deceived ourselves not a little, by counting on the whole numbers of the militia which have been in motion, as if they had all remained with General Greene, when, in fact, they seem only to have visited and quitted him.
I realize we've seriously misled ourselves by counting on the total numbers of the militia that have been active, as if they had all stayed with General Greene, when in reality, they only appear to have come and gone from him.
The Marquis Fayette arrived at New York on the 15th. His troops still remained at the head of the bay, till the appearance of some force which should render their passage down safe.
The Marquis Fayette arrived in New York on the 15th. His troops still stayed at the head of the bay until a force appeared that would make their passage down safe.
I have the honor to be, with sentiments of the highest esteem and respect, your Excellency’s
I am honored to express my highest esteem and respect for you, Your Excellency.
most obedient
most compliant
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Tom Jefferson.
LETTER XLVIII.—TO THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS, March 21, 1781
TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS.
TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS.
Richmond, March 21, 1781.
Richmond, March 21, 1781.
Sir,
Dude,
The enclosed letter will inform you of the arrival of a British fleet in Chesapeake bay.
The letter attached will let you know about the arrival of a British fleet in Chesapeake Bay.
The extreme negligence of our stationed expresses is no doubt the cause why, as yet, no authentic account has reached us of a general action, which happened on the 15th instant, about a mile and a half from Guilford Court House, between General Greene and Lord Cornwallis. Captain Singleton, an intelligent officer of Harrison’s artillery, who was in the action, has this moment arrived here, and gives the general information that both parties were prepared and desirous for action; the enemy were supposed about twenty-five hundred strong, our army about four thousand. That after a very warm and general engagement, of about an hour and a half, we retreated about a mile and a half from the field, in good order, having, as he supposed, between two and three hundred killed and wounded, the enemy between five and seven hundred killed and wounded: that we lost four pieces of artillery: that the militia, as well as regulars, behaved exceedingly well: that General Greene, he believes, would have renewed the action the next day, had it not proved rainy, and would renew it as soon as possible, as he supposes: that the whole of his troops, both regulars and militia, were in high spirits and wishing a second engagement: that the loss has fallen pretty equally on the militia and regulars: that General Stevens received a ball through the thigh.
The complete negligence of our stationed troops is clearly why we still haven't received an accurate account of the major battle that took place on the 15th, about a mile and a half from Guilford Court House, between General Greene and Lord Cornwallis. Captain Singleton, a knowledgeable officer from Harrison’s artillery who participated in the battle, has just arrived here and provides the general information that both sides were ready and eager to fight; the enemy was estimated to be around twenty-five hundred strong, while our army numbered about four thousand. After a very intense overall engagement lasting about an hour and a half, we retreated about a mile and a half from the battlefield in good order, with estimates of between two and three hundred killed and wounded on our side and between five and seven hundred on the enemy’s side. We lost four artillery pieces, but both the militia and regular troops performed exceptionally well. General Greene, he believes, would have renewed the battle the next day if it hadn't rained, and he plans to re-engage as soon as possible because he thinks the entire troop, both regulars and militia, are in high spirits and eager for a second fight. The loss has been pretty evenly distributed between the militia and regulars, and General Stevens received a bullet wound to the thigh.
Major Anderson, of Maryland, was killed, and Captain Barrett, of Washington’s cavalry; Captain Fauntleroy, of the same cavalry, was shot through the thigh, and left in the field.
Major Anderson from Maryland was killed, and Captain Barrett from Washington’s cavalry; Captain Fauntleroy from the same cavalry was shot in the thigh and left on the field.
Captain Singleton, having left the camp the day after the battle, does, not speak from particular returns, none such having been then made. I must inform your Excellency from him, till more regular applications can reach you, that they are in extreme want of lead, cartridge-paper, and thread. I think it improper, however it might urge an instantaneous supply, to repeat to you his statement of the extent of their stock of these articles. In a former letter, I mentioned to you the failure of the vein of our lead mines, which has left the army here in a state of equal distress and danger.
Captain Singleton, having left the camp the day after the battle, does not speak from specific reports, as none have been made yet. I must inform Your Excellency on his behalf, until more official requests can reach you, that they are in urgent need of lead, cartridge paper, and thread. However, I think it’s inappropriate, regardless of the urgency for immediate supplies, to repeat his statement about the extent of their stock of these items. In a previous letter, I mentioned the depletion of our lead mines, which has left the army here in a state of severe distress and danger.
I have the honor to be, with very high respect and esteem,
I am honored to express my utmost respect and admiration,
your Excellency’s most obedient
your Excellency's most respectful
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Th: Jefferson.
P. S. Look-out boats have been ordered from the sea-board of the eastern shore, to apprise the Commander of the French fleet, on its approach, of the British being in the Chesapeake. T. J.
P. S. We've ordered lookout boats from the eastern shore to inform the Commander of the French fleet about the British presence in the Chesapeake as they approach. T. J.
LETTER XLIX.—TO THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS, March 26,1781
TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS.
TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS.
In Council, Richmond, March 26,1781.
In Council, Richmond, March 26, 1781.
Sir,
Hey there,
The appointment of commissioner to the war-office of this State having lately become vacant, the Executive are desirous to place Colonel William Davies, of the Virginia Continentals, in that office. This gentleman, however, declines undertaking it, unless his rank in the army, half pay for life and allowance for depreciation of pay, can be reserved to him; observing with justice, that these emoluments, distant as they are, are important to a person who has spent the most valuable part of his youth in the service of his country. As this indulgence rests in the power of Congress alone, I am induced to request it of them on behalf of the State, to whom it is very interesting that the office be properly filled, and I may say, on behalf of the Continent also, to whom the same circumstance is interesting, in proportion to its reliance upon this State for supplies to the southern war. We should not have given Congress the trouble of this application, had we found it easy to call any other to the office, who was likely to answer our wishes in the exercise of it.
The position of commissioner at the war office of this State recently opened up, and the Executive wants to appoint Colonel William Davies of the Virginia Continentals to that role. However, he has declined to take it on unless he can secure his rank in the army, half pay for life, and compensation for the depreciation in pay. He wisely points out that these benefits, although they may seem distant, are crucial for someone who has dedicated a significant part of his youth to serving his country. Since this decision is solely in the hands of Congress, I feel compelled to request it from them on behalf of the State, as it’s essential for the office to be filled appropriately. I can also say this is important for the entire continent, which relies on this State for supplies for the southern war. We wouldn’t have bothered Congress with this request if we had been able to easily find someone else for the position who could fulfill our needs.
I have the honor to be, with sentiments of the highest respect,
I am honored to express my highest respect,
your Excellency’s most obedient
your Excellency's most obedient
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER L.—TO THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS, March 28, 1781
TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS.
TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS.
Richmond, March 28, 1781.
Richmond, March 28, 1781.
Sir,
Hey,
I forward to your Excellency, under cover with this, copies of letters received from Major General Greene and Baron Steuben, which will give you the latest account of the situation of things with us and in North Carolina.
I’m sending you, under cover with this, copies of letters received from Major General Greene and Baron Steuben, which will provide you with the most recent updates on our situation and in North Carolina.
I observe a late resolve of Congress, for furnishing a number of arms to the southern states; and I lately wrote you on the subject of ammunition and cartridge-paper. How much of this State, the enemy thus reinforced, may think proper to possess themselves of, must depend on their own moderation and caution, till these supplies arrive. We had hoped to receive, by the French squadron under Monsieur Destouches, eleven hundred stand of arms, which we had at Rhode Island, but were disappointed. The necessity of hurrying forward the troops intended for the southern operations will be doubtless apparent from this letter.
I see that Congress has recently decided to provide a number of weapons to the southern states, and I wrote to you recently about ammunition and cartridge paper. How much of this state the enemy, now better equipped, will try to take will depend on their own restraint and caution until these supplies arrive. We had hoped to receive 1,100 weapons from the French squadron led by Monsieur Destouches, which we had in Rhode Island, but we were let down. The need to quickly send troops for the southern operations should be clear from this letter.
I have the honor to be, with the greatest respect,
I am honored to be, with the utmost respect,
your Excellency’s most obedient
your Excellency’s most respectful
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER LI.—TO THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS, March 31, 1781
TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS.
TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS.
Richmond, March 31, 1781.
Richmond, March 31, 1781.
Sir,
Sir,
The letters and papers accompanying this, will inform your Excellency of the arrival of a British flag vessel with clothing, refreshments, money, &c. for their prisoners under the Convention of Saratoga. The gentlemen conducting them have, on supposition that the prisoners, or a part of them, still remained in this State, applied to me by letters, copies of which I transmit your Excellency, for leave to allow water transportation as far as possible, and then, for themselves to attend them to the post where they are to be issued. These indulgencies were usually granted them here, but the prisoners being removed, it becomes necessary to transmit the application to Congress for their direction. In the mean time the flag will wait in James river.
The letters and documents that come with this will let you know about the arrival of a British flag vessel carrying clothing, supplies, money, etc., for the prisoners under the Convention of Saratoga. The gentlemen managing this have assumed that the prisoners, or some of them, are still in this state, and they've written to me, copies of which I'm sending you, asking for permission to transport them by water as far as possible, and then for themselves to escort them to the location where the items will be distributed. These permissions were usually granted here, but since the prisoners have been moved, I need to send the request to Congress for their instructions. In the meantime, the ship will stay in the James River.
Our intelligence from General Greene’s camp as late as the 24th, is, that Lord Cornwallis’s march of the day before had decided his route to Cross creek.
Our information from General Greene’s camp as recent as the 24th is that Lord Cornwallis’s march the day before had confirmed his path to Cross Creek.
The amount of the reinforcements to the enemy, arrived at Portsmouth, is not yet known with certainty. Accounts differ from fifteen hundred to much larger numbers. We are informed they have a considerable number of horse. The affliction of the people for want of arms is great; that of ammunition is not yet known to them. An apprehension is added, that, the enterprise on Portsmouth being laid aside, the troops under the Marquis Fayette will not come on. An enemy three thousand strong, not a regular in the State, nor arms to put in the hands of the militia, are, indeed, discouraging circumstances.
The exact number of reinforcements sent to the enemy that have arrived at Portsmouth is still uncertain. Reports vary from fifteen hundred to even larger figures. We’ve been told they have a significant number of cavalry. The people are seriously upset about the lack of weapons, and they are not yet aware of the shortage of ammunition. There’s also concern that since the attack on Portsmouth has been abandoned, the troops under Marquis Fayette might not advance. An enemy force of three thousand, with no regular soldiers in the state and no weapons to arm the militia, are definitely discouraging factors.
I have the honor to be, with sentiments of the highest respect,
I am honored to express my deepest respect,
your Excellency’s most obedient
your Excellency’s most respectful
and most humble servant
and your most humble servant
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER LII.—TO THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS, April 7, 1781
TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS.
TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS.
Richmond, April 7, 1781.
Richmond, April 7, 1781.
Sir,
Sir,
Hearing that our arms from Rhode Island have arrived at Philadelphia, I have begged the favor of our Delegates to send them on in wagons immediately, and, for the conveyance of my letter, have taken the liberty of setting the Continental line of expresses in motion, which I hope our distress for arms will justify, though the errand be not purely Continental.
Hearing that our weapons from Rhode Island have arrived in Philadelphia, I've asked our Delegates to send them out in wagons right away. To get my letter delivered, I've taken the liberty of starting the Continental express line, which I hope our urgent need for arms will justify, even though the mission isn't strictly Continental.
I have nothing from General Greene later than the 27th of March; our accounts from Portsmouth vary the reinforcements which came under General Phillips, from twenty-five hundred to three thousand. Arnold’s strength before, was, I think, reduced to eleven hundred. They have made no movement yet. Their preparation of boats is considerable; whether they mean to go southwardly or up the river, no leading circumstance has yet decided.
I haven't heard anything from General Greene since March 27th; our reports from Portsmouth estimate the reinforcements that came with General Phillips to be between twenty-five hundred and three thousand. I think Arnold’s forces have been reduced to about eleven hundred. They haven’t moved yet. Their boat preparations are significant; it’s still unclear whether they plan to head south or go up the river, as nothing has clearly indicated their direction yet.
I have the honor to be, with the highest respect,
I am honored to be, with the utmost respect,
your Excellency’s most obedient
your Excellency’s most respectful
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson,
Thomas Jefferson,
LETTER LIII.—TO THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS, April 18, 1781
TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS.
TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS.
In Council, April 18, 1781.
In Council, April 18, 1781.
Sir,
Sir,
I was honored, yesterday, with your Excellency’s favor enclosing the resolutions of Congress of the 8th instant, for removing stores and provisions from the counties of Accomack and Northampton. We have there no military stores, except a few muskets in the hands of the militia. There are some collections of forage and provisions belonging to the Continent, and some to the State, and the country there, generally, furnishes an abundance of forage. But such is the present condition of Chesapeake bay, that we cannot even get an advice-boat across it, with any certainty, much less adventure on transportation. Should, however, any interval happen, in which these articles may be withdrawn, we shall certainly avail ourselves of it, and bring thence whatever we can.
I was honored yesterday to receive your Excellency’s message with the resolutions from Congress dated the 8th of this month, regarding the removal of supplies from the counties of Accomack and Northampton. We don’t have any military supplies there, except for a few muskets held by the militia. There are some collections of forage and provisions that belong to the Continental Army, as well as some for the State, and the area generally provides plenty of forage. However, the current situation in Chesapeake Bay is such that we can't even reliably get a transport boat across it, let alone attempt any transportation. If, however, there’s a lull during which these items can be moved, we will definitely take advantage of it and bring back whatever we can.
If I have been rightly informed, the horses there are by no means such, as that the enemy could apply them to the purposes of cavalry. Some, large enough for the draught, may, perhaps, be found, but of these not many.
If I've been correctly informed, the horses there are definitely not suitable for cavalry purposes. There might be some that are large enough for pulling, but there aren't many of those.
I have the honor to be, with the greatest respect,
I am honored to be, with the utmost respect,
your Excellency’s most obedient
your Excellency's most obedient
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER LIV.—TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, April 23,1781
TO HIS EXCELLENCY GENERAL WASHINGTON
TO HIS EXCELLENCY GENERAL WASHINGTON
Richmond, April 23,1781.
Richmond, April 23, 1781.
Sir,
Hey there,
On the 18th instant, the enemy came from Portsmouth up James river, in considerable force, though their numbers are not yet precisely known to us. They landed at Burwell’s Ferry, below Williamsburg, and also a short distance above the mouth of Chickahominy. This latter circumstance obliged Colonel Innis, who commanded a body of militia, stationed on that side the river to cover the country from depredation, to retire upwards, lest he should be placed between their two bodies. One of these entered Williamsburg on the 20th, and the other proceeded to a ship-yard we had on Chickahominy. What injury they did there, I am not yet informed. I take for granted, they have burned an unfinished twenty-gun ship we had there. Such of the stores belonging to the yard as were moveable, had been carried some miles higher up the river. Two small galleys also retired up the river. Whether by this, either the stores or galleys were saved, is yet unknown. I am just informed from a private hand, that they left Williamsburg early yesterday morning. If this sudden departure was not in consequence of some circumstance of alarm unknown to us, their expedition to Williamsburg has been unaccountable. There were no public stores at that place, but those which were necessary for the daily subsistence of the men there. Where they mean to descend next, the event alone can determine. Besides harassing our militia with this kind of war, the taking them from their farms at the interesting season of planting their corn, will have an unfortunate effect on the crop of the ensuing year.
On the 18th, the enemy came up the James River from Portsmouth with a significant force, although we don't yet know their exact numbers. They landed at Burwell’s Ferry, below Williamsburg, and also a little above the mouth of the Chickahominy. This situation forced Colonel Innis, who was in charge of a militia stationed on that side of the river to protect the area from raids, to move away so he wouldn't get trapped between the two enemy groups. One of these groups entered Williamsburg on the 20th, while the other went to a shipyard we had on the Chickahominy. I haven't been updated on the damage they caused there, but I assume they've burned an unfinished twenty-gun ship that was there. The movable supplies from the yard had already been transported several miles up the river. Two small galleys also retreated up the river. It remains unclear if the supplies or galleys were saved. I’ve just heard from a private source that they left Williamsburg early yesterday morning. If this abrupt departure wasn’t due to some unreported alarm, then their mission to Williamsburg doesn’t make sense. There were no public supplies there, just what was needed for the daily sustenance of the men. Where they plan to go next will remain to be seen. In addition to troubling our militia with this type of warfare, pulling them from their farms at critical planting season will negatively impact next year’s crop.
I have heard nothing certain of General Greene since the 6th instant, except that his head-quarters were on Little river on the 11th.
I haven’t heard anything specific about General Greene since the 6th, except that his headquarters were on Little River on the 11th.
I have the honor to be, with the highest respect and esteem,
I’m honored to be, with the utmost respect and admiration,
your Excellency’s most obedient
your Excellency’s most devoted
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Th: Jefferson.
LETTER LV.—TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, May 9, 1781
TO HIS EXCELLENCY GENERAL WASHINGTON.
To His Excellency General Washington.
Richmond, May 9, 1781.
Richmond, May 9, 1781.
Sir,
Hey,
Since the last letter which I had the honor of addressing to your Excellency, the military movements in this State, except a very late one, have scarcely merited communication.
Since the last letter I had the privilege of sending to your Excellency, the military activities in this State, apart from a very recent one, have hardly been worth mentioning.
The enemy, after leaving Williamsburg, came directly up James river and landed at City Point, being the point of land on the southern side of the confluence of Appomatox and James rivers. They marched up to Petersburg, where they were received by Baron Steuben with a body of militia somewhat under one thousand, who, though the enemy were two thousand and three hundred strong, disputed the ground very handsomely, two hours, during which time the enemy gained only one mile, and that by inches. Our troops were then ordered to retire over a bridge, which they did in perfectly good order. Our loss was between sixty and seventy, killed, wounded, and taken. The enemy’s is unknown, but it must be equal to ours; for their own honor they must confess this, as they broke twice and run like sheep, till supported by fresh troops. An inferiority in number obliged our force to withdraw about twelve miles upwards, till more militia should be assembled. The enemy burned all the tobacco in the warehouses at Petersburg, and its, neighborhood. They afterwards proceeded to Osborne’s, where they did the same, and also destroyed the residue of the public armed vessels, and several of private property, and then came to Manchester, which is on the hill opposite this place.
The enemy, after leaving Williamsburg, came straight up the James River and landed at City Point, which is the piece of land on the southern side where the Appomattox and James rivers meet. They marched up to Petersburg, where Baron Steuben welcomed them with a militia force of just under a thousand. Even though the enemy had two thousand and three hundred soldiers, our guys held their ground really well for two hours, during which time the enemy only gained one mile, and that was by inches. Our troops were then ordered to retreat over a bridge, which they did in perfect order. Our losses were between sixty and seventy, including killed, wounded, and captured. The enemy's losses are unknown, but they must be similar to ours; for their own honor, they have to admit this since they broke and ran like sheep twice, until they were supported by fresh troops. Being outnumbered forced our troops to withdraw about twelve miles upstream until more militia could be gathered. The enemy burned all the tobacco in the warehouses in Petersburg and the surrounding areas. They then moved on to Osborne's, where they did the same thing and also destroyed the remaining public armed vessels and several private properties, before heading to Manchester, which is on the hill across from here.
By this time, Major General Marquis Fayette, having been advised of our danger, had, by forced marches, got here with his detachment of Continental troops; and reinforcements of militia having also come in, the enemy finding we were able to meet them on equal footing, thought proper to burn the warehouses and tobacco at Manchester, and retire to Warwick, where they did the same. Ill armed and untried militia, who never before saw the face of an enemy, have, at times, during the course of this war, given occasions of exultation to our enemies; but they afforded us, while at Warwick, a little satisfaction in the same way. Six or eight hundred of their picked men of light-infantry, with General Arnold at their head, having crossed the river from Warwick, fled from a patrole of sixteen horse, every man into his boat as he could, some pushing north, some south, as their fears drove them. Their whole force then proceeded to the Hundred, being the point of land within the confluence of the two rivers, embarked, and fell down the river. Their foremost vessels had got below Burwell’s Ferry on the 6th instant, when on the arrival of a boat from Portsmouth, and a signal given, the whole crowded sail up the river again with a fair wind and tide, and came to anchor at Brandon; there six days’ provision was dealt out to every man; they landed, and had orders to march an hour before day the next morning. We have not yet heard which way they went, or whether they have gone; but having, about the same time, received authentic information that Lord Cornwallis had, on the 1st instant, advanced from Wilmington half way to Halifax, we have no doubt, putting all circumstances together, that these two armies are forming a junction.
By this time, Major General Marquis Fayette had been informed of our danger and, through forced marches, had arrived with his detachment of Continental troops. Reinforcements of militia also joined us, and seeing that we could stand up to them, the enemy decided to burn the warehouses and tobacco at Manchester before retreating to Warwick, where they did the same. Poorly armed and inexperienced militia, who had never faced an enemy before, had occasionally given our enemies reason to celebrate during this war; however, they provided us with some satisfaction while at Warwick. Six to eight hundred of their elite light infantry, led by General Arnold, crossed the river from Warwick and fled from a patrol of sixteen horsemen, each man scrambling into his boat as quickly as possible, some heading north and others south, driven by fear. Their entire force then moved to the Hundred, a piece of land at the junction of the two rivers, boarded their boats, and went down the river. Their leading vessels had passed below Burwell's Ferry on the 6th, when a boat from Portsmouth arrived, and with a signal, they all set sail back up the river with a favorable wind and tide, anchoring at Brandon. There, six days of provisions were distributed to each man, and they disembarked with orders to march an hour before dawn the next morning. We haven't heard yet which way they went or if they left at all, but around the same time, we received reliable information that Lord Cornwallis had advanced from Wilmington halfway to Halifax on the 1st, so we have no doubt that these two armies are coming together.
We are strengthening our hands with militia, as far as arms, either public or private, can be collected, but cannot arm a force which may face the combined armies of the enemy. It will, therefore, be of very great importance that General Wayne’s forces be pressed on with the utmost despatch. Arms and a naval force, however, are what must ultimately save us. This movement of our enemies we consider as most perilous in its consequences.
We’re boosting our strength with militia, collecting weapons from both public and private sources, but we can’t equip a force strong enough to confront the combined enemy armies. Therefore, it’s crucial that General Wayne’s forces be mobilized as quickly as possible. However, what will truly save us in the end are weapons and a naval force. We view our enemies' actions as extremely dangerous in terms of the potential outcomes.
Our latest advices from General Greene were of the 26th ult., when he was lying before Camden, the works and garrison of which were much stronger than he had expected to find them.
Our latest updates from General Greene were from the 26th of last month, when he was positioned in front of Camden, the fortifications and troops there were much stronger than he had anticipated.
I have the honor to be, with great respect,
I am honored to be, with great respect,
your Excellency’s most obedient, humble servant,
your Excellency’s most obedient and humble servant,
Th: Jefferson,
Th: Jefferson,
LETTER LVI.—TO THE VIRGINIA DELEGATES IN CONGRESS, May 10, 1781
TO THE VIRGINIA DELEGATES IN CONGRESS.
TO THE VIRGINIA DELEGATES IN CONGRESS.
In Council, May 10, 1781.
In Council, May 10, 1781.
Gentlemen,
Gents,
A small affair has taken place between the British commanding officer in this state, General Phillips, and the Executive, of which, as he may endeavor to get rid of it through the medium of Congress, I think it necessary previously to apprise you.
A minor incident has occurred involving the British commanding officer in this state, General Phillips, and the Executive. Since he might try to resolve it through Congress, I feel it's important to inform you about it beforehand.
General Scott obtained permission from the Commandant at Charleston, for vessels with necessary supplies to go from hence to them, but instead of sending the original, sent only a copy of the permission taken by his brigade-major. I applied to General Phillips to supply this omission by furnishing a passport for the vessel. Having just before taken great offence at a threat of retaliation in the treatment of prisoners, he enclosed his answer to my letter under this address, ‘To Thomas Jefferson Esq., American Governor of Virginia.’ I paused on receiving the letter, and for some time would not open it; however, when the miserable condition of our brethren in Charleston occurred to me, I could not determine that they should be left without the necessaries of life, while a punctilio should be discussing between the British General and myself; and knowing that I had an opportunity of returning the compliment to Mr. Phillips in a case perfectly corresponding, I opened the letter.
General Scott got permission from the Commandant in Charleston for ships carrying essential supplies to go from here to them, but instead of sending the original document, he only sent a copy of the permission taken by his brigade-major. I asked General Phillips to fix this mistake by providing a passport for the vessel. Having just previously taken offense at a threat of retaliation regarding the treatment of prisoners, he sent his response to my letter addressed ‘To Thomas Jefferson Esq., American Governor of Virginia.’ I hesitated after receiving the letter and for a while didn’t want to open it; however, when I thought about the terrible condition of our people in Charleston, I couldn't justify leaving them without the essentials while a minor dispute was going on between the British General and me. Knowing that I had a chance to return the favor to Mr. Phillips in a similar situation, I opened the letter.
Very shortly after, I received, as I expected, the permission of the board of war, for the British flag-vessel, then in Hampton Roads with clothing and refreshments, to proceed to Alexandria. I enclosed and addressed it, ‘To William Phillips Esq., commanding the British forces in the Commonwealth of Virginia.’ Personally knowing Phillips to be the proudest man of the proudest nation on earth, I well know he will not open this letter; but having occasion at the same time to write to Captain Gerlach, the flag-master, I informed him that the Convention troops in this state should perish-for want of necessaries, before any should be carried to them through this state, till General Phillips either swallowed this pill of retaliation, or made an apology for his rudeness. And in this, should the matter come ultimately to Congress, we hope for their support.
Very soon after, I got the permission from the board of war, just like I expected, for the British flag ship, which was in Hampton Roads with supplies and refreshments, to head to Alexandria. I addressed the letter to "William Phillips Esq., commanding the British forces in the Commonwealth of Virginia." Knowing Phillips personally as the proudest man from the proudest nation on earth, I figured he wouldn’t open this letter. At the same time, I needed to write to Captain Gerlach, the flag-master, and I let him know that the Convention troops in this state would die from a lack of necessities before anything was sent to them through this state, until General Phillips either accepted this retaliation or apologized for his rudeness. If this matter ends up going to Congress, we hope to get their support.
He has the less right to insist on the expedition of his flag, because his letter, instead of enclosing a passport to expedite ours, contained only an evasion of the application, by saying he had referred it to Sir Henry Clinton, and in the mean time, he has come up the river, and taken the vessel with her loading, which we had chartered and prepared to send to Charleston, and which wanted nothing but the passport to enable her to depart.
He has less right to demand the quick processing of his flag because his letter, instead of including a passport to expedite ours, only contained a delay tactic by stating that he had referred it to Sir Henry Clinton. In the meantime, he has come up the river and taken the vessel with its cargo, which we had chartered and were ready to send to Charleston, and it only needed the passport to be able to leave.
I would further observe to you, that this gentleman’s letters to the Baron Steuben first, and afterwards to the Marquis Fayette, have been in a style so intolerably insolent and haughty, that both these gentlemen have, been obliged to inform him, that if he thinks proper to address them again in the same spirit, all intercourse shall be discontinued.
I would also point out that this guy's letters to Baron Steuben first, and then to Marquis Fayette, have been so incredibly rude and arrogant that both of them had to let him know that if he chooses to write to them again in the same way, all communication will be cut off.
I am, with great respect and esteem,
I am, with much respect and appreciation,
Gentlemen, your most obedient servant,
Sirs, your most obedient servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER LVII.—TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, May 28,1781
TO HIS EXCELLENCY GENERAL WASHINGTON.
To His Excellency General Washington.
Charlottesville, May 28,1781.
Charlottesville, May 28, 1781.
Sir,
Man,
I make no doubt you will have heard, before this shall have the honor of being presented to your Excellency, of the junction of Lord Cornwallis with the force at Petersburg under Arnold, who had succeeded to the command on the death of Major General Phillips. I am now advised that they have evacuated Petersburg, joined at Westover a reinforcement of two thousand men just arrived from New York, crossed James river, and on the 26th instant were three miles advanced on their way towards Richmond; at which place Major General the Marquis Fayette lay with three thousand men, regulars and militia: these being the whole number we could arm, until the arrival of the eleven hundred arms from Rhode Island, which are, about this time, at the place where our public stores are deposited, The whole force of the enemy within this State, from the best intelligence I have been able to get, is, I think, about seven thousand men, infantry and cavalry, including also the small garrison left at Portsmouth. A number of privateers, which are constantly ravaging the shores of our rivers, prevent us from receiving any aid from the counties lying on navigable waters: and powerful operations meditated against our western frontier, by a joint force of British and Indian savages, have, as your Excellency before knew, obliged us to embody between two and three thousand men in that quarter. Your Excellency will judge from this state of things, and from what you know of our country, what it may probably suffer during the present campaign. Should the enemy be able to produce no opportunity of annihilating the Marquis’s army, a small proportion of their force may yet restrain his movements effectually, while the greater part are employed, in detachment, to waste an unarmed country, and lead the minds of the people to acquiescence under those events, which they see no human power prepared to ward off. We are too far removed from the other scenes of war to say, whether the main force of the enemy be within this state. But I suppose they cannot any where spare so great an army for the operations of the field. Were it possible for this circumstance to justify in your Excellency a determination to lend us your personal aid, it is evident from the universal voice, that the presence of their beloved countryman, whose talents have so long been successfully employed in establishing the freedom of kindred States, to whose person they have still flattered themselves they retained some right, and have ever looked up, as their dernier resort in distress, would restore full confidence of salvation to our citizens, and would render them equal to whatever is not impossible. I cannot undertake to foresee and obviate the difficulties which lie in the way of such a resolution. The whole subject is before you, of which I see only detached parts: and your judgment will be formed on a view of the whole. Should the danger of this State, and its consequence to the Union, be such, as to render it best for the whole that you should repair to its assistance, the difficulty would then be, how to keep men out of the field. I have undertaken to hint this matter to your Excellency, not only on my own sense of its importance to us, but at the solicitations of many members of weight in our legislature, which has not yet assembled to speak their own desires.
I have no doubt you’ve heard, by the time this gets to your Excellency, about Lord Cornwallis linking up with the forces at Petersburg led by Arnold, who took command after the death of Major General Phillips. I have now been informed that they evacuated Petersburg, joined a reinforcement of two thousand men that just arrived from New York at Westover, crossed the James River, and as of the 26th, they were three miles ahead on their way to Richmond. At that location, Major General the Marquis Fayette is stationed with three thousand men, both regulars and militia; this is the total we could arm until the eleven hundred weapons from Rhode Island arrive, which I believe are currently at our public storage site. The total enemy force in this state, from what I can gather, is about seven thousand men, including infantry and cavalry, as well as the small garrison left at Portsmouth. A number of privateers continually raiding our rivers prevent us from getting any support from the counties along navigable waters. Moreover, planned operations against our western frontier by a combined British and Native force have, as you already know, forced us to assemble between two and three thousand men in that area. Your Excellency can gauge from this situation, as well as from what you know about our region, what we might endure during this campaign. If the enemy can’t find a chance to destroy the Marquis’s army, a small part of their force might still effectively limit his movements while the majority is diverted, causing devastation in unarmed areas and leading the people to accept the situation since they see no way to fend it off. We are too far removed from the other theaters of war to know for sure if the main enemy force is in this state. However, I doubt they can afford to spare such a large army for field operations elsewhere. If this situation justifies your Excellency deciding to offer us your personal assistance, it’s clear from what I’ve heard universally that the presence of our beloved countryman, whose skills have long been successfully used to establish the freedom of sister states—who they still believe they have some claim to and have always looked up to as their last hope in crisis—would restore full confidence in our citizens and empower them to tackle whatever is not impossible. I can’t predict or eliminate the challenges that could arise from such a decision. The entire issue is before you, of which I see only parts, and your judgment will be based on a complete view. If the danger facing this state, and its implications for the Union, are serious enough to warrant your assistance, then the challenge would be keeping men out of the field. I felt compelled to bring this matter to your Excellency’s attention, not only because I recognize its significance for us but also at the request of many influential members of our legislature, which has yet to convene to express their desires.
A few days will bring to me that relief which the constitution has prepared for those oppressed with the labors of my office, and a long declared resolution of relinquishing it to abler hands, has prepared my way for retirement to a private station: still, as an individual, I should feel the comfortable effects of your presence, and have (what I thought could not have been) an additional motive for that gratitude, esteem, and respect, with which
A few days will bring me the relief that my position promises to those burdened by the responsibilities of my job, and I've long decided to hand it over to someone more capable, paving my way to a more private life. Still, as an individual, I would appreciate your presence and find (something I thought was impossible) an extra reason for the gratitude, esteem, and respect that I hold.
I have the honor to be,
I’m honored to be,
your Excellency’s most obedient, humble servant,
your Excellency’s most obedient and humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
[An interval of almost three years occurs in the Author’s correspondence, during which he only kept notes on what he wrote in his letters.]
LETTER, LVIII.—TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, April 16, 1784
TO GENERAL WASHINGTON.
To General Washington.
Annapolis, April 16, 1784.
Annapolis, April 16, 1784.
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
I received your favor of April the 8th, by Colonel Harrison, The subject of it is interesting, and, so far as you have stood connected with it, has been matter of anxiety to me; because, whatever may be the ultimate fate of the institution of the Cincinnati, as, in its course, it draws to it some degree of disapprobation, I have wished to see you standing on ground separated from it, and that the character which will be handed to future ages at the head of our Revolution, may, in no instance, be compromitted in subordinate altercations. The subject has been at the point of my pen in every letter I have written to you, but has been still restrained by the reflection that you had among your friends more able counsellors, and, in yourself, one abler than them all. Your letter has now rendered a duty what was before a desire, and I cannot better merit your confidence than by a full and free communication of facts and sentiments, as far as they have come within my observation. When the army was about to be disbanded, and the officers to take final leave, perhaps never again to meet, it was natural for men who had accompanied each other through so many scenes of hardship, of difficulty and danger, who, in a variety of instances, must have been rendered mutually dear by those aids and good offices, to which their situations had given occasion, it was natural, I say, for these to seize with fondness any proposition which promised to bring them together again, at certain and regular periods. And this, I take for granted, was the origin and object of this institution: and I have no suspicion that they foresaw, much less intended, those mischiefs which exist perhaps in the forebodings of politicians only. I doubt, however, whether in its execution, it would be found to answer the wishes of those who framed it, and to foster those friendships it was intended to preserve. The members would be brought together at their annual assemblies no longer to encounter a common enemy, but to encounter one another in debate and sentiment. For something, I suppose, is to be done at these meetings, and, however unimportant, it will suffice to produce difference of opinion, contradiction, and irritation. The way to make friends quarrel is to put them in disputation under the public eye. An experience of near twenty years has taught me, that few friendships stand this test, and that public assemblies where every one is free to act and speak, are the most powerful looseners of the bands of private friendship. I think, therefore, that this institution would fail in its principal object, the perpetuation of the personal friendships contracted through the war.
I received your letter from April 8th through Colonel Harrison. The topic is intriguing and has worried me given your connection to it. Regardless of the ultimate fate of the Cincinnati institution, which seems to attract some disapproval, I wanted to see you positioned apart from it so that the legacy known to future generations about our Revolution wouldn’t be tarnished by lesser conflicts. I've been meaning to address this in every letter to you, but I've held back since you have more capable advisors among your friends and, in you, someone more skilled than they. Your letter has turned desire into duty, and I can earn your trust best by sharing all I know honestly and openly. As the army prepared to disband and officers were about to part ways, perhaps for good, it was natural for those who had been through so much together—experiencing hardships and dangers—to cherish any idea that might reunite them periodically. I assume this was the intention behind this institution, and I doubt they anticipated the issues that might arise, which perhaps only exist in the minds of politicians. However, I'm uncertain whether it will meet the expectations of its founders and maintain the friendships it aimed to uphold. The members will gather at their annual meetings not to confront a common enemy, but to debate and share differing opinions. There’s bound to be some activity at these meetings, and although it may seem trivial, it could lead to disagreements, conflicts, and irritation. Putting friends in a public debate is a sure way to make them quarrel. Nearly twenty years of experience has shown me that few friendships can withstand this challenge, and public gatherings where everyone can speak freely are some of the most effective ways to undermine personal bonds. Therefore, I believe this institution will ultimately fall short of its main goal, which is to sustain the personal friendships built during the war.
The objections of those who are opposed to the institution shall be briefly sketched. You will readily fill them up. They urge that it is against the Confederation—against the letter of some of our constitutions—against the spirit of all of them;—that the foundation on which all these are built, is the natural equality of man, the denial of every pre-eminence but that annexed to legal office, and, particularly, the denial of a pre-eminence by birth; that however, in their present dispositions, citizens might decline accepting honorary instalments[sp.]into the order; but a time, may come, when a change of dispositions would render these flattering, when a well directed distribution of them might draw into the order all the men of talents, of office, and wealth, and in this case, would probably procure an ingraftment into the government; that in this, they will be supported by their foreign members, and the wishes and influence of foreign courts; that experience has shown that the hereditary branches of modern governments are the patrons of privilege and prerogative, and not of the natural rights of the people, whose oppressors they generally are: that besides these evils, which are remote, others may take place more immediately; that a distinction is kept up between the civil and military, which it is for the happiness of both to obliterate; that when the members assemble the, will be proposing to do something, and what that something may be, will depend on actual circumstances; that being an organized body, under habits of subordination, the first obstruction to enterprise will be already surmounted; that the moderation and virtue of a single character have probably prevented this Revolution from being closed as most others have been, by a subversion of that liberty it was intended to establish; that he is not immortal, and his successor, or some of his successors, may be led by false calculation into a less certain road to glory.
The concerns of those against the institution will be briefly outlined. You'll easily fill in the details. They argue that it's against the Confederation—against the wording of some of our constitutions—against the overall spirit of all of them; that the foundation for all of these is the natural equality of man, rejecting every form of superiority except for those tied to legal office, especially rejecting superiority by birth. They claim that, even though citizens might currently avoid accepting honorary roles, a time may come when changing attitudes could make these roles appealing. A well-directed distribution of these honors could attract talented, wealthy individuals into the ranks, which could potentially lead to an influence over the government. They believe that their foreign associates and the desires and pressures from foreign courts will support this. History has shown that hereditary branches of modern governments often protect privilege and power, rather than the natural rights of the people, whom they typically oppress. Besides these distant issues, more immediate problems may arise; that a separation remains between civil and military spheres, which is something both groups should aim to eliminate for their mutual benefit. When the members gather, they will likely have proposals on the agenda, depending on the current situation. As an organized group, with established practices of following orders, the first hurdle to taking action will already be overcome. The restraint and integrity of a single individual have likely prevented this Revolution from ending, like many others, in the destruction of the liberty it aimed to create; he is not immortal, and his successor or some of his successors might be misled by false assumptions into a less reliable path to success.
What are the sentiments of Congress on this subject, and what line they will pursue, can only be stated, conjecturally. Congress as a body, if left to themselves, will in my opinion say nothing on the subject. They may, however, be forced into a declaration by instructions from some of the States, or by other incidents. Their sentiments, if forced from them, will be unfriendly to the institution. If permitted to pursue their own path, they will check it by side-blows whenever it comes in their way, and in competitions for office, on equal or nearly equal ground, will give silent preferences to those who are not of the fraternity. My reasons for thinking this are, 1. The grounds on which they lately declined the foreign order proposed to be conferred on some of our citizens. 2. The fourth of the fundamental articles of constitution for the new States. I enclose you the report; it has been considered by Congress, recommitted and reformed by a committee, according to sentiments expressed on other parts of it, but the principle referred to, having not been controverted at all, stands in this as in the original report; it is not yet confirmed by Congress. 3. Private conversations on this subject with the members. Since the receipt of your letter I have taken occasion to extend these; not, indeed, to the military members, because, being of the order, delicacy forbade it, but to the others pretty generally; and, among these, I have as yet found but one who is not opposed to the institution, and that with an anguish of mind, though covered under a guarded silence which I have not seen produced by any circumstance before. I arrived at Philadelphia before the separation of the last Congress, and saw there and at Princeton some of its members not now in delegation. Burke’s piece happened to come out at that time, which occasioned this institution to be the subject of conversation. I found the same impressions made on them which their successors have received. I hear from other quarters that it is disagreeable, generally, to such citizens as have attended to it, and, therefore, will probably be so to all, when any circumstance shall present it to the notice of all.
What Congress thinks about this issue and what actions they will take can only be speculated. In my view, if left to their own devices, Congress probably won’t say anything on the matter. However, they might be compelled to make a statement due to instructions from certain States or other events. If pressured, their views will likely be negative towards the institution. If allowed to act freely, they will subtly oppose it whenever it arises, and when competing for positions, they will quietly favor those who are not part of the fraternity. My reasons for believing this are: 1. The basis on which they recently rejected the foreign order proposed for some of our citizens. 2. The fourth of the fundamental articles of the constitution for the new States. I’m sending you the report; it has been reviewed by Congress, sent back, and revised by a committee based on views expressed on other sections, but the principle in question hasn’t been challenged at all, so it remains as in the original report; it’s not yet confirmed by Congress. 3. Private discussions on this matter with various members. Since I received your letter, I've taken the opportunity to broaden these discussions; not with the military members since that would be delicate due to their involvement, but with others generally; among them, I've found only one who doesn’t oppose the institution, and even that is with great internal conflict, though hidden under careful silence that I haven't seen before. I arrived in Philadelphia before the last Congress broke up and met some of its members not currently in the delegation. Burke’s publication came out at that time, prompting discussions about this institution. I found that the same opinions had been formed by them that their successors have now received. I hear from other sources that this topic is generally unwelcome among citizens who have paid attention to it, and thus, it will likely be unappealing to everyone when the circumstances bring it to broader notice.
This, Sir, is as faithful an account of sentiments and facts as I am able to give you. You know the extent of the circle within which my observations are at present circumscribed, and can estimate how far, as forming a part of the general opinion, it may merit notice, or ought to influence your particular conduct.
This, Sir, is as accurate a report of my feelings and the facts as I can provide. You understand the limits of the scope of my observations right now, and you can assess how much it contributes to the overall opinion, whether it deserves your attention, or how it should affect your specific actions.
It now remains to pay obedience to that part of your letter, which requests sentiments on the most eligible measures to be pursued by the society, at their next meeting. I must be far from pretending to be a judge of what would, in fact, be the most, eligible measures for the society. I can only give you the opinions of those with whom I have conversed, and who, as I have before observed, are unfriendly to it. They lead to these conclusions. 1. If the society proceed according to its institution, it will be better to make no applications to Congress on that subject, or any other, in their associated character. 2. If they should propose to modify it, so as to render it unobjectionable, I think it would not be effected without such a modification as would amount almost to annihilation: for such would it be to part with its inheritability, its organization, and its assemblies. 3. If they shall be disposed to discontinue the whole, it would remain with them to determine whether they would choose it to be done by their own act only, or by a reference of the matter to Congress, which would infallibly produce a recommendation of total discontinuance.
It now remains to address the part of your letter that asks for thoughts on the best actions the society should take at their next meeting. I'm not pretending to be an authority on what would actually be the best actions for the society. I can only share the views of those I've talked to, who, as I mentioned before, are not in favor of it. They come to these conclusions: 1. If the society continues as it was established, it would be better not to approach Congress on that topic or any other as a group. 2. If they wish to change it to make it more acceptable, I believe it would require modifications that would nearly amount to its destruction, since that would mean giving up its inheritability, its structure, and its meetings. 3. If they decide to completely discontinue it, they would need to decide if they want to do that by their own choice or by sending the issue to Congress, which would certainly lead to a recommendation for total discontinuation.
You will be sensible, Sir, that these communications are without reserve. I supposed such to be your wish, and mean them but as materials, with such others as you may collect, for your better judgment to work on. I consider the whole matter as between ourselves alone, having determined to take no active part in this or any thing else, which may lead to altercation, or disturb that quiet and tranquillity of mind, to which I consign the remaining portion of my life. I have been thrown back by events, on a stage where I had never more thought to appear. It is but for a time, however, and as a day-laborer, free to withdraw, or be withdrawn at will. While I remain, I shall pursue in silence the path of right, but in every situation, public or private, I shall be gratified by all occasions of rendering you service, and of convincing you there is no one, to whom your reputation and happiness are dearer than to, Sir,
You’ll understand, Sir, that these communications are completely open. I thought that was your intention, and I see them simply as resources, along with any others you may gather, for your better judgment to consider. I view the whole situation as something just between us, having decided not to take an active role in this or anything else that could lead to conflict or disturb the peace of mind I want for the rest of my life. I’ve been pushed back into a scenario I never planned to face again. However, this is only temporary, and like a day laborer, I’m free to come and go as I please. While I’m here, I’ll quietly pursue the right path, but in every situation, whether public or private, I’ll be happy to help you and show you that no one cares more about your reputation and happiness than I do, Sir.
your most obedient
your most loyal
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER LIX.—TO COLONEL URIAH FORREST, October 20, 1784
TO COLONEL URIAH FORREST.
TO COLONEL URIAH FORREST.
Paris, Cul-de-Sac Tetebout,
Paris, Cul-de-Sac Tetebout
October 20, 1784.
October 20, 1784.
Sir,
Dear Sir,
I received yesterday your favor of the 8th instant, and this morning went to Auteuil and Passy, to consult with Mr. Adams and Dr. Franklin on the subject of it. We conferred together, and think it is a case in which we could not interpose (were there as yet cause for interposition) without express instructions from Congress. It is, however, our private opinion, which we give as individuals, only, that Mr. McLanahan, while in England, is subject to the laws of England; that, therefore, he must employ counsel, and be guided in his defence by their advice. The law of nations and the treaty of peace, as making a part of the law of the land, will undoubtedly be under the consideration of the judges who pronounce on Mr. McLanahan’s case; and we are willing to hope that, in their knowledge and integrity, he will find certain resources against injustice, and a reparation of all injury to which he may have been groundlessly exposed. A final and palpable failure on their part, which we have no reason to apprehend, might make the case proper for the consideration of Congress.
I received your letter from the 8th yesterday, and this morning I went to Auteuil and Passy to discuss it with Mr. Adams and Dr. Franklin. We talked and believe that we cannot get involved in this situation (if there even is a reason to intervene) without specific instructions from Congress. However, it's our personal opinion, which we’re sharing as individuals, that Mr. McLanahan, while in England, is subject to English law; therefore, he needs to hire a lawyer and follow their advice for his defense. The law of nations and the peace treaty, which are part of the law of the land, will surely be considered by the judges handling Mr. McLanahan’s case; and we hope that he will find some support against injustice and compensation for any unfair treatment he may have faced. A clear and serious failure on their part, which we don’t expect, could potentially make this case suitable for Congress to consider.
I have the honor to be, with sentiments of great respect and esteem, for Mr. McLanahan, as well as yourself.
I am honored to express my deep respect and appreciation for Mr. McLanahan, as well as for you.
Sir, your most obedient, humble servant,
Sir, your most respectful and devoted servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER LX.—TO JOHN JAY, May 11, 1785
TO JOHN JAY.
To John Jay.
Paris, May 11, 1785.
Paris, May 11, 1785.
Sir,
Hey there,
I was honored on the 2nd instant with the receipt of your favor of March the 15th, enclosing the resolution of Congress of the 10th of the same month, appointing me their Minister Plenipotentiary at this court, and also of your second letter of March 22nd, covering the commission and letter of credence for that appointment. I beg permission through you, Sir, to testify to Congress my gratitude for this new mark of their favor, and my assurances of endeavoring to merit it by a faithful attention to the discharge of the duties annexed to it. Fervent zeal is all which I can be sure of carrying into their service; and where I fail through a want of those powers which nature and circumstances deny me, I shall rely on their indulgence, and much also on that candor with which your Goodness will present my proceedings to their eye. The kind terms in which you are pleased to notify this honor to me, require mv sincere thanks. I beg you to accept them, and to be assured of the perfect esteem, with which I have the honor to be, Sir, your most obedient and most humble servant,
I was honored on the 2nd of this month to receive your letter from March 15th, which included Congress's resolution from the 10th of the same month appointing me as their Minister Plenipotentiary at this court. I also received your second letter from March 22nd, which contained the commission and letter of credence for that appointment. I kindly ask you to convey my gratitude to Congress for this new recognition and assure them that I will do my best to deserve it by diligently fulfilling my responsibilities. All I can offer is my enthusiastic commitment to their service, and if I fall short due to limitations that nature and circumstances impose on me, I will count on their patience and also on the understanding with which you will communicate my efforts to them. I truly appreciate the kind way in which you informed me of this honor, and I ask you to accept my sincere thanks and to know that I hold you in the highest regard. I remain, Sir, your most obedient and humble servant.
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER LXI.—TO GENERAL CHASTELLUX, June 7,1785
TO GENERAL CHASTELLUX.
TO GENERAL CHASTELLUX.
Paris, June 7,1785.
Paris, June 7, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
I have been honored with the receipt of your letter of the 2nd instant, and am to thank you, as I do sincerely, for the partiality with which you receive the copy of the Notes on my country. As I can answer for the facts therein reported on my own observation, and have admitted none on the report of others, which were not supported by evidence sufficient to command my own assent, I am not afraid that you should make any extracts you please for the Journal de Physique, which come within their plan of publication. The strictures on slavery and on the constitution of Virginia, are not of that kind, and they are the parts which I do not wish to have made public, at least, till I know whether their publication would do most harm or good. It is possible, that in my own country, these strictures might produce an irritation, which would indispose the people towards the two great objects I have in view, that is, the emancipation of their slaves, and the settlement of their constitution on a firmer and more permanent basis. If I learn from thence, that they will not produce that effect, I have printed and reserved just copies enough to be able to give one to every young man at the College. It is to them I look, to the rising generation, and not to the one now in power, for these great reformations. The other copy, delivered at your hotel, was for Monsieur de Buffon. I meant to ask the favor of you to have it sent to him, as I was ignorant how to do it. I have one also for Monsieur Daubenton, but being utterly unknown to him, I cannot take the liberty of presenting it, till I can do it through some common acquaintance.
I was honored to receive your letter dated the 2nd of this month, and I genuinely thank you for your kindness in accepting the copy of my notes on my country. Since I can vouch for the facts included based on my own observations and haven't included anything from others that isn’t backed by solid evidence, I’m not worried about you making any excerpts for the Journal de Physique that fit their publication plan. However, the commentary on slavery and the Virginia constitution isn't the same, and I’d prefer those sections not be published at least until I know whether doing so would cause more harm than good. It's possible that in my own country, these criticisms could provoke a backlash that would make people less receptive to the two main goals I have in mind: freeing their slaves and establishing a stronger, more lasting constitution. If I find out that they won't spark that reaction, I have printed enough copies to give one to every young man at the College. I’m looking to the younger generation, not the current leaders, for these significant reforms. The other copy that I delivered to your hotel was for Monsieur de Buffon. I wanted to ask you to send it to him since I didn’t know how to do that myself. I have another one for Monsieur Daubenton, but since I don’t know him at all, I can’t just give it to him until I can do so through a mutual acquaintance.
I will beg leave to say here a few words on the general question of the degeneracy of animals in America. 1. As to the degeneracy of the man of Europe transplanted to America, it is no part of Monsieur de Buffon’s system. He goes, indeed, within one step of it, but he stops there. The Abbe Raynal alone has taken that step. Your knowledge of America enables you to judge this question; to say, whether the lower class of people in America, are less informed, and less susceptible of information, than the lower class in Europe: and whether those in America who have received such an education as that country can give, are less improved by it than Europeans of the same degree of education. 2. As to the aboriginal man of America, I know of no respectable evidence on which the opinion of his inferiority of genius has been founded, but that of Don Ulloa. As to Robertson, he never was in America; he relates nothing on his own knowledge; he is a compiler only of the relations of others, and a mere translator of the opinions of Monsieur de Buffon. I should as soon, therefore, add the translators of Robertson to the witnesses of this fact, as himself. Paw, the beginner of this charge, was a compiler from the works of others; and of the most unlucky description; for he seems to have read the writings of travellers, only to collect and republish their lies. It is really remarkable, that in three volumes 12mo, of small print, it is scarcely possible to find one truth, and yet, that the author should be able to produce authority for every fact he states, as he says he can. Don Ulloa’s testimony is of the most respectable. He wrote of what he saw, but he saw the Indian of South America only, and that, after he had passed through ten generations of slavery. It is very unfair, from this sample, to judge of the natural genius of this race of men; and after supposing that Don Ulloa had not sufficiently calculated the allowance which should be made for this circumstance, we do him no injury in considering the picture he draws of the present Indians of South America, as no picture of what their ancestors were, three hundred years ago. It is in North America we are to seek their original character. And I am safe in affirming that the proofs of genius given by the Indians of North America, place them on a level with whites in the same uncultivated state. The North of Europe furnishes subjects enough for comparison with them, and for a proof of their equality. I have seen some thousands myself, and conversed much with them, and have found in them a masculine, sound understanding. I have had much information from men who had lived among them, and whose veracity and good sense were so far known to me, as to establish a reliance on their information. They have all agreed in bearing witness in favor of the genius of this a people. As to their bodily strength, their manners rendering it disgraceful to labor, those muscles employed in labor will be weaker with them, than with the European laborer; but those which are exerted in the chase, and those faculties which are employed in the tracing an enemy or a wild beast, in contriving ambuscades for him, and in carrying them through their execution, are much stronger than with us, because they are more exercised. I believe the Indian, then, to be, in body and mind, equal to the white man. I have supposed the black man, in his present state, might not be so; but it would be hazardous to affirm, that, equally cultivated for a few generations, he would not become so. 3. As to the inferiority of the other animals of America, without more facts, I can add nothing to what I have said in my Notes.
I want to take a moment to discuss the general issue of the decline of animals in America. 1. Regarding the decline of Europeans who move to America, this isn't part of Monsieur de Buffon's theory. He comes close to this idea but doesn't fully embrace it. Only the Abbe Raynal has made that leap. Your understanding of America allows you to evaluate whether the lower class in America is less educated and less open to learning compared to the lower class in Europe, and whether those in America who have received an education comparable to that of Europeans are less improved by it than their European counterparts. 2. When it comes to the native people of America, I haven’t found any reliable evidence supporting the belief in their lesser intelligence, aside from the opinion of Don Ulloa. As for Robertson, he never visited America; he doesn't share observations from personal experience but is instead just repeating what others have said and translating Monsieur de Buffon's views. Thus, I would consider the translators of Robertson just as trustworthy as Robertson himself. Paw, who started this claim, was also just compiling from others' works, and he seems to have read travel writings only to gather and rehash their inaccuracies. It's striking that in three volumes of small print, you can hardly find a single truth, yet the author claims he can provide authority for every fact. Don Ulloa’s account is quite respected; he wrote about what he witnessed, but he only saw the South American Indians, and that was after they had endured ten generations of slavery. It's quite unfair to judge this group's natural intelligence based on that experience, and even if we assume Don Ulloa didn't adequately account for this context, we don't harm him by viewing his portrayal of today’s South American Indians as unreflective of who their ancestors were three hundred years ago. We should look in North America for their original character. I can confidently say that the examples of intelligence shown by North American Indians put them on par with whites in the same unrefined condition. Northern Europe provides plenty of subjects for comparison with them, affirming their equality. I’ve seen thousands myself and had extensive conversations with them, and I’ve recognized their strong, sound understanding. I’ve also gathered significant information from people who lived among them, whose honesty and common sense were so well-known to me that I could trust their insights. They all unanimously attested to the intelligence of this group. Regarding their physical strength, due to cultural norms that make manual labor shameful, their muscles used in physical work may be weaker than those of European laborers; however, their muscles used in hunting and their abilities in tracking an enemy or prey, devising ambushes, and executing those plans are significantly stronger than ours because they are engaged more. I believe the Indian, therefore, is equal to the white man in both body and mind. I suspect that the black man, in his current state, may not be; however, it would be risky to claim that, if cultivated equally for a few generations, he wouldn’t reach that level. 3. Regarding the alleged inferiority of other animals in America, I can’t offer anything beyond what I’ve already stated in my Notes.
As to the theory of Monsieur de Buffon, that heat is friendly, and moisture adverse to the production of large animals, I am lately furnished with a fact by Dr. Franklin, which proves the air of London and of Paris to be more humid than that of Philadelphia, and so creates a suspicion that the opinion of the superior humidity of America, may, perhaps, have been too hastily adopted. And supposing that fact admitted, I think the physical reasonings urged to show, that in a moist country animals must be small, and that in a hot one they must be large, are not built on the basis of experiment. These questions, however, cannot be decided ultimately, at this day. More facts must be collected, and more time flow off, before the world will be ripe for decision. In the mean time, doubt is wisdom.
Regarding Monsieur de Buffon's theory that heat promotes the growth of large animals while moisture hinders it, I've recently come across a fact from Dr. Franklin. He indicates that the air in London and Paris is more humid than that in Philadelphia, which raises questions about the commonly held belief that America is more humid overall. If we accept this fact, I believe the arguments made suggesting that animals must be small in moist countries and large in hot ones aren't really supported by experiments. However, these questions can't be definitively answered at this time. We need to gather more facts and let more time pass before the world is ready for a conclusion. In the meantime, it's wise to remain skeptical.
I have been fully sensible of the anxieties of your situation, and that your attentions were wholly consecrated, where alone they were wholly due, to the succor of friendship and worth. However much I prize your society, I wait with patience the moment when I can have it without taking what is due to another. In the mean time, I am solaced with the hope of possessing your friendship, and that it is not ungrateful to you to receive the assurances of that with which I have the honor to be, Dear Sir,
I completely understand the worries of your situation and recognize that your focus has been entirely on providing support to those who truly deserve it, as friends and valued individuals. As much as I cherish your company, I patiently await the time when I can enjoy it without impacting someone else's obligations. In the meantime, I'm comforted by the hope of having your friendship and that it's not bothersome for you to receive the assurances of my respect, Dear Sir,
your most obedient
your most obedient servant
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER LXII.—TO JOHN ADAMS, June 15, 1785
TO JOHN ADAMS.
To John Adams.
Passy, June 15, 1785.
Passy, June 15, 1785.
Sir,
Sir,
Among the instructions given to the ministers of the United States for treating with foreign powers, was one of the 11th of May, 1784, relative to an individual of the name of John Baptist Picquet. It contains an acknowledgement, on the part of Congress, of his merits and sufferings by friendly services rendered to great numbers of American seamen carried prisoners into Lisbon, and refers to us the delivering him these acknowledgements in honorable terms, and the making him such gratification, as may indemnify his losses, and properly reward his zeal. This person is now is Paris, and asks whatever return is intended for him. Being in immediate want of money, he has been furnished with ten guineas. He expressed, desires of some appointment either for himself or son at Lisbon, but has been told that none such are in our gift, and that nothing more could be done for him in that line, than to mention to Congress that his services will merit their recollection, if they should make any appointment there analogous to his talents. He says his expenses in the relief of our prisoners have been upwards of fifty moidores. Supposing that, as he is poor, a pecuniary gratification will be most useful to him, we propose, in addition to what he has received, to give him a hundred and fifty guineas, or perhaps four thousand livres, and to write a joint letter to him expressing the sense Congress entertain of his services. We pray you to give us your sentiments on this subject by return of the first post, as he is waiting here, and we wish the aid of your counsels therein.
Among the instructions given to the ministers of the United States for dealing with foreign powers was one from May 11, 1784, regarding a man named John Baptist Picquet. It acknowledges Congress's recognition of his contributions and sacrifices for the many American sailors who were imprisoned in Lisbon and suggests that we deliver these acknowledgments to him in respectful terms, and provide him with some compensation to reimburse his losses and appropriately reward his efforts. This individual is currently in Paris and is inquiring about what return is intended for him. In immediate need of money, he has been given ten guineas. He has expressed a desire for some appointment for himself or his son in Lisbon but has been informed that none such position is available and that nothing more could be done for him in that regard than to mention to Congress that his services deserve recognition if they decide to make any related appointment suited to his skills. He states that his expenses in helping our prisoners have exceeded fifty moidores. Assuming that, since he is in need, a financial reward would be most beneficial to him, we propose to give him an additional one hundred and fifty guineas, or perhaps four thousand livres, along with a joint letter expressing Congress's appreciation of his services. We ask you to share your thoughts on this matter at your earliest convenience since he is waiting here, and we would like your advice on the issue.
We are to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of June 3rd, informing us of your reception at the court of London.
We want to confirm that we received your letter from June 3rd, letting us know about your reception at the court in London.
I am, with sentiments of great respect and esteem, Dear Sir,
I am, with great respect and admiration, Dear Sir,
your friend and servant,
your friend and servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER LXIII.—TO THE GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA, June 16, 1785
TO THE GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA.
TO THE GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA.
Paris,
Paris,
June 16, 1785.
June 16, 1785.
Sir,
Sir,
I had the honor of receiving, the day before yesterday, the resolution of Council, of March the 10th, and your letter of March the 30th, and shall, with great pleasure, unite my endeavors with those of the Marquis de la Fayette and Mr. Barclay, for the purpose of procuring the arms desired. Nothing can be more wise than this determination to arm our people, as it is impossible to say when our neighbors may think proper to give them exercise. I suppose that the establishing a manufacture of arms, to go hand in hand with the purchase of them from hence, is at present opposed by good reasons. This alone would make us independent for an article essential to our preservation; and workmen could probably be either got here, or drawn from England, to be embarked hence.
I had the honor of receiving, two days ago, the Council's resolution from March 10th and your letter from March 30th. I will gladly join my efforts with those of the Marquis de la Fayette and Mr. Barclay to secure the desired arms. There’s nothing wiser than this decision to arm our people, as we can’t predict when our neighbors might decide to use force. I assume that establishing a local arms manufacturing facility, alongside purchasing them from here, is currently being opposed for valid reasons. This would make us independent for a crucial resource needed for our survival, and we could likely find workers here or bring them over from England to be employed.
In a letter of January the 12th, to Governor Harrison, I informed him of the necessity that the statuary should see General Washington; that we should accordingly send him over unless the Executive disapproved of it, in which case I prayed to receive their pleasure. Mr. Houdon being new re-established in his health, and no countermand received, I hope this measure met the approbation of the Executive: Mr. Houdon will therefore go over with Dr. Franklin, some time in the next month.
In a letter dated January 12th to Governor Harrison, I informed him about the need for the statue to meet General Washington. We should send him over unless the Executive disagrees, in which case I requested their decision. Since Mr. Houdon has recovered his health and I haven’t received any cancellation, I hope this action is approved by the Executive. Therefore, Mr. Houdon will travel with Dr. Franklin sometime next month.
I have the honor of enclosing you the substance of propositions which have been made from London to the Farmers General of this country, to furnish them with the tobacco of Virginia and Maryland, which propositions were procured for me by the Marquis de la Fayette. I take the liberty of troubling you with them, on a supposition that it may be possible to have this article furnished from those two States to this country, immediately, without its passing through the entrepot of London, and the returns for it being made, of course, in London merchandise. Twenty thousand hogsheads of tobacco a year, delivered here in exchange for the produce and manufactures of this country, many of which are as good, some better, and most of them cheaper than in England, would establish a rivalship for our commerce, which would have happy effects in all the three countries. Whether this end will be best effected by giving out these propositions to our merchants, and exciting them to become candidates with the Farmers General for this contract, or by any other means, your Excellency will best judge on the spot.
I’m pleased to share with you the proposals that have come from London to the Farmers General of this country, regarding the supply of tobacco from Virginia and Maryland. These proposals were arranged for me by the Marquis de la Fayette. I’m reaching out to you about this, thinking it might be possible to get this tobacco from those two states directly to our country, without it going through the entrepot in London, with payments being made in London goods. Delivering twenty thousand hogsheads of tobacco a year here in exchange for the products and goods from our country—many of which are just as good, some even better, and most cheaper than in England—would create competition for our trade, benefiting all three countries involved. It’s up to your Excellency to decide whether it’s best to share these proposals with our merchants and encourage them to compete with the Farmers General for this deal, or to use another approach.
I have the honor to be, with sentiments of due respect, your Excellency’s most obedient
I have the honor to be, with all due respect, your Excellency’s most obedient
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
P.S. I have written on the last subject to the Governor of Maryland also.
P.S. I've also written to the Governor of Maryland about the last topic.
LETTER LXIV.—TO COLONEL MONROE, June 17, 1785
TO COLONEL MONROE.
TO COLONEL MONROE.
Paris, June 17, 1785.
Paris, June 17, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
I received three days ago your favor of April the 12th. You therein speak of a former letter to me, but it has not come to hand, nor any other of later date than the 14th of December. My last to you was of the 11th of May, by Mr. Adams, who went in the packet of that month. These conveyances are now becoming deranged. We have had expectations of their coming to Havre, which would infinitely facilitate the communication between Paris and Congress; but their deliberations on the subject seem to be taking another turn. They complain of the expense, and that their commerce with us is too small to justify it. They therefore talk of sending a packet every six weeks only. The present one, therefore, which should have sailed about this time, will not sail till the 1st of July. However, the whole matter is as yet undecided. I have hopes that when Mr. St. John arrives from New York, he will get them replaced on their monthly system. By the bye, what is the meaning of a very angry resolution of Congress on his subject? I have it not by me, and therefore cannot cite it by date, but you will remember it, and oblige me by explaining its foundation. This will be handed you by Mr. Otto, who comes to America as Charge, des Affaires, in the room of Mr. Marbois, promoted to the Intendancy of Hispaniola, which office is next to that of Governor. He becomes the head of the civil, as the Governor is of the military department.
I received your letter from April 12th three days ago. You mention a previous letter to me, but I haven't received it, nor any other one later than December 14th. My last letter to you was on May 11th, sent with Mr. Adams, who traveled on the packet that month. These shipments are starting to get disorganized. We expected them to arrive in Havre, which would really help communication between Paris and Congress, but their discussions seem to be shifting. They complain about the cost and say their trade with us is too small to warrant it. So, they’re now considering sending a packet only every six weeks. The current one, which should have left around now, won’t leave until July 1st. However, the whole situation is still undecided. I hope that when Mr. St. John arrives from New York, he will help them go back to their monthly schedule. By the way, what’s the deal with a very harsh resolution from Congress regarding him? I don’t have it with me to quote by date, but you’ll remember it, and I’d appreciate it if you could explain its basis. This will be given to you by Mr. Otto, who is coming to America as Charge d’Affaires in place of Mr. Marbois, who has been promoted to the Intendancy of Hispaniola, which is just below the Governor’s position. He will be in charge of the civil affairs, while the Governor oversees the military department.
I am much pleased with Otto’s appointment; he is good-humored, affectionate to America, will see things in a friendly light when they admit of it, in a rational one always, and will not pique himself on writing every trifling circumstance of irritation to his court. I wish you to be acquainted with him, as a friendly intercourse between individuals who do business together, produces a mutual spirit of accommodation useful to both parties. It is very much our interest to keep up the affection of this country for us, which is considerable. A court has no affections; but those of the people whom they govern, influence their decisions even in the most arbitrary governments.
I am very pleased with Otto’s appointment; he has a good sense of humor, is warm toward America, will view things positively when possible, and will always be rational. He won’t bother to report every little annoyance to his court. I want you to get to know him, because a friendly relationship between people who work together creates a mutually beneficial spirit of cooperation. It’s very much in our interest to maintain the goodwill of this country toward us, which is significant. A court doesn't have feelings, but the sentiments of the people they govern can affect their decisions, even in the most authoritarian regimes.
The negotiations between the Emperor and Dutch are spun out to an amazing length. At present there is no apprehension but that they will terminate in peace. This court seems to press it with ardor, and the Dutch are averse, considering the terms cruel and unjust, as they evidently are. The present delays, therefore, are imputed to their coldness and to their forms. In the mean time, the Turk is delaying the demarcation of limits between him and the Emperor, is making the most vigorous preparations for war, and has composed his ministry of warlike characters, deemed personally hostile, to the Emperor. Thus time seems to be spinning out, both by the Dutch and Turks, and time is wanting for France. Every year’s delay is a great thing for her. It is not impossible, therefore, but that she may secretly encourage the delays of the Dutch, and hasten the preparations of the Porte, while she is recovering vigor herself also, in order to be able to present such a combination to the Emperor as may dictate to him to be quiet. But the designs of these courts are unsearchable. It is our interest to pray that this country may have no continental war, till our peace with England is perfectly settled. The. merchants of this country continue as loud and furious as ever against the Arrêt of August, 1784, permitting our commerce with their islands to a certain degree. Many of them have actually abandoned their trade. The ministry are disposed to be firm; but there is a point at which they will give way: that is, if the clamors should become such as to endanger their places. It is evident that nothing can be done by us, at this time, if we may hope it hereafter. I like your removal to New York, and hope Congress will continue there, and never execute the idea of building their Federal town. Before it could be finished, a change of members in Congress, or the admission of new States, would remove them some where else. It is evident that when a sufficient number of the western states come in, they will remove it to Georgetown. In the mean time, it is our interest that it should remain where it is, and give no new pretensions to any other place. I am also much pleased with the proposition to the States to invest Congress with the regulation of their trade, reserving its revenue to the States. I think it a happy idea, removing the only objection which could have been justly made to the proposition. The time too is the present, before the admission of the western States. I am very differently affected towards the new plan of opening our land office, by dividing the lands among the States, and selling them at vendue. It separates still more the interests of the States, which ought to be made joint in every possible instance, in order to cultivate the idea of our being one nation, and to multiply the instances in which the people should look up to Congress as their head. And when the States get their portions they will either fool them away, or make a job of it to serve individuals. Proofs of both these practices have been furnished, and by either of them that invaluable fund is lost, which ought to pay our public debt. To sell them at vendue, is to give them to the bidders of the day, be they many or few. It is ripping up the hen which lays golden eggs. If sold in lots at a fixed price, as first proposed, the best lots will be sold first; as these become occupied, it gives a value to the interjacent ones, and raises them, though of inferior quality, to the price of the first. I send you by Mr. Otto, a copy of my book. Be so good as to apologize to Mr. Thomson for my not sending him one by this conveyance. I could not burthen Mr. Otto with more, on so long a road as that from here to L’Orient. I will send him one by a Mr. Williams, who will go ere long. I have taken measures to prevent its publication. My reason is, that I fear the terms in which I speak of slavery, and of our constitution, may produce an irritation which will revolt the minds of our countrymen against reformation in these two articles, and thus do more harm than good. I have asked of Mr. Madison to sound this matter as far as he can, and if he thinks it will not produce that effect, I have then copies enough printed to give one to each of the young men at the College, and to my friends in the country.
The negotiations between the Emperor and the Dutch are dragging on for an incredible amount of time. Right now, there’s no fear that they won’t end peacefully. This court seems really eager for a resolution, while the Dutch are resistant, finding the terms cruel and unfair, which they clearly are. Therefore, the current delays are blamed on their indifference and bureaucracy. Meanwhile, the Turk is stalling on defining the boundaries with the Emperor, making strong preparations for war, and has filled his war ministry with hostile figures towards the Emperor. So, time is stretching on from both the Dutch and the Turks, and France is running out of time. Every year of delay benefits her significantly. It’s not unlikely that she might be secretly encouraging the Dutch's delays and speeding up the preparations in the Porte while also regaining her strength to present a united front to the Emperor that could pressure him into calm. But the motives of these courts are difficult to read. We should hope that this country doesn’t get caught up in any continental wars until our peace with England is fully secured. The merchants here are still as vocal and furious as ever about the Arrêt from August 1784, which allows a limited trade with their islands. Many have actually stopped their business entirely. The government is inclined to stay firm, but there’s a limit to this firmness: if the uproar gets loud enough to threaten their positions. Clearly, there’s not much we can do right now if we hope to make any changes in the future. I appreciate your move to New York and hope Congress will stay there and not go through with the idea of creating a Federal town. Before it could be completed, changes in Congress members or the inclusion of new States would likely move them somewhere else. It’s evident that when enough western states join, they will shift it to Georgetown. In the meantime, it’s in our best interest for it to stay put and not give rise to new claims from anywhere else. I’m also quite pleased with the proposal to give Congress control over regulating trade, keeping the revenue for the States. I think it’s a great idea because it addresses the only legitimate objection that could be made to this proposal. The timing is right too, before the western States join. I feel differently about the new plan to open our land office by dividing the land among the States and selling it at auction. This will further separate the interests of the States, whereas they should be united in every possible way to promote the idea of us being one nation and to increase the instances where the people should look up to Congress as their leader. And when the States receive their shares, they’ll either squander them or exploit the situation for individual gain. We’ve seen evidence of both, and either way, that invaluable fund which should be used to pay our public debt will be lost. Selling at auction means giving the land to the highest bidders, regardless of how many or how few there are. It's like killing the hen that lays the golden eggs. If sold in lots at a fixed price, as originally suggested, the best parcels would be sold first; as those get occupied, it would increase the value of the surrounding ones, raising their price, even if they're of lower quality. I’m sending you a copy of my book with Mr. Otto. Please apologize to Mr. Thomson for not sending him one this time. I couldn’t burden Mr. Otto with more on such a long journey to L’Orient. I’ll send him one with a Mr. Williams, who will be leaving soon. I’ve taken steps to prevent its publication because I worry that my comments on slavery and our constitution might provoke a backlash that would turn our countrymen against changes in these areas, potentially causing more harm than good. I’ve asked Mr. Madison to look into this as much as he can, and if he thinks it won't have that effect, I have enough copies printed to give one to each of the young men at the College and to my friends in the countryside.
I am sorry to see a possibility of * * being put into the Treasury. He has no talents for the office, and what he has, will be employed in rummaging old accounts to involve you in eternal war with * *, and he will, in a short time, introduce such dissensions into the commission, as to break it up. If he goes on the other appointment to Kaskaskia, he will produce a revolt of that settlement from the United States. I thank you for your attention to my outfit. For the articles of household furniture, clothes, and a carriage, I have already paid twenty-eight thousand livres, and have still more to pay. For the greatest part of this, I have been obliged to anticipate my salary, from which, however, I shall never be able to repay it. I find, that by a rigid economy, bordering however on meanness, I can save perhaps, five hundred livres a month, at least in the summer. The residue goes for expenses so much of course and of necessity, that I cannot avoid them without abandoning all respect to my public character. Yet I will pray you to touch this string, which I know to be a tender one with Congress, with the utmost delicacy. I had rather be ruined in my fortune, than in their esteem. If they allow me half a year’s salary as an outfit, I can get through my debts in time. If they raise the salary to what it was, or even pay our house rent and taxes, I can live with more decency. I trust that Mr. Adams’s house at the Hague, and Dr. Franklin’s at Passy,—the rent of which has been always allowed him, will give just expectations of the same allowance to me. Mr. Jay, however, did not charge it, but he lived economically and laid up money.
I’m concerned about the possibility of * * being appointed to the Treasury. He doesn’t have the skills for the position, and what little he does have will be wasted on digging through old accounts, dragging you into a never-ending fight with * *. Before long, he’ll cause enough disputes within the commission to break it apart. If he takes the other job in Kaskaskia, it will lead to a rebellion in that area against the United States. I appreciate your attention to my expenses. I’ve already spent twenty-eight thousand livres on household items, clothes, and a carriage, and still have more to pay. For most of this, I’ve had to borrow from my salary, which I’ll never be able to pay back. I've found that by being extremely frugal—almost to the point of stinginess—I can save maybe five hundred livres a month, at least during the summer. The rest goes to unavoidable expenses that I can’t avoid without compromising my public image. However, I ask you to approach this matter with Congress very delicately, as I know it’s a sensitive topic. I’d rather lose my fortune than their respect. If they grant me half a year’s salary as an allowance, I can eventually pay off my debts. If they reinstate my salary to what it was, or even cover our rent and taxes, I can live with more dignity. I hope that Mr. Adams’s house in The Hague and Dr. Franklin’s in Passy—whose rent has always been taken care of—will set a precedent for me. Mr. Jay, on the other hand, didn’t charge for it, but he lived frugally and saved money.
I will take the liberty of hazarding to you some thoughts on the policy of entering into treaties with the European nations, and the nature of them. I am not wedded to these ideas, and, therefore, shall relinquish them cheerfully when Congress shall adopt others, and zealously endeavor to carry theirs into effect. First, as to the policy of making treaties. Congress, by the Confederation, have no original and inherent power over the commerce of the States. But by the 9th article, they are authorized to enter into treaties of commerce. The moment these treaties are concluded, the jurisdiction of Congress over the commerce of the States, springs into existence, and that of the particular States is superseded so far as the articles of the treaty may have taken up the subject. There are two restrictions only, on the exercise of the power of treaty by Congress. 1st. That they shall not, by such treaty, restrain the legislatures of the States from imposing such duties on foreigners, as their own people are subject to: nor 2ndly, from prohibiting the exportation or importation of any particular species of goods. Leaving these two points free, Congress may, by treaty, establish any system of commerce they please; but, as I before observed, it is by treaty alone they can do it. Though they may exercise their other powers by resolution or ordinance, those over commerce can only be exercised by forming a treaty, and this, probably, by an accidental wording of our Confederation. If, therefore, it is better for the States that Congress should regulate their commerce, it is proper that they should form treaties with all nations with whom we may possibly trade. You see that my primary object in the formation of treaties, is to take the commerce of the States out of the hands of the States, and to place it under the superintendence of Congress, so far as the imperfect provisions of our constitution will admit, and until the States shall, by new compact, make them more perfect. I would say then to every nation on earth, by treaty, your people shall trade freely with us, and ours with you, paying no more than the most favored nation in order to put an end to the right of individual States, acting by fits and starts, to interrupt our commerce or to embroil us with any nation. As to the terms of these treaties, the question becomes more difficult. I will mention three different plans. 1. That no duties shall be laid by either party on the productions of the other. 2. That each may be permitted to equalize their duties to those laid by the other. 3. That each shall pay in the ports of the other, such duties only as the most favored nations pay.
I want to share some thoughts with you on the policy of making treaties with European countries and what those treaties would look like. I’m not attached to these ideas, so I’ll gladly let them go if Congress comes up with other plans, and I’ll support those enthusiastically. First, let's talk about the policy of creating treaties. Congress, under the Confederation, doesn’t have inherent power over the commerce of the States. However, the 9th article gives them the authority to enter into trade treaties. Once these treaties are finalized, Congress's jurisdiction over state commerce comes into play, overriding the authority of individual States regarding the treaty topics. There are only two limitations on Congress’s treaty power: 1. They can’t prevent state legislatures from imposing duties on foreigners that are also imposed on their own citizens; and 2. They can’t prohibit the export or import of specific types of goods. Apart from these two points, Congress can establish any trade system they want through treaties; but as I mentioned earlier, they can only do this through treaties. While they can use resolutions or ordinances for other powers, commerce can only be managed through a treaty, probably due to how our Confederation is worded. If it’s better for the States for Congress to regulate their commerce, then it makes sense for them to form treaties with any nations we might trade with. My main goal in forming treaties is to transfer the control of state commerce to Congress, as much as our current constitution allows, until the States can create a better agreement. I would propose to every nation on Earth that, through treaties, your people can trade freely with us, and ours with you, with duties no higher than those of the most favored nation. This would effectively eliminate the ability of individual States to disrupt our commerce or create conflicts with any nation. Regarding the terms of these treaties, the question becomes a bit trickier. I propose three different plans: 1. No duties should be imposed by either party on the products of the other. 2. Each party should be allowed to match their duties to those of the other. 3. Each should only pay the same duties in each other's ports as the most favored nations do.
1. Were the nations of Europe as free and unembarrassed of established systems as we are, I do verily believe they would concur with us in the first plan. But it is impossible. These establishments are fixed upon them; they are interwoven with the body of their laws and the organization of their government, and they make a great part of their revenue; they cannot then get rid of them.
1. If the countries of Europe were as free and untroubled by established systems as we are, I truly believe they would agree with us on the initial plan. But that's not possible. These systems are deeply entrenched in their laws and government structure, and they make up a significant portion of their income; they can't simply eliminate them.
2. The plan of equal imposts presents difficulties insurmountable. For how are the equal imposts to be effected? Is it by laying in the ports of A, an equal per cent, on the goods of B, with that which B has laid in his ports on the goods of A? But how are we to find what is that per cent.? For this is not the usual form of imposts. They generally pay by the-ton, by the measure, by the weight, and not by the value. Besides, if A sends a million’s worth of goods to B, and takes back but the half of that, and each pays the same per cent., it is evident that A pays the double of what he recovers in the same way from B: this would be our case with Spain. Shall we endeavor to effect equality, then, by saying A may levy so much on the sum of B’s importations into his ports, as B does on the sum of A’s importations into the ports of B.? But how find out that sum? Will either party lay open their custom-house books candidly to evince this sum? Does either keep their books so exactly as to be able to do it? This proposition was started in Congress when our instructions were formed, as you may remember, and the impossibility of executing it occasioned it to be disapproved. Besides, who should have a right of deciding when the imposts were equal. A would say to B, My imposts do not raise so much as yours; I raise them therefore. B would then say, You have made them greater than mine, I will raise mine; and thus a kind of auction would be carried on between them, and a mutual irritation, which would end in any thing, sooner than equality and right.
2. The idea of equal taxes presents insurmountable challenges. How would equal taxes actually be implemented? Would it mean charging a uniform percentage on the goods from B in A's ports, similar to what B charges on A's goods in his ports? But how do we determine that percentage? This is not the standard way taxes are applied. Typically, taxes are assessed by the ton, by measure, or by weight, not by value. Moreover, if A sends a million dollars' worth of goods to B but only receives half of that back, and they both pay the same percentage, then A is effectively paying double what he gets back from B: this would be the situation with Spain. Should we try to create equality by saying that A can charge as much on B's imports into his ports as B charges on A's imports into his ports? But how can we figure out that total? Will either side openly share their customs records to verify this amount? Does either keep their records so accurately that it's possible? This idea was discussed in Congress when our instructions were made, as you might remember, and the impossibility of carrying it out led to it being rejected. Plus, who would have the authority to decide when taxes are truly equal? A might say to B, "My taxes aren't as high as yours; I'm raising mine.” Then B would respond, "You've raised yours higher than mine, so I’ll raise mine too.” This would turn into a sort of auction between them, leading to mutual frustration and ending up with anything but equality and fairness.
3. I confess then to you, that I see no alternative left but that which Congress adopted, of each party placing the other on the footing of the most favored nation. If the nations of Europe, from their actual establishments, are not at liberty to say to America, that she shall trade in their ports duty free, they may say she may trade there paying no higher duties than the most favored nation; and this is valuable in many of these countries, where a very great difference is made between different nations. There is no difficulty in the execution of this contract, because there is not a merchant who does not know, or may not know, the duty paid by every nation on every article. This stipulation leaves each party at liberty to regulate their own commerce by general rules, while it secures the other from partial and oppressive discriminations. The difficulty which arises in our case is with the nations having American territory. Access to the West Indies is indispensably necessary to us. Yet how to gain it when it is the established system of these nations to exclude all foreigners from their colonies? The only chance seems to be this: our commerce to the mother countries is valuable to them. We must indeavor, then, to make this the price of an admission into their West Indies, and to those who refuse the admission, we must refuse our commerce, or load theirs by odious discriminations in our ports. We have this circumstance in our favor too, that what one grants us in their islands, the others will not find it worth their while to refuse. The misfortune is, that with this country we gave this price for their aid in the war, and we have now nothing more to offer. She being withdrawn from the competition, leaves Great Britain much more at liberty to hold out against us. This is the difficult part of the business of treaty, and I own it does not hold out the most flattering prospects.
3. I admit to you that I see no other option left but the one Congress chose, where each party treats the other like the most favored nation. If the countries in Europe, because of their current arrangements, can't tell America that she can trade in their ports without duties, they can at least allow her to trade there by paying no higher duties than the most favored nation. This is valuable in many of these countries, where there is a significant difference in how they treat different nations. There’s no issue in carrying out this agreement, as every merchant knows, or can find out, the duties paid by each nation on every item. This arrangement allows each party to manage their own trade according to general rules while protecting the other from unfair and harsh discrimination. The challenge for us lies with the nations that have American territories. Access to the West Indies is absolutely necessary for us. But how can we achieve that when these nations have a system in place to exclude all foreigners from their colonies? Our only chance seems to be this: our trade with the mother countries is valuable to them. So, we need to make our commerce the price for gaining access to their West Indies, and for those who refuse us entry, we should deny our trade to them or impose harsh restrictions on theirs in our ports. We also have the advantage that whatever one grants us in their islands, the others won’t likely want to refuse. The unfortunate part is that we already paid this price to gain their support in the war, and now we have nothing new to offer. With that country no longer in the running, it leaves Great Britain much freer to resist us. This is the challenging aspect of treaty negotiations, and I admit it doesn’t present the most promising outlook.
I wish you would consider this subject, and write me your thoughts on it. Mr. Gerry wrote me on the same subject. Will you give me leave to impose on you the trouble of communicating this to him? It is long, and will save me much labor in copying. I hope he will be so indulgent as to consider it as an answer to that part of his letter, and will give me his further thoughts on it. Shall I send you so much of the Encyclopédie as is already published, or reserve it here till you come? It is about forty volumes which is probably about half the work. Give yourself no uneasiness about the money; perhaps I may find it convenient to ask you to pay trifles occasionally for me in America. I sincerely wish you may find it convenient to come here; the pleasure of the trip will be less than you expect, but the utility greater. It will make you adore your own country, its soil, its climate, its equality, liberty, laws, people, and manners. My God! how little do my countrymen know what precious blessings they are in possession of, and which no other people on earth enjoy. I confess I had no idea of it myself. While we shall see multiplied instances of Europeans going to live in America, I will venture to say no man now living, will ever see an instance of an American removing to settle in Europe, and continuing there. Come then and see the proofs of this, and on your return add your testimony to that of every thinking American, in order to satisfy our countrymen how much it is their interest to preserve, uninfected by contagion, those peculiarities in their governments and manners, to which they are indebted for those blessings. Adieu, my dear friend; present me affectionately to your colleagues. If any of them think me worth writing to, they may be assured that in the epistolary account I will keep the debit side against them. Once more, adieu.
I wish you would think about this topic and share your thoughts with me. Mr. Gerry wrote to me about the same topic. Can I ask you to take the time to communicate this to him? It’s long, and it will save me a lot of effort in copying. I hope he will kindly consider this as a response to that part of his letter and will share his further thoughts on it. Should I send you the part of the Encyclopédie that has already been published, or should I keep it here until you arrive? It's about forty volumes, which is probably around half the work. Don't worry about the money; I might occasionally ask you to pay small expenses for me in America. I genuinely hope you can make it here; the enjoyment of the trip will be less than you expect, but the benefits will be greater. It will make you appreciate your own country more—its land, climate, equality, freedom, laws, people, and customs. My God! How little my fellow countrymen realize the valuable blessings they have that no other people on earth possess. I admit I had no idea myself. While we will see more and more Europeans choosing to live in America, I would bet that no one currently alive will ever see an American moving to settle in Europe and staying there. So come and see the evidence of this, and on your return, add your voice to that of every thoughtful American to show our fellow countrymen how important it is to preserve, untouched by outside influences, those unique aspects of their governments and customs, which they owe their blessings to. Goodbye, my dear friend; please send my warm regards to your colleagues. If any of them think I'm worth writing to, they can be sure that in my correspondence, I will keep track of what I owe them. Once again, goodbye.
Yours affectionately,
Love you lots,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
P.S. June 19. Since writing the above we have received the following account: Monsieur Pilatre de Roziere, who had been waiting for some months at Boulogne for a fair wind to cross the channel, at length took his ascent with a companion. The wind changed after a while, and brought him back on the French coast. Being at a height of about six thousand feet, some accident happened to his balloon of inflammable air; it burst, they fell from that height, and were crushed to atoms. There was a montgolfier combined with the balloon of inflammable air. It is suspected the heat of the montgolfier rarefied too much the inflammable air of the other, and occasioned it to burst. The montgolfier came down in good order.
P.S. June 19. Since writing the above, we've received the following update: Monsieur Pilatre de Roziere, who had been waiting for several months in Boulogne for a favorable wind to cross the channel, finally took off with a companion. The wind shifted after a while and brought them back to the French coast. While they were at an altitude of about six thousand feet, something went wrong with the balloon filled with inflammable air; it exploded, and they fell from that height, disintegrating upon impact. There was a montgolfier combined with the inflammable air balloon. It’s suspected that the heat from the montgolfier caused the inflammable air of the other balloon to expand too much, leading to the explosion. The montgolfier landed safely.
LETTER LXV.—TO CHARLES THOMSON, June 21, 1785
TO CHARLES THOMSON.
To Charles Thomson.
Paris, June 21, 1785.
Paris, June 21, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Dear [Name],
Your favor of March the 6th has come duly to hand. You therein acknowledge the receipt of mine of November the 11th; at that time you could not have received my last, of February the 8th. At present there is so little new in politics, literature, or the arts, that I write rather to prove to you my desire of nourishing your correspondence than of being able to give you any thing interesting at this time. The political world is almost lulled to sleep by the lethargic state of the Dutch negotiation, which will probably end in peace. Nor does this court profess to apprehend, that the Emperor will involve this hemisphere in war by his schemes on Bavaria and Turkey. The arts, instead of advancing, have lately received a check, which will probably render stationary for a while, that branch of them which had promised to elevate us to the skies. Pilatre de Roziere, who had first ventured into that region, has fallen a sacrifice to it. In an attempt to pass from Boulogne over to England, a change in the wind having brought him back on the coast of France, some accident happened to his balloon of inflammable air, which occasioned it to burst, and that of rarefied air combined with it being then unequal to the weight, they fell to the earth from a height, which the first reports made six thousand feet, but later ones have reduced to sixteen hundred. Pilatre de Roziere was dead when a peasant, distant one hundred yards only, run to him; but Romain, his companion, lived about ten minutes, though speechless, and without his senses. In literature there is nothing new. For I do not consider as having added any thing to that field, my own Notes, of which I have had a few copies printed. I will send you a copy by the first safe conveyance. Having troubled Mr. Otto with one for Colonel Monroe, I could not charge him with one for you. Pray ask the favor of Colonel Monroe, in page 5, line 17, to strike out the words ‘above the mouth of Appamatox,’ which make nonsense of the passage; and I forgot to correct it before I had enclosed and sent off the copy to him. I am desirous of preventing the reprinting this, should any book-merchant think it worth it, till I hear from my friends, whether the terms in which I have spoken of slavery and the constitution of our State, will not, by producing an irritation, retard that reformation which I wish, instead of promoting it. Dr. Franklin proposes to sail for America about the first or second week of July. He does not yet know, however, by what conveyance he can go. Unable to travel by land, he must descend the Seine in a boat to Havre. He has sent to England to get some vessel bound for Philadelphia, to touch at Havre for him. But he receives information that this cannot be done. He has been on the lookout ever since he received his permission to return; but, as yet, no possible means of getting a passage have offered, and I fear it is very uncertain when any will offer. I am with very great esteem, Dear Sir,
Your letter from March 6th has arrived. In it, you acknowledge receiving my letter from November 11th; at that time, you must not have received my latest one from February 8th. Right now, there's not much happening in politics, literature, or the arts, so I'm writing more to show my eagerness to keep our correspondence going than to share anything interesting with you. The political scene is almost asleep due to the stagnant Dutch negotiations, which will likely end in peace. This court doesn't seem to think that the Emperor will drag this part of the world into war over his plans for Bavaria and Turkey. Instead of moving forward, the arts have taken a hit lately, which will probably hold them back for a while, especially the area that seemed poised to take us to new heights. Pilatre de Roziere, who first ventured into that realm, tragically lost his life. In an attempt to cross from Boulogne to England, a change in the wind brought him back to the French coast, and an accident caused his hydrogen balloon to burst. The other balloon filled with rarefied air could not handle the weight, and they fell to earth from a height reported to be six thousand feet, though later reports have lowered that to sixteen hundred. Pilatre de Roziere was dead by the time a peasant, who was only a hundred yards away, reached him; however, his companion Romain lived for about ten minutes, though he was speechless and unconscious. In literature, there’s nothing new to share. I don’t consider my own Notes, which I’ve had a few copies printed of, as a significant contribution to the field. I’ll send you a copy by the first safe means available. I’ve asked Mr. Otto for one for Colonel Monroe, but I couldn't ask him to get one for you too. Please ask Colonel Monroe, on page 5, line 17, to remove the phrase ‘above the mouth of Appamatox,’ as it makes that section nonsensical; I forgot to correct it before sending off the copy to him. I want to avoid having this reprinted by any bookseller thinking it’s worth it until I hear back from my friends about whether how I’ve spoken about slavery and our State’s constitution might cause irritation and slow down the reform I hope for, rather than help it. Dr. Franklin plans to sail for America in the first or second week of July. He still doesn’t know how he’ll manage to go. Unable to travel over land, he needs to go down the Seine in a boat to Havre. He’s sent to England to find a ship heading for Philadelphia that can stop by Havre for him. But he’s been told this won’t work. He’s been waiting since he got permission to return, but so far, no possible way to get a passage has come up, and I’m afraid it’s very uncertain when one might. I remain, with great respect, Dear Sir,
your friend and servant,
your friend and helper,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER LXVI.—TO WILLIAM CARMICHAEL, June 22, 1785
TO WILLIAM CARMICHAEL.
To William Carmichael.
Paris, June 22, 1785.
Paris, June 22, 1785.
Sir,
Dude,
Your letter of April the 4th came to my hands on the 16th of that month, and was acknowledged by mine of May the 3rd. That which you did me the honor to write me on the 5th of April, never came to hand until the 19th of May, upwards of a month after the one of the day before. I have hopes of sending the present by a Mr. Jarvis, who went from hence to Holland some time ago. About this date, I suppose him to be at Brussels, and that from thence he will inform me, whether, in his way to Madrid, he will pass by this place. If he does, this shall be accompanied by a cipher for our future use; if he does not, I must still await a safe opportunity. Mr. Jarvis is a citizen of the United States from New-York, a gentleman of intelligence, in the mercantile line, from whom you will be able to get considerable information of American affairs. I think he left America in January. He informed us that Congress were about to appoint a Mr. Lambe, of Connecticut, their consul to Morocco, and to send him to their ministers, commissioned to treat with the Barbary powers, for instructions. Since that, Mr. Jay enclosed to Mr. Adams, in London, a resolution of Congress deciding definitively on amicable treaties with the Barbary States, in the usual way, and informing him that he had sent a letter and instructions to us, by Mr. Lambe. Though it is near three weeks since we received a communication of this from Mr. Adams, yet we hear nothing further of Mr. Lambe. Our powers of treating with the Barbary States are full, but in the amount of the expense we are limited. I believe you may safely assure them, that they will soon receive propositions from us, if you find such an assurance necessary to keep them quiet. Turning at this instant to your letter dated April 5th, and considering it attentively, I am persuaded it must have been written on the 5th of May: of this little mistake I ought to have been sooner sensible. Our latest letters from America are of the middle of April, and are extremely barren of news. Congress had not yet proposed a time for their recess, though it was thought a recess would take place. Mr. Morris had retired, and the treasury was actually administered by commissioners. Their land-office was not yet opened. The settlements at Kaskaskia, within the territory ceded to them by Virginia, had prayed the establishment of a regular government, and they were about sending a commissioner to them. General Knox was appointed their secretary of the war-office. These, I think, are the only facts we have learned which are worth communicating to you. The inhabitants of Canada have sent a sensible petition to their King, praying the establishment of an Assembly, the benefits of the habeas corpus laws, and other privileges of British subjects. The establishment of an Assembly is denied, but most of their other desires granted. We are now in hourly expectation of the arrival of the packet which should have sailed from New York in May. Perhaps that may bring us matter which may furnish the subject of a more interesting letter.
Your letter dated April 4th reached me on the 16th of that month, and I acknowledged it in mine dated May 3rd. The letter you kindly wrote on April 5th didn’t arrive until May 19th, over a month later than the one the day before. I hope to send this gift with Mr. Jarvis, who left here for Holland some time ago. By now, I believe he is in Brussels, and from there, he will let me know if he will pass through here on his way to Madrid. If he does, I'll include a cipher for our future communications; if not, I will have to wait for a safe opportunity. Mr. Jarvis is an American from New York, an intelligent gentleman in the trading business, from whom you can get valuable information about American affairs. I think he left America in January. He told us that Congress was about to appoint Mr. Lambe from Connecticut as their consul to Morocco and send him to their ministers who were negotiating with the Barbary powers for instructions. Since then, Mr. Jay sent Mr. Adams in London a resolution from Congress confirming their intention to pursue friendly treaties with the Barbary States in the usual manner, and informed him that he had sent a letter and instructions to us through Mr. Lambe. Although it's been nearly three weeks since we heard this from Mr. Adams, we have not received any further news about Mr. Lambe. Our authority to negotiate with the Barbary States is complete, but we are limited in our budget. I believe you can confidently inform them that they will soon receive proposals from us if you think such an assurance is needed to keep them calm. Turning now to your letter dated April 5th and considering it carefully, I’m convinced it must have been written on May 5th; I should have realized this mistake sooner. Our latest letters from America are from mid-April and are quite lacking in news. Congress has not yet suggested a time for their recess, although it’s expected there will be one. Mr. Morris has stepped back, and the treasury is currently being managed by commissioners. Their land office has not opened yet. The settlements at Kaskaskia, within the territory that Virginia ceded to them, have requested the establishment of a formal government, and they were about to send a commissioner to them. General Knox has been appointed as their secretary of the war office. I think these are the only facts we've learned that are worth sharing with you. The inhabitants of Canada have sent a thoughtful petition to their King, asking for the establishment of an Assembly, the benefits of the habeas corpus laws, and other rights of British subjects. The request for an Assembly has been denied, but most of their other demands have been granted. We are currently expecting the packet that was supposed to sail from New York in May. Perhaps it will bring us information that could be the subject of a more interesting letter.
In the mean time, I have the honor to be, with the highest respect, Sir,
In the meantime, I have the honor to be, with great respect, Sir,
your most obedient
your most respectful
and most humble servant,
and your humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
P.S. July 14. I have thus long waited, day after day, hoping to hear from Mr. Jarvis, that I might send a cipher with this: but now give up the hope. No news yet of Mr. Lambe. The packet has arrived, but brings no intelligence, except that it is doubtful whether Congress will adjourn this summer. The Assembly of Pennsylvania propose to suppress their bank on principles of policy. T.J.
P.S. July 14. I have been waiting for a long time now, day after day, hoping to hear from Mr. Jarvis so I could send a coded message with this, but I've given up on that hope. There’s still no news about Mr. Lambe. The package has arrived, but it doesn't contain any information, except that it's uncertain whether Congress will take a break this summer. The Pennsylvania Assembly wants to shut down their bank for political reasons. T.J.
LETTER LXVII.—TO JOHN ADAMS, June 23, 1785
TO JOHN ADAMS.
To John Adams.
Paris, June 23, 1785.
Paris, June 23, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
My last to you was of the 2nd instant, since which I have received yours of the 3rd and 7th. I informed you in mine of the substance of our letter to Baron Thulemeyer: last night came to hand his acknowledgment of the receipt of it. He accedes to the method proposed for signing, and has forwarded our despatch to the King. I enclose you a copy of our letter to Mr. Jay, to go by the packet of this month. It contains a statement of our proceedings since the preceding letter, which you had signed with us. This statement contains nothing but what you had concurred with us in; and, as Dr. Franklin expects to go early in July to America, it is probable that the future letters must be written by you and myself. I shall therefore take care that you be furnished with copies of every thing which comes to hand on the joint business.
My last message to you was on the 2nd of this month, and since then, I’ve received your messages from the 3rd and 7th. In my previous note, I mentioned the main points of our letter to Baron Thulemeyer: last night I received his acknowledgment of it. He agrees with the signing method we suggested and has sent our dispatch to the King. I’m enclosing a copy of our letter to Mr. Jay that will go with this month's packet. It includes an update on what we’ve done since the last letter you signed with us. This update only includes what you have already agreed with us on; and since Dr. Franklin plans to head to America in early July, it’s likely that future letters will need to be written by you and me. I will make sure you receive copies of everything related to our joint efforts.
What is become of this Mr. Lambe? I am uneasy at the delay of that business, since we know the ultimate decision of Congress. Dr. Franklin, having a copy of the Corps Diplomatique, has promised to prepare a draught of a treaty to be offered to the Barbary States: as soon as he has done so, we will send it to you for your corrections. We think it will be best to have it in readiness against the arrival of Mr. Lambe, on the supposition that he may be addressed to the joint ministers for instructions.
What happened to Mr. Lambe? I’m worried about the delay with this matter since we know what Congress has ultimately decided. Dr. Franklin, who has a copy of the Corps Diplomatique, has promised to draft a treaty to propose to the Barbary States. As soon as he finishes it, we will send it to you for your input. We believe it’s best to have it ready for when Mr. Lambe arrives, just in case he needs to consult the joint ministers for instructions.
I asked the favor of you in my last, to choose two of the best London papers for me; one of each party. The Duke of Dorset has given me leave to have them put under his address, and sent to the office from which his despatches come. I think he called it Cleveland office, or Cleveland lane, or by some such name; however, I suppose it can easily be known there. Will Mr. Stockdale undertake to have these papers sent regularly, or is this out of the line of his business? Pray order me also any really good pamphlets that come out from time to time, which he will charge to me.
I asked you in my last message to pick out two of the best London newspapers for me, one from each political party. The Duke of Dorset has given me permission to have them sent to his address, through the office that handles his dispatches. I think he referred to it as the Cleveland office, or Cleveland Lane, or something similar; anyway, I’m sure it can be easily identified there. Will Mr. Stockdale be able to regularly send these papers, or is that outside his responsibilities? Also, please order me any really good pamphlets that come out from time to time, which he will charge to me.
I am, with great esteem, dear Sir,
I have great respect for you, dear Sir,
your friend and servant,
your friend and servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER LXVIII.—TO COLONEL MONROE, July 5, 1785
TO COLONEL MONROE.
To Colonel Monroe.
Paris, July 5, 1785.
Paris, July 5, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
I wrote you, by Mr. Adams, May the 11th, and by Mr. Otto, June the 17th. The latter acknowledged the receipt of yours of April the 12th, which is the only one come to hand of later date than December the 14th. Little has occurred since my last. Peace seems to show herself under a more decided form. The Emperor is now on a journey to Italy, and the two Dutch Plenipotentiaries have set out for Vienna; there to make an apology for their State having dared to fire a gun in defence of her invaded rights: this is insisted on as a preliminary condition. The Emperor seems to prefer the glory of terror to that of justice; and, to satisfy this tinsel passion, plants a dagger in the heart of every Dutchman which no time will extract. I inquired lately of a gentleman who lived long at Constantinople, in a public character, and enjoyed the confidence of that government, insomuch, as to become well acquainted with its spirit and its powers, what he thought might be the issue of the present affair between the Emperor and the Porte. He thinks the latter will not push matters to a war; and, if they do, they must fail under it. They have lost their warlike spirit, and their troops cannot be induced to adopt the European arms. We have no news yet of Mr. Lambe; of course our Barbary proceedings are still at a stand.*
I wrote to you through Mr. Adams on May 11th and through Mr. Otto on June 17th. The latter acknowledged receiving your letter from April 12th, which is the only one I've received dated after December 14th. Not much has happened since my last update. Peace seems to be taking a more defined shape. The Emperor is currently traveling to Italy, and the two Dutch representatives have headed to Vienna to apologize for their country firing a shot in defense of its invaded rights; this is being demanded as a condition to move forward. The Emperor seems to prefer the reputation of fear over that of justice, and, to satisfy this superficial desire, drives a dagger into the heart of every Dutchman that time will never remove. I recently asked a gentleman who lived in Constantinople for a long time in an official capacity and gained the trust of that government, making him well aware of its spirit and power, what he thought might come of the current situation between the Emperor and the Porte. He believes that the latter will not escalate things to war, and if they do, they will fail. They have lost their warrior spirit, and their troops cannot be persuaded to adopt European arms. We haven't received any news about Mr. Lambe yet; therefore, our dealings with Barbary are still at a standstill.*
[* The remainder of this letter is in cipher, to which there is no key in the Editor’s possession.]
[* The rest of this letter is in code, and the Editor doesn't have a key to it.]
Yours affectionately,
Yours sincerely,
Th: Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson
LETTER LXIX.—TO MRS. SPROWLE, July 5,1785
TO MRS. SPROWLE.
TO MRS. SPROWLE.
Paris, July 5,1785.
Paris, July 5, 1785.
Madam,
Ma'am,
Your letter of the 21st of June, has come safely to hand. That which you had done me the honor of writing before, has not yet been received. It having gone by Dr. Witherspoon to America, which I had left before his return to it, the delay is easily accounted for.
Your letter from June 21st has arrived safely. I still haven't received the one you kindly sent me before. It was sent with Dr. Witherspoon to America, and I had already left before he returned, so the delay is understandable.
I wish you may be rightly informed that the property of Mr. Sprowle is yet unsold. It was advertised so long ago, as to found a presumption that the sale has taken place. In any event, you may safely go to Virginia. It is in the London newspapers only, that exist those mobs and riots, which are fabricated to deter strangers from going to America. Your person will be sacredly safe, and free from insult. You can best judge from the character and qualities of your son, whether he may be an useful co-adjutor to you there. I suppose him to have taken side with the British, before our Declaration of Independence; and, if this was the case, I respect the candor of the measure, though I do not its wisdom. A right to take the side which every man’s conscience approves in a civil contest, is too precious a right, and too favorable to the preservation of liberty, not to be protected by all its well informed friends. The Assembly of Virginia have given sanction to this right in several of their laws, discriminating honorably those who took side against us before the Declaration of Independence, from those who remained among us, and strove to injure us by their treacheries. I sincerely wish that you, and every other to whom this distinction applies favorably, may find, in the Assembly of Virginia, the good effects of that justice and generosity, which have dictated to them this discrimination. It is a sentiment which will gain strength in their breasts, in proportion as they can forget the savage cruelties committed on them, and will, I hope, in the end, reduce them to restore the property itself, wherever it is unsold, and the price received for it, where it has been actually sold.
I hope you'll be informed correctly that Mr. Sprowle's property is still unsold. It was advertised quite a while ago, leading to the assumption that the sale has already happened. In any case, you can confidently travel to Virginia. The mobs and riots that are mentioned only in the London newspapers are exaggerated to scare people from coming to America. You will be completely safe and won’t face any insults. You can best judge if your son would be a helpful ally to you there. I believe he sided with the British before our Declaration of Independence. If that’s true, I respect his honesty in that decision, though I question its wisdom. The right to choose a side that aligns with a person’s conscience in a civil conflict is invaluable and essential for preserving liberty, and it should be protected by all informed supporters. The Virginia Assembly has endorsed this right in several of their laws, honoring those who were against us before the Declaration of Independence, as opposed to those who stayed and tried to harm us through betrayal. I genuinely hope that you and others who benefit from this distinction will see the positive outcomes of that justice and generosity from the Virginia Assembly. This sentiment should grow stronger in their hearts as they move past the brutal atrocities committed against them and will hopefully lead to them restoring the property itself wherever it remains unsold and refunding the price for it where it has already been sold.
I am, Madam,
I'm, ma'am,
your very humble servant,
your humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER LXX.—TO JOHN ADAMS, July 7, 1785
TO JOHN ADAMS.
To John Adams.
Paris, July 7, 1785.
Paris, July 7, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
This will accompany a joint letter enclosing the draft of a treaty? and my private letter of June 23rd, which has waited so long for a private conveyance. We daily expect from the Baron Thulemeyer the French column for our treaty with his sovereign. In the mean while, two copies are preparing with the English column, which Dr. Franklin wishes to sign before his departure, which will be within four or five days. The French, when received, will be inserted in the blank columns of each copy. As the measure of signing at separate times and places is new, we think it necessary to omit no other circumstance of ceremony which can be observed. That of sending it by a person of confidence, and invested with a character relative to the object, who shall attest our signature, yours in London, and Baron Thulemeyer’s at the Hague, and who shall make the actual exchanges, we think will contribute to supply the departure from the original form, in other instances. For this reason, we have agreed to send Mr. Short on this business, to make him a secretary pro hac vice, and to join Mr. Dumas for the operations of exchange, &c. As Dr. Franklin will have left us before Mr. Short’s mission will commence, and I have never been concerned in the ceremonials of a treaty, I will thank you for your immediate information as to the papers he should be furnished with from hence. He will repair first to you in London, thence to the Hague, and then return to Paris.
This will come with a joint letter that includes the draft of a treaty and my private letter from June 23rd, which has been waiting for a private way to be sent. We're expecting to hear from Baron Thulemeyer about the French part of our treaty with his ruler. In the meantime, two copies are being prepared with the English section, which Dr. Franklin wants to sign before he leaves in about four to five days. Once we receive the French version, it will be added to the empty sections of each copy. Since signing at different times and places is new, we think it's important to not skip any other ceremonial details. We believe sending it with a trusted person who has a relevant role, who will verify our signatures—yours in London, and Baron Thulemeyer’s in The Hague—and who will handle the actual exchanges will help make up for the break from the usual format. For this reason, we’ve decided to send Mr. Short for this task, making him a secretary for this purpose, and teaming him up with Mr. Dumas for the exchange operations, etc. As Dr. Franklin will have left us before Mr. Short starts his mission, and since I’ve never been involved in the formalities of a treaty, I would appreciate your quick guidance on what papers he should have from here. He will first travel to you in London, then to The Hague, and finally back to Paris.
What has become of Mr. Lambe? Supposing he was to call on the commissioners for instructions, and thinking it best these should be in readiness, Dr. Franklin undertook to consult well the Barbary treaties with other nations, and to prepare a sketch which we should have sent for your correction. He tells me he has consulted those treaties, and made references to the articles proper for us, which, however, he will not have time to put into form, but will leave them with me to reduce. As soon as I see them, you shall hear from me. A late conversation with an English gentleman here, makes me believe, what I did not believe before; that his nation thinks seriously that Congress have no power to form a treaty of commerce. As the explanations of this matter, which you and I may separately give, may be handed to their minister, it would be well that they should agree. For this reason, as well as for the hope of your showing me wherein I am wrong, and confirming me where I am right, I will give you my creed on the subject. It is contained in these four principles. By the Confederation, Congress have no power given them, in the first instance, over the commerce of the States. But they have a power given them of entering into treaties of commerce, and these treaties may cover the whole field of commerce, with two restrictions only. 1. That the States may impose equal duties on foreigners as natives: and 2. That they may prohibit the exportation or importation of any species of goods whatsoever. When they shall have entered into such treaty, the superintendence of it results to them; all the operations of commerce, which are protected by its stipulations, come under their jurisdiction, and the power of the States to thwart them by their separate acts, ceases. If Great Britain asks, then, why she should enter into treaty with us? why not carry on her commerce without treaty? I answer; because till a treaty is made, no consul of hers can be received (his functions being called into existence by a convention only, and the States having abandoned the right of separate agreements and treaties); no protection to her commerce can be given by Congress; no cover to it from those checks and discouragements, with which the States will oppress it, acting separately, and by fits and starts. That they will act so till a treaty is made, Great Britain has had several proofs; and I am convinced those proofs will become general. It is then to put her commerce with us on systematical ground, and under safe cover, that it behoves Great Britain to enter into treaty. And I own to you, that my wish to enter into treaties with the other powers of Europe, arises more from a desire of bringing all our commerce under the jurisdiction of Congress, than from any other views. Because, according to my idea, the commerce of the United States with those countries not under treaty with us, is under the jurisdiction of each State separately; but that of the countries which have treated with us, is under the jurisdiction of Congress, with the two fundamental restraints only, which I have before noted.
What happened to Mr. Lambe? Assuming he would reach out to the commissioners for guidance, and thinking it best to have those ready, Dr. Franklin took it upon himself to carefully examine the Barbary treaties with other nations and to draft a proposal that we could send for your feedback. He told me he has looked into those treaties and noted the relevant articles for us, but he won’t have time to put them together formally, so he will leave them with me to organize. As soon as I see them, I’ll let you know. A recent conversation with an English gentleman here makes me believe, contrary to my previous thoughts, that his country seriously thinks Congress lacks the authority to create a trade treaty. Since the explanations you and I might give could be shared with their minister, it would be wise for us to be in agreement. For this reason, along with my hope that you’ll correct me where I’m wrong and support me where I’m right, I will share my views on the matter. This is based on four main principles. According to the Confederation, Congress has no initial authority over state commerce. However, they do have the authority to enter into trade treaties, which can encompass all areas of commerce, with only two limitations: 1. That states may impose equal duties on foreigners as they do on their own citizens; and 2. That they may prohibit the export or import of any type of goods. Once a treaty is established, its oversight falls to Congress; all commercial activities covered by its agreements come under their control, and individual states can no longer undermine it with their own actions. So if Great Britain asks why they should negotiate a treaty with us, instead of conducting commerce without one, my response is that until a treaty is in place, none of their consuls can be accepted (since their roles exist only through a convention, and the states have given up the right to make individual agreements and treaties); Congress cannot offer any protection for their trade; and their commerce will suffer without protection from the restrictions and obstacles that states might impose independently and sporadically. Great Britain has had several reasons to believe this, and I’m convinced those reasons will become more apparent. Thus, it is in Great Britain’s interest to formalize their commerce with us through a treaty, to establish it on a solid foundation and with protection. I must admit, my desire to establish treaties with other European powers is largely driven by my goal of bringing all our commerce under Congress’s authority, rather than by any other motives. Because, in my view, the trade of the United States with countries not under treaty with us falls under the individual jurisdiction of each state; whereas trade with countries that have treaties with us falls under Congress's jurisdiction, with only the two basic restrictions I mentioned earlier.
I shall be happy to receive your corrections of these ideas, as I have found, in the course of our joint services, that I think right when I think with you.
I would be happy to get your feedback on these ideas, as I've found that I think best when I think alongside you during our time working together.
I am, with sincere affection, Dear Sir,
I am, with genuine fondness, Dear Sir,
your friend and servant,
your friend and servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
P.S. Monsieur Houdon has agreed to go to America to take the figure of General Washington. In the case of his death, between his departure from Paris and his return to it, we may lose twenty thousand livres. I ask the favor of you to inquire what it will cost to ensure that sum on his life, in London, and to give me as early an answer as possible, that I may order the ensurance, if I think the terms easy enough. He is, I believe, between thirty and thirty-five years of age, healthy enough, and will be absent about six months. T.J.
P.S. Mr. Houdon has agreed to go to America to create a statue of General Washington. If he were to pass away between leaving Paris and returning, we could lose twenty thousand livres. I would appreciate it if you could find out how much it would cost to insure that amount on his life in London, and let me know as soon as possible, so I can arrange the insurance if the terms seem reasonable. I believe he is between thirty and thirty-five years old, in good health, and will be away for about six months. T.J.
LETTER LXXI.—TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, July 10, 1785
TO GENERAL WASHINGTON.
To General Washington.
Paris, July 10, 1785.
Paris, July 10, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
Mr. Houdon would much sooner have had the honor of attending you, but for a spell of sickness, which long induced us to despair of his recovery, and from which he is but recently recovered. He comes now, for the purpose of lending the aid of his art to transmit you to posterity. He is without rivalship in it, being employed from all parts of Europe in whatever is capital. He has had a difficulty to withdraw himself from an order of the Empress of Russia; a difficulty, however, that arose from a desire to show her respect, but which never gave him a moment’s hesitation about his present voyage, which he considers as promising the brightest chapter of his history. I have spoken of him as an artist only; but I can assure you also, that, as a man, he is disinterested, generous, candid, and panting after glory: in every circumstance meriting your good opinion. He will have need to see you much while he shall have the honor of being with you; which you can the more freely admit, as his eminence and merit give him admission into genteel societies here. He will need an interpreter. I suppose you could procure some person from Alexandria, who might be agreeable to yourself, to perform this office. He brings with him one or two subordinate workmen, who of course will associate with their own class only.
Mr. Houdon would have preferred to attend to you himself, but he was recently ill, which made us doubt whether he would recover. Thankfully, he has just gotten better. He’s here now to use his talent to ensure you are remembered for years to come. He has no equal in this field and is sought after all over Europe for high-profile projects. He’s faced challenges in stepping away from a commission from the Empress of Russia, but that was only because he wanted to show her respect; he never wavered in his commitment to this trip, which he sees as a pivotal moment in his career. I’ve talked about him solely as an artist, but I can also assure you that he is a selfless, generous, and honest person who is eager for recognition—he truly deserves your admiration. He will need to spend a lot of time with you during his stay, and you can welcome him freely, as his reputation allows him to mingle in polite society here. He will require an interpreter. I assume you could arrange someone from Alexandria who would be suitable for this role. He’s bringing one or two assistant workers with him, who will interact only with those in their own field.
On receiving the favor of your letter of February the 25th, I communicated the plan for clearing the Potomac, with the act of Assembly, and an explanation of its probable advantages, to Mr. Grand, whose acquaintance and connection with the monied men here, enabled him best to try its success. He has done so; but to no end. I enclose you his letter. I am pleased to hear in the mean time, that the subscriptions are likely to be filled up at home. This is infinitely better, and will render the proceedings of the company much more harmonious. I place an immense importance to my own country, on this channel of connection with the new western States. I shall continue uneasy till I know that Virginia has assumed her ultimate boundary to the westward. The late example of the State of Franklin separating from North Carolina, increases my anxieties for Virginia.
On receiving your letter dated February 25th, I shared the plan for clearing the Potomac, along with the act of Assembly and an explanation of its potential benefits, with Mr. Grand, whose connections with financial figures here gave him the best chance to test its success. He has tried, but it didn’t work out. I’ve attached his letter for you. In the meantime, I’m glad to hear that subscriptions back home are likely to be completed. This is much better and will make the company's operations much more harmonious. I place a huge importance on this connection with the new western States for my own country. I’ll remain anxious until I know that Virginia has finalized her western boundary. The recent example of the State of Franklin splitting from North Carolina heightens my concerns for Virginia.
The confidence you are so good as to place in me, on the subject of the interest lately given you by Virginia in the Potomac company, is very flattering to me. But it is distressing also, inasmuch as, to deserve it, it obliges me to give my whole opinion. My wishes to see you made perfectly easy, by receiving, those just returns of gratitude from our country to which you are entitled, would induce me to be contented with saying, what is a certain truth, that the world would be pleased with seeing them heaped on you, and would consider your receiving them as no derogation from your reputation. But I must own that the declining them will add to that reputation, as it will show that your motives have been pure and without any alloy. This testimony, however, is not wanting either to those who know you, or who do not. I must therefore repeat, that I think the receiving them will not, in the least, lessen the respect of the world, if from any circumstances they would be convenient to you. The candor of my communication will find its justification, I know, with you.
The trust you place in me regarding the interest you've recently shown in Virginia and the Potomac company is very flattering. However, it’s also a bit stressful because it means I have to share my full opinion to earn that trust. I genuinely want to see you completely satisfied by receiving the gratitude from our country that you rightfully deserve. I would be happy to just say that everyone would love to see you honored and would view your receiving that recognition as something that doesn't take away from your reputation. However, I have to admit that declining it would actually enhance your reputation, as it would demonstrate that your motives are pure and without any selfish intent. Still, this acknowledgment isn't needed for those who know you or even for those who don't. So, I must reiterate that I believe accepting it wouldn't, in any way, diminish the respect people have for you, especially if it would be beneficial for you. I know you will understand the honesty in what I'm saying.
A tolerable certainty of peace leaves little interesting in the way of intelligence. Holland and the emperor will be quiet. If any thing is brewing, it is between the latter and the Porte. Nothing in prospect as yet from England. We shall bring them, however, to a decision, now that Mr. Adams is received there. I wish much to hear that the canal through the Dismal Swamp is resumed.
A decent level of peace makes for little exciting news. Holland and the emperor will stay calm. If anything is happening, it’s between the emperor and the Porte. There’s nothing on the horizon from England yet. However, we will get them to make a decision now that Mr. Adams is accepted there. I really hope to hear that the canal through the Dismal Swamp is being worked on again.
I have the honor to be, with the highest respect and esteem,
I am honored to be, with the utmost respect and admiration,
Dear Sir, your most obedient
Dear Sir, your loyal
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER LXXII.—TO THE GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA, July 11, 1785
TO THE GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA.
TO THE GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA.
Paris, July 11, 1785.
Paris, July 11, 1785.
Sir,
Sir,
Mr. Houdon’s long and desperate illness has retarded, till now, his departure for Virginia. We had hoped, from our first conversations with him, that it would be easy to make our terms, and that the cost of the statue and expense of sending him, would be but about a thousand guineas. But when we came to settle this precisely, he thought himself obliged to ask vastly more insomuch, that, at one moment, we thought our treaty at an end. But unwilling to commit such a work to an inferior hand, we made nim an ultimate proposition on our part. He was as much mortified at the prospect of not being the executor of such a work, as we were, not to have it done by such a hand. He therefore acceded to our terms; though we are satisfied he will be a considerable loser. We were led to insist on them, because, in a former letter to the Governor, I had given the hope we entertained of bringing the whole within one thousand guineas. The terms are twenty-five thousand livres, or one thousand English guineas (the English guinea being worth twenty-five livres) for the statue and pedestal. Besides this, we pay his expenses going and returning, which we expect will be between four and five thousand livres: and if he dies on the voyage, we pay his family ten thousand livres. This latter proposition was disagreeable to us; but he has a father, mother, and sisters, who have no resource but in his labor: and he is himself one of the best men in the world. He therefore made it a sine qua non, without which all would have been off. We have reconciled it to ourselves, by determining to get insurance on his life made in London, which we expect can be done for five per cent.; so that it becomes an additional sum of five hundred livres. I have written to Mr. Adams to know, for what per cent, the insurance can be had. I enclose you, for a more particular detail, a copy of the agreement. Dr. Franklin, being on his departure, did not become a party to the instrument, though it has been concluded with his approbation. He was disposed to give two hundred and fifty guineas more, which would have split the difference between the actual terms and Mr Houdon’s demand. I wish the State, at the conclusion of the work, may agree to give him this much more; because I am persuaded he will be a loser, which I am sure their generosity would not wish. But I have not given him the smallest expectation of it, choosing the proposition should come from the State, which will be more honorable. You will perceive by the agreement, that I pay him immediately 8333 1/3 livres, which is to be employed in getting the marble in Italy, its transportation, he. The package and transportation of his stucco to make the moulds, will be about five hundred livres. I shall furnish him with money for his expenses in France, and I have authorized Dr. Franklin, when he arrives in Philadelphia, to draw on me for money for his other expenses, going, staying, and returning. These drafts will have been made probably, and will be on their way to me, before you receive this, and with the payments made here, will amount to about five thousand livres more than the amount of the bill remitted me. Another third, of 8333 1/3 livres, will become due at the end of the ensuing year.
Mr. Houdon's long and serious illness has delayed his departure for Virginia until now. We initially hoped that it would be simple to agree on terms and that the total cost for the statue and his transportation would be around a thousand guineas. However, when we tried to finalize the details, he felt compelled to ask for a significantly higher amount, to the point where we thought our agreement might fall through. But since we were reluctant to hand such an important work to someone less skilled, we made him a final offer. He was just as disappointed at the thought of not being able to create this work as we were at the possibility of having it done by someone else. He ultimately accepted our terms, even though we believe he will suffer a considerable loss. We insisted on these terms because, in a previous letter to the Governor, I had expressed our hope to keep the total under one thousand guineas. The terms are twenty-five thousand livres, or one thousand English guineas (since the English guinea is worth twenty-five livres) for the statue and pedestal. Additionally, we'll cover his travel expenses, which we estimate will be between four and five thousand livres. If he dies during the journey, we will pay his family ten thousand livres. This last condition was uncomfortable for us, but he has parents and sisters who rely solely on his work, and he is truly one of the best people out there. Therefore, he made it a non-negotiable condition; without it, the deal would not have gone through. We’ve come to terms with this by deciding to purchase life insurance for him in London, which we expect to be available for five percent, adding an additional five hundred livres to the total. I have written to Mr. Adams to inquire about the percentage for the insurance. I’ve included a copy of the agreement for more details. Dr. Franklin didn't sign the document as he was leaving, but he approved the agreement. He was willing to offer an additional two hundred and fifty guineas, which would have bridged the gap between the agreed terms and Mr. Houdon's request. I hope the State will consider providing him with this extra amount once the work is completed, as I’m sure he will end up losing out, which is not something I believe their generosity would allow. However, I haven’t given him any indication of this, preferring that the offer come from the State since that would be more dignified. As you can see from the agreement, I will immediately pay him 8333 1/3 livres to be used for acquiring the marble in Italy and its transportation. The cost for packing and shipping his stucco to create the molds will be around five hundred livres. I will provide him with money for his expenses while he’s in France, and I’ve authorized Dr. Franklin, when he reaches Philadelphia, to draw on me for funds to cover his other expenses for going, staying, and returning. These drafts will likely have been made and be on their way to me before you receive this, and combined with the payments made here, will total about five thousand livres more than the amount of the bill sent to me. Another installment of 8333 1/3 livres will be due at the end of the next year.
Dr. Franklin leaves Passy this morning. As he travels in a litter, Mr. Houdon will follow him some days hence, and will embark with him for Philadelphia. I am in hopes he need not stay in America more than a month.
Dr. Franklin is leaving Passy this morning. As he travels in a litter, Mr. Houdon will follow him in a few days and will set sail with him for Philadelphia. I hope he won't need to stay in America for more than a month.
I have the honor to be, with due respect,
I have the privilege to be, with all due respect,
your Excellency’s most obedient
your Excellency's most obedient
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.

LETTER LXXIII.—TO THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS, July 12, 1785
TO THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS.
TO THE CONGRESS PRESIDENT.
(Private.) Paris, July 12, 1785.
(Private.) Paris, July 12, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Dear [Name],
I was honored, two days ago, with yours of May the 16th, and thank you for the intelligence it contained, much of which was new to me. It was the only letter I received by this packet, except one from Mr. Hopkinson, on philosophical subjects. I generally write about a dozen by every packet, and receive sometimes one, sometimes two, and sometimes ne’er a one. You are right in supposing all letters opened which come either through the French or English channel, unless trusted to a passenger. Yours had evidently been opened, and I think I never received one through the post office which had not been. It is generally discoverable by the smokiness of the wax, and faintness of the re-impression. Once they sent me a letter open, having forgotten to re-seal it. I should be happy to hear that Congress thought of establishing packets of their own between New York and Havre; to send a packet from each port once in two months. The business might possibly be done by two packets, as will be seen by the following scheme, wherein we will call the two packets A and B.
I was honored, two days ago, to receive your letter from May 16th, and I appreciate the information it contained, much of which was new to me. It was the only letter I got from this shipment, aside from one from Mr. Hopkinson about philosophical topics. I usually send about a dozen letters with each shipment, and I sometimes receive one, sometimes two, and sometimes none at all. You’re right in assuming that all letters sent through either the French or English channels are opened, unless they’re given to a passenger. Yours had clearly been opened, and I can’t recall receiving any letter through the post office that hadn’t been. You can usually tell because of the smudged wax and faint impression from resealing. Once, they sent me a letter open because they forgot to reseal it. I would be glad to hear that Congress is considering setting up their own mail service between New York and Havre, sending a shipment from each port once every two months. This could possibly be handled by two packets, as explained in the following plan, where we’ll refer to the two packets as A and B.
January, A sails from New York, B from Havre. February. March. B sails from New York, A from Havre. April. May. A sails from New York, B from Havre. June. July. B sails from New York, A from Havre. August. September. A sails from New York, B from Havre. October. November. B sails from New York, A from Havre. December.
January, A departs from New York, B from Havre. February. March. B departs from New York, A from Havre. April. May. A departs from New York, B from Havre. June. July. B departs from New York, A from Havre. August. September. A departs from New York, B from Havre. October. November. B departs from New York, A from Havre. December.
I am persuaded that government would gladly arrange this method with us, and send their packets in the intermediate months, as they are tired of the expense. We should then have a safe conveyance every two months, and one for common matters every month. A courier would pass between this and Havre in twenty-four hours. Could not the surplus of the post office revenue be applied to this? This establishment would look like the commencement of a little navy; the only kind of force we ought to possess. You mention that Congress is on the subject of requisition. No subject is more interesting to the honor of the States. It is an opinion which prevails much in Europe, that our government wants authority to draw money from the States, and that the States want faith to pay their debts. I shall wish much to hear how far the requisitions on the States are productive of actual cash. Mr. Grand informed me, the other day, that the commissioners were dissatisfied with his having paid to this country but two hundred thousand livres, of the four hundred thousand for which Mr. Adams drew on Holland; reserving the residue to replace his advances and furnish current expenses. They observed that these last objects might have been effected by the residue of the money in Holland, which was lying dead. Mr. Grand’s observation to me was, that Mr. Adams did not like to draw for these purposes, that he himself had no authority, and that the commissioners had not accompanied their complaints with any draft on that fund; so that the debt still remains unpaid, while the money is lying dead in Holland. He did not desire me to mention this circumstance; but should you see the commissioners, it might not be amiss to communicate it to them, that they may take any measures they please, if they think it proper to do any thing in it. I am anxious to hear what is done with the States of Vermont and Franklin. I think that the former is the only innovation on the system of April 23rd, 1784, which ought ever possibly to be admitted. If Congress are not firm on that head, our several States will crumble to atoms by the spirit of establishing every little canton into a separate State. I hope Virginia will concur in that plan as to her territory south of the Ohio; and not leave to the western country to withdraw themselves by force, and become our worst enemies instead of our best friends.
I believe the government would happily set up this method with us and send their shipments in the months in between, as they’re tired of the costs. This way, we would have a reliable delivery every two months and a regular one for everyday matters each month. A courier could travel between here and Havre in twenty-four hours. Couldn’t the surplus from the post office revenue be used for this? This setup would look like the start of a small navy, the only type of force we should have. You mentioned that Congress is discussing requisitions. No topic is more crucial to the honor of the States. There’s a prevailing belief in Europe that our government lacks the authority to collect money from the States, and that the States lack the willingness to pay their debts. I’m eager to hear how effective the requisitions on the States are in generating actual cash. Mr. Grand recently told me that the commissioners were unhappy he had only paid this country two hundred thousand livres out of the four hundred thousand Mr. Adams drew on Holland; holding back the rest to cover his advances and ongoing expenses. They pointed out that these expenses could have been handled with the remaining funds in Holland, which were just sitting there unused. Mr. Grand mentioned that Mr. Adams was reluctant to draw on these needs, that he didn’t have the authority, and that the commissioners had not made their complaints accompanied by any request for that fund; so the debt remains unpaid while the money sits idle in Holland. He didn’t want me to mention this situation, but if you see the commissioners, it might be wise to inform them so they can take any action they deem necessary. I’m curious to see what happens with the States of Vermont and Franklin. I think Vermont is the only change to the system from April 23rd, 1784, that should ever be considered. If Congress isn’t firm on that point, our various States will fall apart due to the trend of turning every small area into a separate State. I hope Virginia will agree with that plan regarding her land south of the Ohio, rather than allowing the western region to break away forcefully and become our worst enemies instead of our best allies.
I have the honor to be, with sentiments of great respect,
I’m honored to be here, with deep respect,
your Excellency’s most obedient
your Excellency's most obedient
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Th: Jefferson.
LETTER LXXIV.—TO THE VIRGINIA DELEGATES IN CONGRESS, July 12,1785
TO THE VIRGINIA DELEGATES IN CONGRESS.
TO THE VIRGINIA DELEGATES IN CONGRESS.
Paris, July 12,1785.
Paris, July 12, 1785.
Gentlemen,
Guys,
In consequence of the orders of the legislative and executive bodies of Virginia, I have engaged Monsieur Houdon to make the statue of General Washington. For this purpose it is necessary for him to see the General. He therefore goes with Doctor Franklin, and will have the honor of delivering you this himself. As his journey is at the expense of the State, according to our contract, I will pray you to favor him with your patronage and counsels, and to protect him as much as possible, from those impositions to which strangers are but too much exposed. I have advised him to proceed in the stages to the General’s. I have also agreed, if he can see Generals Greene and Gates, whose busts he has a desire to execute, that he may make a moderate deviation for this purpose, after he has done with General Washington.
Due to the instructions from the legislative and executive branches of Virginia, I have hired Monsieur Houdon to create the statue of General Washington. For this, he needs to meet the General. He will be traveling with Doctor Franklin and will personally deliver this to you. Since his trip is funded by the State, as per our agreement, I kindly ask you to support him with your guidance and to protect him as much as possible from the common challenges that travelers often face. I have suggested that he travel in stages to meet the General. I have also agreed that if he can meet Generals Greene and Gates, whose busts he wants to create, he may make a slight detour for this purpose after he finishes with General Washington.
But the most important object with him, is to be employed to make General Washington’s equestrian statue for Congress. Nothing but the expectation of this, could have engaged him to have undertaken this voyage; as the pedestrian statue for Virginia will not make it worth the business he loses by absenting himself. I was therefore obliged to assure him of my recommendations for this greater work. Having acted in this for the State, you will, I hope, think yourselves in some measure bound to patronize and urge his being employed by Congress. I would not have done this myself, nor asked you to do it, did I not see that it would be better for Congress to put this business into his hands, than into those of any other person living, for these reasons: 1. He is, without rivalship, the first statuary of this age; as a proof of which, he receives orders from every other country for things intended to be capital. 2. He will have seen General Washington, have taken his measures in every part, and, of course, whatever he does of him will have the merit of being original, from which other workmen can only furnish copies. 3. He is in possession of the house, the furnaces, and all the apparatus provided for making the statue of Louis XV. If any other workman be employed, this will all have to be provided anew, and of course, to be added to the price of the statue; for no man can ever expect to make two equestrian statues. The addition which this would be to the price, will much exceed the expectation of any person who has not seen that apparatus. In truth it is immense. As to the price of the work, it will be much greater than Congress is probably aware of. I have inquired somewhat into this circumstance, and find the prices of those made for two centuries past, have been from one hundred and twenty thousand guineas, down to sixteen thousand guineas, according to the size. And as far as I have seen, the smaller they are, the more agreeable. The smallest yet made, is infinitely above the size of life, and they all appear outrees and monstrous. That of Louis XV., is probably the best in the world, and it is the smallest here. Yet it is impossible to find a point of view, from which it does not appear a monster, unless you go so far as to lose sight of the features, and finer lineaments of the face and body. A statue is not made like a mountain, to be seen at a great distance. To perceive those minuter circumstances which constitute its beauty, you must be near it, and, in that case, it should be so little above the size of the life, as to appear actually of that size, from your point of view. I should not, therefore, fear to propose, that the one intended by Congress should be considerably smaller than any of those to be seen here; as I think it will be more beautiful, and also cheaper. I have troubled you with these observations, as they have been suggested to me from an actual sight of works of this kind, and I supposed they might assist you in making up your minds on this subject. In making a contract with Monsieur Houdon it would not be proper to advance money, but as his disbursements and labor advance. As it is a work of many years, this will render the expense insensible. The pedestrian statue of marble, is to take three years; the equestrian, of course, would take much more. Therefore the sooner it is begun, the better.
But the main reason he’s involved is to create General Washington’s equestrian statue for Congress. Nothing else would have motivated him to embark on this journey, as the pedestrian statue for Virginia isn't worth the business he is losing by being away. I had to assure him of my support for this more significant project. Having worked on behalf of the State, I hope you feel some obligation to endorse and advocate for his employment by Congress. I wouldn't have taken this step myself, nor would I ask you to do it, if I didn't believe it would be better for Congress to give this task to him rather than anyone else for the following reasons: 1. He is, without question, the leading sculptor of this era; he receives commissions from every other country for major works. 2. He has seen General Washington and has taken measurements from every angle, so everything he creates will be original; other artists can only produce copies. 3. He owns the studio, the furnaces, and all the equipment needed for making the statue of Louis XV. If another artist is hired, they would need to set all this up again, which would increase the cost of the statue significantly, as no one can expect to create two equestrian statues. This added expense would far exceed what anyone unfamiliar with that setup might expect. Honestly, it’s substantial. Regarding the cost, it will be much higher than Congress likely anticipates. I've looked into this and found that statues made over the past two centuries have ranged from one hundred and twenty thousand guineas to sixteen thousand guineas, depending on their size. From what I’ve seen, the smaller they are, the more pleasing they look. The smallest made so far is still larger than life, and they all seem grotesque and oversized. The statue of Louis XV. is likely the best in the world, and it’s the smallest here. Yet, it’s challenging to find an angle where it doesn’t appear monstrous unless you distance yourself enough to lose sight of the details of the face and body. A statue isn't like a mountain that you can view from far away. To appreciate the finer details that contribute to its beauty, you need to be close, and in that case, it should be only slightly larger than life to appear that size from your perspective. So, I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that the one planned by Congress should be considerably smaller than those on display here, as I believe it will be more beautiful and also cheaper. I’ve shared these thoughts with you as they stem from my firsthand experience with such works, and I thought they might help you in deciding on this matter. When making a contract with Monsieur Houdon, it wouldn’t be appropriate to pay him upfront, but rather as his expenses and work progress. Since this is a project that will take many years, this will make the cost more manageable. The pedestrian statue in marble is expected to take three years; the equestrian will naturally take much longer. Therefore, the sooner we start, the better.
I am, with sentiments of the highest respect, Gentlemen,
I am, with the utmost respect, Gentlemen,
your most obedient
your most devoted
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER LXXV.—TO JOHN JAY, July 12,1785
TO JOHN JAY.
To John Jay.
Paris, July 12,1785.
Paris, July 12, 1785.
Sir,
Dude,
My last letter to you was dated the 17th of June. The present serves to cover some papers put into my hands by Captain Paul Jones. They respect an ancient matter, which is shortly this.
My last letter to you was dated June 17th. This letter is to include some papers given to me by Captain Paul Jones. They relate to an old issue, which is basically this.
While Captain Jones was hovering on the coast of England, in the year 1779, a British pilot, John Jackson by name, came on board him, supposing him to be British. Captain Jones found it convenient to detain him as a pilot, and, in the action with the Serapis, which ensued, this man lost his arm. It is thought that this gives him a just claim to the same allowance with others, who have met with the like misfortune in the service of the United States. Congress alone being competent to this application, it is my duty to present the case to their consideration; which I beg leave to do through you.
While Captain Jones was stationed off the coast of England in 1779, a British pilot named John Jackson came on board, thinking he was British. Captain Jones decided to keep him as a pilot, and during the battle with the Serapis that followed, this man lost his arm. It's believed that this gives him a valid claim to the same compensation as others who have suffered similar losses in service to the United States. Only Congress can address this request, so it's my responsibility to bring this matter to their attention, which I kindly ask you to help with.
Dr. Franklin will be able to give you so perfect a state of all transactions relative to his particular office in France, as well as to the subjects included in our general commission, that it is unnecessary for me to enter on them. His departure, with the separate situation of Mr. Adams and myself, will render it difficult to communicate to you the future proceedings of the commission, as regularly as they have been heretofore. We shall do it, however, with all the punctuality practicable, either separately or jointly, as circumstances may require and admit.
Dr. Franklin will be able to provide you with a detailed update on all transactions related to his specific role in France, as well as the subjects covered by our general commission, so I don't need to get into those details. His departure, along with the different circumstances of Mr. Adams and myself, will make it challenging to keep you updated on the commission's future actions as consistently as before. We will, however, do our best to keep you informed, either individually or together, depending on what the situation allows.
I have the honor to be, with sentiments of the highest respect, Sir,
I am honored to express my highest respect, Sir,
your most obedient
your most devoted
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER LXXVI.—TO MONSIEUR BRIET, July 13, 1785
TO MONSIEUR BRIET.
Paris, July 13, 1785.
Paris, July 13, 1785.
Sir,
Hey,
I am glad to hear that the Council have ordered restitution of the merchandise seized at L’Orient, contrary to the freedom of the place. When a court of justice has taken cognizance of a complaint, and has given restitution of the principal subject, if it refuses some of the accessories, we are to presume that some circumstance of evidence appeared to them, unknown to us, and which rendered its refusal just and proper. So, in the present case, if any circumstances in the conduct of the owner, or relative to the merchandise itself, gave probable grounds of suspicion that they were not entitled to the freedom of the port, damages for the detention might be properly denied. Respect for the integrity of courts of justice, and especially of so high a one as that of the King’s Council, obliges us to presume that circumstances arose which justified this part of their order. It is only in cases where justice is palpably denied, that one nation, or its ministers, are authorized to complain of the courts of another. I hope you will see, therefore, that an application from me as to the damages for detention, would be improper.
I’m glad to hear that the Council has ordered the return of the goods seized in L’Orient, which goes against the freedom of the place. When a court has acknowledged a complaint and ordered the return of the main item, if it denies some of the related items, we should assume there was some evidence that we aren’t aware of which made their refusal reasonable. So, in this case, if there were any factors related to the owner’s behavior or the goods themselves that raised suspicion about their right to the port’s freedom, then it would be appropriate to deny damages for the detention. We must respect the integrity of the courts, especially a high one like the King’s Council, and believe that there were circumstances that justified this part of their order. Only in cases where justice is clearly denied can one nation or its representatives complain about the courts of another. Therefore, I hope you understand that a request from me regarding damages for detention would be inappropriate.
I have the honor to be, Sir,
I'm honored, Sir,
your most obedient
your most devoted
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER LXXVII.—TO MESSRS. FRENCH AND NEPHEW, July 13,1785
TO MESSRS. FRENCH AND NEPHEW.
To Messrs. French and Nephew.
Paris, July 13,1785.
Paris, July 13, 1785.
Gentlemen,
Guys,
I had the honor of receiving your letter of June the 21st, enclosing one from Mr. Alexander of June the 17th, and a copy of his application to Monsieur de Calonne. I am very sensible that no trade can be on a more desperate footing than that of tobacco, in this country; and that our merchants must abandon the French markets, if they are not permitted to sell the productions they bring, on such terms as will enable them to purchase reasonable returns in the manufactures of France. I know but one remedy to the evil; that of allowing a free vent: and I should be very happy in being instrumental to the obtaining this. But while the purchase of tobacco is monopolized by a company, and they pay for that monopoly a heavy price to the government, they doubtless are at liberty to fix such places and terms of purchase, as may enable them to make good their engagements with government. I see no more reason for obliging them to give a greater price for tobacco than they think they can afford, than to do the same between two individuals treating for a horse, a house, or any thing else. Could this be effected by applications to the minister, it would only be a palliative which would retard the ultimate cure, so much to be wished for and aimed at by every friend to this country, as well as to America.
I was honored to receive your letter dated June 21st, which included one from Mr. Alexander dated June 17th, and a copy of his application to Monsieur de Calonne. I realize that the tobacco trade in this country is in a really tough spot, and our merchants will have to give up on the French markets if they're not allowed to sell the products they bring in on terms that enable them to get reasonable returns from French goods. I can think of only one solution: allowing free trade. I would be very happy to help achieve this. However, as long as a company holds a monopoly on tobacco purchases and pays a hefty price for that privilege to the government, they will naturally set the locations and terms of purchase that allow them to meet their obligations to the government. I see no reason to require them to pay more for tobacco than they believe they can afford, just like there’s no reason to do that between two individuals negotiating a horse, a house, or anything else. If this could be resolved through requests to the minister, it would only be a temporary fix that would delay the real solution, which is so much desired by anyone who cares about this country and America.
I have the honor to be, Gentlemen,
I am honored to be, gentlemen,
your most obedient, humble servant,
your devoted, humble servant,
Th: Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson
LETTER LXXVIII.—TO DR. STILES, July 17,1785
TO DR. STILES.
Sir,
Sir,
Paris, July 17,1785.
Paris, July 17, 1785.
I have long deferred doing myself the honor of writing to you, wishing for an opportunity to accompany my letter with a copy of the Bibliothèque Physico-oeconomique, a book published here lately in four small volumes, and which gives an account of all the improvements in the arts which have been made for some years past. I flatter myself you will find in it many things agreeable and useful. I accompany it with the volumes of the Connoissance des Terns for the years 1781, 1784, 1785, 1786, 1787. But why, you will ask, do I send you old almanacs, which are proverbially useless? Because, in these publications have appeared, from time to time, some of the most precious things in astronomy. I have searched out those particular volumes which might be valuable to you on this account. That of 1781 contains De la Caillie’s catalogue of fixed stars reduced to the commencement of that year, and a table of the aberrations and nutations of the principal stars. 1784 contains the same catalogue with the nébuleuses of Messier. 1785 contains the famous catalogue of Flamsteed, with the positions of the stars reduced to the beginning of the year 1784, and which supersedes the use of that immense book. 1786 gives you Euler’s lunar tables corrected; and 1787, the tables for the planet Herschel. The two last needed not an apology, as not being within the description of old almanacs. It is fixed on grounds which scarcely admit a doubt, that the planet Herschel was seen by Mayer in the year 1756, and was considered by him as one of the zodiacal stars, and, as such, arranged in his catalogue, being the 964th which he describes. This 964th of Mayer has been since missing, and the calculations for the planet Herschel show that, it should have been, at the time of Mayer’s observation, where he places his 964th star. The volume of 1787 gives you Mayer’s catalogue of the zodiacal stars. The researches of the natural philosophers of Europe seem mostly in the field of chemistry, and here, principally, on the subjects of air and fire. The analysis of these two subjects presents to us very new ideas. When speaking of the Bibliothèque Physico-oeconomique, T should have observed, that since its publication, a man in this city has invented a method of moving a vessel on the water, by a machine worked within the vessel. I went to see it. He did not know himself the principle of his own invention. It is a screw with a very broad, thin worm, or rather it is a thin plate with its edge applied spirally round an axis. This being turned, operates on the air, as a screw does, and may be literally said to screw the vessel along: the thinness of the medium, and its want of resistance, occasion a loss of much of the force. The screw, I think, would be more effectual, if placed below the surface of the water. I very much suspect that a countrymen of ours, Mr. Bushnel of Connecticut, is entitled to the merit of a prior discovery of this use of the screw. I remember to have heard of his submarine navigation during the war, and, from what Colonel Humphreys now tells me, I conjecture that the screw was the power he used. He joined to this a machine for exploding under water at a given moment. If it were not too great a liberty for a stranger to take, I would ask from him a narration of his actual experiments, with or without a communication of his principle, as he should choose. If he thought proper to communicate it, I would engage never to disclose it, unless I could find an opportunity of doing it for his benefit. I thank you for your information as to the greatest bones found on the Hudson river. I suspect that they must have been of the same animal with those found on the Ohio: and if so, they could not have belonged to any human figure, because they are accompanied with tusks of the size, form, and substance of those of the elephant. I have seen a part of the ivory, which was very good. The animal itself must have been much larger than an elephant. Mrs. Adams gives me an account of a flower found in Connecticut, which vegetates when suspended in the air. She brought one to Europe. What can be this flower? It would be a curious present to this continent.
I've long put off the honor of writing to you, hoping for a chance to send my letter along with a copy of the Bibliothèque Physico-oeconomique, a recently published book in four small volumes that covers all the improvements in the arts made in recent years. I believe you will find many enjoyable and useful things in it. I'm also including the volumes of the Connoissance des Temps for the years 1781, 1784, 1785, 1786, and 1787. You might wonder why I'm sending you old almanacs, which are typically seen as useless. It’s because these publications have featured some of the most valuable information in astronomy over time. I've searched for those specific volumes that might be beneficial to you for this reason. The volume from 1781 contains De la Caillie’s catalogue of fixed stars updated to the beginning of that year, along with a table of the aberrations and nutations of major stars. The 1784 volume has the same catalogue plus Messier's nébuleuses. The 1785 volume includes the famous Flamsteed catalogue with the positions of stars reduced to the start of 1784, effectively replacing the need for that vast book. The 1786 volume offers corrected lunar tables by Euler, and the 1787 volume presents tables for the planet Herschel. The last two volumes don't need an apology, as they fall outside the usual definition of old almanacs. It's well established that the planet Herschel was spotted by Mayer in 1756 and was thought to be one of the zodiacal stars, listed as the 964th in his catalogue. This 964th star from Mayer has since gone missing, and calculations for the planet Herschel indicate it should have been where Mayer placed his 964th star. The 1787 volume provides Mayer’s catalogue of the zodiacal stars. The research of European natural philosophers mostly focuses on chemistry, especially regarding air and fire. The analysis of these two subjects brings us some very new ideas. When discussing the Bibliothèque Physico-oeconomique, I should mention that since its publication, someone in this city has invented a method to move a vessel on water using a machine inside it. I had the chance to see it. He didn’t even know the principle behind his invention. It’s a screw with a wide, thin worm, or more accurately, a thin plate spiraled around an axis. When turned, it works on the air like a screw and can literally be said to screw the vessel forward; however, the thinness of the medium and its lack of resistance cause a loss of much of the force. I believe the screw would be more effective if placed below the water's surface. I suspect that one of our countrymen, Mr. Bushnel from Connecticut, deserves credit for an earlier discovery of this application of the screw. I recall hearing about his underwater navigation during the war, and based on what Colonel Humphreys tells me now, I suspect that the screw was the power he used. He also had a machine for underwater explosions at a predetermined moment. If it wouldn’t be too presumptuous for a stranger, I would like to ask him to share details of his actual experiments, with or without revealing his principle, at his discretion. If he decided to share it, I would promise never to disclose it unless I found a way to do so for his benefit. Thank you for the information regarding the largest bones found in the Hudson River. I suspect they belong to the same creature as those discovered in the Ohio River; if that’s true, they couldn’t have belonged to any human form, as they are found alongside tusks that are the size, shape, and material of elephant tusks. I’ve seen some of the ivory, and it was very fine. The creature itself must have been much larger than an elephant. Mrs. Adams has told me about a flower found in Connecticut that grows when suspended in the air. She brought one to Europe. What could this flower be? It would make a fascinating gift to this continent.
The accommodation likely to take place between the Dutch and the Emperor, leaves us without that unfortunate resource for news, which wars give us. The Emperor has certainly had in view the Bavarian exchange of which you have heard; but so formidable an opposition presented itself, that he has thought proper to disavow it. The Turks show a disposition to go to war with him; but if this country can prevail on them to remain in peace, they will do so. It has been thought that the two Imperial courts have a plan of expelling the Turks from Europe. It is really a pity, so charming a country should remain in the hands of a people, whose religion forbids the admission of science and the arts among them. We should wish success to the object of the two empires, if they meant to leave the country in possession of the Greek inhabitants. We might then expect, once more, to see the language of Homer and Demosthenes a living language. For I am persuaded the modern Greek would easily get back to its classical models. But this is not intended. They only propose to put the Greeks under other masters; to substitute one set of barbarians for another.
The agreement likely happening between the Dutch and the Emperor leaves us without that unfortunate source of news that wars provide. The Emperor has definitely considered the Bavarian exchange that you've heard about, but such strong opposition has come up that he has decided to deny it. The Turks seem ready to go to war with him; however, if this country can convince them to stay peaceful, they will. It's been suggested that the two Imperial courts have a plan to push the Turks out of Europe. It's really a shame that such a beautiful country remains under the control of a people whose religion prevents them from embracing science and the arts. We would wish success to the goals of the two empires if they intended to leave the country in the hands of the Greek inhabitants. Then we might expect to see the language of Homer and Demosthenes come back to life. I believe modern Greek could easily return to its classical roots. But that's not what is intended. They only plan to put the Greeks under different rulers, swapping one group of barbarians for another.
Colonel Humphreys having satisfied you that all attempts would be fruitless here, to obtain money or other advantages for your college, I need add nothing on that head. It is a method of supporting colleges of which they have no idea, though they practise it for the support of their lazy monkish institutions.
Colonel Humphreys has convinced you that all efforts to get money or other benefits for your college here would be pointless, so I won’t say anything more about that. It's a way of funding colleges that they have no understanding of, even though they use it to support their idle monastic institutions.
I have the honor to be, with the highest respect and esteem, Sir,
I’m honored to be writing to you, with the utmost respect and admiration, Sir,
your most obedient
your most devoted
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER LXXIX.—TO JOHN ADAMS, July 28, 1785
TO JOHN ADAMS.
Paris, July 28, 1785.
Paris, July 28, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
Your favors of Jury the 16th and 18th came to hand the same day on which I had received Baron Thulemeyer’s, enclosing the ultimate draught for the treaty. As this draught, which was in French, was to be copied into the two instruments which Dr. Franklin had signed, it is finished this day only. Mr. Short sets out immediately. I have put into his hands a letter of instructions how to conduct himself, which I have signed, leaving a space above for your signature. The two treaties I have signed at the left hand, Dr. Franklin having informed me that the signatures are read backwards. Besides the instructions to Mr. Short, I signed also a letter to. Mr. Dumas, associating him with Mr. Short. These two letters I made out as nearly conformably as I could, to your ideas expressed in your letter of the 18th. If any thing more be necessary, be so good as to make a separate instruction for them, signed by yourself, to which I will accede. I have not directed Mr. Dumas’s letter. I have heretofore directed to him as ‘Agent for the United States at the Hague,’ that being the description under which the journals of Congress speak of him. In his last letter to me, is a paragraph, from which I conclude that the address I have used is not agreeable, and perhaps may be wrong. Will you be so good as to address the letter to him, and to inform me how to address him hereafter. Mr. Short carries also the other papers necessary. His equipment for his journey requiring expenses which cannot come into the account of ordinary expenses, such as clothes, &,c. what allowance should be made him? I have supposed somewhere between a guinea a day, and one thousand dollars a year, which I believe is the salary of a private secretary. This I mean as over and above his travelling expenses. Be so good as to say, and I will give him an order on his return. The danger of robbery has induced me to furnish him with only money enough to carry him to London. You will be so good as to procure him enough to carry him to the Hague and back to Paris. The confederation of the King of Prussia with some members of the Germanic body, for the preservation of their constitution, is, I think, beyond a doubt. The Emperor has certainly complained of it in formal communications at several courts. By what can be collected from diplomatic conversation here, I also conclude it tolerably certain, that the Elector of Hanover has been invited to accede to the confederation, and has done or is doing so. You will have better circumstances however, on the spot, to form a just judgment. Our matters with the first of these powers being now in conclusion, I wish it was so with the Elector of Hanover. I conclude, from the general expressions in your letter, that little may be expected. Mr. Short furnishing so safe a conveyance that the trouble of the cipher may me dispensed with, I will thank you for such details of what has passed, as may not be too troublesome to you.
Your letters from June 16th and 18th arrived on the same day I received Baron Thulemeyer’s letter, which included the final draft of the treaty. Since this draft, written in French, needed to be copied into the two documents that Dr. Franklin signed, I just finished it today. Mr. Short is leaving right away. I've given him a letter with instructions on how to conduct himself, which I’ve signed, leaving space above for your signature. I’ve signed the two treaties on the left side since Dr. Franklin told me the signatures are read backwards. In addition to the instructions for Mr. Short, I also signed a letter to Mr. Dumas to associate him with Mr. Short. I tried to align these two letters as closely as possible with your ideas expressed in your letter from the 18th. If anything else is needed, please prepare a separate instruction for them, signed by you, and I will agree to it. I haven't addressed Mr. Dumas's letter. Previously, I've addressed him as "Agent for the United States at the Hague," which is how Congress refers to him. In his last letter to me, he included a paragraph that makes me think the address I've used is not suitable and could be incorrect. Please address the letter to him and let me know how to address him in the future. Mr. Short is also taking the other necessary papers. His travel preparations will incur expenses that go beyond the ordinary, like clothing, etc. How much should I allow him? I thought about somewhere between a guinea a day and one thousand dollars a year, which I believe is the salary for a private secretary. This is meant to be in addition to his travel expenses. Please let me know, and I’ll give him an order upon his return. Due to the risk of theft, I’ve only given him enough money to get to London. Please ensure he has enough to travel to the Hague and back to Paris. The alliance between the King of Prussia and some members of the Germanic body to preserve their constitution seems certain to me. The Emperor has definitely complained about it in formal communications at various courts. From what I can gather from diplomatic discussions here, it also seems fairly certain that the Elector of Hanover has been invited to join the confederation and is either doing so or has already done it. However, you'll be in a better position to make an accurate judgment. I wish our dealings with the first of these powers were coming to a close, as I hope they are with the Elector of Hanover. From the general tone of your letter, I assume not much can be expected. Since Mr. Short provides such a secure means of communication that we can skip the cipher, I would appreciate any details of what has happened that you can share, as long as it’s not too much trouble.
The difficulties of getting books into Paris, delayed for some time my receipt of the Corps Diplomatique left by Dr. Franklin. Since that, we have been engaged with expediting Mr. Short. A huge packet also, brought by Mr. Mazzei, has added to the causes which have as yet prevented me from examining Dr. Franklin’s notes on the Barbary treaty. It shall be one of my first occupations. Still the possibility is too obvious that we may run counter to the instructions of Congress, of which Mr. Lambe is said to be the bearer. There is a great impatience in America for these treaties. I am much distressed between this impatience and the known will of Congress, on the one hand, and the uncertainty of the details committed to this tardy servant.
The challenges of getting books into Paris delayed my receipt of the Corps Diplomatique from Dr. Franklin for a while. Since then, we've been focused on getting Mr. Short ready. A large package also brought by Mr. Mazzei has contributed to the reasons why I haven't yet been able to review Dr. Franklin’s notes on the Barbary treaty. I'll make that one of my top priorities. Still, it's clear that we might go against Congress's instructions, which Mr. Lambe is reportedly carrying. There's a lot of impatience in America for these treaties. I'm feeling very torn between this impatience and Congress's known wishes, on one side, and the uncertainty of the details in the hands of this slow worker.
The Duke of Dorset sets out for London to-morrow. He says he shall be absent two months. There is some whisper that he will not return, and that, Lord Carmarthen wishes to come here. I am sorry to lose so honest a man as the Duke. I take the liberty to ask an answer about the insurance of Houdon’s life.
The Duke of Dorset is heading to London tomorrow. He says he’ll be gone for two months. There are rumors that he might not come back, and that Lord Carmarthen wants to take his place. I’m sad to see such an honest man as the Duke leave. I’d like to request an update regarding the insurance on Houdon’s life.
Congress is not likely to adjourn this summer. They have passed an ordinance for selling their lands. I have not received it.
Congress is probably not going to take a break this summer. They’ve approved a plan to sell their lands. I haven’t received it.
What would you think of the enclosed draught to be proposed to the courts of London and Versailles? I would add Madrid and Lisbon, but that they are still more desperate than the others. I know it goes beyond our powers; and beyond the powers of Congress too; but it is so evidently for the good of all the States, that I should not be afraid to risk myself on it, if you are of the same opinion. Consider it, if you please, and give me your thoughts on it by Mr. Short: but I do not communicate it to him, nor any other mortal living but yourself.
What do you think of the enclosed draft to be proposed to the courts of London and Versailles? I would also include Madrid and Lisbon, but they're in even worse shape than the others. I know it goes beyond our powers; and beyond the powers of Congress too; but it's so clearly for the benefit of all the States that I wouldn't hesitate to take a risk on it, if you agree. Please think it over and share your thoughts with me through Mr. Short: but I'm not sharing it with him or anyone else but you.
Be pleased to present me in the most friendly terms to the ladies, and believe me to be, with great esteem,
Be sure to introduce me in the friendliest way to the ladies, and know that I hold you in high regard.
Dear Sir, your friend and servant,
Dear Sir, your friend and servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Jefferson.
LETTER LXXX.—TO HOGENDORP, July 29, 1785
TO HOGENDORP.
To Hogendorp.
Paris, July 29, 1785.
Paris, July 29, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
By an American gentleman who went to the Hague, about a month ago, I sent you a copy of my Notes on Virginia. Having since that received some copies of the revisal of our laws, of which you had desired one, I now send it to you. I congratulate you sincerely on the prospect of your country’s being freed from the menace of war, which, however just, is always expensive and calamitous, and sometimes unsuccessful.
By an American gentleman who traveled to The Hague about a month ago, I sent you a copy of my Notes on Virginia. Since then, I received some copies of the revision of our laws, which you had asked for, and I'm sending it to you now. I sincerely congratulate you on the prospect of your country being freed from the threat of war, which, while just, is always costly and disastrous, and can sometimes end in failure.
Congress, having made a very considerable purchase of land from the Indians, have established a land office, and settled the mode of selling the lands. Their plan is judicious. I apprehend some inconveniences in some parts of it; but if such should be found to exist, they will amend them. They receive in payment their own certificates, at par with actual money. We have a proof the last year, that the failure of the States to bring money into the treasury, has proceeded, not from any unwillingness, but from the distresses of their situation. Heretofore, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania had brought in the most money, and Virginia was among the least. The last year, Virgjnia has paid in more than all the rest together. The reason is, that she is at liberty to avail herself of her natural resources and has free markets for them; whereas the others which, while they were sure of a sale for their commodities, brought more into the treasury; now, that that sale is, by circumstances, rendered more precarious, they bring in but little.
Congress, after making a significant land purchase from the Native Americans, has set up a land office and established a way to sell the land. Their approach is sensible. I have some concerns about certain aspects of it; however, if any issues arise, they will address them. They accept their own certificates as payment, treated equally to actual cash. Last year showed us that the inability of the States to contribute money to the treasury was due not to unwillingness, but to the hardships they faced. In the past, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania contributed the most money, while Virginia contributed the least. Last year, Virginia paid in more than all the others combined. The reason is that Virginia can leverage its natural resources and has open markets for them, while the other states, although they used to have guaranteed sales for their goods, are now contributing very little because those sales have become uncertain due to the circumstances.
The impost is not yet granted. Rhode Island and New York hold off. Congress have it in contemplation to propose to the States, that the direction of all their commerce shall be committed to Congress, reserving to the States, respectively, the revenue which shall be laid on it. The operations of our good friends, the English, are calculated as precisely to bring the States into this measure as if we directed them ourselves, and as they were, through the whole war, to produce that union which was so necessary for us. I doubt whether Congress will adjourn this summer.
The tax hasn't been approved yet. Rhode Island and New York are holding back. Congress is considering proposing to the states that they give control of all their commerce to Congress, while allowing each state to keep the revenue generated from it. The actions of our good friends, the English, seem designed to push the states into this decision as if we were directing them ourselves, just like during the whole war when their actions were aimed at creating the unity we needed. I'm not sure if Congress will take a break this summer.
Should you be at the Hague, I will beg leave to make known to you bearer hereof, M, William Short. He of Virginia, has come to stay some time with me at Paris being among my most particular friends. Though young, his talents and merit are such as to have placed him in the Council of State of Virginia; an office which he relinquished to make a visit to Europe.
If you're in The Hague, I want to introduce you to the person carrying this, Mr. William Short. He’s from Virginia and is going to be staying with me in Paris for a while, as he is one of my closest friends. Even though he is young, his skills and accomplishments have already earned him a spot in the Virginia Council of State; he gave that up to take a trip to Europe.
I have the honor to be, with very high esteem, Dear Sir,
I am honored to be, with great respect, Dear Sir,
your most obedient
your most obedient servant
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Th: Jefferson.
LETTER LXXXI.—TO MESSRS. N. AND J. VAN STAPHORST, July 30, 1785
TO MESSRS. N. AND J. VAN STAPHORST, Amsterdam.
Paris, July 30, 1785.
Paris, July 30, 1785.
Gentlemen,
Gentlemen,
I received yesterday your favor of the 25th. Supposing that the funds, which are the object of your inquiry, are those which constitute what we call our domestic debt, it is my opinion that they are absolutely secure: I have no doubt at all but that they will be paid, with their interest at six per cent. But I cannot say that they are as secure and solid as the funds which constitute our foreign debt: because no man in America ever entertained a doubt that our foreign debt is to be paid fully; but some people in America have seriously contended, that the certificates and other evidences of our domestic debt, ought to be redeemed only at what they have cost the holder; for I must observe to you, that these certificates of domestic debt, having as yet no provision for the payment of principal or interest, and the original holders being mostly needy, have been sold at a very great discount. When I left America (July, 1784,) they sold in different States at from 15s. to 2s. 6d. in the pound; and any amount of them might, then have been purchased. Hence some thought that full justice would be done, if the public paid the purchasers of them what they actually paid for them, and interest on that. But this is very far from being a general opinion; a very great majority being firmly decided that they shall be paid fully. Were I the holder of any of them, I should not have the least fear of their full payment. There is also a difference between different species of certificates; some of them being receivable in taxes, others having the benefit of particular assurances, &c. Again, some of these certificates are for paper-money debts. A deception here must be guarded against. Congress ordered all such to be re-settled by the depreciation tables, and a new certificate to be given in exchange for them, expressing their value in real money. But all have not yet been re-settled. In short, this is a science in which few in America are expert, and no person in a foreign country can be so. Foreigners should therefore be sure that they are well advised, before they meddle with them, or they may suffer. If you will reflect with what degree of success persons actually in America could speculate in the European funds, which rise and fall daily, you may judge how far those in Europe may do it in the American funds, which are more variable from a variety of causes.
I received your letter from the 25th yesterday. If the funds you're asking about refer to what we call our domestic debt, I believe they are completely secure. I'm confident they will be paid back, along with interest at six percent. However, I can't say they are as secure and solid as the funds that make up our foreign debt; no one in America doubts that our foreign debt will be fully paid. Some people in America have argued that the certificates and other evidence of our domestic debt should only be redeemed for what the holders originally paid for them. I should note that these domestic debt certificates currently have no arrangement for paying back the principal or interest, and most original holders are in financial need, so they sold at a significant discount. When I left America in July 1784, they were selling in various states for between 15 shillings to 2 shillings and 6 pence per pound; and any amount could have been purchased at that time. Because of this, some believed it would be fair for the government to pay those who bought them what they actually paid, plus interest. But this isn't the general consensus; the vast majority believe they should be paid in full. If I held any of them, I wouldn't worry at all about receiving full payment. There are also differences among the types of certificates; some can be used to pay taxes, while others have specific guarantees, etc. Additionally, some of these certificates are for paper-money debts. We need to be cautious of confusion here. Congress ordered all such debts to be adjusted using depreciation tables, and a new certificate should be issued in exchange, reflecting their value in real money. However, not all of them have been adjusted yet. In short, this is a complex issue in which few in America are well-versed, and no one from a foreign country can fully understand. Foreigners should make sure they have good advice before getting involved with them or they might face losses. If you consider how successfully people actually residing in America can speculate on European funds, which fluctuate daily, you can imagine how challenging it would be for those in Europe to do the same with American funds, which are even more unstable for various reasons.
I am not at all acquainted with Mr. Daniel Parker, farther than having once seen him in Philadelphia. He is of Massachusetts, I believe, and I am of Virginia. His circumstances are utterly unknown to me. I think there are few men in America, if there is a single one, who could command a hundred thousand pounds’ sterling worth of these notes, at their real value. At their nominal amount, this might be done perhaps with twenty-five thousand pounds sterling, if the market price of them be as low as when I left America. I am with very great respect, Gentlemen,
I don't really know Mr. Daniel Parker, other than having seen him once in Philadelphia. I believe he's from Massachusetts, while I'm from Virginia. I have no idea what his financial situation is. I think there are very few people in America, if any, who could actually gather a hundred thousand pounds sterling worth of these notes at their true value. At their face value, it might be possible to do this with about twenty-five thousand pounds sterling, assuming the market price is as low as it was when I left America. I remain, with great respect, Gentlemen,
your most obedient, humble servant,
your devoted and humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER LXXXII.—TO JOHN ADAMS, July 31, 1785
TO JOHN ADAMS.
To John Adams.
Paris, July 31, 1785.
Paris, July 31, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Dear [Name],
I was honored yesterday with yours of the 24th instant. When the first article of our instructions of May 7th, 1784, was under debate in Congress, it was proposed that neither party should make the other pay, in their ports, greater duties, than they paid in the ports of the other. One objection to this was, its impracticability; another, that it would put it out of our power to lay such duties on alien importation as might encourage importation by natives. Some members, much attached to English policy, thought such a distinction should actually be established. Some thought the power to do it should be reserved, in case any peculiar circumstances should call for it, though under the present, or perhaps, any probable circumstances, they did not think it would be good policy ever to exercise it. The footing gentis amicissimæ was therefore adopted, as you see in the instruction. As far as my inquiries enable me to judge, France and Holland make no distinction of duties between aliens and natives. I also rather believe that the other states of Europe make none, England excepted, to whom this policy, as that of her navigation act, seems peculiar. The question then is, should we disarm ourselves of the power to make this distinction against all nations, in order to purchase an exemption from the alien duties in England only; for if we put her importations on the footing of native, all other nations with whom we treat will have a right to claim the same. I think we should, because against other nations, who make no distinction in their ports between us and their own subjects, we ought not to make a distinction in ours. And if the English will agree, in like manner, to make none, we should, with equal reason, abandon the right as against them. I think all the world would gain, by setting commerce at perfect liberty. I remember that when we were digesting the general form of our treaty, this proposition to put foreigners and natives on the same footing, was considered: and we were all three, Dr. Franklin as well as you and myself, in favor of it. We finally, however, did not admit it, partly from the objection you mention, but more still on account of our instructions. But though the English proclamation had appeared in America at the time of framing these instructions, I think its effect, as to alien duties, had not yet been experienced, and therefore was not attended to. If it had been noted in the debate, I am sure that the annihilation of our whole trade would have been thought too great a price to pay for the reservation of a barren power, which a majority of the members did not propose ever to exercise, though they were willing to retain it. Stipulating for equal rights to foreigners and natives, we obtain more in foreign ports than our instructions required, and we only part with, in our own ports, a power, of which sound policy would probably for ever forbid the exercise. Add to this, that our treaty will be for a very short term, and if any evil be experienced under it, a reformation will soon be in our power. I am, therefore, for putting this among our original propositions to the court of London.
I was honored yesterday to receive your letter from the 24th. When we discussed the first article of our instructions from May 7th, 1784, in Congress, it was suggested that neither party should charge higher duties in their ports than those charged in the ports of the other. One concern about this was that it wasn't practical; another was that it would limit our ability to impose duties on foreign imports that might encourage domestic importation. Some members, who were very loyal to English policies, believed we should actually establish such a distinction. Others felt we should keep the power to do this in case any specific circumstances warranted it, though they didn't think it would be wise to use it under the current or likely future circumstances. Therefore, we adopted the principle of treating gentis amicissimæ, as you can see in the instructions. From what I can tell, France and Holland do not differentiate in duties between foreigners and locals. I also believe that the other European states, except for England, do not make such distinctions either. The real question is, should we give up our ability to make this distinction against all nations just to avoid alien duties in England? Because if we treat their imports like local ones, all other nations we negotiate with will claim the same treatment. I think we should agree to this because we shouldn't treat others differently when they don’t do so in their ports. If the English agree not to make distinctions too, we should reasonably give up our rights against them as well. I believe the whole world would benefit from free trade. I remember that when we were working on the general form of our treaty, we considered the proposal to treat foreigners and locals the same. All three of us—Dr. Franklin, you, and I—were in favor of it. However, we ultimately didn't include it, partly because of your mentioned objection but mostly due to our instructions. Even though the English proclamation had been issued in America when these instructions were created, I think its impact on alien duties had not yet been felt and was therefore overlooked. If it had been brought up during our discussions, I’m sure everyone would have thought that losing our entire trade wasn't worth keeping a power that most members didn’t intend to ever use, even if they wanted to retain it. By negotiating for equal rights for foreigners and locals, we gain more in foreign ports than our instructions required, while only giving up a power in our own ports that good policy would likely never allow us to use. Plus, our treaty will be for a very short duration, and if any issues arise, we can quickly make changes. Therefore, I think we should propose this to the court of London as part of our original proposals.
If it should prove an insuperable obstacle with them, or if it should stand in the way of a greater advantage, we can but abandon it in the course of the negotiation.
If it turns out to be an impossible barrier for them, or if it hinders a bigger benefit, we can only let it go during the negotiation.
In my copy of the cipher, on the alphabetical side, numbers are wanting from ‘Denmark’ to ‘disc’ inclusive, and from ‘gone’ to ‘governor’ inclusive. I suppose them to have been omitted in copying; will you be so good as to send them to me from yours, by the first safe conveyance.
In my copy of the cipher, on the alphabetical side, there are missing numbers from ‘Denmark’ to ‘disc’ inclusive, and from ‘gone’ to ‘governor’ inclusive. I think they were left out when copying; could you please send them to me from yours at your earliest convenience?
With compliments to the ladies and to Colonel Smith,
With compliments to the ladies and to Colonel Smith,
I am, dear Sir,
I am, dear Sir,
your friend and servant,
your friend and servant,
Th: Jefferson.*
Th: Jefferson.*
[* The original of this letter was in cipher. But annexed to the copy in cipher, is the above literal copy by the author.]
[* The original of this letter was in code. But attached to the coded copy is the above literal version by the author.]
LETTER LXXXIII.—TO M. DE CASTRIES, August 3,1785
TO M. DE CASTRIES.
To M. De Castries.
Paris, August 3,1785.
Paris, August 3, 1785.
Sir,
Dude,
The enclosed copy of a letter from Captain John Paul Jones, on the subject on which your Excellency did me the honor to write me, on the day of July, will inform you that there is still occasion to be troublesome to you. A Mr. Puchilburg, a merchant of L’Orient, who seems to have kept himself unknown till money was to be received, now presents powers to receive it, signed by the American officers and crews: and this produces a hesitation in the person to whom your order was directed. Congress, however, having substituted Captain Jones, as agent, to solicit and receive this money, he having given them security to forward it, when received, to their treasury, to be thence distributed to the claimants, and having at a considerable expense of time, trouble, and money, attended it to a conclusion, are circumstances of weight, against which Mr. Puchilburg seems to have nothing to oppose, but a nomination by individuals of the crew, under which he has declined to act, and permitted the business to be done by another without contradiction from him. Against him, too, it is urged that he fomented the sedition which took place among them, that he obtained this nomination from them while their minds were under ferment; and that he has given no security for the faithful payment of the money to those entitled to it.
The enclosed copy of a letter from Captain John Paul Jones, regarding the matter your Excellency honored me by writing about on that day in July, will let you know that there’s still an issue that might cause you some trouble. A Mr. Puchilburg, a merchant from L’Orient, who seems to have stayed under the radar until there was money to be collected, is now showing powers to receive it, signed by the American officers and crews. This is causing some hesitation in the person to whom your order was addressed. However, Congress has appointed Captain Jones as the agent to request and collect this money, and he has provided them with a guarantee to send it to their treasury once received, for it to be distributed to those who are owed. He has invested a significant amount of time, effort, and money to bring this to a conclusion, which are serious factors against which Mr. Puchilburg has very little to counter, other than a nomination from some crew members, which he has chosen not to act on, allowing the matter to be handled by someone else without his opposition. Additionally, it is argued that he incited the unrest among them, that he received this nomination from them while they were in a state of turmoil, and that he has not provided any guarantee for the proper distribution of the money to those who are entitled to it.
I will add to these, one more circumstance which appears to render it impossible that he should execute this trust. It is now several years since the right to this money arose. The persons in whom it originally vested, were probably from different States in America. Many of them must be now dead; and their rights passed on to their representatives. But who are their representatives? The laws of some States prefer one degree of relations, those of others prefer another, there being no uniformity among the States on this point. Mr. Puchilberg, therefore, should know which of the parties are dead; in what order the laws of their respective States call their relations to the succession; and, in every case, which of those orders are actually in existence, and entitled to the share of the deceased. With the Atlantic ocean between the principals and their substitute, your Excellency will perceive what an inexhaustible source of difficulties, of chicanery, and delay, this might furnish to a person who should find an interest in keeping this money, as long as possible, in his own hands. Whereas, if it be lodged in the treasury of Congress, they, by an easy reference to the tribunals of the different States, can have every one’s portion immediately rendered to himself, if living; and if dead, to such of his relations as the laws of his particular State prefer, and as shall be found actually living. I the rather urge this course, as I foresee that it will relieve your Excellency from numberless appeals which these people will continually be making from the decisions of Mr. Puchilberg; appeals likely to perpetuate that trouble of which you have already had too much, and to which I am sorry to be obliged to add, by asking a peremptory order for the execution of what you were before pleased to decide, on this subject.
I want to add one more point that seems to make it impossible for him to carry out this responsibility. It’s been several years since the right to this money came about. The people who originally held this right were likely from different states in America. Many of them are probably deceased now, and their rights have passed on to their representatives. But who are those representatives? The laws in some states prioritize one level of relation, while others prioritize a different one, with no standardization among the states on this matter. Mr. Puchilberg should therefore find out who among the parties has died; in what order the laws of their respective states sequence their relatives for succession; and, in every case, which relatives are actually alive and entitled to the deceased's share. With the Atlantic Ocean separating the parties involved and their substitutes, your Excellency can see what an endless source of difficulties, deception, and delays this could create for someone who might have an interest in keeping this money in their own hands for as long as possible. On the other hand, if it’s placed in the treasury of Congress, they can easily refer to the courts of the various states to ensure each person’s share is quickly given to them if they are alive; and if they are deceased, it will go to the relatives that the laws of their specific state prioritize, as long as they are found to be alive. I emphasize this approach because I foresee that it will save your Excellency from countless appeals these people will make against Mr. Puchilberg's decisions; appeals that are likely to extend the issues you’ve already dealt with too much, and to which I regretfully add by requesting a firm order for the execution of what you previously decided on this topic.
I have the honor to be, with sentiments of the most perfect respect,
I am honored to express my deepest respect.
your Excellency’s most obedient
your Excellency’s most loyal
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER LXXXIV.—TO CAPTAIN JOHN PAUL JONES, August 3,1785
TO CAPTAIN JOHN PAUL JONES.
To Captain John Paul Jones.
Paris, August 3,1785.
Paris, August 3, 1785.
Sir,
Hey,
I received yesterday your favor of the 29th, and have written on the subject of it to the Maréchal de Castries this morning. You shall have an answer as soon as I receive one. Will you be so good as to make an inquiry into all the circumstances relative to Peyrouse’s expedition, which seem to ascertain his destination. Particularly what number of men, and of what conditions and vocations, had he on board? What animals, their species and number? What trees, plants, or seeds? What utensils? What merchandise or other necessaries? This inquiry should be made with as little appearance of interest in it as possible. Should you not be able to get satisfactory information without going to Brest, and it be inconvenient for you to go there, I will have the expenses, this shall occasion you, paid. Commit all the circumstances to writing, and bring them when you come yourself, or send them by a safe hand.
I got your message from the 29th yesterday and wrote to the Maréchal de Castries about it this morning. You'll get a reply as soon as I receive one. Could you please look into all the details regarding Peyrouse’s expedition that might clarify his destination? Specifically, how many men did he have on board, and what were their jobs and backgrounds? What animals did he have, including their species and numbers? What trees, plants, or seeds were included? What tools? What goods or other necessities? Try to gather this information with as little indication of interest as possible. If you can’t get satisfactory information without going to Brest and it’s inconvenient for you to go, I will cover any expenses you incur. Write down all the details and bring them when you come, or send them by a reliable person.
I am, with much respect, Sir,
I am, with great respect, Sir,
your most obedient, humble servant,
your devoted, humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER LXXXV.—TO JOHN ADAMS, August 6, 1785
TO JOHN ADAMS.
TO JOHN ADAMS.
Paris, August 6, 1785.
Paris, August 6, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
I now enclose you a draught of a treaty for the Barbary States, together with the notes Dr. Franklin left me. I have retained a press copy of this draught, so that by referring to any article, line, and word, in it, you can propose amendments and send them by the post, without any body’s being able to make much of the main subject. I shall be glad to receive any alterations you may think necessary, as soon as convenient, that this matter may be in readiness. I enclose also a letter containing intelligence from Algiers. I know not how far it is to be relied on. My anxiety is extreme indeed, as to these treaties. We know that Congress have decided ultimately to treat. We know how far they will go. But unfortunately we know also, that a particular person has been charged with instructions for us, these five months, who neither comes nor writes to us. What are we to do? It is my opinion that if Mr. Lambe does not come in either of the packets (English or French) now expected, we ought to proceed. I therefore propose to you this term, as the end of our expectations of him, and that if he does not come, we send some other person. Dr. Bancroft or Captain Jones occurs to me as the fittest. If we consider the present object only, I think the former would be the most proper: but if we look forward to the very probable event of war with those pirates, an important object would be obtained by Captain Jones’s becoming acquainted with their ports, force, tactics, &c. Let me know your opinion on this. I have never mentioned it to either, but I suppose either might be induced to go. Present me affectionately to the ladies and Colonel Smith, and be assured of the sincerity with which I am,
I’m enclosing a draft of a treaty for the Barbary States, along with the notes Dr. Franklin left me. I have kept a copy of this draft, so you can refer to any article, line, or word to suggest changes and send them through the mail without anyone being able to figure out the main topic. I’d appreciate any revisions you think are necessary as soon as it’s convenient, so we can move forward with this matter. I’m also enclosing a letter with updates from Algiers. I’m not sure how reliable it is. I'm really worried about these treaties. We know that Congress has decided to negotiate. We understand how far they’re willing to go. Unfortunately, we also know that someone has had instructions for us for the past five months, and they haven’t come or written to us. What should we do? I believe that if Mr. Lambe doesn’t arrive in either of the expected packets (English or French), we should move ahead. Therefore, I suggest a deadline for our expectations of him, and if he doesn’t show up, we should send someone else. Dr. Bancroft or Captain Jones seems like the best options. If we only consider the current goal, I think Dr. Bancroft would be most suitable; however, if we anticipate a likely war with those pirates, it would be beneficial for Captain Jones to be familiar with their ports, forces, tactics, etc. Let me know what you think. I haven’t mentioned this to either of them, but I think either might be persuaded to go. Please send my warm regards to the ladies and Colonel Smith, and know that I am truly,
Dear Sir, your friend and servant,
Dear Sir, your friend and servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER LXXXVI.—TO DR. PRICE, August 7,1785
TO DR. PRICE.
To Dr. Price.
Paris, August 7,1785.
Paris, August 7, 1785.
Sir,
Sir,
Your favor of July the 2nd came duly to hand. The concern you therein express as to the effect of your pamphlet in America, induces me to trouble you with some observations on that subject. From my acquaintance with that country, I think I am able to judge, with some degree of certainty, of the manner in which it will have been received. Southward of the Chesapeake it will find but few readers concurring with it in sentiment, on the subject of slavery. From the mouth to the head of the Chesapeake, the bulk of the people will approve it in theory, and it will find a respectable minority ready to adopt it in practice; a minority, which, for weight and worth of character, preponderates against the greater number, who have not the courage to divest their families of a property, which, however, keeps their consciences unquiet. Northward of the Chesapeake, you may find here and there an opponent to your doctrine, as you may find here and there a robber and murderer; but in no greater number. In that part of America, there being but few slaves, they can easily disencumber themselves of them; and emancipation is put into such a train, that in a few years there will be no slaves northward of Maryland. In Maryland, I do not find such a disposition to begin the redress of this enormity, as in Virginia. This is the next State to which we may turn our eyes for the interesting spectacle of justice, in conflict with avarice and oppression: a conflict wherein the sacred side is gaining daily recruits, from the influx into office of young men grown and growing up. These have sucked in the principles of liberty, as it were, with their mothers’ milk; and it is to them I look with anxiety to turn the fate of this question. Be not therefore discouraged. What you have written will do a great deal of good: and could you still trouble yourself with our welfare, no man is more able to give aid to the laboring side. The College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, since the re-modelling of its plan, is the place where are collected together all the young men of Virginia, under preparation for public life. They are there under the direction (most of them) of a Mr. Wythe, one of the most virtuous of characters, and whose sentiments on the subject of slavery are unequivocal. I am satisfied, if you could resolve to address an exhortation to those young men, with all that eloquence of which you are master, that its influence on the future decision of this important question would be great, perhaps decisive. Thus you see, that, so far from thinking you have cause to repent of what you have done, I wish you to do more, and wish it on an assurance of its effect. The information I have received from America, of the reception of your pamphlet in the different States, agrees with the expectations I had formed.
Your letter from July 2nd arrived as expected. Your concerns about the impact of your pamphlet in America lead me to share some thoughts on that topic. Based on my experience with that country, I believe I can assess, with some confidence, how it will be received. South of the Chesapeake, there will be few readers who share your views on slavery. From the mouth to the head of the Chesapeake, most people will agree with your ideas in theory, and a respectable minority will be willing to adopt them in practice; this minority, in terms of influence and character, outweighs the larger group who lack the courage to free themselves from a system that disturbs their conscience. North of the Chesapeake, you might find some people opposed to your views, just as you might encounter a few robbers and murderers; but in no greater numbers. In that part of America, there are very few slaves, so they can easily free themselves from that situation; and the movement toward emancipation is progressing, so that in a few years there will be no slaves north of Maryland. In Maryland, I don't see as much willingness to address this issue as in Virginia. This is the next state we can look to for the compelling scene of justice battling against greed and oppression: a struggle in which the righteous side is gaining more supporters every day, thanks to the influx of young people into positions of power. They have absorbed the principles of liberty almost with their mother's milk; and I anxiously hope they will shape the outcome of this debate. So do not be discouraged. What you have written will have a significant impact, and if you can still concern yourself with our welfare, no one is better positioned to support the cause for justice. The College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, since its restructuring, is where all the young men of Virginia are gathering to prepare for public life. Most of them are under the guidance of Mr. Wythe, a man of outstanding character, whose views on slavery are clear. I am convinced that if you could address an appeal to those young men, using your remarkable eloquence, it would greatly influence the future resolution of this critical issue, perhaps even decisively. So you see, rather than feeling regret for what you have done, I encourage you to do more, with confidence in its effects. The information I’ve received about the reception of your pamphlet across different states in America matches my expectations.
Our country is getting into a ferment against yours, or rather has caught it from yours. God knows how this will end; but assuredly in one extreme or the other. There can be no medium between those who have loved so much. I think the decision is in your power as yet, but will not be so long.
Our country is stirring up conflict with yours, or rather has caught it from yours. Only God knows how this will end; but it will definitely result in one extreme or the other. There’s no middle ground for those who have loved so deeply. I believe the choice is still in your hands, but it won’t be for much longer.
I pray you to be assured of the sincerity of the esteem and respect, with which I have the honor to be, Sir,
I assure you of the sincerity of the esteem and respect that I have for you, Sir,
your most obedient,
yours truly,
humble servant,
humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER LXXXVII.—TO JOHN ADAMS, August 10,1785
TO JOHN ADAMS.
TO JOHN ADAMS.
Paris, August 10,1785.
Paris, August 10, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Dear [Name],
Your favor of the 4th instant came to hand yesterday. I now enclose you the two Arrêts against the importation of foreign manufactures into this kingdom. The cause of the balance against this country in favor of England, as well as its amount, is not agreed on. No doubt, the rage for English manufactures must be a principal cause. The speculators in exchange say, also, that those of the circumjacent countries, who have a balance in their favor against France, remit that balance to England from France. If so, it is possible that the English may count this balance twice: that is, in summing their exports to one of these States, and their imports from it, they count the difference once in their favor; then a second time, when they sum the remittances of cash they receive from France. There has been no Arrêt relative to our commerce, since that of August, 1784. And all the late advices from the French West Indies are, that they have now in their ports always three times as many vessels as there ever were before, and that the increase is principally from our States. I have now no further fears of that Arrêts standing its ground. When it shall become firm, I do not think its extension desperate. But whether the placing it on the firm basis of treaty be practicable, is a very different question. As far as it is possible to judge from appearances, I conjecture that Crawford will do nothing. I infer this from some things in his conversation, and from an expression of the Count de Vergennes, in a conversation with me yesterday. I pressed upon him the importance of opening their ports freely to us, in the moment of the oppressions of the English regulations against us, and perhaps of the suspension of their commerce. He admitted it; but said we had free ingress with our productions. I enumerated them to him, and showed him on what footing they were, and how they might be improved. We are to have further conversations on the subject. I am afraid the voyage to Fontainebleau will interrupt them. From the inquiries I have made, I find I cannot get a very small and indifferent house there, for the season, (that is, for a month) for less than one hundred or one hundred and fifty guineas. This is nearly the whole salary for the time, and would leave nothing to eat. I therefore cannot accompany the court thither, but I will endeavor to go there occasionally from Paris.
Your letter from the 4th arrived yesterday. I’m now sending you the two Arrêts that prohibit the importation of foreign goods into this country. There’s disagreement about the reasons for the unfavorable balance against us, favoring England, as well as its amount. It’s clear that the passion for English products is a major factor. Speculators in currency also claim that those from neighboring countries, who have a favorable balance against France, are sending that balance to England from France. If this is true, it’s possible that the English are counting this balance twice: once when they total their exports to one of these States and imports from it, and then a second time when they account for the cash remittances they receive from France. There hasn’t been any Arrêt related to our trade since August 1784. Reports from the French West Indies indicate that they currently have three times as many ships in their ports as ever before, and that the increase mainly comes from our States. I no longer worry about that Arrêts being upheld. Once it becomes established, I don’t think extending it is impossible. However, whether it can be firmly established through a treaty is a different matter. From what I can gather, I suspect Crawford won't take any action. I get this impression from some of his comments and from something the Count de Vergennes said during a conversation with me yesterday. I emphasized to him how important it is to open their ports to us, especially during the oppressive English regulations against us and possibly the suspension of their trade. He acknowledged this but mentioned that we already have free access with our products. I listed them for him, explained their status, and how things could be improved. We’re scheduled to have more discussions about this. I'm concerned that the trip to Fontainebleau might disrupt them. From what I’ve found out, I can’t rent a small and mediocre place there for the season (which means a month) for less than one hundred or one hundred and fifty guineas. This nearly consumes my entire salary for that period, leaving nothing for food. Therefore, I won’t be able to accompany the court there, but I’ll try to visit occasionally from Paris.
They tell me it is the most favorable scene for business with the Count de Vergennes, because he is then more abstracted from the domestic applications. Count d’Aranda is not yet returned from the waters of Vichy. As soon as he returns, I will apply to him in the case of Mr. Watson. I will pray you to insure Houdon’s life from the 27th of last month till his return to Paris. As he was to stay in America a month or two, he will probably be about six months absent; but the three per cent, for the voyage being once paid, I suppose they will insure his life by the month, whether his absence be longer or shorter. The sum to be insured is fifteen thousand livres tournois. If it be not necessary to pay the money immediately, there is a prospect of exchange becoming more favorable. But whenever it is necessary, be so good as to procure it by selling a draft on Mr. Grand, which I will take care shall be honored. With compliments to the ladies,
They say it's the best time to talk business with Count de Vergennes since he's less focused on domestic matters. Count d’Aranda hasn't returned from the Vichy baths yet. As soon as he's back, I'll reach out to him about Mr. Watson. I’d like you to ensure Houdon’s life from the 27th of last month until he gets back to Paris. He was supposed to stay in America for a month or two, so he’ll likely be away for about six months. However, since the three percent for the journey is already paid, I assume they will insure his life monthly, regardless of how long he’s away. The amount to be insured is fifteen thousand livres tournois. If immediate payment isn't required, there’s a chance that exchange rates will improve. But whenever it’s needed, please arrange it by selling a draft on Mr. Grand, and I’ll make sure it’s honored. Best regards to the ladies,
I am, dear Sir, your friend and servant,
I am, dear Sir, your friend and servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER LXXXVIII.—TO MRS. SPROWLE, August 10, 1785
TO MRS. SPROWLE.
To Mrs. Sprowle.
Paris, August 10, 1785.
Paris, August 10, 1785.
Madam,
Ma'am,
In your letter of June the 21st, you asked my opinion whether yourself or your son might venture to go to Virginia, to claim your possessions there? I had the honor of writing you, on the 5th of July, that you might safely go there; that your person would be sacredly safe, and free from insult. I expressed my hopes, too, that the Assembly of Virginia would, in the end, adopt the just and useful measure of restoring property unsold, and the price of that actually sold. In yours of July the 30th, you entreat my influence with the Assembly for retribution, and that, if I think your personal presence in Virginia would facilitate that end, you were willing and ready to go. This seems to propose to me to take on myself the solicitation of your cause, and that you will go, if I think your personal presence will be auxiliary to my applications. I feel myself obliged to inform you frankly, that it is improper for me to solicit your case with the Assembly of Virginia. The application can only go with propriety from yourself, or the minister of your court to America, whenever there shall be one. If you think the sentiments expressed in my former letter will serve you, you are free to exhibit it to members individually; but I wish the letter not to be offered to the Assembly as a body, or referred to in any petition or memorial to them.
In your letter dated June 21st, you asked for my opinion on whether you or your son could safely go to Virginia to claim your property there. I had the honor of writing to you on July 5th, stating that you could go there without fear for your safety and would be free from insult. I also expressed my hope that the Virginia Assembly would ultimately adopt the fair and practical measure of restoring unsold property and reimbursing for what has been sold. In your letter of July 30th, you asked for my influence with the Assembly regarding compensation, and indicated that you were willing to go to Virginia if I thought your presence would help. This suggests to me that you want me to advocate for your cause, and you’re prepared to go if I believe it would support my efforts. I must honestly inform you that it would be inappropriate for me to directly advocate for your case with the Virginia Assembly. Such a request should properly come from you or the minister representing your court in America, when that position is filled. If you believe the points I made in my earlier letter will help you, you are welcome to share it with individual members, but I would prefer that it not be presented to the Assembly as a whole or referenced in any petition or memorial to them.
I am, with much respect, Madam,
I am, with great respect, ma'am,
your most obedient, humble servant,
your most loyal, humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Th: Jefferson.
LETTER LXXXIX.—TO CAPTAIN JOHN PAUL JONES, August 13, 1785
TO CAPTAIN JOHN PAUL JONES.
To Captain John Paul Jones.
Paris, August 13, 1785.
Paris, August 13, 1785.
Sir,
Sir,
Supposing you may be anxious to hear from hence, though there should be nothing interesting to communicate, I write by Mr. Cairnes merely to inform you, that I have, as yet, received no answer from the Marechal de Castries. I am in daily expectation of one. Should it not be received soon, I shall urge it again, which I wish to avoid however, if possible; because I think it better to await with patience a favorable decision, than by becoming importunate, to produce unfavorable dispositions, and, perhaps, a final determination of the same complexion. Should my occupations prevent my writing awhile, be assured that it will only be as long as I have nothing to communicate, and that as soon as I receive any answer, it shall be forwarded to you.
I understand you might be eager to hear from me, even if there's nothing exciting to share, so I'm writing through Mr. Cairnes just to let you know that I still haven't received a response from Marechal de Castries. I expect one any day now. If I don’t get it soon, I’ll follow up again, which I’d prefer to avoid if possible; I believe it's better to wait patiently for a positive response than to be pushy and risk creating a negative atmosphere, or even a final decision that’s unfavorable. If I happen to be too busy to write for a while, just know it’s only because I have nothing to share, and I’ll send you an update as soon as I hear anything.
I am, with much esteem, Sir,
I am, with great respect, Sir,
your most obedient, humble servant,
your obedient and humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XC.—TO MESSRS. BUCHANAN AND HAY, August 13, 1785
TO MESSRS. BUCHANAN AND HAY.
To Messrs. Buchanan and Hay.
Paris, August 13, 1785.
Paris, August 13, 1785.
Gentlemen,
Guys,
Your favor of March the 20th came to hand the 14th of June, and the next day I wrote to you, acknowledging the receipt, and apprizing you, that between that date and the 1st of August, it would be impossible to procure, and get to your hands, the drafts you desired. I did hope, indeed, to have had them prepared before this, but it will yet be some time before they will be in readiness. I flatter myself, however, they will give you satisfaction when you receive them, and that you will think the object will not have lost by the delay. It was a considerable time before I could find an architect whose taste had been formed on a study of the ancient models of his art: the style of architecture in this capital being far from chaste. I at length heard of one, to whom I immediately addressed myself, and who perfectly fulfils my wishes. He has studied twenty years in Rome, and has given proofs of his skill and taste, by a publication of some antiquities of this country. You intimate that you should be willing to have a workman sent to you to superintend the execution of this work. Were I to send one on this errand from hence, he would consider himself as the superintendant of the Directors themselves, and probably, of the government of the State also. I will give you my ideas on this subject. The columns of the building, and the external architraves of the doors and windows, should be of stone. Whether these are made here or there, you will need one good stone-cutter; and one will be enough; because, under his direction, negroes, who never saw a tool, will be able to prepare the work for him to finish. I will therefore send you such a one, in time to begin work in the spring. All the internal cornices, and other ornaments not exposed to the weather, will be much handsomer, cheaper, and more durable in plaister, than in wood. I will therefore employ a good workman in this way, and send him to you. But he will have no employment till the house is covered; of course he need not be sent till next summer. I will take him on wages so long before hand, as that he may draw all the ornaments in detail, under the eye of the architect, which he will have to execute when he comes to you. It will be the cheapest way of getting them drawn, and the most certain of putting him in possession of his precise duty. Plaister will not answer for your external cornice, and stone will be too dear. You will probably find yourselves obliged to be contented with wood. For this, therefore, and for your window sashes, doors, frames, wainscoting, &c. you will need a capital house-joiner; and a capital one he ought to be, capable of directing all the circumstances in the construction of the walls, which the execution of the plan will require. Such a workman cannot be got here. Nothing can be worse done than the house-joinery of Paris. Besides that his speaking the language perfectly would be essential, I think this character must be got from England. There are no workmen in wood, in Europe, comparable to those of England. I submit to you, therefore, the following proposition: to wit, I will get a correspondent in England to engage a workman of this kind. I will direct him to come here, which will cost five guineas. We will make proof of his execution. He shall also make, under the eye of the architect, all the drawings for the building, which he is to execute himself: and if we find him sober and capable, he shall be forwarded to you. I expect that in the article of the drawings, and the cheapness of passage from France, you will save the expense of his coming here. But as to this workman, I shall do nothing unless I receive your commands. With respect to your stone work, it may be got much cheaper here than in England. The stone of Paris is very white and beautiful; but it always remains soft, and suffers from the weather. The cliffs of the Seine, from hence to Havre, are all of stone. I am not yet informed whether it is all liable to the same objections. At Lyons, and all along the Rhone, is a stone as beautiful as that of Paris, soft when it comes out of the quarry, but very soon becoming hard in the open air, and very durable. I doubt, however, whether the commerce between Virginia and Marseilles would afford opportunities of conveyance sufficient. It remains to be inquired, what addition to the original cost would be made by the short land carriage from Lyons to the Loire, and the water transportation down that to Bordeaux;, and also, whether a stone of the same quality may not be found on the Loire. In this, and all other matters relative to your charge, you may command my services freely.
Your letter from March 20th reached me on June 14th, and the following day I wrote back to confirm I received it and to let you know that between then and August 1st, it would be impossible to get the drafts you wanted to you. I hoped to have them ready by now, but it will still be some time before they are prepared. However, I believe they will meet your expectations once you get them, and I hope the delay won’t diminish their value. It took me quite a while to find an architect who has studied the ancient models of his craft since the architecture style here is far from refined. Eventually, I found one who fits my needs perfectly. He has studied in Rome for twenty years and has proven his skills and taste through a publication of local antiquities. You mentioned that you'd be open to having someone sent to oversee the work. If I sent someone from here, they would likely see themselves as the overseer of the Directors and possibly the State government too. I’ll share my thoughts on this. The columns and the outer moldings of the doors and windows should be made of stone. Whether they are made here or there, you'll need one skilled stone-cutter; one will suffice because, under his guidance, workers who have never used tools can prepare the materials for him to finish. I will thus send you one in time for him to start work in the spring. All the interior moldings and other non-exposed decorations will look much nicer, be cheaper, and more durable in plaster than in wood. So, I’ll hire a good worker for that and send him to you—but he won’t be needed until the house is covered, so he won’t have to arrive until next summer. I’ll employ him ahead of time so he can draw all the details under the architect’s supervision, which he will execute once he arrives. It will be the most economical way to get them drawn and will clearly define his tasks. Plaster won’t work for your exterior cornice, and stone will be too expensive. So, you might have to settle for wood for that and for your window frames, doors, and wainscotting. You'll need a skilled carpenter, one who can manage all the specific requirements of the wall construction outlined in the design. Unfortunately, such a craftsman can’t be found here. The carpentry done in Paris is poorly executed. Additionally, it’s crucial that he speaks the language fluently, so I think this kind of worker should be sourced from England. There are no woodworkers in Europe that match the quality of those from England. Therefore, I propose this: I’ll find a contact in England to hire a suitable worker. I will instruct him to come here, which will cost five guineas. We’ll assess his work, and he will also create all the drawings for the project under the architect's oversight, which he’ll execute himself. If he proves to be skilled and reliable, I will send him to you. I believe the cost of the drawings and the affordable passage from France will offset his travel expenses. However, I won’t take any action regarding this worker without your go-ahead. Regarding your stonework, it can be obtained for much cheaper here than in England. The stone in Paris is very white and attractive but remains soft and suffers from the weather. The cliffs of the Seine from here to Havre are all stone. I'm unsure if it all has the same issues. In Lyons, and along the Rhone, there’s a stone as beautiful as Parisian stone; it starts soft but quickly hardens in the open air and is very durable. However, I'm not certain if the trade between Virginia and Marseilles can provide enough transportation options. It’s still to be determined what extra costs would come from the short land transport from Lyons to the Loire, and the water transport down to Bordeaux, and whether a stone of similar quality can be found on the Loire. Please feel free to request my assistance with this and any other matters related to your project.
Having heard high commendations of a plan of a prison, drawn by an architect at Lyons, I sent there for it. The architect furnished me with it. It is certainly the best plan I ever saw. It unites, in the most perfect manner, the objects of security and health, and has, moreover, the advantage, valuable to us, of being capable of being adjusted to any number of prisoners, small or great, and admitting an execution from time to time, as it may be convenient. The plan is under preparation as for forty prisoners. Will you have any occasion for slate? It may be got very good and ready prepared at Havre; and a workman or more might be sent on easy terms. Perhaps the quarry at Tuckahoe would leave you no other want than that of a workman.
Having heard great things about a prison design created by an architect in Lyons, I requested a copy. The architect provided it to me. It’s definitely the best design I’ve ever seen. It perfectly combines security and health, and it also has the added benefit, which is important to us, of being adaptable to any number of prisoners, whether few or many, and allowing for modifications as needed over time. The plan is currently being prepared for forty prisoners. Do you need any slate? It can be obtained very easily and in good quality from Havre, and we could send one or more workers at reasonable rates. Perhaps the quarry at Tuckahoe would only leave you in need of a worker.
I shall be glad to receive your sentiments on the several matters herein mentioned, that I may know how far you approve of them, as I shall with pleasure pursue strictly whatever you desire. I have the honor to be, with great respect and esteem, Gentlemen,
I would be happy to hear your thoughts on the various issues mentioned here so that I can understand how much you agree with them. I will gladly pursue whatever you wish. I have the honor to be, with much respect and esteem, Gentlemen,
your most obedient
your devoted
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XCI.—TO JOHN JAY, August 14, 1785
TO JOHN JAY.
To John Jay.
Paris, August 14, 1785.
Paris, August 14, 1785.
Sir,
Sir,
I was honored, on the 22nd ultimo, with the receipt of your letter of June the 15th; and delivered the letter therein enclosed, from the President of Congress to the King. I took an opportunity of asking the Count de Vergennes, whether the Chevalier Luzerne proposed to return to America. He answered me that he did; and that he was here, for a time only, to arrange his private affairs. Of course, this stopped my proceeding further in compliance with the hint in your letter. I knew that the Chevalier Luzerne still retained the character of minister to Congress, which occasioned my premising the question I did. But, notwithstanding the answer, which indeed was the only one the Count de Vergennes could give me, I believe it is not expected that the Chevalier will return to America: that he is waiting an appointment here, to some of their embassies, or some other promotion, and in the mean time, as a favor, is permitted to retain his former character. Knowing the esteem borne him in America, I did not suppose it would be wished, that I should add any thing which might occasion an injury to him; and the rather, as I presumed that, at this time, there did not exist the same reason for wishing the arrival of a minister in America, which perhaps existed there at the date of your letter. Count Adhemar is just arrived from London, on account of a paralytic disease with which he has been struck. It does not seem improbable, that his place will be supplied, and perhaps by the Chevalier de la Luzerne.
I was honored to receive your letter from June 15th on the 22nd of last month, and I delivered the enclosed letter from the President of Congress to the King. I took the opportunity to ask Count de Vergennes if Chevalier Luzerne planned to return to America. He told me that he did intend to return, but that he was only here temporarily to handle his personal affairs. So, this halted my efforts in response to your letter’s suggestion. I knew that Chevalier Luzerne still held the position of minister to Congress, which led me to ask my question. However, despite his answer—which was the only one Count de Vergennes could give—I believe it’s not expected that the Chevalier will actually return to America; he’s likely waiting for a new appointment to one of their embassies or another promotion, and in the meantime, he’s allowed to keep his former title as a favor. Understanding the respect he has in America, I didn’t think it would be appropriate to add anything that might harm him, especially since I assumed there was no longer the same reason to want a minister in America as there might have been at the time of your letter. Count Adhemar has just arrived from London due to a stroke he suffered. It seems likely that his position will be filled, possibly by Chevalier de la Luzerne.
A French vessel has lately refused the salute to a British armed vessel in the channel. The Chargé des Affaires of Great Britain at this court (their ambassador having gone to London a few days ago) made this the subject of a conference with the Count de Vergennes, on Tuesday last. He told me that the Count explained the transaction as the act of the individual master of the French vessel, not founded in any public orders. His earnestness, and his endeavors to find terms sufficiently soft to express the Count’s explanation, had no tendency to lessen any doubts I might have entertained on this subject. I think it possible the refusal may have been by order: nor can I believe that Great Britain is in a condition to resent it, if it was so. In this case, we shall see it repeated by France and her example will then be soon followed by other nations. The news-writers bring together this circumstance with the departure of the French ambassador from London, and the English ambassador from Paris, the manoeuvring of the French fleet just off the channel, the collecting some English vessels of war in the channel, the failure of a commercial treaty between the two countries, and a severe Arrêt here against English manufacturers, as foreboding war. It is possible that the fleet of manoeuvre, the refusal of the salute, and the English fleet of observation, may have a connexion with one another. But I am persuaded the other facts are totally independent of these, and of one another, and are accidentally brought together in point of time. Neither nation is in a condition to go to war: Great Britain, indeed, the least so of the two. The latter power, or rather its monarch, as Elector of Hanover, has lately confederated with the King of Prussia and others of the Germanic body, evidently in opposition to the Emperor’s designs on Bavaria. An alliance, too, between the Empress of Russia and the Republic of Venice, seems to have had him in view, as he had meditated some exchange of territory with that republic. This desertion of the powers heretofore thought friendly to him, seems to leave no issue for his ambition, but on the side of Turkey. His demarkation with that country is still unsettled. His difference with the Dutch is certainly agreed. The articles are not yet made public; perhaps not quite adjusted. Upon the whole, we may count on another year’s peace in Europe, and that our friends will not, within that time, be brought into any embarrassments, which might encourage Great Britain to be difficult in settling the points still unsettled between us.
A French ship recently refused to salute a British armed ship in the channel. The Chargé des Affaires of Great Britain at this court (their ambassador having gone to London a few days ago) discussed this with Count de Vergennes last Tuesday. He told me that the Count explained the incident as an action taken by the individual captain of the French ship, not based on any official orders. His seriousness and his efforts to find gentle words to express the Count’s explanation did not lessen any doubts I might have had about this issue. I think it’s possible that the refusal was ordered, and I can’t believe that Great Britain is in a position to retaliate, if that’s the case. If so, we will likely see France repeat this action, and soon other nations will follow their lead. News writers are connecting this situation to the departure of the French ambassador from London and the English ambassador from Paris, the maneuvering of the French fleet right off the channel, the gathering of British warships in the channel, the breakdown of a trade treaty between the two countries, and a strict Arrêt here against English manufacturers, suggesting that war is looming. It’s possible that the maneuvering fleet, the refusal of the salute, and the British observation fleet are related. However, I believe the other facts are completely independent of each other and just happen to coincide in timing. Neither nation is in a state to go to war; Great Britain, in fact, the least of the two. The latter power, or rather its monarch, as Elector of Hanover, has recently formed a coalition with the King of Prussia and others in the Germanic body, clearly opposing the Emperor’s plans for Bavaria. An alliance between the Empress of Russia and the Republic of Venice seems to have included him, as he has been considering some land exchange with that republic. This abandonment by powers previously thought to be friendly leaves him with no options for ambition except towards Turkey. His borders with that country are still unresolved. His dispute with the Dutch has certainly been agreed upon; the articles are not yet public and may not be fully settled. Overall, we can expect another year of peace in Europe, and that our allies will not face any situations during that time that might encourage Great Britain to be difficult in resolving the issues still pending between us.
You have, doubtless, seen in the papers, that this court was sending two vessels into the south sea, under the conduct of a Captain Peyrouse. They give out, that the object is merely for the improvement of our knowledge of the geography of that part of the globe. And certain it is, that they carry men of eminence in different branches of science. Their loading, however, as detailed in conversations, and some other circumstances, appeared to me to indicate some other design: perhaps that of colonizing on the western coast of America; or, it may be, only to establish one or more factories there, for the fur-trade. Perhaps we may be little interested in either of these objects. But we are interested in another, that is, to know whether they are perfectly weaned from the desire of possessing continental colonies in America. Events might arise, which would render it very desirable for Congress to be satisfied they have no such wish. If they would desire a colony on the western side of America, I should not be quite satisfied that they would refuse one which should offer itself on the eastern side. Captain Paul Jones being at L’Orient, within a day’s journey of Brest, where Captain Peyrouse’s vessels lay, I desired him, if he could not satisfy himself at L’Orient of the nature of this equipment, to go to Brest for that purpose: conducting himself so as to excite no suspicion that we attended at all to this expedition. His discretion can be relied on, and his expenses for so short a journey will be a trifling price for satisfaction on this point. I hope, therefore, that my undertaking that the expenses of his journey shall be reimbursed him, will not be disapproved.
You’ve probably seen in the news that this court is sending two ships to the South Sea, led by Captain Peyrouse. They claim the goal is simply to enhance our understanding of the geography in that part of the world. It’s clear they have distinguished scientists on board. However, the cargo they’re carrying, along with various conversations and other details, suggests to me there might be an ulterior motive: possibly to establish a colony on the western coast of America, or perhaps just to set up one or more trading posts for the fur trade. These objectives might not concern us much. But we are interested in another issue, which is to determine whether they have completely given up on the idea of owning colonies on the American continent. Circumstances could arise that would make it very important for Congress to be confident they have no such intentions. If they’re considering a colony on the western side of America, I wouldn’t be entirely sure they would pass up an opportunity on the eastern side as well. With Captain Paul Jones currently in L’Orient, just a day’s journey from Brest where Captain Peyrouse’s ships are docked, I wanted him to check out the situation. If he can’t find out what this mission is about in L’Orient, I suggested he go to Brest for that purpose, acting in a way that wouldn’t raise any suspicion about our interest in this expedition. I trust his judgment, and the cost for such a short trip is a small price to pay for clarification. Therefore, I hope my promise to cover his travel expenses will be approved.
A gentleman lately arrived from New York tells me, he thinks it will be satisfactory to Congress, to be informed of the effect produced here by the insult of Longchamps on Monsieur de Marbois. Soon after my arrival in France last summer, it was the matter of a conversation between the Count de Vergennes and myself. I explained to him the effect of the judgment against Longchamps. He did not say that it was satisfactory, but neither did he say a word from which I could collect that it was not so. The conversation was not official, because foreign to the character in which I then was. He has never mentioned a word on the subject to me since, and it was not for me to introduce it at any time. I have never once heard it mentioned in conversation, by any person of this country, and have no reason to suppose that there remains any uneasiness on the subject. I have indeed been told, that they had sent orders to make a formal demand of Longchamps from Congress, and had immediately countermanded these orders. You know whether this be true. If it be, I should suspect the first orders to have been surprised from them by some exaggeration, and that the latter was a correction of their error, in the moment of further reflection. Upon the whole, there certainly appears to me no reason to urge the State, in which the fact happened, to any violation of their laws, nor to set a precedent which might hereafter be used in cases more interesting to us than the late one.
A gentleman recently arrived from New York told me that he thinks Congress would appreciate being informed about the outcome here regarding Longchamps' insult to Monsieur de Marbois. Shortly after I got to France last summer, I discussed this with Count de Vergennes. I explained to him the impact of the judgment against Longchamps. He didn't say it was satisfactory, but he also didn't indicate that it wasn't. The conversation wasn't official since it wasn't in the context of my role at the time. He has never brought it up again with me, and it wasn't for me to bring it up first. I have never heard it mentioned in conversation by anyone from this country, and I have no reason to believe there's still any concern about it. I've indeed heard that they sent orders to formally request Longchamps from Congress but then immediately retracted those orders. You know whether that's true. If it is, I would suspect that the initial orders were based on some exaggeration, and the latter was a correction of that mistake after further consideration. Overall, it seems to me there's no reason to pressure the state where the incident occurred to violate their laws or to set a precedent that could be used for issues more significant to us than this recent one.
In a late conversation with the Count de Vergennes, he asked me if the condition of our finances was improving. He did not make an application of the question to the arrearages of their interest, though perhaps he meant that I should apply it. I told him the impost still found obstacles, and explained to him the effects which I hoped from our land office. Your letter of the 15th of April did not come to hand till the 27th ultimo. I enclose a letter from Mr. Dumas to the President of Congress, and accompany the present with the Leyden Gazette and Gazette of France, from the date last sent you to the present time. I have the honor to be, with high esteem, Sir,
In a recent conversation with Count de Vergennes, he asked me if our financial situation was getting any better. He didn’t specifically refer to the overdue interest, although he might have wanted me to. I told him that the tax was still facing challenges and explained what I hoped to achieve with our land office. I didn’t receive your letter from April 15th until the 27th of last month. I'm enclosing a letter from Mr. Dumas to the President of Congress and including the Leyden Gazette and Gazette of France, from the last date I sent you until now. I have the honor to be, with great respect, Sir,
your most obedient
your loyal servant
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XCII.—TO THE COUNT DE VERGENNES, August 15, 1785
TO THE COUNT DE VERGENNES.
To Count de Vergennes.
Paris, August 15, 1785.
Paris, August 15, 1785.
Sir,
Hey,
In the conversation which I had the honor of having with your Excellency, a few days ago, on the importance of placing, at this time, the commerce between France and America on the best footing possible, among other objects of this commerce, that of tobacco was mentioned, as susceptible of greater encouragement and advantage to the two nations. Always distrusting what I say in a language I speak so imperfectly, I will beg your permission to state, in English, the substance of what I had then the honor to observe, adding some more particular details for your consideration.
In the conversation I had the privilege of having with your Excellency a few days ago about the importance of establishing the best possible trade between France and America right now, we discussed various aspects of this trade, including tobacco, which seems to hold great potential for benefiting both nations. Always hesitant about expressing myself in a language I don’t speak very well, I would like to request your permission to summarize what I previously mentioned in English, adding some additional details for your consideration.
I find the consumption of tobacco in France estimated at from fifteen to thirty millions of pounds. The most probable estimate, however, places it at twenty-four millions.
I estimate that tobacco consumption in France is between fifteen and thirty million pounds. However, the most likely estimate is around twenty-four million.
This costing eight sous the pound, delivered in
This costs eight sous per pound, delivered in
a port of France, amounts to...............9,600,000 livres.
a port of France, amounts to...............9,600,000 livres.
Allow six sous a pound, as the average cost of the
Allow six sous a pound as the average cost of the
different manufactures.....................7,200,000
different manufacturers.....................7,200,000
The revenue which the King derives from this, is
The revenue that the King gets from this is
something less than.......................30,000,000
something less than 30 million
Which would make the cost of the whole... 46,800,000
Which would make the total cost... 46,800,000
But it is sold to the consumers at an average of
But it is sold to consumers at an average of
three livres the pound....................72,000,000
three pounds the pound....................72,000,000
There remain then for the expenses
There are still the costs.
of collection............................ 25,200,000 livres.
of collection............................ 25.2 million livres.
This is within a sixth as much as the King receives, and so gives nearly one half for collecting the other. It would be presumption in me, a stranger, to suppose my numbers perfectly accurate. I have taken them from the best and most disinterested authorities I could find. Your Excellency will know how far they are wrong; and should you find them considerably wrong, yet I am persuaded you will find, after strictly correcting them, that the collection of this branch of the revenue still absorbs too much.
This is about one-sixth of what the King receives, meaning it nearly gives half to collect the other. It would be arrogant of me, a stranger, to assume my figures are completely correct. I've sourced them from the best and most unbiased authorities I could find. Your Excellency will know how inaccurate they might be; and if you find them significantly off, I still believe that, after thorough correction, you'll see that collecting this part of the revenue still consumes too much.
My apology for making these remarks will, I hope, be found in my wishes to improve the commerce between the two nations, and the interest which my own country will derive from this improvement. The monopoly of the purchase of tobacco in France, discourages both the French and American merchant from bringing it here, and from taking in exchange the manufactures and productions of France. It is contrary to the spirit of trade, and to the dispositions of merchants, to carry a commodity to any market where but one person is allowed to buy it, and where, of course, that person fixes its price, which the seller must receive, or reexport his commodity, at the loss of his voyage thither. Experience accordingly shows, that they carry it to other markets, and that they take in exchange the merchandise of the place where they deliver it. I am misinformed, if France has not been furnished from a neighboring nation with considerable quantities of tobacco, since the peace, and been obliged to pay there in coin, what might have been paid here in manufactures, had the French and American merchants bought the tobacco originally here. I suppose, too, that the purchases made by the Farmers General, in America, are paid for chiefly in coin, which coin is also remitted directly hence to England, and makes an important part of the balance supposed to be in favor of that nation against this. Should the Farmers General, by themselves, or by the company to whom they may commit the procuring these tobaccos from America, require, for the satisfaction of government on this head, the exportation of a proportion of merchandise in exchange for them, it would be an unpromising expedient. It would only commit the exports, as well as imports, between France and America, to a monopoly, which, being secure against rivals in the sale of the merchandise of France, would not be likely to sell at such moderate prices as might encourage its consumption there, and enable it to bear a competition with similar articles from other countries. I am persuaded this exportation of coin may be prevented, and that of commodities effected, by leaving both operations to the French and American merchants, instead of the Farmers General. They will import a sufficient quantity of tobacco, if they are allowed a perfect freedom in the sale; and they will receive in payment, wines, oils, brandies, and manufactures, instead of coin; forcing each other, by their competition, to bring tobaccos of the best quality; to give to the French manufacturer the full worth of his merchandise; and to sell to the American consumer at the lowest price they can afford; thus encouraging him to use, in preference, the merchandise of this country.
I hope my apology for these comments reflects my desire to improve trade between our two countries and the benefits my own country will gain from this improvement. The tobacco purchasing monopoly in France discourages both French and American merchants from bringing it here and from exchanging it for French goods. It goes against the nature of trade and the tendencies of merchants to sell a commodity in a market where only one buyer is allowed, and where that buyer sets the price that the seller must accept or send the goods back, losing the cost of the journey. Experience shows that they take it to other markets, exchanging it for the local products instead. I'm misled if I think France hasn't received substantial amounts of tobacco from a neighboring country since the peace, paying there in cash what could have been paid here in goods, had French and American merchants purchased the tobacco locally. I also assume that the purchases made by the Farmers General in America are mainly paid in cash, which is then sent directly to England, significantly affecting the balance globally perceived to favor that nation over ours. If the Farmers General, whether directly or through the company they trust to acquire tobacco from America, require a certain amount of local goods in exchange to satisfy the government's needs, it would likely not be successful. It would just entrust both exports and imports between France and America to a monopoly, which, being insulated from competition in selling French goods, probably wouldn't price them low enough to encourage their use or compete with similar products from other countries. I'm convinced we can prevent the outflow of cash and facilitate the flow of goods by allowing both French and American merchants to handle both tasks instead of the Farmers General. They will import a sufficient amount of tobacco if they are given complete freedom in the market; they'll accept payment in wines, oils, brandies, and goods rather than cash; and their competition will drive them to procure the best quality tobacco, compensate French producers fairly, and sell to American consumers at the lowest prices they can manage, thus promoting the preference for local products.
It is not necessary that this exchange should be favored by any loss of revenue to the King. I do not mean to urge any thing which shall injure either his Majesty or his people. On the contrary, the measure I have the honor of proposing, will increase his revenue, while it places both the seller and buyer on a better footing. It is not for me to say, what system of collection may be best adapted to the organization of this government; nor whether any useful hints may be taken from the practice of that country, which has heretofore been the principal entrepot for this commodity. Their system is simple and little expensive. The importer there, pays the whole duty to the King: and as this would be inconvenient for him to do before he has sold his tobacco, he is permitted, on arrival, to deposite it in the King’s warehouse, under the locks of the King’s officer. As soon as he has sold it, he goes with the purchaser to the warehouse; the money is there divided between the King and him, to each his proportion, and the purchaser takes out the tobacco. The payment of the King’s duty is thus ensured in ready money. What is the expense of its collection, I cannot say; but it certainly need not exceed six livres a hogshead of one thousand pounds. That government levies a higher duty on tobacco than is levied here. Yet so tempting and so valuable is the perfect liberty of sale, that the merchant carries it there and finds his account in doing so.
It’s not necessary for this exchange to result in any loss of revenue for the King. I don’t mean to suggest anything that would harm either His Majesty or his people. On the contrary, the measure I’m proposing will boost his revenue while putting both the seller and buyer on better terms. I won't say what collection system might be best suited for this government or whether there are useful ideas to borrow from the practices of that country, which has been the main hub for this commodity. Their system is straightforward and not very costly. The importer there pays the full duty to the King, but since it would be inconvenient to do so before selling his tobacco, he’s allowed to store it in the King’s warehouse under the supervision of the King’s officer upon arrival. Once he sells it, he goes with the buyer to the warehouse, the money is split between the King and him according to their share, and the buyer takes the tobacco. This process ensures that the King’s duty is paid in cash. I can't say what the cost of collection is, but it definitely shouldn’t exceed six livres per hogshead of one thousand pounds. That government imposes a higher duty on tobacco than what we have here. Yet the perfect freedom to sell is so attractive and valuable that merchants still choose to transport it there and come out ahead.
If, by a simplification of the collection of the King’s duty on tobacco, the cost of that collection can be reduced even to five per cent., or a million and a half, instead of twenty-five millions; the price to the consumer will be reduced from three to two livres the pound. For thus I calculate.
If, by simplifying the way the King collects the tax on tobacco, the cost of that collection can be lowered to just five percent, or one and a half million, instead of twenty-five million; the price for the consumer will drop from three to two livres per pound. That's how I calculate it.
The cost, manufacture, and revenue, on twenty-four million pounds
The cost, production, and revenue, on twenty-four million pounds
of tobacco being (as before stated)................46,800,000 livres.
of tobacco being (as mentioned earlier)................46,800,000 livres.
Five per cent, on thirty millions of livres,
Five percent on thirty million livres,
expenses of collection .............................1,500,000
collection expenses .............................1,500,000
Give what the consumers would pay, being
Give what the consumers would pay, being
about two livres a pound...........................48,300,000
about $2 a pound...........................48,300,000
But they pay at present three livres a pound...... 72,000,000
But they currently pay three livres a pound...... 72,000,000
The difference is..................................23,700,000
The difference is 23.7 million.
The price being thus reduced one third, would be brought within the reach of a new and numerous circle of the people, who cannot, at present, afford themselves this luxury. The consumption, then, would probably increase, and perhaps in the same if not a greater proportion, with the reduction of the price; that is to say, from twenty-four to thirty-sis millions of pounds: and the King, continuing to receive twenty-five sous on the pound, as at present, would receive forty-fire instead of thirty millions of livres, while his subjects would pay but two livres for an object which has heretofore cost them three. Or if, in event, the consumption were not to be increased, he would levy only forty-eight millions on his people, where seventy-two millions are now levied, and would leave twenty-four millions in their pockets, either to remain there, or to be levied in some other form, should the state of revenue require it. It will enable his subjects, also, to dispose of between nine and ten millions’ worth of their produce and manufactures, instead of sending nearly that sum annually, in coin, to enrich a neighboring nation.
The price being cut by a third would make it accessible to a new and larger group of people who currently can’t afford this luxury. As a result, consumption would likely increase, possibly even more than the price reduction suggests; for instance, from twenty-four to thirty-six million pounds. If the King continues to receive twenty-five sous per pound, he would end up with forty-five million livres instead of thirty million, while his subjects would pay just two livres for an item that used to cost them three. If consumption doesn’t rise, he would only collect forty-eight million from his people instead of seventy-two million, leaving twenty-four million in their pockets to either keep or tax differently if needed. This could also allow his subjects to sell between nine and ten million worth of their goods and products, rather than sending a similar amount in cash to enrich a neighboring country.
I have heard two objections made to the suppression of this monopoly. 1. That it might increase the importation of tobacco in contraband. 2. That it would lessen the abilities of the Farmers General to make occasional loans of money to the public treasury. These objections will surely be better answered by those who are better acquainted than I am with the details and circumstances of the country. With respect to the first, however, I may observe, that contraband does not increase on lessening the temptations to it. It is now encouraged, by those who engage in it being able to sell for sixty sous what cost but fourteen, leaving a gain of forty-six sous. When the price shall be reduced from sixty to forty sous, the gain will be but twenty-six, that is to say, a little more than one half of what it is at present. It does not seem a natural consequence, then, that contraband should be increased by reducing its gain nearly one half. As to the second objection, if we suppose (for elucidation and without presuming to fix) the proportion of the farm on tobacco, at one eighth of the whole mass farmed, the abilities of the Farmers General to lend will be reduced one eighth, that is, they can hereafter lend only seven millions, where heretofore they have lent eight. It is to be considered, then, whether this eighth (or other proportion, whatever it be) is worth the annual sacrifice of twenty-four millions, or if a much smaller sacrifice to other monied men, will not produce the same loans of money in the ordinary way.
I’ve heard two objections regarding the suppression of this monopoly: 1. That it might increase the illegal importation of tobacco. 2. That it would reduce the ability of the Farmers General to provide occasional loans to the public treasury. These objections would probably be better addressed by those who know more about the details and circumstances of the country than I do. However, regarding the first point, I can note that illegal activity doesn't increase when the temptations for it are reduced. Right now, it's incentivized because those who engage in it can sell for sixty sous what cost only fourteen, resulting in a profit of forty-six sous. If the price drops from sixty to forty sous, the profit will only be twenty-six, which is just a little over half of what it is now. So, it doesn’t really make sense that illegal activity would increase if we cut its profit nearly in half. As for the second objection, if we estimate (just for clarification and without trying to be exact) that the tobacco farm makes up one-eighth of the total agricultural revenue, then the Farmers General's ability to lend would decrease by one-eighth, meaning they could now lend only seven million instead of eight million. We should consider whether this one-eighth (or whatever the actual proportion is) is worth the annual loss of twenty-four million, or if a much smaller sacrifice to other lenders could yield the same loans through normal means.
While the advantages of an increase of revenue to the crown, a diminution of impost on the people, and a payment in merchandise instead of money, are conjectured as likely to result to France from a suppression of the monopoly on tobacco, we have also reason to hope some advantages on our part; and this hope alone could justify my entering into the present details. I do not expect this advantage will be by an augmentation of price. The other markets of Europe have too much influence on this article, to admit any sensible augmentation of price to take place. But the advantage I principally expect, is an increase of consumption. This will give us a vent for so much more, and, of consequence, find employment for so many more cultivators of the earth: and in whatever proportion it increases this production for us, in the same proportion will it procure additional vent for the merchandise of France, and employment for the hands which produce it. I expect too, that by bringing our merchants here, they would procure a number of commodities in exchange, better in kind, and cheaper in price. It is with sincerity I add, that warm feelings are indulged in my breast by the further hope, that it would bind the two nations still closer in friendship, by binding them in interest. In truth, no two countries are better calculated for the exchanges of commerce. France wants rice, tobacco, potash, furs, and ship timber. We want wines, brandies, oils, and manufactures. There is an affection, too, between the two people, which disposes them to favor one another. They do not come together, then, to make the exchange in their own ports, it shows there is some substantial obstruction in the way. We have had the benefit of too many proofs of his Majesty’s friendly disposition towards the United States, and know too well his affectionate care of his own subjects, to doubt his willingness to remove these obstructions, if they can be unequivocally pointed out. It is for his wisdom to decide, whether the monopoly, which is the subject of this letter, be deservedly classed with the principal of these. It is a great comfort to me too, that in presenting this to the mind of his Majesty, your Excellency will correct my ideas where an insufficient knowledge of facts may have led me into error; and that while the interests of the King and of his people are the first object of your attention, an additional one will be presented by those dispositions towards us, which have heretofore so often befriended our nation.
While it's believed that France could benefit from higher revenue for the crown, lower taxes for the people, and payments in goods instead of cash by getting rid of the tobacco monopoly, we also have reasons to expect some advantages for ourselves; this hope is really the only reason I’m discussing this in detail. I don’t expect this benefit to come from raising prices. Other European markets have too much influence on this product for any significant price increase to happen. Rather, the main advantage I foresee is an increase in consumption. This will allow us to sell much more and, consequently, create jobs for more farmers. The more we can increase production, the more it will provide additional opportunities for French goods and the workers who produce them. I also believe that by attracting our merchants here, they'll obtain a variety of better-quality goods at lower prices in exchange. I sincerely hope that this would strengthen the friendship between our two nations by aligning our interests. Truly, no two countries are better suited for trade. France needs rice, tobacco, potash, furs, and ship timber. We need wines, brandies, oils, and manufactured goods. There's also a mutual affection between our two people that encourages support for one another. If they aren't trading directly in their own ports, it indicates that there's some significant obstacle in the way. We’ve seen plenty of evidence of the King’s friendly attitude toward the United States and know his caring nature toward his subjects well enough to trust that he would be willing to remove these obstacles if they can be clearly identified. It’s up to his judgment to decide whether the monopoly discussed in this letter deserves to be included among these obstacles. It brings me great comfort knowing that when I present this to the King, Your Excellency will correct my thoughts where my lack of knowledge may have led me astray; and that while the interests of the King and his people are your primary focus, there will also be a consideration for the goodwill toward us that has often benefited our nation.
I avail myself of this occasion to repeat the assurance of that high respect and esteem, with which I have the honor to be
I take this opportunity to reiterate the deep respect and admiration I feel, which I am honored to express.
your Excellency’s most obedient
your Excellency's most obedient
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XCIII.—TO CAPTAIN JOHN PAUL JONES, August 17, 1785
TO CAPTAIN JOHN PAUL JONES.
To Captain John Paul Jones.
Sir,
Dude,
Paris, August 17, 1785.
Paris, August 17, 1785.
Mine of the 13th informed you that I had written to the M. de Castries on the subject of Puchilberg’s interference. Yesterday I received his answer dated the 12th. In that, he says that he is informed by the Ordonnateur, that he has not been able to get an authentic roll of the crew of the Alliance, and that, in the probable case of there having been some French subjects among them, it will be just that you should give security to repay their portions. I wrote to him this morning, that as you have obliged yourself to transmit the money to the treasury of the United States, it does not seem just to require you to be answerable for money which will be no longer within your power; that the repayment of such portions will be incumbent on Congress; that I will immediately solicit their orders to have all such claims paid by their banker here: and that should any be presented before I receive their orders, I will undertake to direct the banker of the United States to pay them, that there may be no delay. I trust that this will remove the difficulty, and that it is the last which will be offered. The ultimate answer shall be communicated the moment I receive it. Having pledged myself for the claims which may be offered, before I receive the orders of Congress, it is necessary to arm myself with the proper checks. Can you give me a roll of the crew, pointing out the French subjects? If not, can you recollect personally the French subjects, and name them to me, and the sums they are entitled to? it there were none such, yet the roll will be material, because I have no doubt that Puchilberg will excite claims upon me, either true or false,
Mine of the 13th informed you that I had written to M. de Castries about Puchilberg’s interference. Yesterday, I got his response dated the 12th. He mentioned that the Ordonnateur told him he hasn’t been able to get an official list of the crew of the Alliance, and that if there were some French nationals among them, it would only be fair for you to provide security to pay their shares. I wrote to him this morning, stating that since you have committed to transferring the money to the treasury of the United States, it doesn’t seem right to hold you accountable for funds that will no longer be under your control; that repaying those shares will be the responsibility of Congress; that I will promptly request their instructions to ensure all claims are paid by their banker here; and that if any are presented before I get their instructions, I will make sure the United States banker pays them, so there’s no delay. I hope this resolves the issue, and that it will be the last one raised. I will share the final response as soon as I receive it. Since I have taken responsibility for any claims that may arise before I receive Congress's orders, I need to be equipped with the proper documentation. Can you provide me with a list of the crew, highlighting the French nationals? If not, can you recall the French nationals from memory and tell me their names and the amounts they are entitled to? Even if there were none, the list will be useful because I’m sure Puchilberg will try to make claims against me, whether they are legitimate or not.
I am, with much respect, Sir,
I am, with great respect, Sir,
your most obedient, humble servant,
your devoted, humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XCIV.—TO WILLIAM CARMICHAEL, August 18, 1785
TO WILLIAM CARMICHAEL.
To William Carmichael.
Pads, August 18, 1785.
Pads, August 18, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Dear [Name],
My last to you was of June the 22nd, with a postscript of July the 14th. Yours of June the 27th came to hand the 23rd of July, and that of July the 28th came to hand the 10th instant. The papers enclosed in the last shall be communicated to Mr. Adams. I see with extreme satisfaction and gratitude, the friendly interposition of the court of Spain with the Emperor of Morocco, on the subject of the brig Betsy, and I am persuaded it will produce the happiest effects in America. Those who are entrusted with the public affairs there, are sufficiently sensible how essentially it is for our interest to cultivate peace with Spain, and they will be pleased to see a corresponding disposition in that court. The late good office of emancipating a number of our countrymen from slavery is peculiarly calculated to produce a sensation among our people, and to dispose them to relish and adopt the pacific and friendly views of their leaders towards Spain. We hear nothing yet of Mr. Lambe. I have therefore lately proposed to Mr. Adams, that if he does not come in the French or English packet of this month, we will wait no longer. If he accedes to the proposition, you will be sure of hearing of, and perhaps of seeing, some agent proceeding on that business. The immense sum said to have been proposed, on the part of Spain, to Algiers, leaves us little hope of satisfying their avarice. It may happen then, that the interests of Spain and America may call for a concert of proceedings against that State. The dispositions of the Emperor of Morocco give us better hopes there. May not the affairs of the Musquito coast, and our western ports, produce another instance of a common interest? Indeed, I meet this correspondence of interest in so many quarters, that I look with anxiety to the issue of Mr. Gardoqui’s mission; hoping it will be a removal of the only difficulty at present subsisting between the two nations, or which is likely to arise.
My last message to you was on June 22, with a follow-up on July 14. Your letter from June 27 reached me on July 23, and the one from July 28 came on the 10th of this month. I will share the papers included in the last letter with Mr. Adams. I feel a deep sense of satisfaction and gratitude for the friendly involvement of the court of Spain with the Emperor of Morocco regarding the brig Betsy, and I believe it will have very positive effects in America. Those handling public affairs there understand how crucial it is for our interests to maintain peace with Spain, and they will appreciate a similar attitude from that court. The recent act of freeing several of our citizens from slavery should resonate strongly with our people and encourage them to support the peaceful and friendly approach of their leaders toward Spain. We still haven't heard anything from Mr. Lambe. So, I recently suggested to Mr. Adams that if he doesn't arrive on the French or English packet this month, we shouldn't wait any longer. If he agrees to this, you can expect to hear about, and possibly see, an agent moving forward with that matter. The huge amount reportedly suggested by Spain to Algiers gives us little hope of satisfying their greed. Therefore, it’s possible that the interests of Spain and America may require us to coordinate actions against that state. The attitudes of the Emperor of Morocco give us more hope on that front. Could the situations on the Musquito coast and our western ports provide another example of our shared interests? In fact, I notice this alignment of interests in so many areas that I’m anxious about the outcome of Mr. Gardoqui’s mission, hoping it will resolve the only current issue between the two nations or any likely ones that may arise.
Congress are not likely to adjourn this summer. They have purchased the Indian right of soil to about fifty millions of acres of land, between the Ohio and lakes, and expected to make another purchase of an equal quantity. They have, in consequence, passed an ordinance for disposing of their lands, and I think a very judicious one. They propose to sell them at auction for not less than a dollar an acre, receiving their own certificates of debt as money. I am of opinion all the certificates of our domestic debt will immediately be exchanged for land, Our foreign debt, in that case, will soon be discharged. New York and Rhode Island still refuse the impost. A general disposition is taking place to commit the whole management of our commerce to Congress. This has been much promoted by the interested policy of England, which, it was apparent, could not be counter-worked by the States separately. In the mean time, the other great towns are acceding to the proceedings of Boston for annihilating, in a great measure, their commercial connections with Great Britain. I will send the cipher by a gentleman who goes from here to Madrid about a month hence. It shall be a copy of the one I gave Mr. Adams. The letter of Don Gomez has been delivered at the hotel of the Portuguese ambassador, who is, however, in the country. I am with much respect, Dear Sir,
Congress is unlikely to adjourn this summer. They have acquired the Indian right to about fifty million acres of land between the Ohio River and the Great Lakes and expect to make another purchase of the same amount. Consequently, they have passed an ordinance for managing their lands, which I think is quite smart. They plan to sell the land at auction for no less than a dollar an acre, accepting their own debt certificates as payment. I believe all the certificates of our domestic debt will be quickly exchanged for land, and in that case, our foreign debt will soon be settled. New York and Rhode Island continue to refuse the tax. There's a growing movement to hand over the management of our commerce to Congress. This has been strongly influenced by England's self-interest, which clearly can't be countered by individual states. In the meantime, other major cities are joining Boston in largely cutting their commercial ties with Great Britain. I will send the cipher with a gentleman traveling from here to Madrid in about a month. It will be a copy of the one I gave Mr. Adams. Don Gomez's letter has been delivered to the hotel of the Portuguese ambassador, who is currently out of town. I remain, with much respect, Dear Sir,
your most obedient, humble servant,
your humble and obedient servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XCV.—TO PETER CARR—Advice to a young man, Aug. 19, 1785
TO PETER CARR.
To Peter Carr.
Paris, August 19, 1785.
Paris, August 19, 1785.
Dear Peter,
Hey Peter,
I received, by Mr. Mazzei, your letter of April the 20th. I am much mortified to hear that you have lost so much time; and that when you arrived in Williamsburg, you were not at all advanced from what you were when you left Monticello. Time now begins to be precious to you. Every day you lose, will retard a day your entrance on that public stage whereon you may begin to be useful to yourself. However, the way to repair the loss is to improve the future time. I trust, that with your dispositions, even the acquisition of science is a pleasing employment. I can assure you, that the possession of it is, what (next to an honest heart) will above all things render you dear to your friends, and give you fame and promotion in your own country. When your mind shall be well improved with science, nothing will be necessary to place you in the highest points of view, but to pursue the interests of your country, the interests of your friends and your own interests also, with the purest integrity, the most chaste honor. The defect of these virtues can never be made up by all the other acquirements of body and mind. Make these then your first object. Give up money, give up fame, give up science, give the earth itself and all it contains, rather than do an immoral act. And never suppose, that in any possible situation, or under any circumstances, it is best for you to do a dishonorable thing, however slightly so it may appear to you. Whenever you are to do a thing, though it can never be known but to yourself, ask yourself how you would act were all the world looking at you, and act accordingly. Encourage all your virtuous dispositions, and exercise them whenever an opportunity arises; being assured that they will gain strength by exercise, as a limb of the body does, and that exercise will make them habitual. From the practice of the purest virtue, you may be assured you will derive the most sublime comforts in every moment of life, and in the moment of death. If ever you find yourself environed with difficulties and perplexing circumstances, out of which you are at a loss how to extricate yourself, do what is right, and be assured that that will extricate you the best out of the worst situations. Though you cannot see, when you take one step, what will be the next, yet follow truth, justice, and plain dealing, and never fear their leading you out of the labyrinth, in the easiest manner possible. The knot which you thought a Gordian one, will untie itself before you. Nothing is so mistaken as the supposition, that a person is to extricate himself from a difficulty by intrigue, by chicanery, by dissimulation, by trimming, by an untruth, by an injustice. This increases the difficulties ten fold; and those who pursue these methods, get themselves so involved at length, that they can turn no way but their infamy becomes more exposed. It is of great importance to set a resolution, not to be shaken, never to tell an untruth. There is no vice so mean, so pitiful, so contemptible; and he who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and third time, till a length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world’s believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good dispositions.
I received your letter from April 20th via Mr. Mazzei. I'm really sorry to hear that you've wasted so much time, and that when you got to Williamsburg, you hadn’t progressed at all since leaving Monticello. Time is now becoming valuable for you. Every day you lose will set back your entry onto the public stage where you can start being useful to yourself. However, the way to make up for lost time is to make the most of the time ahead. I trust that with your mindset, even learning will be an enjoyable task. I can assure you that having knowledge, next to having an honest heart, is what will most importantly make you cherished by your friends and bring you respect and advancement in your own country. Once your mind is well-equipped with knowledge, all you need to do to reach the highest positions is to pursue the interests of your country, your friends, and your own interests with the utmost integrity and honor. A lack of these virtues can never be compensated for by all the other skills you might acquire. So make these your top priority. Give up money, fame, science, and even the world itself rather than commit an immoral act. And never think that in any situation, or under any circumstances, it’s acceptable to do something dishonorable, no matter how minor it may seem to you. Whenever you need to make a decision, even if it will only be known to you, ask yourself how you would act if the whole world were watching you, and act accordingly. Encourage all your virtuous tendencies and practice them whenever you have the chance, knowing that they will strengthen with practice, just like a muscle, and that practice will make them a habit. From practicing pure virtue, you can be assured that you will find the greatest comfort in every moment of life, and even at the moment of death. If you ever find yourself surrounded by challenges and confusing situations that you don’t know how to escape from, do what is right, and you can be sure that it will lead you out of the worst circumstances. Even if you can’t see what your next step will be, follow truth, justice, and straightforwardness, and don’t be afraid to let them guide you out of the maze in the easiest way possible. The knot you thought was impossible to untangle will resolve itself. It’s completely wrong to think someone can get out of trouble through trickery, scheming, deceit, manipulation, lies, or injustice. These methods only multiply the difficulties, and those who take them on become so tangled up that the only way out is to make their disgrace even more visible. It’s very important to make a firm resolution to never tell a lie. There’s no vice more petty, pitiful, or contemptible. Once someone allows themselves to lie once, they’ll find it much easier to do so again and again, until it becomes a habit; they lie without even noticing and tell truths without anyone believing them. This dishonesty in words leads to dishonesty in the heart, which in time corrupts all its good qualities.
An honest heart being the first blessing, a knowing head is the second. It is time for you now to begin to be choice in your reading; to begin to pursue a regular course in it; and not to suffer yourself to be turned to the right or left by reading any thing out of that course. 1 have long ago digested a plan for you, suited to the circumstances in which you will be placed. This I will detail to you, from time to time, as you advance. For the present, I advise you to begin a course of ancient history, reading every thing in the original and not in translations. First read Goldsmith’s History of Greece. This will give you a digested view of that field. Then take up ancient history in the detail, reading the following books in the following order: Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophontis Hellenica, Xenophontis Anabasis, Arrian, Quintus Curtius, Diodorus Siculus, Justin. This shall form the first stage of your historical reading, and is all I need mention to you now. The next, will be of Roman history.* From that we will come down to modern history. In Greek and Latin poetry, you have read or will read at school, Virgil, Terence, Horace, Anacreon, Theocritus, Homer, Euripides, Sophocles. Read also Milton’s Paradise Lost, Shakspeare, Ossian, Pope’s and Swift’s works, in order to form your style in your own language. In morality, read Epictetus, Xenophontis Memorabilia, Plato’s Socratic dialogues, Cicero’s philosophies, Antoninus, and Seneca.
An honest heart is the first blessing, and a knowledgeable mind is the second. It’s time for you to start being selective in your reading; begin a structured approach to it, and don’t let yourself get distracted by anything outside of that plan. I’ve already thought out a plan for you that fits your situation. I’ll share the details with you as you progress. For now, I suggest starting with a course on ancient history, reading everything in the original texts instead of translations. First, read Goldsmith’s History of Greece. This will give you a well-rounded view of that area. Then dive into ancient history in detail, reading these books in this order: Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon’s Hellenica, Xenophon’s Anabasis, Arrian, Quintus Curtius, Diodorus Siculus, and Justin. This will be the first stage of your historical reading, and that’s all I need to mention for now. Next, we’ll move on to Roman history. After that, we’ll cover modern history. In Greek and Latin poetry, you’ve read or will read in school works by Virgil, Terence, Horace, Anacreon, Theocritus, Homer, Euripides, and Sophocles. Also, read Milton’s Paradise Lost, Shakespeare, Ossian, and the works of Pope and Swift to develop your writing style in your own language. For moral philosophy, read Epictetus, Xenophon’s Memorabilia, Plato’s Socratic dialogues, Cicero’s philosophies, Antoninus, and Seneca.
* Livy, Sallust, Caesar, Cicero’s Letters, Suetonius, Tacitus, Gibbon.
In order to assure a certain progress in this reading, consider what hours you have free from the school and the exercises of the school. Give about two of them every day to exercise; for health must not be sacrificed to learning. A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body, and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. Never think of taking a book with you. The object of walking is to relax the mind. You should therefore not permit yourself even to think while you walk; but divert your attention by the objects surrounding you. Walking is the best possible exercise. Habituate yourself to walk very far. The Europeans value themselves on having subdued the horse to the uses of man; but I doubt whether we have not lost more than we have gained, by the use of this animal. No one has occasioned so much the degeneracy of the human body. An Indian goes on foot nearly as far in a day, for a long journey, as an enfeebled white does on his horse; and he will tire the best horses. There is no habit you will value so much as that of walking far without fatigue. I would advise you to take your,exercise in the afternoon: not because it is the best time for exercise, for certainly it is not; but because it is the best time to spare from your studies; and habit will soon reconcile it to health, and render it nearly as useful as if you gave to that the more precious hours of the day. A little walk of half an hour in the morning, when you first rise, is advisable also. It shakes off sleep, and produces other good effects in the animal economy. Rise at a fixed and an early hour, and go to bed at a fixed and early hour also. Sitting up late at night is injurious to the health, and not useful to the mind. Having ascribed proper hours to exercise, divide what remain (I mean of your vacant hours) into three portions. Give the principal to History, the other two, which should be shorter, to Philosophy and Poetry. Write to me once every month or two, and let me know the progress you make. Tell me in what manner you employ every hour in the day. The plan I have proposed for you is adapted to your present situation only. When that is changed, I shall propose a corresponding change of plan. I have ordered the following books to be sent you from London, to the care of Mr. Madison. Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon’s Hellenics, Anabasis, and Memorabilia, Cicero’s works, Baretti’s Spanish and English Dictionary, Martin’s Philosophical Grammar, and Martin’s Philosophia Britannica. I will send you the following from hence. Bezout’s Mathematics, De la Lande’s Astronomy, Muschenbroeck’s Physics, Quintus Curtius, Justin, a Spanish Grammar, and some Spanish books, You will observe that Martin, Bezout, De la Lande, and Muschenbroeck are not in the preceding plan. They are not to be opened till you go to the University. You are now, I expect, learning French. You must push this; because the books which will be put into your hands when you advance into Mathematics, Natural Philosophy, Natural History, &c. will be mostly French, these sciences being better treated by the French than the English writers. Our future connection with Spain renders that the most necessary of the modern languages, after the French. When you become a public man, you may have occasion for it, and the circumstance of your possessing that language may give you a preference over other candidates. I have nothing further to add for the present, but husband well your time, cherish your instructors, strive to make every body your friend; and be assured that nothing will be so pleasing, as your success, to, Dear Peter,
In order to ensure steady progress in your reading, think about the hours you have free from school and its tasks. Dedicate about two hours each day to physical activity; after all, you shouldn't sacrifice your health for learning. A strong body strengthens the mind. For exercise, I recommend shooting. Not only does it provide moderate physical activity, but it also fosters boldness, initiative, and independence of thought. Playing ball games and similar activities are too intense for the body and don't build character in the mind. So, let your gun be your constant companion on your walks. Don't even consider taking a book with you. The goal of walking is to relax your mind. You shouldn't allow yourself to think while you walk; instead, distract your mind with your surroundings. Walking is the best exercise. Get used to walking long distances. Europeans pride themselves on having tamed horses for their use, but I question whether we've gained more than we've lost from this. No other factor has caused as much degeneration of the human body. An Indian can walk almost as far in a day for a long journey as a weakened white person can on horseback, and he can exhaust even the best horses. There’s no habit you’ll value more than walking long distances without tiring. I suggest you exercise in the afternoon—not because it’s the best time for it, because it's not, but because it's the best time to take away from your studies. You’ll quickly adjust to this timing for your health, making it almost as beneficial as if you used the more precious hours of your day. A short walk of half an hour in the morning, as soon as you get up, is also advisable. It wakes you up and has other positive effects on your body. Wake up at a consistent and early time, and go to bed at a consistent and early time as well. Staying up late at night is harmful to your health and doesn't benefit your mind. After assigning proper hours to exercise, divide the rest of your free hours into three parts. Allocate the majority to History, and split the other two shorter portions between Philosophy and Poetry. Write to me every month or two to update me on your progress. Let me know how you spend each hour of your day. The plan I’ve outlined for you is suited only to your current situation. When that changes, I’ll suggest a new plan accordingly. I’ve arranged for the following books to be sent to you from London under the care of Mr. Madison: Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon’s Hellenics, Anabasis, and Memorabilia, Cicero’s works, Baretti’s Spanish-English Dictionary, Martin’s Philosophical Grammar, and Martin’s Philosophia Britannica. From here, I’ll send you: Bezout’s Mathematics, De la Lande’s Astronomy, Muschenbroeck’s Physics, Quintus Curtius, Justin, a Spanish Grammar, and some Spanish books. You'll notice that Martin, Bezout, De la Lande, and Muschenbroeck aren't included in the previous plan. They shouldn’t be opened until you start at the University. I expect you’re currently learning French. You must focus on this, as the books you'll encounter when you advance in Mathematics, Natural Philosophy, Natural History, etc., will mostly be in French, a language in which these subjects are better covered than by English writers. Our future connection with Spain makes it necessary to learn Spanish as the most important modern language after French. When you enter public life, it may come in handy, and knowing the language could give you an advantage over other candidates. I have nothing more to say for now, except to manage your time wisely, support your teachers, strive to make friends with everyone, and be assured that your success will please me greatly. Best, Dear Peter.
Your’s affectionately,
Yours sincerely,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XCVI.—TO JOHN PAGE, August 20 1785
TO JOHN PAGE.
TO JOHN PAGE.
Paris, August 20 1785.
Paris, August 20, 1785.
Dear Page,
Dear Page,
I received your friendly letter of April the 28th, by Mr. Mazzei, on the 22nd of July. That of the month before, by Monsieur La Croix, has not come to hand. This correspondence is grateful to some of my warmest feelings, as the friendships of my youth are those which adhere closest to me, and in which I most confide. My principal happiness is now in the retrospect of life.
I got your friendly letter dated April 28th, delivered by Mr. Mazzei, on July 22nd. I haven't received the letter from the month before, sent by Monsieur La Croix. This correspondence touches some of my deepest feelings, as the friendships from my youth are the ones I hold most dear and trust the most. My main happiness now comes from reflecting on my life.
I thank you for your notes of your operations on the Pennsylvania boundary. I am in hopes that from yourself, Madison, Rittenhouse, or Hutchings, I shall receive a chart of the line as actually run. It will be a great present to me. I think Hutchings promised to send it to me. I have been much pleased to hear you had it in contemplation, to endeavor to establish Rittenhouse in our college. This would be an immense acquisition, and would draw youth to it from every part of the continent. You will do much more honor to our society, on reviving it, by placing him at its head, than so useless a member as I should be. I have been so long diverted from this my favorite line, and that, too, without acquiring an attachment to my adopted one, that I am become a mongrel, of no decided order, unowned by any, and incapable of serving any. I should feel myself out of my true place too, to stand before McLurg. But why withdraw yourself? You have more zeal, more application, and more constant attention to the subjects proper to the society, and can, therefore, serve them best.
I appreciate your updates on the Pennsylvania boundary operations. I'm hopeful that you, Madison, Rittenhouse, or Hutchings will send me a chart of the actual line. It would mean a lot to me. I believe Hutchings agreed to send it to me. I'm really glad to hear you were thinking about trying to establish Rittenhouse at our college. That would be an incredible addition and would attract young people from all over the continent. You would honor our society so much more by putting him in charge than by having someone as ineffective as I would be. I've been away from my favorite pursuit for so long, and without really connecting with my adopted one, that I feel like a mix with no clear identity, belonging to no one and unable to contribute. It would also feel wrong for me to stand before McLurg. But why would you step back? You have more passion, dedication, and consistent focus on the topics vital to the society, which means you can contribute the most effectively.
The affair of the Emperor and Dutch is settled, though not signed. The particulars have not yet transpired. That of the Bavarian exchange is dropped, and his views on Venice defeated. The alliance of Russia with Venice, to prevent his designs in that quarter, and that of the Hanoverian Elector with the King of Prussia and other members of the Germanic body, to prevent his acquisition of Bavaria, leave him in a solitary situation. In truth, he has lost much reputation by his late manoeuvres. He is a restless, ambitious character, aiming at every thing, persevering in nothing, taking up designs without calculating the force which will be opposed to him, and dropping them on the appearance of firm opposition. He has some just views and much activity. The only quarter in which the peace of Europe seems at present capable of being disturbed, is on that of the Porte. It is believed that the Emperor and Empress have schemes in contemplation for driving the Turks out of Europe. Were this with a view to re-establish the native Greeks in the sovereignty of their own country, I could wish them success, and to see driven from that delightful country, a set of barbarians, with whom an opposition to all science is an article of religion. The modern Greek is not yet so far departed from its ancient model, but that we might still hope to see the language of Homer and Demosthenes flow with purity from the lips of a free and ingenious people. But these powers have in object to divide the country between themselves. This is only to substitute one set of barbarians for another, breaking, at the same time, the balance among the European powers. You have been told with truth, that the Emperor of Morocco has shown a disposition to enter into treaty with us: but not truly, that Congress has not attended to his advances, and thereby disgusted him. It is long since they took measures to meet his advances. But some unlucky incidents have delayed their effect. His dispositions continue good. As a proof of this, he has lately released freely, and clothed well, the crew of an American brig he took last winter; the only vessel ever taken from us by any of the States of Barbary. But what is the English of these good dispositions? Plainly this; he is ready to receive us into the number of his tributaries. What will be the amount of tribute, remains yet to be known, but it probably will not be as small as you may have conjectured. It will surely be more than a free people ought to pay to a power owning only four or five frigates, under twenty-two guns: he has not a port into which a larger vessel can enter. The Algerines possess fifteen or twenty frigates, from that size up to fifty guns. Disinclination on their part has lately broken off a treaty between Spain and them, whereon they were to have received a million of dollars, besides great presents in naval stores. What sum they intend we shall pay, I cannot say. Then follow Tunis and Tripoli. You will probably find the tribute to all these powers make such a proportion of the federal taxes, as that every man will feel them sensibly, when he pays those taxes. The question is whether their peace or war will be cheapest. But it is a question which should be addressed to our honor, as well as our avarice. Nor does it respect us as to these pirates only, but as to the nations of Europe. If we wish our commerce to be free and uninsuked, we must let these nations see that we have an energy which at present they disbelieve. The low opinion they entertain of our powers, cannot fail to involve us soon in a naval war.
The situation between the Emperor and the Dutch is settled, though not finalized. Details haven't come out yet. The Bavarian exchange deal has fallen through, and his plans for Venice have failed. The alliance of Russia with Venice aims to thwart his ambitions in that area, while the Hanoverian Elector's alliance with the King of Prussia and other members of the Germanic League is meant to prevent him from taking over Bavaria, leaving him in a pretty isolated position. Honestly, he has lost a lot of credibility due to his recent moves. He’s a restless, ambitious figure, pursuing many goals without sticking to any, starting plans without considering the opposition he’ll face, and dropping them at the first sign of strong resistance. He has some legitimate ideas and is quite active. Right now, the only place that seems able to disrupt the peace in Europe is the Ottoman Empire. It’s believed that the Emperor and Empress are planning to push the Turks out of Europe. If their goal is to restore the native Greeks’ sovereignty over their own land, I would wish them success and hope to see that beautiful country rid of a group of barbarians who oppose all knowledge as part of their belief system. The modern Greek hasn't completely lost its ancient roots, so we could still hope to hear the language of Homer and Demosthenes spoken with purity by a free and inventive people. However, these powers aim to divide the country among themselves, which would just replace one group of barbarians with another while upsetting the balance among European powers. You have been correctly informed that the Emperor of Morocco has shown interest in negotiating with us; however, it’s not entirely true that Congress hasn’t responded to his overtures, which turned him off. They have been making plans to address his advances for a while now, but unfortunate events have delayed their effectiveness. His willingness to cooperate is still evident. To prove this, he recently released and well-equipped the crew of an American brig he captured last winter—the only ship ever taken from us by any of the Barbary States. But what does this goodwill mean? Simply put, he’s ready to accept us as one of his tributaries. We don't yet know how much the tribute will be, but it likely won’t be as low as you might think. It will definitely be more than a free nation should pay to a power with only four or five frigates, none of which have more than twenty-two guns; he has no port big enough for a larger ship. The Algerians have fifteen to twenty frigates, ranging from that size up to fifty guns. Their reluctance recently halted a treaty with Spain, which would have brought them a million dollars plus significant gifts in naval supplies. I can’t say how much they expect us to pay. Then there are Tunis and Tripoli. You will likely find that the tribute to all these powers will take up a considerable portion of federal taxes, so much so that everyone will feel the impact when they pay those taxes. The real question is whether peace or war will cost us less. However, it’s a question that concerns our honor as much as our greed. It also affects us not just regarding these pirates, but regarding European nations. If we want our trade to be free and protected, we need to show these nations that we have a strength they currently underestimate. Their low opinion of our capabilities will inevitably draw us into a naval conflict soon.
I shall send you with this, if I can., and if not, then by the first good conveyance, the Connoissance des Tems for the years 1786 and 1787, being all as yet published. You will find in these the tables for the planet Herschel, as far as the observations, hitherto made, admit them to be calculated. You will see, also, that Herschel was only the first astronomer who discovered it to be a planet, and not the first who saw it. Mayer saw it in the year 1756, and placed it in the catalogue of his zodiacal stars, supposing it to be such. A Prussian astronomer, in the year 1781, observed that the 964th star of Mayer’s catalogue was missing: and the calculations now prove that at the time Mayer saw his 964th star, the planet Herschel should have been precisely in the place where he noted that star. I shall send you also a little publication here, called the Bibliothèque Physico-oeconomique. It will communicate all the improvements and new discoveries in the arts and sciences, made in Europe for some years past. I shall be happy to hear from you often. Details, political and literary, and even of the small history of our country, are the most pleasing communications possible. Present me affectionately to Mrs. Page, and to your family, in the members of which, though unknown to me, I feel an interest on account of their parents. Believe me to be with warm esteem, dear Page, your sincere friend and servant,
I’ll send you the Connoissance des Tems for the years 1786 and 1787 with this, if I can, and if not, then by the first good means of transport. You’ll find in these the tables for the planet Herschel, based on the observations that have been made so far. You’ll also see that Herschel was only the first astronomer to recognize it as a planet, not the first to see it. Mayer saw it in 1756 and included it in his catalog of zodiac stars, thinking it was one of them. A Prussian astronomer noticed in 1781 that the 964th star in Mayer’s catalog was missing, and calculations now prove that when Mayer observed his 964th star, the planet Herschel should have been exactly where he noted that star. I’ll also send you a little publication called the Bibliothèque Physico-oeconomique. It covers all the improvements and new discoveries in the arts and sciences made in Europe over the past few years. I’d love to hear from you often. Details about politics, literature, and even the little happenings in our country are the most enjoyable updates. Please send my heartfelt regards to Mrs. Page and your family. Even though I don’t know them, I feel a connection with them because of their parents. Believe me, I remain your sincere friend and servant, dear Page, with warm respect.
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XCVII.—TO JOHN JAY, August 23, 1785
TO JOHN JAY.
To John Jay.
(Private.) Paris, August 23, 1785.
(Private.) Paris, Aug 23, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
I shall sometimes ask your permission to write you letters, not official, but private. The present is of this kind, and is occasioned by the question proposed in yours of June the 14th; ‘Whether it would be useful to us, to carry all our own productions, or none?’
I may occasionally ask if I can write you letters, not official ones, but personal. This letter is of that nature and is in response to the question you posed in your letter dated June 14th: ‘Would it be helpful for us to carry all our own products, or none at all?’
Were we perfectly free to decide this question, I should reason as follows. We have now lands enough to employ an infinite number of people in their cultivation. Cultivators of the earth are the most valuable citizens. They are the most vigorous, the most independent, the most virtuous, and they are tied to their country, and wedded to its liberty and interests, by the most lasting bonds. As long, therefore, as they can find employment in this line, I would not convert them into mariners, artisans, or any thing else. But our citizens will find employment in this line, till their numbers, and of course their productions, become too great for the demand, both internal and foreign. This is not the case as yet, and probably will not be for a considerable time. As soon as it is, the surplus of hands must be turned to something else. I should then, perhaps, wish to turn them to the sea in preference to manufactures; because, comparing the characters of the two classes, I find the former the most valuable citizens. I consider the class of artificers as the panders of vice, and the instruments by which the liberties of a country are generally overturned. However, we are not free to decide this question on principles of theory only. Our people are decided in the opinion, that it is necessary for us to take a share in the occupation of the ocean, and their established habits induce them to require that the sea be kept open to them, and that that line of policy be pursued, which will render the use of that element to them as great as possible. I think it a duty in those entrusted with the administration of their affairs, to conform themselves to the decided choice of their constituents: and that therefore, we should, in every instance, preserve an equality of right to them in the transportation of commodities, in the right of fishing, and in the other uses of the sea.
If we were completely free to decide this issue, my reasoning would go like this. We currently have enough land to hire countless people for farming. Farmers are our most valuable citizens. They are strong, independent, virtuous, and deeply connected to their country, committed to its freedom and interests through the strongest ties. Therefore, as long as they can find work in agriculture, I wouldn't want to turn them into sailors, craftsmen, or anything else. Our citizens will find employment in this area until their numbers—and thus their output—exceed the demand, both domestically and internationally. That’s not the case yet, and it likely won't be for quite some time. Once it is, the excess workforce will need to shift to other sectors. I might then prefer to redirect them to the sea rather than to manufacturing; because, when comparing the two groups, I find seafarers to be the more valuable citizens. I view craftsmen as contributors to vice and as tools that often undermine a country's freedoms. However, we cannot decide this issue based solely on theory. Our people firmly believe it’s essential to engage in ocean activities, and their established habits lead them to insist that the sea remains accessible to them and that we pursue policies that maximize their use of it. I see it as a duty for those in charge of managing their affairs to align with the clear wishes of their constituents. Therefore, we should consistently uphold equal rights for them in transportation of goods, fishing rights, and other uses of the sea.
But what will be the consequence? Frequent wars without a doubt. Their property will be violated on the sea and in foreign ports, their persons will be insulted, imprisoned, &c. for pretended debts, contracts, crimes, contraband, &c. &c. These insults must be resented, even if we had no feelings, yet to prevent their eternal repetition; or, in other words, our commerce on the ocean and in other countries must be paid for by frequent war. The justest dispositions possible in ourselves will not secure us against it. It would be necessary that all other nations were just also. Justice indeed, on our part, will save us from those wars which would have been produced by a contrary disposition. But how can we prevent those produced by the wrongs of other nations? By putting ourselves in a condition to punish them. Weakness provokes insult and injury, while a condition to punish, often prevents them. This reasoning leads to the necessity of some naval force; that being the only weapon with which we can reach an enemy. I think it to our interest to punish the first insult: because an insult unpunished is the parent of many others. We are not, at this moment, in a condition to do it, but we should put ourselves into it, as soon as possible. If a war with England should take place, it seems to me that the first thing necessary, would be a resolution to abandon the carrying trade, because we cannot protect it. Foreign nations must, in that case, be invited to bring us what we want, and to take our productions in their own bottoms. This alone could prevent the loss of those productions to us, and the acquisition of them to our enemy. Our seamen might be employed in depredations on their trade. But how dreadfully we shall suffer on our coasts, if we have no force on the water, former experience has taught us. Indeed, I look forward with horror to the very possible case of war with an European power, and think there is no protection against them, but from the possession of some force on the sea. Our vicinity to their West India possessions, and to the fisheries, is a bridle which a small naval force, on our part, would hold in the mouths of the most powerful of these countries. I hope our land office will rid us of our debts, and that our first attention then will be, to the beginning a naval force, of some sort. This alone can countenance our people as carriers on the water, and I suppose them to be determined to continue such.
But what will be the outcome? Definitely frequent wars. Their property will be violated at sea and in foreign ports, their people will be insulted, imprisoned, etc., for made-up debts, contracts, crimes, contraband, etc. These insults must be addressed, even if we had no emotions, just to stop them from happening over and over; in other words, our trade on the ocean and in other countries must be defended through frequent warfare. Being just in ourselves won't protect us from it. It would require that all other nations be just as well. Our fairness will certainly save us from wars that might arise from a different attitude. But how can we stop those caused by the wrongs of other nations? By putting ourselves in a position to punish them. Weakness invites insult and harm, whereas being capable of punishment often prevents it. This reasoning leads to the need for some kind of naval force, as that's the only way we can reach an enemy. I believe it's in our interest to respond to the first insult because an unpunished insult often leads to many more. We aren't in a position to retaliate right now, but we should work to get into that position as soon as possible. If a war with England were to happen, I believe the first step should be to decide to give up the carrying trade, as we cannot protect it. In that case, we should invite foreign nations to bring us what we need and take our products on their own ships. This alone could prevent the loss of those products for us and their gain for our enemy. Our seamen could engage in disrupting their trade. But how terribly we will suffer on our coasts if we have no force at sea, past experiences have shown us. Indeed, I look ahead with dread to the possibility of war with a European power, and I think there is no protection against them except through having some force at sea. Our proximity to their West Indian possessions and fisheries is a control that a small naval force on our part could exert over the most powerful of these nations. I hope our land office will help us resolve our debts, and that our main focus afterward will be to establish some form of naval force. This alone can support our people as traders on the water, and I believe they are determined to keep doing so.
I wrote you two public letters on the 14th instant, since which I have received yours of July the 13th. I shall always be pleased to receive from you, in a private way, such communications as you might not choose to put into a public letter.
I sent you two public letters on the 14th, and since then, I’ve received your letter from July 13th. I’ll always appreciate getting private messages from you that you might not want to include in a public letter.
I have the honor to be, with very sincere esteem, Dear Sir,
I’m honored to be, with genuine respect, Dear Sir,
your most obedient, humble servant,
your loyal and humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XCVIII.—TO COLONEL MONROE, August 28, 1735
TO COLONEL MONROE.
Paris, August 28, 1735.
Paris, August 28, 1735.
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
I wrote you on the 5th of July by Mr. Franklin, and on the 12th of the same month by Monsieur Houdon. Since that date, yours of June the 16th, by Mr. Mazzei, has been received. Every thing looks like peace here. The settlement between the Emperor and Dutch is not yet published, but it is believed to be agreed on. Nothing is done, as yet, between him and the Porte. He is much wounded by the confederation of several of the Germanic body, at the head of which is the King of Prussia, and to which the King of England, as Elector of Hanover, is believed to accede. The object is to preserve the constitution of that empire. It shows that these princes entertain serious jealousies of the ambition of the Emperor, and this will very much endanger the election of his nephew as King of the Romans. A late Arrêt of this court against the admission of British manufactures produces a great sensation in England. I wish it may produce a disposition there to receive our commerce in all their dominions, on advantageous terms. This is the only balm which can heal the wounds that it has received. It is but too true, that that country furnished markets for three fourths of the exports of the eight northernmost states. A truth not proper to be spoken of, but which should influence our proceedings with them.
I wrote to you on July 5th through Mr. Franklin, and on July 12th through Monsieur Houdon. Since then, I’ve received your letter from June 16th via Mr. Mazzei. Everything seems to be leaning towards peace here. The settlement between the Emperor and the Dutch hasn't been announced yet, but it’s thought to be agreed upon. Nothing has been done yet between him and the Porte. He’s quite upset about the coalition of several German states, led by the King of Prussia, with the King of England likely joining as Elector of Hanover. Their goal is to maintain the constitution of that empire. This indicates that these rulers have serious suspicions about the Emperor's ambition, which will seriously jeopardize the election of his nephew as King of the Romans. A recent Arrêt from this court against the admission of British goods has created quite a stir in England. I hope it will lead to a willingness there to welcome our trade in all their territories on favorable terms. This is the only remedy that can heal the wounds it has suffered. It’s unfortunately true that that country provided markets for three-quarters of the exports of the eight northernmost states. A fact that shouldn't be openly discussed, but which should guide our actions with them.
The July French packet having arrived without bringing any news of Mr. Lambe, if the English one of the same month be also arrived, without news of him, I expect Mr. Adams will concur with me in sending some other person to treat with the Barbary States. Mr. Barclay is willing to go, and I have proposed him to Mr. Adams, but have not yet received his answer. The peace expected between Spain and Algiers will probably not take place. It is said the former was to have given a million of dollars. Would it not be prudent to send a minister to Portugal? Our commerce with that country is very important; perhaps more so than with any other country in Europe. It is possible too, that they might permit our whaling vessels to refresh in Brazil, or give some other indulgences in America. The lethargic character of their ambassador here, gives a very unhopeful aspect to a treaty on this ground. I lately spoke with him on the subject, and he has promised to interest himself in obtaining an answer from his court.
The July French packet arrived, but it didn't bring any news about Mr. Lambe. If the English packet from the same month has also arrived without any updates on him, I expect Mr. Adams will agree with me on sending someone else to negotiate with the Barbary States. Mr. Barclay is willing to go, and I've suggested him to Mr. Adams, but I haven't received a response yet. The peace that was expected between Spain and Algiers probably won't happen. It's said that Spain was supposed to pay a million dollars. Wouldn't it make sense to send a minister to Portugal? Our trade with that country is really important, maybe even more so than with any other European country. It's also possible that they might allow our whaling ships to rest in Brazil or offer some other concessions in America. The lackadaisical attitude of their ambassador here makes a treaty seem unlikely. I recently talked to him about it, and he promised to try to get a response from his government.
I have waited to see what was the pleasure of Congress, as to the secretaryship of my office here; that is, to see whether they proposed to appoint a secretary of legation, or leave me to appoint a private secretary. Colonel Humphreys’ occupation in the despatches and records of the matters which relate to the general commissions, does not afford him leisure to aid me in my office, were I entitled to ask that aid. In the mean time, the long papers which often accompany the communications between the ministers here and myself, and the other business of the office, absolutely require a scribe. I shall, therefore, on Mr. Short’s return from the Hague, appoint him my private secretary, ‘til congress shall think proper to signify their pleasure. The salary allowed Mr. Franklin, in the same office, was one thousand dollars a year. I shall presume that Mr Short may draw the same allowance from the funds of the United States here. As soon as I shall have made this appointment, I shall give official notice of it to Mr. Jay, that Congress may, if they disapprove it, say so.
I have waited to find out what Congress wants regarding the secretary position in my office; specifically, whether they plan to appoint a secretary of legation or allow me to choose a private secretary. Colonel Humphreys is busy with the dispatches and records related to the general commissions, so he doesn’t have the time to help me in my office, even if I were to request his assistance. Meanwhile, the lengthy documents that often accompany communications between the ministers and myself, along with other duties in the office, absolutely require a scribe. Therefore, when Mr. Short returns from the Hague, I will appoint him as my private secretary until Congress decides to let me know their wishes. Mr. Franklin, who held the same position, was paid a salary of one thousand dollars a year. I will assume that Mr. Short can draw the same salary from the United States funds here. Once I make this appointment, I will officially inform Mr. Jay so that Congress can respond if they disapprove.
I am much pleased with your land ordinance, and think it improved from the first, in the most material circumstances. I had mistaken the object of the division of the lands among the States. I am sanguine in my expectations of lessening our debts by this fund, and have expressed my expectations to the minister and others here. I see by the public papers, you have adopted the dollar as your money unit. In the arrangement of coins, I proposed, I ought to have inserted a gold coin of five dollars, which, being within two shillings of the value of a guinea, would be very convenient.
I’m very pleased with your land ordinance and think it’s an improvement from the first one in significant ways. I had misunderstood the purpose of dividing the land among the States. I’m optimistic about reducing our debts with this fund, and I’ve shared my hopes with the minister and others here. I see in the news that you’ve adopted the dollar as your currency unit. In the arrangement of coins I suggested, I should have included a five-dollar gold coin, which would be very convenient as it’s just two shillings shy of the value of a guinea.
The English papers are so incessantly repeating their lies, about the tumults, the anarchy, the bankruptcies, and distresses of America, that these ideas prevail very generally in Europe. At a large table where I dined the other day, a gentleman from Switzerland expressed his apprehensions for the fate of Dr. Franklin, as he said he had been informed, that he would be received with stones by the people, who were generally dissatisfied with the Revolution, and incensed against all those who had assisted in bringing it about. I told him his apprehensions were just, and that the people of America would probably salute Dr. Franklin with the same stones they had thrown at the Marquis Fayette. The reception of the Doctor is an object of very general attention, and will weigh in Europe, as an evidence of the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of America with their Revolution. As you are to be in Williamsburg early in November, this is the last letter I shall write you till about that time.
The English newspapers keep repeating their lies about the chaos, anarchy, bankruptcies, and hardships in America, which has led to widespread belief in these ideas across Europe. The other day, while having dinner at a large table, a gentleman from Switzerland shared his worries about Dr. Franklin's fate, saying he had heard that people would greet him with stones, as they were generally unhappy with the Revolution and angry at those who supported it. I told him his concerns were valid, and that the people in America would likely welcome Dr. Franklin with the same stones they had thrown at the Marquis de Lafayette. The way the Doctor is received is closely watched and will serve as an indicator of whether America is satisfied or dissatisfied with the Revolution. Since you'll be in Williamsburg early in November, this will be my last letter to you until around that time.
I am, with very sincere esteem, dear Sir,
I have great respect for you, dear Sir,
your friend and servant,
your friend and servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER XCIX.—TO CAPTAIN JOHN PAUL JONES, August 29,1785
TO CAPTAIN JOHN PAUL JONES.
To Captain John Paul Jones.
Paris, August 29,1785.
Paris, August 29, 1785.
Sir,
Sir,
I received this moment a letter from the Marechal de Castries, of which the enclosed is a copy. Having engaged to him to solicit orders for the payment of any part of this money due to French subjects to be made here, and moreover engaged that, in the mean time, I will order payment, should any such claimants offer themselves; I pray you to furnish me with all the evidence you can, as to what French subjects may be entitled to any part of the monies you will receive, and to how much, each of them; and also to advise me by what means I can obtain a certain roll of all such claimants.
I just got a letter from Marechal de Castries, and I'm including a copy of it. I've promised him that I'll request orders for the payment of any money owed to French citizens here. In the meantime, I also committed to making payments if any claimants come forward. Please provide me with all the evidence you have regarding which French citizens might be entitled to any of the funds you receive, and how much each person might be owed. Additionally, let me know how I can get a complete list of all these claimants.
I am, Sir, with great esteem,
I am, Sir, with great respect,
your most obedient, humble servant,
your most obedient and humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER C.—TO JOHN JAY, August 30,1785
TO JOHN JAY.
Paris, August 30,1785.
Paris, August 30, 1785.
Sir,
Hey,
I had the honor of writing to you on the 14th instant, by a Mr. Cannon of Connecticut, who was to sail in the packet. Since that date yours of July the 13th has come to hand. The times for the sailing of the packets being somewhat deranged, I avail myself of a conveyance for the present, by the Mr. Fitzhugbs of Virginia, who expect to land at Philadelphia.
I had the pleasure of writing to you on the 14th of this month, through Mr. Cannon from Connecticut, who was set to sail on the packet. Since then, I’ve received your letter dated July 13th. With the sailing schedule for the packets being a bit disrupted, I’m taking advantage of this opportunity to send my message through Mr. Fitzhugbs from Virginia, who plans to arrive in Philadelphia.
I enclose you a correspondence which has taken place between the Marechal de Castries, minister of the Marine, and myself. It is on the subject of the prize-money, due to the officers and crew of the Alliance, for prizes taken in Europe, under the command of Captain Jones. That officer has been here, under the direction of Congress, near two years, soliciting the liquidation and payment of that money. Infinite delays had retarded the liquidation till the month of June. It was expected, when the liquidation was announced to be completed, that the money was to be received. The M. de Castries doubted the authority of Captain Jones to receive it, and wrote to me for information. I wrote him a letter dated July the 10th, which seemed to clear away that difficulty. Another arose. A Mr. Puchilberg presented powers to receive the money. I wrote then the letter of August the 3rd, and received that of the M. de Castries, of August the 12th, acknowledging he was satisfied as to this difficulty, but announcing another; to wit, that possibly some French subjects might have been on board the Alliance, and therefore, that Captain Jones ought to give security for the repayment of their portions. Captain Jones had before told me there was not a Frenchman on board that vessel, but the captain. I inquired of Mr. Barclay.. He told me he was satisfied there was not one. Here, then, was a mere possibility, a shadow of right, opposed to a certain, to a substantial one, which existed in the mass of the crew, and which was likely to be delayed; for it was not to be expected that Captain Jones could, in a strange country, find the security required. These difficulties I suppose to have been conjured up, one after another, by Mr. Puchilberg, who wanted to get hold of the money. I saw but one way to cut short these everlasting delays, which were ruining the officer soliciting the payment of the money, and keeping our seamen out of what they had hardly fought for, years ago. This was, to undertake to ask an order from Congress, for the payment of any French claimants by their banker in Paris; and, in the mean time, to undertake to order such payment, should any such claimant prove his title, before the pleasure of Congress should be made known to me. I consulted with Mr. Barclay, who seemed satisfied I might venture this undertaking, because no such claim could be presented. I therefore wrote the letter of August the 17th, and received that of August the 26th, finally closing this tedious business. Should what I have done, not meet the approbation of Congress, I would pray their immediate sense, because it is not probable that the whole of this money will be paid so hastily, but that their orders may arrive in time to stop a sufficiency for any French claimants who may possibly exist. The following paragraph of a letter from Captain Jones, dated L’Orient, August the 25th, 1785, further satisfies me, that my undertaking amounted to nothing in fact. He says, ‘It is impossible that any legal demands should be made on you for French subjects, in consequence of your engagement to the Marechal. The Alliance was manned in America, and I never heard of any person’s having served on board that frigate, who had been born in France, except the captain, who, as I was informed, had, in America, abjured the church of Rome, and been naturalized.’ Should Congress approve what I have done, I will then ask their resolution for the payment, by their banker here, of any such claims as may be properly authenticated, and will moreover pray of you an authentic roll of the crew of the Alliance, with the sums to be allowed to each person; on the subject of which roll, Captain Jones, in the letter above mentioned, says, ‘I carried a set of the rolls with me to America, and before I embarked in the French fleet at Boston, I put them into the hands of Mr. Secretary Livingston, and they were sealed up among the papers of his office, when I left America.’ I think it possible that Mr. Puchilberg may excite claims. Should any name be offered which shall not be found on the roll, it will be a sufficient disproof of the pretension. Should it be found on the roll, it will remain to prove the identity of person, and to inquire if payment may not have been made in America. I conjecture from the journals of Congress of June the 2nd, that Landais, who, I believe, was the captain, may be in America. As his portion of prize-money may be considerable, I hope it will be settled in America, where only it can be known whether any advances have been made him.
I'm sending you a correspondence that took place between the Marechal de Castries, the minister of the Marine, and me. It's about the prize money owed to the officers and crew of the Alliance for the prizes taken in Europe under Captain Jones’s command. That officer has been here, under Congress's direction, for nearly two years, pushing for the payment of that money. Numerous delays have held up the liquidation until June. When the liquidation was finally announced as complete, we expected the money to be received. However, M. de Castries doubted Captain Jones's authority to receive it and asked for clarification. I sent him a letter dated July 10th that seemed to resolve that issue. Then another problem came up. A Mr. Puchilberg presented credentials to receive the money. I then wrote the letter on August 3rd and received a response from M. de Castries on August 12th, acknowledging he was satisfied with this issue but raising another one: that some French nationals might have been on board the Alliance, suggesting that Captain Jones should provide security for their portions. Captain Jones had previously assured me there were no Frenchmen on board the ship except for him. I asked Mr. Barclay, and he confirmed that there were none. So, here was merely a possibility, a flimsy claim, standing against a certain and substantial claim from the crew, which was likely to be delayed. It wasn’t realistic to expect Captain Jones to find the required security in a foreign country. I suspect these difficulties were conjured up one after another by Mr. Puchilberg, who wanted to take control of the money. I saw only one way to cut through these endless delays, which were hurting the officer pursuing the payment and keeping our sailors from what they barely fought for years ago. That was to ask Congress for the payment of any French claims through their banker in Paris; meanwhile, I would arrange for such payment should any claimant prove their entitlement before Congress made their decision known to me. I consulted with Mr. Barclay, who seemed satisfied that I could take this step since no claim could be brought forward. I therefore wrote the letter on August 17th and received the response on August 26th, bringing this lengthy matter to a close. If what I've done doesn't meet Congress's approval, I would appreciate their immediate feedback, as it’s unlikely the entire amount will be disbursed quickly, but their orders might arrive in time to prevent funding for any French claimants that might exist. The following paragraph from a letter by Captain Jones, dated L’Orient, August 25th, 1785, reassures me that my actions were of no real consequence. He stated, "It's impossible for any legal claims to be made against you for French subjects due to your engagement with the Marechal. The Alliance was crewed in America, and I’ve never heard of anyone serving on that frigate who was born in France, except for the captain, who, as I was informed, had, in America, renounced the Roman church and been naturalized." If Congress approves what I’ve done, I will then seek their decision for the payment, through their banker here, for any properly authenticated claims, and I will also request from you an official roll of the crew of the Alliance, along with the sums to be allocated to each person. Regarding that roll, Captain Jones, in the previously mentioned letter, stated, "I took a set of the rolls with me to America, and before I joined the French fleet in Boston, I handed them to Mr. Secretary Livingston, and they were sealed among his office papers when I left America." I think it’s possible that Mr. Puchilberg may stir up claims. If any name is put forward that doesn't appear on the roll, it will effectively disprove the claim. If it does appear on the roll, we will need to prove the identity of the person and check if payment has already been made in America. I gather from Congress's journals from June 2nd that Landais, who I believe was the captain, might be in America. Since his share of the prize money could be substantial, I hope it will be resolved in America, where it can be determined if any payments have been made to him.
The person at the head of the post office here, says, he proposed to Dr. Franklin a convention to facilitate the passage of letters through their office and ours, and that he delivered a draught of the convention proposed, that it might be sent to Congress. I think it possible he may be mistaken in this, as, on my mentioning it to Dr. Franklin, he did not recollect any such draught having been put into his hands. An answer, however, is expected by them. I mention it, that Congress may decide whether they will make any convention on the subject, and on what principle. The one proposed here was, that for letters passing hence into America, the French postage should be collected by our post-officers, and paid every six months, and for letters coming from America here, the American postage should be collected by the post-officers here, and paid to us in like manner. A second plan, however, presents itself; that is, to suppose the sums to be thus collected, on each side, will be equal, or so nearly equal, that the balance will not pay for the trouble of keeping accounts, and for the little bickerings that the settlement of accounts and demands of the balances may occasion: and therefore, to make an exchange of postage. This would better secure our harmony; but I do not know that it would be agreed to here. If not, the other might then be agreed to.
The head of the post office here says he suggested to Dr. Franklin a plan to improve the process of sending letters through both our office and theirs, and that he handed over a draft of the proposed plan to be sent to Congress. I think he might be mistaken about this, since when I brought it up with Dr. Franklin, he didn’t remember ever receiving such a draft. However, they are expecting a response. I mention this so Congress can decide if they want to make any agreement on the topic and on what terms. The plan suggested here was that for letters sent from here to America, the French postage would be collected by our postal workers and paid every six months, and for letters coming from America, the American postage would be collected by the local postal workers and paid to us in the same way. However, a second option has come to mind: assuming the amounts collected on each side will be equal or almost equal enough that the balance won’t justify the hassle of keeping track of accounts and the minor disputes that settling accounts and balancing the amounts might cause; therefore, we could swap postage. This would help maintain our cooperation, but I’m not sure it would be accepted here. If not, then the first plan might be agreed upon.
I have waited hitherto, supposing that Congress might, possibly, appoint a secretary to the legation here, or signify their pleasure that I should appoint a private secretary, to aid me in my office. The communications between the ministers and myself requiring often that many and long papers should be copied, and that in a shorter time than could be done by myself, were I otherwise unoccupied, other correspondences and proceedings, of all which copies must be retained, and still more the necessity of having some confidential person, who, in case of any accident to myself, might be authorized to take possession of the instructions, letters, and other papers of the office, have rendered it absolutely necessary for me to appoint a private secretary. Colonel Humphreys finds full occupation, and often more than he can do, in writing and recording the despatches and proceedings of the general commissions. I shall, therefore, appoint Mr. Short, on his return from the Hague, with an express condition, that the appointment shall cease whenever Congress shall think proper to make any other arrangement. He will, of course, expect the allowance heretofore made to the private secretaries of the ministers, which, I believe, has been a thousand dollars a year.
I have waited until now, thinking that Congress might appoint a secretary for the legation here, or indicate their preference for me to hire a private secretary to help me with my work. The communication between the ministers and myself often requires that many lengthy documents be copied, and I can’t do this myself in a timely manner if I have other tasks. Additionally, there’s the need to keep copies of all correspondences and proceedings, and more importantly, to have a trusted person who can take over the office's instructions, letters, and other papers in case anything happens to me. This makes it absolutely necessary for me to appoint a private secretary. Colonel Humphreys is already fully occupied and often has more work than he can handle with writing and recording the dispatches and proceedings for the general commissions. Therefore, I will appoint Mr. Short upon his return from The Hague, with the specific condition that the appointment will end whenever Congress decides to make any other arrangements. He will, of course, expect the same salary previously given to private secretaries of the ministers, which I believe has been one thousand dollars a year.
An improvement is made here in the construction of muskets, which it may be interesting to Congress to know, should they at any time propose to procure any. It consists in the making every part of them so exactly alike, that what belongs to any one, may be used for every other musket in the magazine. The government here has examined and approved the method, and is establishing a large manufactory for the purpose of putting it into execution. As yet, the inventor has only completed the lock of the musket, on this plan. He will proceed immediately to have the barrel, stock, and other parts, executed in the same way. Supposing it might be useful to the United States, I went to the workman. He presented me the parts of fifty locks taken to pieces, and arranged in compartments. I put several together myself, taking pieces at hazard as they came to hand, and they fitted in the most perfect manner. The advantages of this, when arms need repair, are evident. He effects it by tools of his own contrivance, which, at the same time, abridge the work, so that he thinks he shall be able to furnish the musket two livres cheaper than the common price. But it will be two or three years before he will be able to furnish any quantity. I mention it now, as it may have an influence on the plan for furnishing our magazines with this arm.
An improvement has been made in the design of muskets that Congress might find interesting if they ever consider purchasing some. This development involves making every part of the muskets identical, so that any part can be used interchangeably among all the muskets in storage. The government has reviewed and approved this method and is setting up a large manufacturing facility to implement it. So far, the inventor has only finished the lock of the musket using this design. He will soon start working on the barrel, stock, and other components in the same way. Thinking it could be beneficial for the United States, I visited the craftsman. He showed me the parts of fifty locks disassembled and organized in sections. I assembled a few myself, randomly selecting pieces, and they fit perfectly. The benefits of this system are clear when repairs are needed for firearms. He uses his own specially designed tools, which also speed up the process, and he believes he can sell the musket for two livres less than the standard price. However, it will take two to three years before he can produce a bulk quantity. I bring this up now because it could impact plans for supplying our storage with this weapon.
Every thing in Europe remains as when I wrote you last. The peace between Spain and Algiers has the appearance of being broken off. The French packet having arrived without Mr. Lambe, or any news of him, I await Mr. Adams’s acceding to the proposition mentioned in my last. I send you the Gazettes of Leyden and France to this date, and have the honor to be, with the highest respect and esteem, Sir,
Everything in Europe is the same as when I last wrote to you. It looks like the peace between Spain and Algiers has fallen apart. The French mail arrived without Mr. Lambe or any updates about him, so I'm waiting for Mr. Adams to agree to the proposal I mentioned in my last letter. I'm sending you the Gazettes of Leyden and France up to this date, and I have the honor to be, with the highest respect and esteem, Sir,
your most obedient, humble servant,
your truly devoted servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CI.—TO JAMES MADISON, September 1,1785
TO JAMES MADISON.
To James Madison.
Paris, September 1,1785.
Paris, September 1, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
My last to you by Monsieur de Doradour, was dated May the 11th. Since that, I have received yours of January the 22nd with six copies of the revisal, and that of April the 27th by Mr. Mazzei.
My last message to you from Monsieur de Doradour was dated May 11th. Since then, I have received your letter from January 22nd along with six copies of the revision, and the one from April 27th delivered by Mr. Mazzei.
All is quiet here. The Emperor and Dutch have certainly agreed, though they have not published their agreement. Most of his schemes in Germany must be postponed, if they are not prevented by the confederacy of many of the Germanic body, at the head of which is the King of Prussia, and to which the Elector of Hanover is supposed to have acceded. The object of the league is to preserve the members of the empire in their present state. I doubt whether the jealousy entertained of this prince, and which is so fully evidenced by this league, may not defeat the election of his nephew to be King of the Romans, and thus produce an instance of breaking the lineal succession. Nothing is as yet done between him and the Turks. If any thing is produced in that quarter, it will not be for this year. The court of Madrid has obtained the delivery of the crew of the brig Betsey, taken by the Emperor of Morocco. The Emperor had treated them kindly, new-clothed them, and delivered them to the Spanish minister, who sent them to Cadiz. This is the only American vessel ever taken by the Barbary States. The Emperor continues to give proofs of his desire to be in friendship with us, or, in other words, of receiving us into the number of his tributaries. Nothing further need be feared from him. I wish the Algerines may be as easily dealt with. I fancy the peace expected between them and Spain is not likely to take place. I am well informed that the late proceedings in America have produced a wonderful sensation in England in our favor. I mean the disposition, which seems to be becoming general, to invest Congress with the regulation of our commerce, and, in the mean time, the measures taken to defeat the avidity of the British government, grasping at our carrying business. I can add with truth, that it was not till these symptoms appeared in America, that I have been able to discover the smallest token of respect towards the United States, in any part of Europe. There was an enthusiasm towards us, all over Europe, at the moment of the peace. The torrent of lies published unremittingly, in every day’s London paper, first made an impression, and produce a coolness. The republication of these lies in most of the papers of Europe (done probably by authority of the governments to discourage emigrations) carried them home to the belief of every mind. They supposed every thing in America was anarchy, tumult, and civil war. The reception of the Marquis Fayette gave a check to these ideas. The late proceedings seem to be producing a decisive vibration in our favor. I think it possible that England may ply before them. It is a nation which nothing but views of interest can govern. If they produce us good there, they will here also. The defeat of the Irish propositions is also in our favor.
All is quiet here. The Emperor and the Dutch have clearly come to an agreement, although they haven’t made it public. Most of his plans in Germany will have to be delayed, if they aren't blocked by the alliance of many German states, led by the King of Prussia, to which the Elector of Hanover is thought to have joined. The purpose of this league is to keep the empire's members in their current state. I'm not sure if the resentment toward this prince, which is clearly shown by the league, might prevent his nephew from being elected as King of the Romans, potentially breaking the lineal succession. Nothing has been decided yet between him and the Turks. If anything happens on that front, it won’t be this year. The court of Madrid has secured the return of the crew of the brig Betsey, which was captured by the Emperor of Morocco. The Emperor treated them well, gave them new clothes, and handed them over to the Spanish minister, who sent them to Cadiz. This is the only American ship ever taken by the Barbary States. The Emperor continues to show his desire to be friendly with us, or in other words, to have us among his tributaries. There’s nothing more to fear from him. I hope the Algerines
I have at length made up the purchase of books for you, as far as it can be done at present. The objects which I have not yet been able to get, I shall continue to seek for. Those purchased, are packed this morning in two trunks, and you have the catalogue and prices herein inclosed. The future charges of transportation shall be carried into the next bill. The amount of the present is 1154 livres, 13 sous, which, reckoning the French crown of six livres at six shillings and eight pence, Virginia money, is £64. 3s., which sum you will be so good as to keep in your hands, to be used occasionally in the education of my nephews, when the regular resources disappoint you. To the same use I would pray you to apply twenty-five guineas, which I have lent the two Mr. Fitz-hughs of Marmion, and which I have desired them to repay into your hands. You will of course deduct the price of the revisals, and of any other articles you may have been so kind as to pay for me. Greek and Roman authors are dearer here, than, I believe, any where in the world. Nobody here reads them; wherefore they are not reprinted. Don Ulloa, in the original, is not to be found. The collection of tracts on the economies of different nations, we cannot find; nor Amelot’s Travels into China. I shall send these two trunks of books to Havre, there to wait a conveyance to America; for as to the fixing the packets there, it is as uncertain as ever. The other articles you mention, shall be procured as far as they can be. Knowing that some of them would be better got in London, I commissioned Mr. Short, who was going there, to get them. He has not yet returned. They will be of such a nature as that I can get some gentleman who may be going to America, to take them in his portmanteau. Le Maire being now able to stand on his own legs, there will be no necessity for your advancing him the money I desired, if it is not already done. I am anxious to hear from you on the subject of my Notes on Virginia. I have been obliged to give so many of them here, that I fear their getting published. I have received an application from the Directors of the public buildings, to procure them a plan for their capitol. I shall send them one taken from the best morsel of ancient architecture now remaining. It has obtained the approbation of fifteen or sixteen centuries, and is, therefore, preferable to any design which might be newly contrived. It will give more room, be more convenient, and cost less, than the plan they sent me. Pray encourage them to wait for it, and to execute it. It will be superior in beauty to any thing in America, and not inferior to any thing in the world. It is very simple. Have you a copying press? If you have not, you should get one. Mine (exclusive of paper, which costs a guinea a ream) has cost me about fourteen guineas. I would give ten times that sum, to have had it from the date of the stamp act. I hope you will be so good as to continue your communications, both of the great and small kind, which are equally useful to me. Be assured of the sincerity with which I am, Dear Sir,
I’ve finally gotten the books you wanted, as much as I can for now. I’ll keep looking for the ones I couldn’t find yet. The ones I have bought are packed this morning in two trunks, and you’ll find the list and prices enclosed. The shipping costs will be added to the next bill. The total cost now is 1154 livres, 13 sous, which, with the French crown of six livres valued at six shillings and eight pence in Virginia money, is £64. 3s. Please keep this amount to help educate my nephews when regular funds fall short. I’d also appreciate it if you could use twenty-five guineas I lent to Mr. Fitz-hugh of Marmion, which I’ve asked them to return to you. Make sure to deduct the cost of the revisals and any other items you’ve kindly paid for me. Greek and Roman authors are more expensive here than anywhere else, I believe. No one here reads them, which is why they aren’t reprinted. Don Ulloa in the original text isn’t available. We can’t find the collection of tracts on the economies of different nations or Amelot’s Travels into China. I’ll send these two trunks of books to Havre to wait for a way to America; fixing the packets there is still as uncertain as ever. I’ll try to get the other items you mentioned as much as possible. Knowing some would be easier to find in London, I asked Mr. Short, who was going there, to get them. He hasn’t returned yet. They should be the kind of items that a gentleman going to America could take in his suitcase. Since Le Maire can stand on his own now, there’s no need for you to advance him the money I requested, if you haven’t already. I’m eager to hear from you about my Notes on Virginia. I’ve had to give so many copies here that I’m worried about their publication. I received a request from the Directors of the public buildings to provide a plan for their capitol. I’ll send them one based on the best piece of ancient architecture still standing. It’s been admired for fifteen or sixteen centuries and is, therefore, better than any new design. It will provide more space, be more convenient, and cost less than the plan they gave me. Please encourage them to wait for it and to follow through with it. It will be more beautiful than anything in America, and not worse than anything in the world. It’s very simple. Do you have a copying press? If not, you should get one. Mine (not including paper, which costs a guinea per ream) has cost me about fourteen guineas. I’d pay ten times that amount just to have had it since the stamp act was enacted. I hope you’ll continue to share updates with me, whether big or small, as they are both equally helpful. Know that I am sincerely, Dear Sir,
your friend and servant,
your friend and servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CII.—TO MESSRS. DUMAS AND SHORT, September 1, 1785
TO MESSRS. DUMAS AND SHORT.
To Mr. Dumas and Mr. Short.
Paris, September 1, 1785.
Paris, September 1, 1785.
Gentlemen,
Guys,
I have been duly honored with the receipt of your separate letters of August 23rd, and should sooner have returned an answer, but that as you had written also to Mr. Adams, I thought it possible I might receive his sentiments on the subject, in time for the post. Not thinking it proper to lose the occasion of the post, I have concluded to communicate to you my separate sentiments, which you will of course pay attention to, only so far as they may concur with what you shall receive from Mr. Adams.
I am truly grateful to have received your letters from August 23rd. I meant to reply sooner, but since you also wrote to Mr. Adams, I thought it would be good to wait for his thoughts on the matter in time for this post. Not wanting to miss the opportunity to send something, I’ve decided to share my own thoughts with you, which you can, of course, consider only to the extent that they align with what you get from Mr. Adams.
On a review of our letters to the Baron de Thulemeyer, I do not find that we had proposed that the treaty should be in two columns, the one English, and the other what he should think proper. We certainly intended to have proposed it. We had agreed together that it should be an article of system with us, and the omission of it, in this instance, has been accidental. My own opinion, therefore, is, that to avoid the appearance of urging new propositions when every thing appeared to be arranged, we should agree to consider the French column as the original, if the Baron de Thulemeyer thinks himself bound to insist on it: but if the practice of his court will admit of the execution in the two languages, each to be considered as equally original, it would be very pleasing to me, as it will accommodate it to our views, relieve us from the embarrassment of this precedent, which may be urged against us on other occasions, and be more agreeable to our country, where the French language is spoken by very few. This method will be also attended with the advantage, that if any expression in any part of the treaty is equivocal in the one language, its true sense will be known by the corresponding passage in the other.
Upon reviewing our letters to Baron de Thulemeyer, I couldn't find any evidence that we proposed the treaty to be in two columns, one in English and the other in whichever language he deemed appropriate. We definitely intended to suggest that. We had agreed that it would be a standard practice for us, and its omission this time was purely accidental. Therefore, I believe that to avoid the impression of introducing new proposals when everything seems settled, we should agree to treat the French column as the original, if Baron de Thulemeyer insists on that. However, if his court allows for the treaty to be executed in both languages, each being considered equally original, that would be ideal for me. It would align with our objectives, help us avoid the potential complications from this precedent that could be used against us in the future, and be more suitable for our country, where very few people speak French. This approach would also have the advantage that if any expression in the treaty is unclear in one language, its true meaning could be clarified by the corresponding section in the other.
The errors of the copyist, in the French column, you will correct of course.
The copyist's mistakes in the French column, you'll fix them, of course.
I have the honor to be, with very high esteem, Gentlemen,
I am honored to be, with great respect, Gentlemen,
your most obedient
your most obedient servant
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CIII.—TO JOHN ADAMS, September 4, 1785
TO JOHN ADAMS.
To John Adams.
Paris, September 4, 1785.
Paris, September 4, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
On receipt of your favors of August the 18th and 23rd, I conferred with Mr. Barclay on the measures necessary to be taken to set our treaty with the piratical States into motion, through his agency. Supposing that we should begin with the Emperor of Morocco, a letter to the Emperor and instructions to Mr. Barclay, seemed necessary. I have therefore sketched such outlines for these, as appear to me to be proper. You will be so good as to detract, add to, or alter them as you please, to return such as you approve under your signature, to which I will add mine. A person understanding English, French, and Italian, and at the same time meriting confidence, was not to be met with here. Colonel Franks, understanding the two first languages perfectly, and a little Spanish instead of Italian, occurred to Mr. Barclay as the fittest person he could employ for a secretary. We think his allowance (exclusive of his travelling expenses and his board, which will be paid by Mr. Barclay in common with his own) should be between one hundred and one hundred and fifty guineas a year. Fix it where you please, between these limits. What is said in the instructions to Mr. Barclay, as to his own allowance, was proposed by himself. My idea as to the partition of the whole sum to which we are limited (eighty thousand dollars), was, that one half of it should be kept in reserve for the Algerines. They certainly possess more than half the whole power of the piratical States. I thought then, that Morocco might claim the half of the remainder, that is to say, one fourth of the whole. For this reason, in the instructions, I propose twenty thousand dollars as the limit of the expenses of the Morocco treaty. Be so good as to think of it, and make it what you please. I should be more disposed to enlarge than abridge it, on account of their neighborhood to our Atlantic trade. I did not think that these papers should be trusted through the post office, and therefore, as Colonel Franks is engaged in the business, he comes with them. Passing by the diligence, the whole expense will not exceed twelve or fourteen guineas. I suppose we are bound to avail ourselves of the co-operation of France. I will join you, therefore, in any letter you think proper to write to the Count de Vergennes. Would you think it expedient to write to Mr. Carmichael, to interest the interposition of the Spanish court? I will join you in any thing of this kind you will originate. In short, be so good as to supply whatever you may think necessary. With respect to the money, Mr. Jay’s information to you was, that it was to be drawn from Holland. It will rest therefore with you, to avail Mr. Barclay of that fund, either by your draft, or by a letter of credit to the bankers in his favor, to the necessary amount. I imagine the Dutch consul at Morocco may be rendered an useful character, in the remittances of money to Mr. Barclay, while at Morocco.
Upon receiving your letters from August 18th and 23rd, I spoke with Mr. Barclay about the steps needed to get our treaty with the pirate states underway through his help. Assuming we should start with the Emperor of Morocco, it seemed necessary to draft a letter to him and provide instructions to Mr. Barclay. I’ve put together some outlines for these that I believe are appropriate. Please feel free to modify them as you see fit and return the ones you approve with your signature, and I’ll add mine. Finding someone who speaks English, French, and Italian, and is also trustworthy, hasn’t been easy here. Colonel Franks, who speaks both of the first two languages perfectly and knows a bit of Spanish instead of Italian, seems to Mr. Barclay to be the best fit for a secretary. We think his compensation (excluding his travel expenses and meals, which Mr. Barclay will pay for along with his own) should be between one hundred and one hundred and fifty guineas a year. Set it anywhere within that range. What’s mentioned in the instructions to Mr. Barclay regarding his own pay was suggested by him. My thought on how to divide the total amount we have (eighty thousand dollars) is that half should be reserved for the Algerines, as they certainly hold more than half of the overall power of the pirate states. I believe Morocco might claim half of the remaining amount, which means one-fourth of the total. For this reason, in the instructions, I suggest twenty thousand dollars as a cap on the expenses for the Morocco treaty. Please consider it and adjust it as you wish. I would lean toward increasing rather than reducing it, considering their proximity to our Atlantic trade. I didn’t think these documents should be sent through the post, so since Colonel Franks is involved, he will bring them with him. Bypassing the coach service, the total cost shouldn’t exceed twelve or fourteen guineas. I assume we need to make use of France's cooperation. Therefore, I’ll support you in any letter you wish to send to Count de Vergennes. Do you think it would be wise to write to Mr. Carmichael to engage the Spanish court's involvement? I will support any initiative you start in this regard. In short, please provide any additional assistance you think is needed. Regarding the funds, Mr. Jay informed you that they would be drawn from Holland. So, it’s up to you to assist Mr. Barclay in accessing that fund, either through your draft or by providing him a letter of credit to the bankers for the required amount. I believe the Dutch consul in Morocco could be a helpful resource for sending money to Mr. Barclay while he's there.
You were apprised, by a letter from Mr. Short, of the delay which had arisen in the execution of the treaty with Prussia. I wrote a separate letter, of which I enclose you a copy, hoping it would meet one from you, and set them again into motion.
You were informed by a letter from Mr. Short about the delay in carrying out the treaty with Prussia. I wrote a separate letter, which I’m enclosing a copy of, hoping it would prompt a response from you and get things back on track.
I have the honor to be, with the highest respect, Dear Sir,
I am honored to be, with the utmost respect, Dear Sir,
your most obedient
your most loyal
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
[The following are the sketches of the letter to the Emperor of Morocco, and of the instructions to Mr. Barclay, referred to in the preceding letter.]
[The following are the drafts of the letter to the Emperor of Morocco, and the instructions to Mr. Barclay, mentioned in the previous letter.]
HEADS FOR A LETTER TO THE EMPEROR OF MOROCCO.
HEADS FOR A LETTER TO THE EMPEROR OF MOROCCO.
That the United States of America, heretofore connected in government with Great Britain, had found it necessary for their happiness to separate from her, and to assume an independent station.
That the United States of America, previously linked in government to Great Britain, found it necessary for their happiness to break away from her and take an independent position.
That, consisting of a number of separate States, they had confederated together, and placed the sovereignty of the whole, in matters relating to foreign nations, in a body consisting of delegates from every State, and called the Congress of the United States.
That, made up of several individual States, they had come together in a federation and placed the overall authority regarding foreign affairs in a group made up of representatives from each State, called the Congress of the United States.
That Great Britain had solemnly confirmed their separation and acknowledged their independence.
That Great Britain had formally recognized their separation and accepted their independence.
That after the conclusion of the peace, which terminated the war in which they had been engaged for the establishment of their independence, the first attentions of Congress were necessarily engrossed by the re-establishment of order and regular government.
That after the peace was finalized, which ended the war they had fought for their independence, Congress's primary focus was understandably on restoring order and a regular government.
That they had, as soon as possible, turned their attention to foreign nations, and, desirous of entering into amity and commerce with them, had been pleased to appoint us, with Dr. Benjamin Franklin, to execute such treaties for this purpose, as should be agreed on by such nations, with us, or any two of us.
That they had, as soon as possible, focused on foreign nations, and, eager to establish friendships and trade with them, were happy to appoint us, along with Dr. Benjamin Franklin, to create any treaties for this purpose that would be agreed upon by those nations, with us, or any two of us.
That Dr. Franklin having found it, necessary to return to America, the execution of these several commissions had devolved on us. That being placed as Ministers Plenipotentiary for the United States at the courts of England and France; this circumstance, with the commissions with which we are charged for entering into treaties with various other nations, puts it out of our power to attend at the other courts in person, and obliges us to negotiate by the intervention of confidential persons.
That Dr. Franklin found it necessary to return to America, the execution of these various assignments fell to us. As we are appointed as Plenipotentiary Ministers for the United States at the courts of England and France, this situation, along with the tasks we have for entering into treaties with various other nations, makes it impossible for us to attend the other courts in person and requires us to negotiate through trusted individuals.
That, respecting the friendly dispositions shown by his Majesty, the Emperor of Morocco, towards the United States, and indulging the desire of forming a connection with a sovereign, so renowned for his power, his wisdom, and his justice, we had embraced the first moment possible, of assuring him of these the sentiments of our country and of ourselves, and of expressing to him our wishes to enter into a connection of friendship and commerce with him. That for this purpose, we had commissioned the bearer hereof, Thomas Barclay, a person in the highest confidence of the Congress of the United States, and as such, having been several years, and still being, their consul general with our great and good friend and ally, the King of France, to arrange with his Majesty the Emperor, those conditions which it might be advantageous for both nations to adopt, for the regulation of their commerce, and their mutual conduct towards each other.
That, acknowledging the friendly intentions shown by His Majesty, the Emperor of Morocco, toward the United States, and expressing our desire to form a connection with a ruler known for his strength, wisdom, and fairness, we seized the earliest opportunity to convey these sentiments on behalf of our country and ourselves, and to share our eagerness to establish a friendship and trade relationship with him. To accomplish this, we have appointed the bearer of this message, Thomas Barclay, a person highly trusted by the Congress of the United States, who has been, and continues to be, their consul general with our great and good friend and ally, the King of France, to negotiate with His Majesty the Emperor the conditions that would be mutually beneficial for both nations regarding the regulation of their trade and their interactions with one another.
That we deliver to him a copy of the full powers with which we are invested, to conclude a treaty with his Majesty, which copy he is instructed to present to his Majesty.
That we provide him with a copy of the full powers we have been given to negotiate a treaty with his Majesty, which he is instructed to present to his Majesty.
That though by these, we are not authorized to delegate to him the power of ultimately signing the treaty, yet such is our reliance on his wisdom, his integrity, and his attention to the instructions with which he is charged, that we assure his Majesty, the conditions which he shall arrange and send to us, shall be returned with our signature, in order to receive that of the person whom his Majesty shall commission for the same purpose.
That although we are not authorized to give him the power to ultimately sign the treaty, we have so much trust in his wisdom, integrity, and commitment to the instructions he has been given, that we assure his Majesty the conditions he arranges and sends to us will be returned with our signature, so that they can receive the signature of the person his Majesty designates for this purpose.
HEADS OF INSTRUCTION TO MR. BARCLAY.
HEADS OF INSTRUCTION TO MR. BARCLAY.
Congress having been pleased to invest us with full powers for entering into a treaty of amity and alliance with the Emperor of Morocco, and it being impracticable for us to attend his court in person, and equally impracticable, on account of our separate stations, to receive a minister from him, we have concluded to effect our object by the intervention of a confidential person. We concur in wishing to avail the United States of your talents in the execution of this business, and therefore furnish you with a letter to the Emperor of Morocco, to give due credit to your transactions with him.
Congress has granted us full authority to negotiate a treaty of friendship and alliance with the Emperor of Morocco. Since it is not feasible for us to visit his court in person, and due to our separate positions, we cannot receive a minister from him either. We have decided to accomplish our goal through a trusted individual. We agree that we would like to utilize your skills in carrying out this task, and thus we are providing you with a letter to the Emperor of Morocco to lend credibility to your dealings with him.
We advise you to proceed by the way of Madrid, where you will have opportunities of deriving many lights from Mr. Carmichael, through whom many communications with the court of Morocco have already passed.
We recommend taking the route through Madrid, where you'll have plenty of chances to gain insights from Mr. Carmichael, who has already facilitated many communications with the Moroccan court.
From thence you will proceed, by such route as you shall think best, to the court of the Emperor.
From there, you will continue on whatever route you think is best to the Emperor's court.
You will present to him our letter, with the copy of our full powers, with which you are furnished, at such time or times, and in such manner, as you shall find best.
You will show him our letter, along with the copy of our full powers, which you have been provided, at the times and in the way you think is best.
You will proceed to negotiate with his minister the terms of a treaty of amity and commerce, as nearly conformed as possible to the draught we give you. Where alterations, which, in your opinion, shall not be of great importance, shall be urged by the other party, you are at liberty to agree to them. Where they shall be of great importance, and such as you think should be rejected, you will reject them: but where they are of great importance, and you think they may be accepted, you will ask time to take our advice, and will advise with us accordingly, by letter or by courier, as you shall think best. When the articles shall all be agreed, you will send them to us by some proper person, for our signature.
You will negotiate with his minister the terms of a friendship and trade agreement, following the draft we provide as closely as possible. If the other party suggests changes that you think aren’t too significant, you’re free to agree to them. If the changes are important and you believe they should be rejected, you will do so. However, if the changes are important but you think they can be accepted, you will ask for time to get our advice and discuss it with us accordingly, either by letter or by courier, as you see fit. Once all the articles are agreed upon, you will send them to us with someone appropriate for our signature.
The whole expense of this treaty, including as well the expenses of all persons employed about it, as the presents to the Emperor and his servants, must not exceed twenty thousand dollars: and we urge you to use your best endeavors, to bring it as much below that sum as you possibly can. As custom may have rendered some presents necessary in the beginning or progress of this business, and before it is concluded, or even in a way to be concluded, we authorize you to conform to the custom, confiding in your discretion to hazard as little as possible, before a certainty of the event. We trust to you also to procure the best information, as to what persons, and in what form, these presents should be made, and to make them accordingly.
The total cost of this treaty, including all the expenses for everyone involved and the gifts for the Emperor and his staff, should not exceed twenty thousand dollars. We encourage you to do your best to keep it well below that amount. Since customs might make some gifts necessary at the start or during this process, and even before it’s wrapped up, we give you the authority to follow those customs, trusting your judgment to take as few risks as possible until we have a clear outcome. We also rely on you to gather the best information about who should receive these gifts and in what form, and to arrange them accordingly.
The difference between the customs of that and other courts, the difficulty of obtaining knowledge of those customs, but on the spot, and our great confidence in your discretion, induce us to leave to that, all other circumstances relative to the object of your mission. It will be necessary for you to take a secretary, well skilled in the French language, to aid you in your business, and to take charge of your papers in case of any accident to yourself. We think you may allow him ¦————-guineas a year, besides his expenses for travelling and subsistence. We engage to furnish your own expenses, according to the respectability of the character with which you are invested, but as to the allowance for your trouble, we wish to leave it to Congress. We annex hereto sundry heads of inquiry which we wish you to make, and to give us thereon the best information you shall be able to obtain. We desire you to correspond with us by every opportunity which you think should be trusted, giving us, from time to time, an account of your proceedings and prospects.
The differences between the customs of that court and others, the challenge of learning those customs only while you’re there, and our strong belief in your judgment lead us to leave all other details regarding your mission to you. You will need to bring a secretary who is fluent in French to help you with your work and manage your documents in case something happens to you. We think you can pay him £——— guineas a year, in addition to his travel and living expenses. We will cover your own expenses based on the level of respect associated with your role, but we prefer to let Congress decide on your compensation for your efforts. We have attached several topics of inquiry that we want you to investigate and provide us with the best information you can gather. We ask that you keep in touch with us through every reliable opportunity, giving us regular updates on your activities and outlook.
HEADS OF INQUIRY FOR MR. BARCLAY, AS TO MOROCCO.
HEADS OF INQUIRY FOR MR. BARCLAY, REGARDING MOROCCO.
1. Commerce. What are the articles of their export and import? What duties are levied by them on exports and imports? Do all nations pay the same, or what nations are favored, and how far? Are they their own carriers, or who carries for them? Do they trade themselves to other countries, or are they merely passive?
1. Commerce. What goods do they export and import? What taxes do they impose on exports and imports? Do all countries pay the same, or which countries receive favorable treatment, and to what extent? Do they handle their own transportation, or who ships for them? Do they engage in trade with other countries, or do they just take a backseat?
2. Ports. What are their principal ports? What depth of water in them? What works of defence protect these ports?
2. Ports. What are their main ports? What is the water depth there? What defensive structures protect these ports?
3. Naval force. How many armed vessels have they? Of what kind and force? What is the constitution of their naval force? What resources for increasing their navy? What number of seamen? Their cruising grounds, and seasons of cruising?
3. Naval force. How many armed ships do they have? What types and sizes are they? What is the structure of their naval force? What resources do they have to expand their navy? How many sailors do they employ? What areas do they patrol, and during what times of the year?
4. Prisoners. What is their condition and treatment? At what price are they ordinarily redeemed, and how?
4. Prisoners. What are their living conditions and how are they treated? What is the usual cost for their release, and what methods are used?
Do they pay respect to the treaties they make?
Do they honor the treaties they create?
Land forces. Their numbers, constitution, and respectability?
Land forces. What about their numbers, structure, and reputation?
Revenues. Their amount.
Revenues. Their total.
Coins. What coins pass there, and at what rates?
Coins. Which coins go through there, and at what rates?
LETTER CIV.—TO DAVID HARTLEY, September 5, 1785
TO DAVID HARTLEY.
To David Hartley.
Paris, September 5, 1785.
Paris, September 5, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Dear [Name],
Your favor of April the 15th happened to be put into my hands at the same time with a large parcel of letters from America, which contained a variety of intelligence. It was then put where I usually place my unanswered letters; and I, from time to time, put off acknowledging the receipt of it, till I should be able to furnish you American intelligence worth communicating. A favorable opportunity, by a courier, of writing to you occurring this morning, what has been my astonishment and chagrin on reading your letter again, to find there was a case in it which required an immediate answer, but which, by the variety of matters, which happened to be presented to my mind, at the same time, had utterly escaped my recollection. I pray you to be assured, that nothing but this slip of memory would have prevented my immediate answer, and no other circumstance would have prevented its making such an impression on my mind, as that it could not have escaped. I hope you will therefore obliterate the imputation of want of respect, which, under actual appearances, must have arisen in your mind, but which would refer to an untrue cause the occasion of my silence. I am not sufficiently acquainted with the proceedings of the New York Assembly, to say, with certainty, in what predicament the lands of Mr. Upton may stand. But on conferring with Colonel Humphreys, who, being from the neighboring State, was more in the way of knowing what passed in New York, he thinks that the descriptions in their confiscation laws were such, as not to include a case of this nature. The first thing to be done by Mr. Upton is, to state his case to some intelligent lawyer of the country, that he may know with certainty whether they be confiscated, or not; and if not confiscated, to know what measures are necessary for completing and securing his grant. But if confiscated, there is then no other tribunal of redress but their General Assembly. If he is unacquainted there, I would advise him to apply to Colonel Hamilton, who was aid to General Washington, and is now very eminent at the bar, and much to be relied on. Your letter in his favor to Mr. Jay will also procure him the benefit of his counsel.
Your letter from April 15th reached me at the same time as a big bundle of letters from America, which contained a lot of different updates. I set it aside where I usually keep my unanswered letters, and I kept postponing my response until I could give you some American news worth sharing. This morning, a good chance came up to write to you, and I was shocked and upset to read your letter again and realize there was something in it that required an immediate reply, but it completely slipped my mind due to the many topics I had on my mind at the same time. I assure you that nothing but this momentary lapse in memory would have stopped me from replying right away, and nothing else would have allowed it to fade from my mind. I hope you can therefore dismiss any thoughts of disrespect that may have arisen in your mind given the situation, as they are based on a misunderstanding of the reason for my silence. I’m not familiar enough with the details of the New York Assembly's activities to say for sure what the status of Mr. Upton's lands is. However, after talking with Colonel Humphreys, who is from the neighboring state and knows more about what’s going on in New York, he believes that the descriptions in their confiscation laws likely don’t cover a case like this. Mr. Upton’s first step should be to explain his situation to a knowledgeable lawyer in the area, so he can find out for sure whether the lands were confiscated or not; and if they weren’t confiscated, to understand what actions are needed to finalize and secure his grant. If they were confiscated, then the only way to seek justice would be through their General Assembly. If he doesn’t have connections there, I recommend he reach out to Colonel Hamilton, who served as an aide to General Washington and is now a well-respected lawyer you can trust. Your letter of recommendation for him to Mr. Jay will also help him gain access to good legal advice.
With respect to America, I will rather give you a general view of its situation, than merely relate recent events. The impost is still unpassed by the two States of New York and Rhode Island: for the manner in which the latter has passed it does not appear to me to answer the principal object, of establishing a fund, which, by being subject to Congress alone, may give such credit to the certificates of public debt, as will make them negotiable. This matter, then, is still suspended.
With regard to America, I would prefer to give you an overview of its situation rather than just recount recent events. The tax has still not been approved by the two states of New York and Rhode Island; the way the latter has approved it doesn't seem to achieve the main goal of creating a fund that, being under the control of Congress alone, could provide the necessary credit for public debt certificates to make them negotiable. So, this issue is still up in the air.
Congress have lately purchased the Indian right to nearly the whole of the land lying in the new State, bounded by lake Erie, Pennsylvania, and the Ohio. The northwestern corner alone is reserved to the Delawares and Wyandots. I expect a purchase is also concluded with other tribes, for a considerable proportion of the State next to this, on the north side of the Ohio. They have passed an ordinance establishing a land-office, considerably improved, I think, on the plan, of which I had the honor of giving you a copy. The lands are to be offered for sale to the highest bidder. For this purpose, portions of them are to be proposed in each State, that each may have the means of purchase carried equally to their doors, and that the purchasers may be a proper mixture of the citizens from all the different States. But such lots as cannot be sold for a dollar an acre, are not to be parted with. They will receive as money the certificates of public debt. I flatter myself that this arrangement will very soon absorb the whole of these certificates, and thus rid us of our domestic debt, which is four fifths of our whole debt. Our foreign debt will be then a bagatelle.
Congress has recently acquired the Indian rights to almost all the land in the new State, which is bordered by Lake Erie, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Only the northwestern corner is set aside for the Delawares and Wyandots. I expect a deal has also been reached with other tribes for a significant portion of the State to the north, across the Ohio. They have passed a law establishing a land office, which I believe has been improved from the plan I previously shared with you. The lands will be offered for sale to the highest bidder. To facilitate this, pieces of land are to be proposed in each State, ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to purchase, and that buyers reflect a good mix of citizens from all different States. However, lots that can't be sold for a dollar an acre won't be sold at all. They will accept certificates of public debt as payment. I believe this plan will quickly absorb all of these certificates, allowing us to eliminate our domestic debt, which makes up four-fifths of our total debt. Our foreign debt will then be a minor issue.
I think it probable that Vermont will be made independent, as I am told the State of New York is likely to agree to it. Maine will probably in time be also permitted to separate from Massachusetts. As yet, they only begin to think of it. Whenever the people of Kentucky shall have agreed among themselves, my friends write me word, that Virginia will consent to their separation. They will constitute the new State on the south side of Ohio, joining Virginia. North Corolina, by an act of their Assembly, ceded to Congress all their lands westward of the Allegany. The people inhabiting that territory thereon declared themselves independent, called their State by the name of Franklin, and solicited Congress to be received into the Union. But before Congress met, North Carolina (for what reasons I could never learn) resumed their session. The people, however, persist; Congress recommend to the State to desist from their opposition, and I have no doubt they will do it. It will, therefore, result from the act of Congress laying off the western country into new States, that these States will come into the Union in the manner therein provided, and without any disputes as to their boundaries.
I think it's likely that Vermont will become independent, as I’ve been told that New York is probably going to agree to it. Maine will likely be allowed to break away from Massachusetts eventually. Right now, they are just starting to think about it. Once the people of Kentucky come to an agreement among themselves, my friends tell me that Virginia will agree to their separation. They will create a new state on the south side of the Ohio River, joining Virginia. North Carolina, through an act of their Assembly, gave up all their land west of the Alleghenies to Congress. The people living in that territory declared themselves independent, named their state Franklin, and asked Congress to be accepted into the Union. But before Congress convened, North Carolina (for reasons I’ve never understood) resumed their session. However, the people are persistent; Congress has recommended that the state stop opposing them, and I have no doubt they will. As a result, Congress's decision to divide the western territory into new states will mean that these states will enter the Union as outlined, without any disputes over their boundaries.
I am told that some hostile transaction by our people at the Natchez, against the Spaniards, has taken place. If it be a fact, Congress will certainly not protect them, but leave them to be chastised by the Spaniards, saving the right to the territory. A Spanish minister being now with Congress, and both parties interested in keeping the peace, I think, if such an event has happened, it will be easily arranged.
I’ve heard that our people at Natchez have had some kind of conflict with the Spaniards. If that's true, Congress definitely won’t protect them and will let the Spaniards deal with it, while still claiming the territory. Since a Spanish minister is currently with Congress and both sides want to maintain peace, I believe if this event did happen, it can be resolved easily.
I told you when here, of the propositions made by Congress to the States, to be authorized to make certain regulations in their commerce; and, that from the disposition to strengthen the hands of Congress, which was then growing fast, I thought they would consent to it. Most of them did so, and I suppose all of them would have done it, if they have not actually done it, but that events proved a much more extensive power would be requisite. Congress have, therefore, desired to be invested with the whole regulation of their trade, and for ever; and to prevent all temptations to abuse the power, and all fears of it, they propose that whatever monies shall be levied on commerce, either for the purpose of revenue, or by way of forfeitures or penalty, shall go directly into the coffers of the State wherein it is levied, without being touched by Congress. From the present temper of the States, and the conviction which your country has carried home to their minds, that there is no other method of defeating the greedy attempts of other countries to trade with them on unequal terms, I think they will add an article for this purpose to their Confederation. But the present powers of Congress over the commerce of the States, under the Confederation, seem not at all understood by your ministry. They say that body has no power to enter into a treaty of commerce; why then make one? This is a mistake. By the sixth article of the Confederation, the States renounce, individually, all power to make any treaty, of whatever nature, with a foreign nation. By the ninth article, they give the power of making treaties wholly to Congress with two reservations only. 1. That no treaty of commerce shall be made, which shall restrain the legislatures from making foreigners pay the same imposts with their own people: nor 2. from prohibiting the exportation or importation of any species of merchandise, which they might think proper. Were any treaty to be made which should violate either of these two reservations, it would be so far void. In the treaties, therefore, made with France, Holland, &c. this has been cautiously avoided. But are these treaties of no advantage to these nations? Besides the advantages expressly given by them, there results another, of great value. The commerce of those nations with the United States is thereby under the protection of Congress, and no particular State, acting by fits and starts, can harass the trade of France, Holland, &c. by such measures as several of them have practised against England, by loading her merchandise with partial imposts, refusing admittance to it altogether, excluding her merchants, &c. &c. For you will observe, that though, by the second reservation before mentioned, they can prohibit the importation of any species of merchandise, as, for instance, though they may prohibit the importation of wines in general, yet they cannot prohibit that of French wines in particular. Another advantage is, that the nations having treaties with Congress, can and do provide in such treaties for the admission of their consuls, a kind of officer very necessary for the regulation and protection of commerce. You know that a consul is the creature of treaty. No nation, without an agreement, can place an officer in another country, with any powers or jurisdiction whatever. But as the States have renounced the separate power of making treaties with foreign nations, they cannot separately receive a consul: and as Congress have, by the Confederation, no immediate jurisdiction over commerce, as they have only a power of bringing that jurisdiction into existence by entering into a treaty, till such treaty be entered into, Congress themselves cannot receive a consul. Till a treaty then, there exists no power in any part of our government, federal or particular, to admit a consul among us: and if it be true, as the papers say, that you have lately sent one over, he cannot be admitted by any power in existence to an exercise of any function. Nothing less than a new article, to be agreed to by all the States, would enable Congress, or the particular States, to receive him. You must not be surprised then, if he be not received.
I mentioned earlier about the proposals made by Congress to the States to be allowed to set certain regulations for their trade. Given the growing desire to strengthen Congress at that time, I believed they would agree to it. Most did, and I think all of them would have, if they hadn’t already, but events showed that a much broader power would be necessary. Congress now wants to be given full control over their trade, permanently; and to avoid any abuse of this power and any fears surrounding it, they propose that any money raised from trade, whether for revenue, forfeitures, or penalties, should go directly to the state where it was collected, without any involvement from Congress. Considering the current attitude of the States and the understanding your country has taken home, that there’s no other way to prevent other nations from trading with them unfairly, I think they will add an article to their Confederation for this purpose. However, the current powers of Congress regarding the trade of the States, under the Confederation, seem to be misunderstood by your government. They claim that Congress doesn’t have the power to enter into a trade treaty; so why create one? This is a misconception. According to the sixth article of the Confederation, the States individually give up all power to make any treaties with foreign nations. The ninth article grants Congress the exclusive power to make treaties, but with only two exceptions. First, no trade treaty can be made that would prevent the legislatures from making foreigners pay the same taxes as their own citizens. Second, they cannot stop the export or import of any type of goods that they deem appropriate. If a treaty were made that violated either of these two exceptions, it would be void. Therefore, the treaties made with France, Holland, etc., have carefully avoided this issue. But are these treaties not beneficial to those nations? Besides the explicit advantages they provide, there’s a significant additional benefit. The trade of those nations with the United States is protected by Congress, meaning no single State can disrupt the trade of France, Holland, etc., through erratic measures like they have against England, by imposing special taxes on her goods, refusing entry, excluding her merchants, etc. You will note that although, under the second exception, they can ban the import of any type of goods—like banning all wines—they cannot specifically prohibit French wines. Another benefit is that the nations with treaties with Congress can and do specify in those treaties that their consuls can be admitted, which is crucial for managing and protecting trade. A consul is established through a treaty; no country can send an officer to another without an agreement that grants them powers or jurisdiction. Since the States have given up their separate power to make treaties, they cannot individually accept a consul. And since Congress, under the Confederation, has no direct authority over commerce, they can only gain that authority by entering into a treaty; until such a treaty is made, Congress cannot accept a consul. Thus, without a treaty, no part of our government, federal or state, has the power to accept a consul. If it is true, as the reports say, that you recently sent one over, he cannot be admitted or perform any functions because no current authority exists to do so. Only a new article, agreed upon by all the States, would allow Congress or the individual States to accept him. So don’t be surprised if he isn't accepted.
I think I have by this time tired you with American politics, and will therefore only add assurances of the sincere regard and esteem, with which I have the honor to be, Dear Sir,
I think I’ve worn you out with American politics by now, so I’ll just say how much I sincerely respect and hold you in high regard, dear sir.
your most obedient, humble servant,
your loyal and humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CV.—TO BARON GEISMER, September 6, 1785
TO BARON GEISMER.
To Baron Geismer.
Paris, September 6, 1785.
Paris, September 6, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Dear [Name],
Your letter of March the 28th, which I received about a month after its date, gave me a very real pleasure, as it assured me of an existence which I valued, and of which I had been led to doubt. You are now too distant from America, to be much interested in what passes there. From the London gazettes, and the papers copying them, you are led to suppose that all there is anarchy, discontent, and civil war. Nothing, however, is less true. There are not on the face of the earth, more tranquil governments than ours, nor a happier and more contented people. Their commerce has not as yet found the channels, which their new relations with the world will offer to best advantage, and the old ones remain as yet unopened by new conventions. This occasions a stagnation in the sale of their produce, the only truth among all the circumstances published about them. Their hatred against Great Britain, having lately received from that nation new cause and new aliment, has taken a new spring. Among the individuals of your acquaintance, nothing remarkable has happened. No revolution in the happiness of any of them has taken place, except that of the loss of their only child to Mr. and Mrs. Walker, who, however, left them a grandchild for their solace, and that of your humble servant, who remains with no other family than two daughters, the elder here (who was of your acquaintance), the younger in Virginia, but expected here the next summer. The character in which I am here, at present, confines me to this place, and will confine me as long as I continue in Europe. How long this will be, I cannot tell. I am now of an age which does not easily accommodate itself to new manners and new modes of living: and I am savage enough to prefer the woods, the wilds, and the independence of Monticello, to all the brilliant pleasures of this gay capital. I shall, therefore, rejoin myself to my native country, with new attachments, and with exaggerated esteem for its advantages; for though there is less wealth there, there is more freedom, more ease, and less misery. I should like it better, however, if it could tempt you once more to visit it: but that is not to be expected. Be this as it may, and whether fortune means to allow or deny me the pleasure of ever seeing you again, be assured that the worth which gave birth to my attachment, and which still animates it, will continue to keep it up while we both live, and that it is with sincerity I subscribe myself, Dear Sir,
Your letter from March 28th, which I received about a month later, brought me genuine joy because it reassured me of a connection I cherish and had begun to doubt. You're now quite far from America, so you might not be very interested in what's happening there. From the London newspapers and their copies, you might think everything is chaos, unrest, and civil war. However, that's far from the truth. There are not many governments in the world more stable than ours, nor a populace that's happier and more satisfied. Our trade hasn't yet found the best avenues that our new global relationships will eventually create, and the old trade routes remain largely unchanged due to new agreements. This is causing a slowdown in the sales of their goods, which is the only accurate report among all the claims made about them. Their animosity towards Great Britain, which recently got new fuel and reasons, has reignited. Among the people you know, nothing significant has changed. No major shifts in their happiness have occurred except for Mr. and Mrs. Walker losing their only child, although they do have a grandchild to comfort them. As for me, I have no family except for my two daughters— the older one is here (whom you knew), and the younger one is in Virginia but is expected to be here next summer. The role I currently hold keeps me tied to this location, and it will continue to do so as long as I stay in Europe. I can't say how long that will be. At my age, it's not easy to adapt to new customs and ways of living: I find myself preferring the woods, the wilds, and the freedom of Monticello over all the flashy pleasures of this lively city. Thus, I look forward to returning to my home country, carrying new ties and an even greater appreciation for its benefits. Although there's less wealth there, there's more freedom, more comfort, and less suffering. I would prefer it even more if it could entice you to visit again, but I'm not counting on that. Regardless of whether fate allows or prevents me the joy of seeing you again, know that the value that sparked my affection, which still fuels it, will keep it alive as long as we both live, and I truly sign off as your devoted friend,
your friend and servant,
your friend and servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CVI.—TO JOHN LANGDON, September 11, 1785
TO JOHN LANGDON.
To John Langdon.
Paris, September 11, 1785.
Paris, Sep 11, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Hello,
Your Captain Yeaton being here, furnishes me an opportunity of paying the tribute of my congratulations on your appointment to the government of your State, which I do sincerely. He gives me the grateful intelligence of your health, and that of Mrs. Langdon. Anxious to promote your service, and believing he could do it by getting himself naturalized here, and authorized to command your vessel he came from Havre to Paris. But on making the best inquiries I could, it seemed that the time requisite to go through with this business, would be much more than he could spare. He therefore declined it. I wish it were in my power to give you a hope that our commerce, either with this country, or its islands, was likely to be put on better footing. But if it be altered at all, it will probably be for the worse. The regulations respecting their commerce are by no means sufficiently stable to be relied on.
Your Captain Yeaton is here, giving me a chance to sincerely congratulate you on your appointment to the government of your State. He has shared the good news about your health and that of Mrs. Langdon. Eager to support your service, he thought the best way to do this would be to get himself naturalized here and authorized to command your vessel, so he traveled from Havre to Paris. However, after making the necessary inquiries, it seemed that the time required to complete this process would take much longer than he could afford. As a result, he decided against it. I wish I could give you hope that our trade, whether with this country or its islands, is likely to improve. But if there is any change at all, it will probably be for the worse. The rules regarding their trade are not stable enough to be trusted.
Europe is in quiet, and likely to remain so. The affairs of the Emperor and Dutch are as good as settled, and no other cloud portends any immediate storm. You have heard much of American vessels taken by the Barbary pirates. The Emperor of Morocco took one last winter (the brig Betsey of Philadelphia); he did not however reduce the crew to slavery, nor confiscate the vessel or cargo. He has lately delivered up the crew on the solicitation of the Spanish court. No other has ever been taken by them. There are, indeed, rumors of one having been lately taken by the Algerines. The fact is possible, as there is nothing to hinder their taking them, but it is not as yet confirmed. I have little doubt that we shall be able to place our commerce on a popular footing with the Barbary States this summer, and thus not only render our navigation to Portugal and Spain safe, but open the Mediterranean as formerly. In spite of treaties, England is still our enemy. Her hatred is deep-rooted and cordial, and nothing is wanting with her but the power, to wipe us and the land we live on out of existence. Her interest, however, is her ruling passion! and the late American measures have struck at that so vitally, and with an energy, too, of which she had thought us quite incapable, that a possibility seems to open of forming some arrangement with her. When they shall see decidedly, that, without it we shall suppress their commerce with us, they will be agitated by their avarice on the one hand, and their hatred and their fear of us on the other. The result of this conflict of dirty passions is yet to be awaited. The body of the people of this country love us cordially. But ministers and merchants love nobody. The merchants here are endeavoring to exclude, us from their islands. The ministers will be governed in it by political motives, and will do it, or not do it, as these shall appear to dictate, without love or hatred to any body. It were to be wished that they were able to combine better the various circumstances, which prove, beyond a doubt, that all the advantages of their colonies result, in the end, to the mother country. I pray you to present me in the most friendly terms to Mrs. Langdon, and be assured of the esteem with which I am
Europe is calm and likely to stay that way. The issues with the Emperor and the Dutch are pretty much resolved, and there aren't any other signs of an immediate crisis. You've probably heard a lot about American ships being taken by the Barbary pirates. Last winter, the Emperor of Morocco captured one—the brig Betsey from Philadelphia—but he didn't enslave the crew or take the ship and its cargo. He recently returned the crew at the request of the Spanish court. No other American ships have been captured by them. However, there are rumors that one was recently taken by the Algerians. It's certainly possible since there's nothing really stopping them, but it hasn't been confirmed yet. I’m pretty confident that we can make our trade acceptable with the Barbary States this summer, which would not only make our shipping to Portugal and Spain secure but also reopen the Mediterranean as it used to be. Despite treaties, England remains our adversary. Their animosity is deeply rooted and genuine, and they're just waiting for the chance to erase us and our land. However, their main concern is their own interests! Recent American actions have hit those interests hard, with a degree of energy that they thought we were incapable of, suggesting that there might be a chance to negotiate with them. Once they see clearly that we could restrict their trade with us without an agreement, they'll be torn between their greed on one side and their hatred and fear of us on the other. We still need to wait to see what comes from this clash of self-serving interests. The general population here likes us a lot. But the politicians and merchants are different—they care about no one but themselves. Merchants are trying to push us out of their islands, and their leaders will decide based on their political agendas, acting out of convenience rather than any feelings of fondness or animosity toward anyone. It would be nice if they could better recognize how all the benefits from their colonies ultimately go back to the mother country. Please send my warm regards to Mrs. Langdon, and know that you have my respect.
your Excellency’s most obedient
your Excellency’s humble servant
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson
LETTER CVII.—LISTER ASQUITH, September 14, 1785
TO LISTER ASQUITH.
To Lister Asquith.
Paris, September 14, 1785.
Paris, September 14, 1785.
Sir,
Man,
Several of your letters have been received, and we have been occupied in endeavors to have you discharged: but these have been ineffectual. If our information be right, you are mistaken in supposing you are already condemned. The Farmers General tell us, you are to be tried at Brest, and this trial may perhaps be a month hence. From that court you may appeal to the Parliament of Rennes, and from that to the King in Council. They say, that from the depositions sent to them, there can be no doubt you came to smuggle, and that in that case, the judgment of the law is a forfeiture of the vessel and cargo, a fine of a thousand livres on each of you, and six years’ condemnation to the galleys. These several appeals will be attended with considerable expense. They offer to discharge your persons and vessel (but not the cargo) on your paying two thousand livres, and the costs already incurred; which are three or four hundred more. You will therefore choose, whether to go through the trial, or to compromise, and you are the best judge, what may be the evidence for or against you. In either case, I shall render you all the service I can. I will add, that if you are disposed to have the matter tried, I am of opinion, that, if found against you, there will be no danger of their sending you to the galleys; so that you may decide what course you will take, without any bias from that fear. If you choose to compromise, I will endeavor to have it done for you, on the best terms we can. I fear they will abate little from the two thousand livres, because Captain Deville, whom you sent here, fixed the matter by offering that sum, and has done you more harm than good. I shall be glad if you will desire your lawyer to make out a state of your case, (which he may do in French,) and send it to me. Write me also yourself a plain and full narration of your voyage, and the circumstances which have brought so small a vessel, with so small a cargo, from America into France. As far as we yet know them, they are not in your favor. Inform me who you are, and what papers you have on board. But do not state to me a single fact which is not true: for if I am led by your information to advance any thing which they shall prove to be untrue, I will abandon your case from that moment: whereas, sending me a true statement, I will make the best of it I can. Mr. Barclay, the American consul, will be here some few days yet. He will be, as he has already been, of much service to you, if the information I ask both from yourself and your lawyer, can come before his departure. I repeat my assurances of doing whatever I can for you, and am, Sir,
Several of your letters have been received, and we have been working on getting you released, but unfortunately, it hasn’t worked out. If our information is correct, you’re mistaken in thinking you're already convicted. The Farmers General have informed us that you will be tried in Brest, and this trial could be about a month from now. From that court, you can appeal to the Parliament of Rennes, and then from there to the King in Council. They claim that the evidence sent to them suggests you intended to smuggle, and if that’s the case, the law requires a forfeiture of the ship and cargo, a fine of a thousand livres each, and a six-year sentence in the galleys. These appeals will come with significant costs. They are offering to release you and your vessel (but not the cargo) if you pay two thousand livres plus three or four hundred in additional costs. You will need to decide whether to go through the trial or to settle, and you’re in the best position to know what evidence exists for or against you. In either situation, I will provide you with as much help as I can. I should mention that if you want to go to trial, I believe you won’t have to worry about being sent to the galleys if the verdict is against you, so you can decide your path without that fear affecting you. If you prefer to settle, I’ll work to get it done for you under the best conditions possible. I’m concerned they won’t lower the two thousand livres too much, as Captain Deville, whom you sent here, set that figure and has done you more harm than good. I would appreciate it if you could ask your lawyer to prepare a summary of your case (which he can do in French) and send it to me. Please also write a clear and detailed account of your voyage and the circumstances that brought such a small vessel with such a minor cargo from America to France. As far as we know, the details aren’t in your favor. Let me know who you are and what documents you have on board. But please do not tell me anything that isn’t true: if your information leads me to say anything they prove false, I will drop your case from that moment on. However, if you send me an accurate account, I will make the best of it I can. Mr. Barclay, the American consul, will be here for a few more days. He has already been very helpful to you, provided the information I requested from you and your lawyer comes before he leaves. I assure you again that I will do everything I can for you, and I am, Sir,
your very humble servant,
your humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CVIII.—TO JOHN ADAMS, September 19, 1785
TO JOHN ADAMS.
To John Adams.
Paris, September 19, 1785.
Paris, September 19, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
Lambe has arrived. He brings new full powers to us from Congress, to appoint persons to negotiate with the Barbary States; but we are to sign the treaties. Lambe has not even a recommendation from them to us, but it seems clear that he would be approved by them. I told him of Mr. Barclay’s appointment to Morocco, and proposed Algiers to him. He agrees. A small alteration in the form of our despatches will be necessary, and, of course, another courier shall be despatched to you on the return of Colonel Franks, for your pleasure herein.
Lambe has arrived. He brings new full powers from Congress for us to appoint people to negotiate with the Barbary States; however, we are the ones who will sign the treaties. Lambe doesn't have any recommendation from them for us, but it seems clear that they would approve him. I informed him about Mr. Barclay’s appointment to Morocco and suggested Algiers to him. He agrees. We’ll need to make a small change to the way we send our messages, and, of course, another courier will be sent to you when Colonel Franks returns, for your satisfaction in this matter.
I am, with great esteem,
I am, with great respect,
your friend and servant,
your friend and servant,
Th: Jefferson.*
Th: Jefferson.*
[* The original of the above was in code; however, like most of the Author's letters in code, he made and kept a literal copy of it.]
LETTER CIX.—TO JAMES MADISON, September 20, 1785
TO JAMES MADISON.
To James Madison.
Paris, September 20, 1785.
Paris, September 20, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
By Mr. Fitzhugh, you will receive my letter of the first instant. He is still here, and gives me an opportunity of again addressing you much sooner than I should have done, but for the discovery of a great piece of inattention. In that letter I send you a detail of the cost of your books, and desire you to keep the amount in your hands, as if I had forgot that a part of it was in fact your own, as being a balance of what I had remained in your debt. I really did not attend to it in the moment of writing, and when it occurred to me, I revised my memorandum book from the time of our being in Philadelphia together, and stated our account from the beginning, lest I should forget or mistake any part of it. I enclose you this statement. You will always be so good as to let me know, from time to time, your advances for me. Correct with freedom all my proceedings for you, as, in what I do, I have no other desire than that of doing exactly what will be most pleasing to you.
By Mr. Fitzhugh, you will receive my letter from the first of this month. He is still here, allowing me to reach out to you much sooner than I normally would have, but I realized I made a significant oversight. In that letter, I included a breakdown of the cost of your books and asked you to keep the total in your possession, as if I had forgotten that part of it actually belonged to you, being a balance of what I owed you. I genuinely didn't think about it when I was writing, and when it came to my mind, I went back through my notes from the time we were in Philadelphia together, reviewing our account from the start to avoid forgetting or miscalculating anything. I'm enclosing that statement for you. Please remember to inform me from time to time about any expenses you've covered for me. Feel free to correct any of my actions on your behalf, as my only desire is to do what will make you happiest.
I received this summer a letter from Messrs. Buchanan and Hay, as Directors of the public buildings desiring I would have drawn for them plans of sundry buildings, and, in the first place, of a capital. They fixed; for their receiving this plan, a day which Was within about six weeks of that on which their letter came to my hand. I engaged an architect of capital abilities in this business. Much time was requisite, after the external form was agreed on, to make the internal distribution convenient for the three branches of government. This time was much lengthened by my avocations to other objects, which I had no right to neglect. The plan however Was settled. The gentlemen had sent me one which they had thought of. The one agreed on here is more convenient, more beautiful, gives more room, and will not cost more than two thirds of what that would. We took for our model what is called the Maison Quarrée (Nismes), one of the most beautiful, if not the most beautiful and precious morsel of architecture left us by antiquity. It was built by Caius and Lucius Cæsar, and repaired by Louis XIV., and has the suffrage of all the judges of architecture who have seen it, as yielding to no one of the beautiful monuments of Greece, Rome, Palmyra, and Balbec, which late travellers have communicated to us. It is very simple, but it is noble beyond expression, and would have done honor to our country, as presenting to travellers a specimen of taste in our infancy, promising much for our maturer age. I have been much mortified with information, which I received two days ago from Virginia, that the first brick of the Capitol would be laid within a few days. But surely, the delay of this piece of a summer would have been repaired by the savings in the plan preparing here, were we to value its other superiorities as nothing. But how is a taste in this beautiful art to be formed in our countrymen, unless we avail ourselves of every occasion when public buildings are to be erected, of presenting to them models for their study and imitation? Pray try if you can effect the slopping of this work. I have written also to E. R. on the subject. The loss will be only of the laying the bricks already laid, or a part of them. The bricks themselves will do again for the interior walls, and one side wall and one end wall may remain, as they will answer equally well for our plan. This loss is not to be weighed against the saving of money which will arise, against the comfort of laying out the public money for something honorable, the satisfaction of seeing an object and proof of national good taste, and the regret and mortification of erecting a monument of our barbarism, which will be loaded with execrations as long as it shall endure. The plans are in good forwardness, and I hope will be ready within three or four weeks. They could not be stopped now, but on paying their whole price, which will be considerable. If the undertakers are afraid to undo what they have done, encourage them to it by a recommendation from the Assembly. You see I am an enthusiast on the subject of the arts. But it is an enthusiasm of which I am not ashamed, as its object is to improve the taste of my countrymen, to increase their reputation, to reconcile to them the respect of the world, and procure them its praise.
This summer, I received a letter from Messrs. Buchanan and Hay, as Directors of the public buildings, asking me to create plans for several buildings, starting with a capital. They set a deadline for when they wanted to receive this plan, which was about six weeks after their letter reached me. I hired a highly skilled architect for this project. Once we agreed on the exterior design, it took a lot of time to figure out an efficient layout for the three branches of government. This process was prolonged by my commitments to other tasks, which I had to prioritize. However, the plan has been finalized. The gentlemen provided me with one they had in mind, but the one we settled on is more practical, more attractive, offers more space, and will cost about two-thirds of what theirs would have. We used the Maison Quarrée in Nîmes as our model, which is one of the most beautiful, if not the most exquisite piece of architecture from antiquity. It was built by Caius and Lucius Cæsar and renovated by Louis XIV, and all judges of architecture agree it rivals the most stunning monuments of Greece, Rome, Palmyra, and Baalbek shared by recent travelers. It's very simple, yet extraordinarily noble, and would showcase our country well, presenting travelers with a glimpse of our early taste and promising much for our future development. I was quite upset to receive news two days ago from Virginia that the first brick of the Capitol will be laid in a few days. However, surely, the delay over the summer would have been worth it for the savings from this plan we are developing, even if we ignore its other benefits. But how can we foster good taste in this beautiful art among our fellow countrymen unless we take every opportunity to present them with models for their study and imitation when public buildings are being constructed? Please see if you can halt this work. I have also written to E. R. about it. The only loss would be the laying of bricks already placed or some of them. The bricks can be reused for the interior walls, and one side wall and one end wall may stay up, as they will work just as well for our plan. This loss is negligible compared to the money saved, the satisfaction of spending public funds on something respectable, the joy of having an object that exemplifies national good taste, and the regret and embarrassment of building a monument to our ignorance that will be cursed for as long as it stands. The plans are progressing well, and I hope they will be ready in about three or four weeks. They couldn't be canceled now without paying the full cost, which will be significant. If the contractors are hesitant to undo their work, encourage them to do so with a recommendation from the Assembly. I’m very passionate about the arts. This enthusiasm is something I am proud of because its purpose is to enhance the taste of my fellow countrymen, elevate their reputation, earn them respect from the world, and win them praise.
I shall send off your books, in two trunks, to Havre, within two or three days, to the care of Mr. Limozin, American agent there. I will advise you, as soon as I know by what vessel he forwards them. Adieu.
I’ll send your books, in two trunks, to Havre, within a couple of days, to the attention of Mr. Limozin, the American agent there. I’ll let you know as soon as I find out which ship he uses to send them. Goodbye.
Yours affectionately,
Love,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CX.—TO EDMUND RANDOLPH, September 20,1785
TO EDMUND RANDOLPH.
TO EDMUND RANDOLPH.
Paris, September 20,1785.
Paris, September 20, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Hello,
Being in your debt for ten volumes of Buffon, I have endeavored to find something that would be agreeable to you to receive, in return. I therefore send you, by way of Havre, a dictionary of law, natural and municipal, in thirteen volumes 4to, called Le Code de l’Humanité. It is published by Felice, but written by him and several other authors of established reputation. It is an excellent work. I do not mean to say, that it answers fully to its title. That would have required fifty times the volume. It wants many articles which the title would induce us to seek in it. But the articles which it contains are well written. It is better than the voluminous Dictionnaire Diplomatique, and better also than the same branch of the Encyclopédie Méthodigue. There has been nothing published here, since I came, of extraordinary merit. The Encyclopédie Méthodique, which is coming out from time to time, must be excepted from this. It is to be had at two guineas less than the subscription price. I shall be happy to send you any thing in this way which you may desire. French books are to be bought here for two thirds of what they can in England. English and Greek and Latin authors cost from twenty-five to fifty per cent, more here than in England.
Being in your debt for ten volumes of Buffon, I've tried to find something you'd appreciate receiving in return. So, I'm sending you, via Havre, a legal dictionary—both natural and municipal law—in thirteen volumes, called Le Code de l’Humanité. It’s published by Felice but written by him and several other well-known authors. It’s an excellent work. I don't mean to say it completely lives up to its title; that would have required fifty times the content. There are many articles that you might expect to find based on the title that are missing. However, the articles it does contain are well written. It's better than the lengthy Dictionnaire Diplomatique and superior to that section of the Encyclopédie Méthodique. Since I arrived, nothing of extraordinary merit has been published here, except for the Encyclopédie Méthodique, which is coming out periodically. You can get it for two guineas less than the subscription price. I'd be happy to send you anything else you might want. French books can be bought here for two-thirds of what you'd pay in England, while English, Greek, and Latin authors are priced twenty-five to fifty percent higher here than in England.
I received, some time ago, a letter from Messrs. Hay and Buchanan, as Directors of the public buildings, desiring I would have plans drawn for our public buildings, and in the first place for the capitol. I did not receive their letter till within about six weeks of the time they had fixed on for receiving the drawings. Nevertheless, I engaged an excellent architect to comply with their desire. It has taken much time to accommodate the external adopted, to the internal arrangement necessary for the three branches of government. However, it is effected on a plan, which, with a great deal of beauty and convenience within, unites an external form on the most perfect model of antiquity now existing. This is the Maison Quarrée of Nismes, built by Caius and Lucius Cæsar, and repaired by Louis XIV., which, in the opinion of all who have seen it, yields, in beauty, to no piece of architecture on earth. The gentlemen enclosed me a plan of which they had thought. The one preparing here will be more convenient, give more room, and cost but two thirds of that: and as a piece of architecture, doing honor to our country, will leave nothing to be desired. The plans will be ready soon. But, two days ago, I received a letter from Virginia, informing me the first brick of the capitol would be laid within a few days. This mortifies my extremely. The delay of this summer would have been amply repaid by the superiority and economy of the plan preparing here. Is it impossible to stop the work where it is? You will gain money by losing what is done, and general approbation, instead of occasioning a regret, which will endure as long as your building does. How is a taste for a chaste and good style of building to be formed in our countrymen, unless we seize all occasions which the erection of public buildings offers, of presenting to them models for their imitation? Do, my dear Sir, exert your influence to stay the further progress of the work, till you can receive these plans. You will only lose the price of laying what bricks are already laid, and of taking part of them asunder. They will do again for the inner walls. A plan for a prison will be sent at the same time.
I got a letter a while back from Messrs. Hay and Buchanan, the Directors of the public buildings, asking me to create plans for our public buildings, starting with the capitol. I didn’t receive their letter until about six weeks before the deadline for submitting the drawings. Still, I hired a great architect to meet their request. It took a lot of time to adapt the chosen exterior to the internal layout needed for the three branches of government. However, we have a design that combines a lot of beauty and convenience inside with an external form modeled after the best surviving example from antiquity. This is the Maison Quarrée of Nîmes, built by Caius and Lucius Cæsar, and restored by Louis XIV., which, according to everyone who has seen it, is the most beautiful piece of architecture on the planet. The gentlemen sent me a plan they had in mind. The design we’re working on here will be more practical, provide more space, and cost only two-thirds of theirs; and as an architectural piece, it will truly honor our country and leave nothing to be desired. The plans will be ready soon. However, two days ago, I got a letter from Virginia saying the first brick of the capitol would be laid in a few days. This really disappoints me. The delay this summer would have been well worth it for the quality and cost-effectiveness of the plan we’re developing here. Is it impossible to stop the work where it is? You will save money by halting what has been done and gain public approval instead of creating regret that will last as long as your building stands. How will a taste for a refined and good style of building be developed among our countrymen unless we take every opportunity provided by public buildings to present them with models to imitate? Please, my dear Sir, use your influence to pause the work until you can review these plans. You will only lose the cost of laying the already laid bricks and the expense of taking some of them apart. They can be reused for the interior walls. A plan for a prison will be sent at the same time.
Mazzei is here, and in pressing distress for money. I have helped him as far as I have been able, but particular circumstances put it out of my power to do more. He is looking with anxiety to the arrival of every vessel, in hopes of relief through your means. If he does not receive it soon, it is difficult to foresee his fate.
Mazzei is here and in urgent need of money. I've helped him as much as I could, but certain circumstances make it impossible for me to do more. He's anxiously waiting for the arrival of every ship, hoping to get help from you. If he doesn't receive it soon, it's hard to predict what will happen to him.
The quiet which Europe enjoys at present, leaves nothing to communicate to you in the political way. The Emperor and Dutch still differ about the quantum of money to be paid by the latter; they know not for what. Perhaps their internal convulsions will hasten them to a decision. France is improving her navy, as if she were already in a naval war: yet I see no immediate prospect of her having occasion for it. England is not likely to offer war to any nation, unless, perhaps, to ours. This would cost us our whole shipping: but in every other respect, we might flatter ourselves with success. But the most successful war seldom pays for its losses. I shall be glad to hear from you when convenient, and am, with much esteem, Dear Sir,
The peace that Europe is enjoying right now doesn’t leave me much to share with you about politics. The Emperor and the Dutch are still at odds over how much money the Dutch need to pay, but they’re not sure why. Maybe their internal struggles will push them to come to a decision. France is updating its navy as if it's already preparing for naval battle, but I don’t see any immediate reason for that. England probably won’t pick a fight with any nation, except possibly ours. That would wipe out our entire shipping industry; however, in all other ways, we could convince ourselves we would succeed. Still, the most successful wars rarely make up for their losses. I would be happy to hear from you whenever it’s convenient, and I remain, with much respect, Dear Sir,
your friend and servant,
your friend and helper,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CXI.—TO JOHN ADAMS, September 24, 1785
TO JOHN ADAMS.
To John Adams.
Paris, September 24, 1785.
Paris, Sept 24, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Dear [Name],
I have received your favor of the 18th, enclosing your compliments on your presentation. The sentiments you therein expressed, were such as were entertained in America till the commercial proclamation, and such as would again return, were a rational conduct to be adopted by Great Britain. I think, therefore, you by no means compromitted yourself or our country, nor expressed more than it would be our interest to encourage, if they were disposed to meet us. I am pleased, however, to see the answer of the King. It bears the marks of suddenness and surprise, and as he seems not to have had time for reflection, we may suppose he was obliged to find his answer in the real sentiments of his heart if that heart has any sentiment. I have no doubt however that it contains the real creed of an Englishman, and that the word which he has let escape is the true word of the enigma. ‘The moment I see such sentiments as yours prevail, and a disposition to give this country the preference, I will,’ &c. All this I steadfastly believe. But the condition is impossible. Our interest calls for a perfect equality in our conduct towards these two nations; but no preferences any where. If, however, circumstances should ever oblige us to show a preference, a respect for our character, if we had no better motive, would decide to which it should be given.
I got your letter from the 18th, along with your kind words about your presentation. The feelings you expressed were ones held in America until the commercial proclamation, and they would return again if Great Britain adopted a sensible approach. I believe you didn't compromise yourself or our country, nor did you say anything more than what would be in our interest to support if they were willing to engage with us. However, I'm glad to see the King's response. It shows signs of surprise and urgency, and since he seems to have had little time to think, we can assume he had to express his true feelings if he has any at all. I have no doubt that it reflects the genuine beliefs of an Englishman, and that the word he let slip is the key to the mystery. ‘The moment I see sentiments like yours become common, and a willingness to prioritize this country, I will,’ etc. I firmly believe all this. But that condition is impossible. Our interests require complete equality in our dealings with these two nations, with no preferences anywhere. However, if circumstances ever force us to show a preference, respect for our character, even if we had no better reason, would determine where that preference should go.
My letters from members of Congress render it doubtful, whether they would not rather that full time should be given for the present disposition of America to mature itself, and to produce a permanent improvement in the federal constitution, rather than, by removing the incentive, to prevent the improvement. It is certain that our commerce is in agonies at present, and that these would be relieved by opening the British ports in the West Indies. It remains to consider, whether a temporary continuance under these sufferings would be paid for, by the amendment it is likely to produce. However, I believe there is no fear that Great Britain will puzzle us, by leaving it in our choice to hasten or delay a treaty.
My letters from Congress members make me question whether they would prefer to allow enough time for the current conditions in America to develop and lead to a lasting improvement in the federal constitution, rather than removing the motivation and preventing that improvement. It's clear that our trade is currently struggling, and that opening British ports in the West Indies would provide relief. We need to think about whether enduring these difficulties temporarily would be worth the potential changes it could bring. Still, I don't think we need to worry that Great Britain will complicate things by leaving it up to us to speed up or slow down a treaty.
Is insurance made on Houdon’s life? I am uneasy about it, lest we should hear of any accident. As yet there is no reason to doubt their safe passage. If the insurance is not made, I will pray you to have it done immediately.
Is there insurance taken out on Houdon's life? I'm worried about it, in case something happens. So far, there's no reason to doubt their safe journey. If the insurance isn't in place, please make sure it gets done right away.
As I have not received any London newspapers as yet, I am obliged to ask you what is done as to them, lest the delay should proceed from some obstacle to be removed.
As I haven't received any London newspapers yet, I need to ask you what's going on with them, in case the delay is caused by something that needs to be sorted out.
There is a Mr. Thompson at Dover, who has proposed to me a method of getting them post-free: but I have declined resorting to it, till I should know in what train the matter is at present.
There’s a Mr. Thompson in Dover who suggested a way for me to get them sent without any postage, but I’ve decided not to pursue that until I find out what the current status of the issue is.
I have the honor to be, with the most perfect esteem, Dear Sir,
I am honored to be, with the greatest respect, Dear Sir,
your friend and servant,
your friend and servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CXII.—TO JOHN ADAMS, September 24,1785
TO JOHN ADAMS.
Paris, September 24,1785.
Paris, September 24, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Dear [Name],
My letter of September the 19th, written the morning after Mr. Lambe’s arrival here, will inform you of that circumstance. I transmit you herewith, copies of the papers he brought to us on the subject of the Barbary treaties. You will see by them, that Congress have adopted the very plan which we were proposing to pursue. It will now go on with less danger of objection from the other parties. The receipt of these new papers, therefore, has rendered necessary no change, in matter of substance, in the despatches we had prepared. But they render some formal changes necessary. For instance, in our letter of credence for Mr. Barclay to the Emperor of Morocco, it becomes improper to enter into those explanations which seemed proper when that letter was drawn; because Congress in their letter enter into those explanations. In the letter to the Count de Vergennes, it became proper to mention the new full powers received from Congress, and which, in some measure, accord with the idea communicated by him to us, from the Marechal de Castries. These and other formal alterations, which appeared necessary to me, I have made, leaving so much of the original draughts, approved and amended by you, as were not inconsistent with these alterations. I have therefore had these prepared fair, to save you the trouble of copying; yet, wherever you choose to make alterations, you will be so good as to make them; taking, in that case, the trouble of having new fair copies made out.
My letter from September 19th, written the morning after Mr. Lambe arrived here, will tell you about that situation. I'm sending you copies of the documents he brought us regarding the Barbary treaties. You'll see that Congress has adopted the same plan we were proposing to follow. This will proceed with less risk of objections from the other parties. Therefore, the receipt of these new documents hasn’t required any substantive changes in the messages we had prepared. However, some formal changes are necessary. For example, in our letter of credence for Mr. Barclay to the Emperor of Morocco, it's no longer appropriate to include the explanations that seemed necessary when the letter was originally drafted, because Congress has discussed those explanations in their letter. In the letter to Count de Vergennes, it’s proper to mention the new full powers received from Congress, which somewhat align with the idea he communicated to us from Marechal de Castries. I have made these and other formal changes that seemed necessary to me, while keeping as much of the original drafts, approved and amended by you, that were not inconsistent with these changes. I’ve prepared these final versions to save you the trouble of copying; however, wherever you choose to make changes, please do so, and you will need to arrange for new final copies to be made.
You will perceive by Mr. Jay’s letter, that Congress had not thought proper to give Mr. Lambe any appointment. I imagine they apprehended it might interfere with measures actually taken by us. Notwithstanding the perfect freedom which they are pleased to leave to us, on this subject, I cannot feel myself clear of that bias, which a presumption of their pleasure gives, and ought to give. I presume that Mr. Lambe met their approbation, because of the recommendations he carried from the Governor and State of Connecticut, because of his actual knowledge of the country and people of the States of Barbary, because of the detention of these letters from March to July, which, considering their pressing-nature, would otherwise have been sent by other Americans, who, in the mean time, have come from New York to Paris; and because, too, of the information we received by Mr. Jarvis. These reasons are not strong enough to set aside our appointment of Mr. Barclay to Morocco: that I think should go on, as no man could be sent who would enjoy more the confidence of Congress. But they are strong enough to induce me to propose to you the appointment of Lambe to Algiers. He has followed for many years the Barbary trade, and seems intimately acquainted with those States. I have not seen enough of him to judge of his abilities. He seems not deficient, as far as I can see, and the footing on which he comes, must furnish a presumption for what we do not see. We must say the same as to his integrity; we must rely for this on the recommendations he brings, as it is impossible for us to judge of this for ourselves. Yet it will be our duty to use such reasonable cautions as are in our power. Two occur to me. 1. To give him a clerk capable of assisting and attending to his proceedings, and who, in case he thought any thing was going amiss, might give us information. 2. Not to give him a credit on Van Staphorst and Willinck, but let his drafts be made on yourself, which, with the knowledge you will have of his proceedings, will enable you to check them, if you are sensible of any abuse intended. This will give you trouble; but as I have never found you declining trouble, when it is necessary, I venture to propose it. I hope it will not expose you to inconvenience, as by instructing Lambe to insert in his drafts a proper usance, you can, in the mean time, raise the money for them by drawing on Holland. I must inform you that Mr. Barclay wishes to be put on the same footing with Mr. Lambe, as to this article, and therefore I return you your letter of credit on Van Staphorst &, Co. As to the first article, there is great difficulty. There is nobody at Paris fit for the undertaking, who would be likely to accept it. I mean there is no American, for I should be anxious to place a native in the trust. Perhaps you can send us one from London. There is a Mr. Randall there, from New York, whom Mr. Barclay thinks might be relied on very firmly for integrity and capacity. He is there for his health; perhaps you can persuade him to go to Algiers in pursuit of it. If you cannot, I really know not what will be done. It is impossible to propose to Bancroft to go in a secondary capacity. Mr. Barclay and myself have thought of Cairnes, at L’Ori-ent, as a dernier ressort. But it is uncertain, or rather improbable, that he will undertake it. You will be pleased in the first place, to consider of my proposition to send Lambe to Algiers; and in the next, all the circumstances before detailed, as consequences of that.
You will see from Mr. Jay’s letter that Congress decided not to give Mr. Lambe any position. I believe they were concerned that it might interfere with actions we have already taken. Even though they allow us complete freedom on this matter, I still feel influenced by the assumption of their preferences. I assume Mr. Lambe has their approval because of the recommendations he received from the Governor and State of Connecticut, because of his knowledge of the country and people of the Barbary States, because of the delay in these letters from March to July, which, given their urgent nature, would have otherwise been sent by other Americans who have traveled from New York to Paris; and also due to the information we got from Mr. Jarvis. These reasons aren't strong enough to overturn our appointment of Mr. Barclay to Morocco; that should proceed since no one would inspire more confidence from Congress. However, they are convincing enough for me to suggest appointing Lambe to Algiers. He has been in the Barbary trade for many years and seems to know those states well. I haven’t seen enough of him to assess his abilities. From what I can observe, he doesn’t seem lacking, and the basis on which he comes suggests there’s more to his qualifications than meets the eye. We must apply the same reasoning to his integrity; we have to depend on the recommendations he brings since we can't judge that ourselves. Still, it’s our responsibility to take reasonable precautions. Two come to mind: 1. Provide him with a capable clerk who can assist him and monitor his activities, and who can inform us if he thinks something is off. 2. Do not give him credit with Van Staphorst and Willinck; instead, let his drafts be made on you, which will allow you to monitor them, should you detect any misuse. I know this will require extra effort from you, but since you never shy away from necessary work, I’m willing to suggest it. I hope this won't cause you any inconvenience because, by instructing Lambe to include a proper usance in his drafts, you can raise the funds for them by drawing on Holland. I must let you know that Mr. Barclay wants to be on the same terms as Mr. Lambe regarding this matter, so I’m returning your letter of credit on Van Staphorst & Co. Regarding the first issue, there’s a significant challenge. There’s no one in Paris suitable for the job who would likely accept it. I mean, there’s no American, as I would prefer to appoint a local. Perhaps you could send someone from London. There’s a Mr. Randall there from New York who Mr. Barclay believes would be very reliable for integrity and competence. He’s there for his health; maybe you can convince him to go to Algiers for that reason. If you can’t, I honestly don’t know what will happen. It’s impossible to suggest to Bancroft to take a secondary role. Mr. Barclay and I have considered Cairnes, at L’Orient, as a last resort. But it’s uncertain, or rather unlikely, that he will agree to it. First, please consider my suggestion to send Lambe to Algiers; and then think about all the circumstances I’ve detailed that follow from that.
The enclosed letter from Richard O’Bryan furnishes powerful motives for commencing, by some means or other, the treaty with Algiers, more immediately than would be done, if left on Mr. Barclay. You will perceive by that, that two of our vessels, with their crews and cargoes, have been carried captive into that port. What is to be done as to those poor people? I am for hazarding the supplementary instruction to Lambe, which accompanies these papers. Alter it, or reject it, as you please. You ask what I think of claiming the Dutch interposition. I doubt the fidelity of any interposition too much to desire it sincerely. Our letters to this court, heretofore, seemed to oblige us to communicate with them on the subject. If you think the Dutch would take amiss our not applying to them, I will join you in the application. Otherwise, the fewer who are apprized of our proceedings, the better. To communicate them to the States of Holland, is to communicate them to the whole world.
The attached letter from Richard O’Bryan provides strong reasons for starting the negotiations with Algiers sooner than if we left it to Mr. Barclay. You’ll notice that two of our ships, along with their crews and cargoes, have been taken captive in that port. What should we do about those unfortunate people? I’m in favor of taking a chance on the additional instructions to Lambe that come with these documents. Feel free to modify or dismiss them as you see fit. You asked what I think about requesting Dutch assistance. I have serious doubts about their reliability, so I’m not eager for that. Our previous letters to this court seemed to require us to discuss this with them. If you believe the Dutch would be offended by our not asking for their help, I’ll support you in reaching out. If not, it’s better to keep our plans to a minimum. Sharing them with the States of Holland means sharing them with the entire world.
Mr. Short returned last night, and brought the Prussian treaty, duly executed in English and French. We may send it to Congress by the Mr. Fitzhughs going from hence. Will you draw and sign a short letter for that purpose? I send you a copy of a letter received from the Marquis Fayette. In the present unsettled state of American commerce, I had as lieve avoid all further treaties, except with American powers. If Count Merci, therefore, does not propose the subject to me, I shall not to him, nor do more than decency requires, if he does propose it. I am, with great esteem, Dear Sir,
Mr. Short returned last night and brought the Prussian treaty, properly signed in English and French. We can send it to Congress with Mr. Fitzhughs who is leaving from here. Could you please draft and sign a short letter for that purpose? I'm sending you a copy of a letter we got from Marquis Fayette. Given the current unstable state of American commerce, I would prefer to avoid any further treaties, except with American powers. So if Count Merci doesn’t bring it up, I won’t either, and I won’t do anything more than what’s necessary if he does. I am, with great respect, Dear Sir,
your most obedient, humble servant,
your most obedient servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CXIII.—TO F. HOPKINSON, September 25, 1785
TO F. HOPKINSON.
To F. Hopkinson.
Paris, September 25, 1785.
Paris, Sept 25, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Dear [Name],
My last to you was of the 6th of July. Since that, I have received yours of July the 23rd. I do not altogether despair of making something of your method of quilling, though, as yet, the prospect is not favorable. I applaud much your perseverance in improving this instrument, and benefiting mankind almost in spite of their teeth. I mentioned to Piccini the improvement with which I am entrusted. He plays on the piano-forte, and therefore did not feel himself personally interested. I hope some better opportunity will yet fall in my way of doing it justice. I had almost decided, on his advice, to get a piano-forte for my daughter; but your last letter may pause me, till I see its effect.
My last message to you was on July 6th. Since then, I've received yours from July 23rd. I’m still hopeful about your quilling method, even if the outlook isn't great right now. I really admire your dedication to improving this instrument and helping humanity, even if it’s not widely appreciated. I mentioned the improvement I’m working on to Piccini. He plays the piano, so he didn’t feel personally invested. I hope I’ll have a better chance soon to showcase it properly. I was almost convinced, based on his advice, to buy a piano for my daughter, but your last letter has made me pause until I can see the outcome.
Arts and arms are alike asleep for the moment. Ballooning indeed goes on. There are two artists in the neighborhood of Paris, who seem to be advancing towards the desideratum in this business. They are able to rise and fall at will, without expending their gas, and to deflect forty-five degrees from the course of the wind.
Arts and military pursuits are both dormant for now. Ballooning, however, continues. There are two artists in the Paris area who appear to be making progress toward their goal in this field. They can ascend and descend at will, without using up their gas, and can steer at a forty-five degree angle against the direction of the wind.
I desired you in my last to send the newspapers, notwithstanding the expense. I had then no idea of it. Some late instances have made me perfectly acquainted with it. I have therefore been obliged to adopt the following plan. To have my newspapers, from the different States, enclosed to the office for Foreign Affairs, and to desire Mr. Jay to pack the whole in a box, and send it by the packet as merchandise, directed to the American consul at L’Orient, who will forward it to me by the periodical wagons. In this way they will only cost me livres where they now cost me guineas, I must pray you, just before the departure of every French packet, to send my papers on hand to Mr. Jay, in this way. I do not know whether I am subject to American postage or not, in general; but I think newspapers never are. I have sometimes thought of sending a copy of my Notes to the Philosophical Society, as a tribute due to them: but this would seem as if I considered them as worth something, which I am conscious they are not. I will not ask you for your advice on this occasion, because it is one of those on which no man is authorized to ask a sincere opinion. I shall therefore refer it to further thoughts.
I asked you in my last message to send the newspapers, despite the cost. Back then, I had no idea about it. Some recent events have made me completely aware of it. So, I’ve had to come up with the following plan: to have my newspapers from different states sent to the office for Foreign Affairs and to ask Mr. Jay to pack them all in a box and send it by the packet as merchandise, addressed to the American consul at L’Orient, who will forward it to me using the regular wagons. This way, they will only cost me livres instead of guineas. I kindly ask you, just before the departure of each French packet, to send my papers on hand to Mr. Jay this way. I’m not sure if I’m subject to American postage or not in general, but I believe newspapers are usually exempt. I’ve considered sending a copy of my Notes to the Philosophical Society as a tribute to them, but that would imply I think they’re worth something, which I know they aren’t. I won’t ask you for your advice on this matter, as it's one of those situations where no one is really in a position to give a sincere opinion. I’ll leave it for further consideration.
I am, with very sincere esteem, Dear Sir,
I sincerely respect you, Dear Sir,
your friend and servant,
your friend and servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CXIV.—TO LISTER ASQUITH, September 26,1785
TO LISTER ASQUITH.
To Lister Asquith.
Paris, September 26,1785.
Paris, September 26, 1785.
Sir,
Hey,
I have received your letter of September the 19th, with your log-book and other papers. I now wait for the letter from your lawyer, as, till I know the real nature and state of your process, it is impossible for me to judge what can be done for you here. As soon as I receive them, you shall hear from me. In the mean time, I supposed it would be a comfort to you to know that your papers had come safe to hand, and that I shall be attentive to do whatever circumstances will admit.
I got your letter from September 19th, along with your logbook and other documents. I'm now waiting for the letter from your lawyer because I can't really understand the nature and status of your situation until then, which makes it hard to know how I can help you. As soon as I get those, I'll get back to you. In the meantime, I thought it would be reassuring for you to know that your papers arrived safely and that I will do my best to help with whatever I can.
I am, Sir, your very humble servant,
I am, Sir, your very humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CXV.—TO R. IZARD, September 26,1783
TO R. IZARD.
To R. Izard.
Paris, September 26,1783.
Paris, September 26, 1783.
Dear Sir,
Dear [Name],
I received, a few days ago, your favor of the 10th of June, and am to thank you for the trouble you have given yourself, to procure me information on the subject of the commerce of your State. I pray you, also, to take the trouble of expressing my acknowledgments to the Governor and Chamber of Commerce, as well as to Mr. Hall, for the very precise details on this subject, with which they have been pleased to honor me. Your letter of last January, of which you make mention, never came to my hands. Of course, the papers now received are the first and only ones which have come safe. The infidelities of the post-offices, both of England and France, are not unknown to you. The former are the most rascally, because they retain one’s letters, not choosing to take the trouble of copying them. The latter, when they have taken copies, are so civil as to send the originals, re-sealed clumsily with a composition, on which they had previously taken the impression of the seal. England shows no dispositions to enter into friendly connections with us. On the contrary, her detention of our posts, seems to be the speck which is to produce a storm. I judge that a war with America would be a popular war in England. Perhaps the situation of Ireland may deter the ministry from hastening it on. Peace is at length made between the Emperor and Dutch. The terms are not published, but it is said he gets ten millions of florins, the navigation of the Scheldt not quite to Antwerp, and two forts. However, this is not to be absolutely relied on. The league formed by the King of Prussia against the Emperor is a most formidable obstacle to his ambitious designs. It certainly has defeated his views on Bavaria, and will render doubtful the election of his nephew to be King of the Romans. Matters are not yet settled between him and the Turk. In truth, he undertakes too much. At home he has made some good regulations.
A few days ago, I received your letter dated June 10th, and I want to thank you for the effort you put into gathering information about your State’s commerce. I also ask that you pass along my thanks to the Governor, the Chamber of Commerce, and Mr. Hall for the detailed information they provided me. I didn’t receive your letter from last January that you mentioned. Obviously, the papers I just got are the first and only ones that have arrived safely. You know about the unreliability of the postal services in both England and France. The English are the worst because they hold onto letters instead of taking the trouble to copy them. The French, when they do take copies, are kind enough to send back the originals, clumsily re-sealed with a material that has the seal impression. England seems unwilling to establish friendly relations with us. On the contrary, their hold on our posts seems to be the spark that could ignite a conflict. I believe a war with America would be popular in England. However, the situation in Ireland might be a reason for the government to delay it. Peace has finally been reached between the Emperor and the Dutch. The terms haven’t been published, but it’s said he receives ten million florins, the navigation of the Scheldt not quite reaching Antwerp, and two forts. However, this information isn’t entirely trustworthy. The alliance formed by the King of Prussia against the Emperor poses a significant challenge to his ambitious plans. It has certainly thwarted his aims regarding Bavaria and raises doubts about his nephew becoming King of the Romans. Things aren't settled yet between him and the Turk. In truth, he is taking on too much. At home, he has implemented some good regulations.
Your present pursuit being (the wisest of all) agriculture, I am not in a situation to be useful to it. You know that France is not the country most celebrated for this art. I went the other day to see a plough which was to be worked by a windlass, without horses or oxen. It was a poor affair. With a very troublesome apparatus, applicable only to a dead level, four men could do the work of two horses. There seems a possibility that the great desideratum in the use of the balloon may be obtained. There are two persons at Javel (opposite to Auteuil) who are pushing this matter. They are able to rise and fall at will, without expending their gas, and they can deflect forty-five degrees from the course of the wind.
Your current focus being (the smartest of all) agriculture, I can't really be of much help with it. You know that France isn't exactly known for excelling in this field. The other day, I went to check out a plow that was supposed to be run by a windlass, without using horses or oxen. It was pretty disappointing. With a very complicated setup, only suitable for completely flat land, four men could do the work of two horses. There seems to be a chance that the main goal in using balloons might be achieved. There are two people at Javel (across from Auteuil) who are working on this. They can go up and down at will without using up their gas, and they can change direction by forty-five degrees against the wind.
I took the liberty of asking you to order me a Charleston newspaper. The expense of French postage is so enormous that I have been obliged to desire that my newspapers, from the different States, may be sent to the office for Foreign Affairs at New York; and I have requested of Mr. Jay to have them always packed in a box, and sent by the French packets as merchandise to the care of the American consul at L’Orient, who will send them on by the periodical wagons. Will you permit me to add this to the trouble I have before given you, of ordering the printer to send them under cover to Mr. Jay, by such opportunities by water, as occur from time to time. This request must go to the acts of your Assembly also. I shall be on the watch to send you any thing that may appear here on the subjects of agriculture or the arts, which may be worth your perusal, I sincerely congratulate Mrs. Izard and yourself on the double accession to your family by marriage and a new birth. My daughter values much your remembrance of her, and prays to have her respects presented to the ladies and yourself. In this I join her, and shall embrace with pleasure every opportunity of assuring you of the sincere esteem, with which I have the honor to be, Dear Sir, your most obedient
I took the liberty of asking you to order me a newspaper from Charleston. The cost of French postage is so high that I've had to request that my newspapers from different states be sent to the Foreign Affairs office in New York. I've also asked Mr. Jay to always pack them in a box and send them via French ships as goods to the American consul in L’Orient, who will forward them by the regular wagons. Would you allow me to add this to the trouble I've already caused you by asking the printer to send them under cover to Mr. Jay whenever opportunities arise for shipping by water? This request also needs to go to your Assembly's actions. I'll keep an eye out for anything here related to agriculture or the arts that might be worth your attention. I sincerely congratulate Mrs. Izard and you on the double addition to your family through marriage and a new birth. My daughter greatly appreciates your remembrance of her and asks to extend her regards to the ladies and you. I join her in this and look forward to every chance to assure you of my sincere esteem. I have the honor to be, Dear Sir, your most obedient.
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CXVI.—TO RICHARD O’BRYAN, September 29, 1785
TO RICHARD O’BRYAN.
TO RICHARD O'BRYAN.
Paris, September 29, 1785.
Paris, September 29, 1785.
Sir,
Sir,
I have received your letter, and shall exert myself for you. Be assured of hearing from me soon: but say nothing to any body, except what may be necessary to comfort your companions. I add no more, because the fate of this letter is uncertain. I am, Sir,
I got your letter and I’ll do my best for you. You’ll hear from me soon, but please don’t say anything to anyone except what might help comfort your friends. I won’t say more since the fate of this letter is uncertain. I am, Sir,
your very humble servant,
your humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CXVII.—TO MR. BELLINI, September 30,1785
TO MR. BELLINI.
To Mr. Bellini.
Paris, September 30,1785.
Paris, September 30, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
Your estimable favor, covering a letter to Mr. Mazzei, came to hand on the 26th instant. The letter to Mr. Mazzei was put into his hands in the same moment, as he happened to be present. I leave to him to convey to you all his complaints, as it will be more agreeable to me to express to you the satisfaction I received, on being informed of your perfect health. Though I could not receive the same pleasing news of Mrs. Bellini, yet the philosophy, with which I am told she bears the loss of health, is a testimony the more, how much she deserved the esteem I bear her. Behold me at length on the vaunted scene of Europe! It is not necessary for your information, that I should enter into details concerning it. But you are, perhaps, curious to know how this new scene has struck a savage of the mountains of America. Not advantageously, I assure you. I find the general fate of humanity here most deplorable. The truth of Voltaire’s observation offers itself perpetually, that every man here must be either the hammer or the anvil. It is a true picture of that country to which they say we shall pass hereafter, and where we are to see God and his angels in splendor, and crowds of the damned trampled under their feet. While the great mass of the people are thus suffering under physical and moral oppression, I have endeavored to examine more nearly the condition of the great, to appreciate the true value of the circumstances in their situation which dazzle the bulk of spectators, and, especially, to compare it with that degree of happiness which is enjoyed in America by every class of people. Intrigues of love occupy the younger, and those of ambition the elder part of the great. Conjugal love having no existence among them, domestic happiness, of which that is the basis, is utterly unknown. In lieu of this, are substituted pursuits which nourish and invigorate all our bad passions, and which offer only moments of ecstacy, amidst days and months of restlessness and torment. Much, very much inferior, this, to the tranquil, permanent felicity, with which domestic society in America blesses most of its inhabitants; leaving them to follow steadily those pursuits which health and reason approve, and rendering truly delicious the intervals of those pursuits.
Your esteemed letter to Mr. Mazzei was received on the 26th. I handed the letter to him right away since he was there at the time. I'll let him share any complaints he has with you because I’d rather tell you how glad I am to hear you’re in good health. While I didn’t get the same good news about Mrs. Bellini, the way she handles her health issues shows why I hold her in such high regard. Here I am at last in Europe! There’s no need for me to go into detail about it, but you might be curious how this new environment has impacted someone from the mountains of America. Not positively, I assure you. I find the overall state of humanity here quite dismal. Voltaire’s observation that everyone here must be either the hammer or the anvil constantly resonates. It’s a true reflection of the place they say we’ll go afterwards, where we’re supposed to see God and His angels in glory, while the damned are trampled beneath them. While the majority of people endure both physical and moral oppression, I’ve tried to look more closely at the conditions of the elite, to truly assess what dazzles onlookers about their situation, and especially to compare it with the happiness experienced in America by all social classes. The young are consumed by romantic intrigues, while the older people are caught up in ambition. With no true marital love among them, domestic happiness, which is its foundation, is completely absent. Instead, they chase pursuits that fuel our worst passions, providing only fleeting moments of ecstasy amid long days and months of restlessness and distress. This is far inferior to the calm, lasting happiness that domestic life in America typically offers, allowing people to pursue what health and reason support, and making the breaks between those pursuits genuinely enjoyable.
In science, the mass of the people is two centuries behind ours; their literati, half a dozen years before us. Books, really good, acquire just reputation in that time, and so become known to us, and communicate to us all their advances in knowledge. Is not this delay compensated, by our being placed out of the reach of that swarm of nonsensical publications, which issues daily from a thousand presses, and perishes almost in issuing? With respect to what are termed polite manners, without sacrificing too much the sincerity of language, I would wish my countrymen to adopt just so much of European politeness, as to be ready to make all those little sacrifices of self, which really render European manners amiable, and relieve society from the disagreeable scenes to which rudeness often subjects it. Here, it seems that a man might pass a life without encountering a single rudeness. In the pleasures of the table they are far before us, because with good taste they unite temperance. They do not terminate the most sociable meals by transforming themselves into brutes. I have never yet seen a man drunk in France, even among the lowest of the people. Were I to proceed to tell you how much I enjoy their architecture, sculpture, painting, music, I should want words. It is in these arts they shine. The last of them, particularly, is an enjoyment, the deprivation of which with us cannot be calculated. I am almost ready to say, it is the only thing which from my heart I envy them, and which, in spite of all the authority of the Decalogue, I do covet. But I am running on in an estimate of things infinitely better known to you than to me, and which will only serve to convince you, that I have brought with me all the prejudices of country, habit, and age. But whatever I may allow to be charged to me as prejudice, in every other instance, I have one sentiment at least founded on reality: it is that of the perfect esteem which your merit and that of Mrs. Bellini have produced, and which will for ever enable me to assure you of the sincere regard with which I am, Dear Sir,
In science, the general public is two centuries behind us; their intellectuals are six years behind us. Really good books earn their reputation over time and become known to us, sharing all their advancements in knowledge. Isn’t this delay outweighed by the fact that we are out of reach of the flood of meaningless publications that pour out daily from countless presses, most of which fade into obscurity almost immediately? As for what are called polite manners, without losing too much of the sincerity in language, I would like my fellow countrymen to embrace just enough of European politeness to be willing to make those small sacrifices of self that truly make European manners pleasant and spare society from the uncomfortable situations that rudeness often creates. Here, it seems a person could go through life without encountering a single rude act. In culinary pleasures, they are well ahead of us, as they combine good taste with moderation. They don’t end the most social meals by behaving like animals. I have yet to see anyone drunk in France, even among the lower classes. If I were to express how much I appreciate their architecture, sculpture, painting, and music, I would be at a loss for words. They excel in these arts. The last one, in particular, is a joy that we simply can't measure the loss of. I’m almost tempted to say it’s the one thing I genuinely envy them and, despite all the commandments, I do desire it. But I’m getting carried away with an evaluation of things that are far better known to you than to me, and which will only serve to show you that I’ve brought with me all the biases of my country, habits, and age. However, no matter what might be labeled as prejudice in other instances, I do have one sentiment that is based on reality: that of the deep respect that your merit and that of Mrs. Bellini have instilled in me, which will forever allow me to assure you of the sincere regard with which I am, Dear Sir,
your friend and servant,
your friend and helper,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CXVIII.—JAMES MADISON, October 2, 1785
JAMES MADISON, of William and Mary College.
JAMES MADISON, of William and Mary College.
Paris, October 2, 1785.
Paris, Oct 2, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
I have duly received your favor of April the 10th, by Mr. Mazzei. You therein speak of a new method of raising water by steam, which you suppose will come into general use. I know of no new method of that kind, and suppose (as you say that the account you have received of it is very imperfect) that some person has represented to you, as new, a fire-engine erected at Paris, and which supplies the greater part of the town with water. But this is nothing more than the fire-engine you have seen described in the books of hydraulics, and particularly in the Dictionary of Arts and Sciences, published in 8vo, by Owen, the idea of which was first taken from Papin’s Digester. It would have been better called the steam-engine. The force of the steam of water, you know, is immense. In this-engine it is made to exert itself towards the working of pumps. That of Paris is, I believe, the largest known, raising four hundred thousand cubic feet (French) of water, in twenty-four hours; or rather I should have said, those of Paris, for there are two under one roof, each raising that quantity.
I received your letter dated April 10th through Mr. Mazzei. In it, you mention a new way to raise water using steam, which you think will become widely adopted. I’m not aware of any such new method and assume (since you mention that the account you have is quite incomplete) that someone has described to you a fire engine installed in Paris, which provides water to most of the city. However, this is just the same fire engine you’ve seen referenced in hydraulics books, especially in the Dictionary of Arts and Sciences published in 8vo by Owen, an idea initially inspired by Papin’s Digester. It would have been more accurately called the steam engine. As you know, the power of steam is tremendous. In this engine, it works to drive pumps. The one in Paris is, I believe, the largest known, raising four hundred thousand cubic feet (French) of water in twenty-four hours; or rather, I should say, there are two engines under one roof, each raising that amount.
The Abbe Rochon not living at Paris, I have not had an opportunity of seeing him, and of asking him the questions you desire, relative to the crystal of which I wrote you. I shall avail myself of the earliest opportunity I can, of doing it. I shall cheerfully execute your commands as to the Encyclopédie, when I receive them. The price will be only thirty guineas. About half the work is out. The volumes of your Buffon, which are spoiled, can be replaced here.
The Abbe Rochon doesn’t live in Paris, so I haven’t had a chance to see him or ask him the questions you want regarding the crystal I wrote to you about. I’ll take the first opportunity I get to do that. I’ll gladly fulfill your requests regarding the Encyclopédie as soon as I receive them. The price will be just thirty guineas. About half of the work is already available. The damaged volumes of your Buffon can be replaced here.
I expect that this letter will be carried by the Mr. Fitzhughs, in a ship from Havre to Portsmouth. I have therefore sent to Havre some books, which I expected would be acceptable to you. These are the Bibliothèque Physico-oeconomique, which will give you most of the late improvements in the arts; the Connoissance des Terns for 1786 and 1787, which is as late as they are published; and some pieces on air and fire, wherein you will find all the discoveries hitherto made on these subjects. These books are made into a packet, with your address on them, and are put into a trunk wherein is a small packet for Mr. Wythe, another for Mr. Page, and a parcel of books, without direction, for Peter Carr. I have taken the liberty of directing the trunk to you, as the surest means of its getting safe. I pay the freight of it here, so that there will be no new demands, but for the transportation from the ship’s side to Williamsburg, which I will pray you to pay; and as much the greatest part is for my nephew, I will take care to repay it to you.
I expect this letter will be delivered by Mr. Fitzhughs on a ship from Havre to Portsmouth. I've sent some books to Havre that I think you'll find useful. They include the Bibliothèque Physico-oeconomique, which covers most of the recent advances in the arts; the Connoissance des Terns for 1786 and 1787, which is the latest available; and some works on air and fire, where you'll find all the discoveries made in these areas so far. These books are packed together with your address on them and placed in a trunk that also contains a small package for Mr. Wythe, another for Mr. Page, and a set of books—without a label—for Peter Carr. I've taken the liberty of addressing the trunk to you to ensure it arrives safely. I've covered the shipping costs here, so there shouldn't be any additional charges except for getting it from the ship to Williamsburg, which I ask you to pay; since most of it is for my nephew, I’ll make sure to reimburse you.
In the last volume of the Connoissance des Terns, you will find the tables for the planet Herschel. It is a curious circumstance, that this planet was seen thirty years ago by Mayer, and supposed by him to be a fixed star. He accordingly determined a place for it, in his catalogue of the zodiacal stars, making it the 964th of that catalogue. Bode, of Berlin, observed in 1781, that this star was missing. Subsequent calculations of the motion of the planet Herschel show, that it must have been, at the time of Mayer’s observation, where he had placed his 964th star.
In the last volume of the Connoissance des Terns, you'll find the tables for the planet Herschel. It's an interesting situation that this planet was spotted thirty years ago by Mayer, who thought it was a fixed star. He then listed it in his catalog of zodiacal stars, making it the 964th entry. Bode, from Berlin, noted in 1781 that this star was missing. Later calculations of the planet Herschel's motion show that it must have been in the position where Mayer noted his 964th star at the time of his observation.
Herschel has pushed his discoveries of double stars, now, to upwards of nine hundred, being twice the number of those communicated in the Philosophical Transactions. You have probably seen, that a Mr. Pigott had discovered periodical variations of light in the star Algol. He has observed the same in the n of Antinous, and makes the period of variation seven days, four hours, and thirty minutes, the duration of the increase sixty-three hours, and of the decrease thirty-six hours. What are we to conclude from this? That there are suns which have their orbits of revolution too? But this would suppose a wonderful harmony in their planets, and present a new scene, where the attracting powers should be without, and not within the orbit. The motion of our sun would be a miniature of this. But this must be left to you astronomers.
Herschel has pushed his discoveries of double stars to over nine hundred now, which is double the number reported in the Philosophical Transactions. You might have seen that a Mr. Pigott discovered periodic variations in the light of the star Algol. He has observed the same in the n of Antinous, noting that the variation period is seven days, four hours, and thirty minutes, with the increase lasting sixty-three hours and the decrease thirty-six hours. What should we conclude from this? That there are suns with their own orbits of revolution too? But that would imply a remarkable harmony among their planets, presenting a new scenario where the gravitational forces act outside the orbit, rather than inside it. The motion of our sun would be a smaller version of this. However, this is something to be left to you astronomers.
I went some time ago to see a machine, which offers something new. A man had applied to a light boat, a very large screw, the thread of which was a thin plate, two feet broad, applied by its edge spirally round a small axis. It somewhat resembled a bottle-brush, if you will suppose the hairs of the bottle-brush joining together, and forming a spiral plane. This, turned on its axis in the air, carried the vessel across the Seine. It is, in fact, a screw which takes hold of the air and draws itself along by it: losing, indeed, much of its effort by the yielding nature of the body it lays hold of, to pull itself on by. I think it may be applied in the water with much greater effect, and to very useful purposes Perhaps it may be used also for the balloon.
I went a while ago to check out a new machine. A guy had attached a huge screw to a light boat, with the thread made from a thin plate, two feet wide, wrapped spirally around a small axis. It kind of looked like a bottle brush, if you imagine the bristles coming together to form a spiral shape. This screw, when spun on its axis in the air, moved the boat across the Seine. Essentially, it grabs onto the air and pulls itself forward, although it does lose a lot of its power because of the flexible nature of what it’s clinging to. I think it could be way more effective in water and serve some really useful purposes. It might also be useful for balloons.
It is impossible but you must have heard long ago of the machine for copying letters at a single stroke, as we had received it in America before I left there. I have written a long letter to my nephew, in whose education I feel myself extremely interested. I shall rely much on your friendship for conducting him in the plan I mark out for him, and for guarding him against those shoals, on which youth sometimes shipwreck. I trouble you to present to Mr. Wythe my affectionate remembrance of him, and am with very great esteem, Dear Sir,
It’s hard to believe you haven’t heard about the machine that can copy letters in one go; we got it in America before I left. I’ve written a lengthy letter to my nephew, in whose education I’m very invested. I’ll count on your friendship to help guide him along the plan I’ve laid out and to protect him from the pitfalls that young people sometimes encounter. Please give my warm regards to Mr. Wythe, and I remain, with great respect, Dear Sir,
your friend and servant,
your friend and servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CXIX.—TO DR. FRANKLIN, October 5,1785
TO DR. FRANKLIN.
To Dr. Franklin.
Paris, October 5,1785.
Paris, October 5, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
A vessel sailing from Havre to Philadelphia, furnishes the Messrs. Fitzhughs with a passage to that place. To them, therefore, I confide a number of letters and packets which I have received for you from sundry quarters, and which, I doubt not, they will deliver safe. Among these is one from M. Du Plessis. On receipt of your letter, in answer to the one I had written you, on the subject of his memorial, I sent to M. La Motte, M. Chaumont, and wherever else I thought there was a probability of finding out Du Plessis’ address. But all in vain. I meant to examine his memoir, as you desired, and to have it copied. Lately, he came and brought it with him, copied by himself. He desired me to read it, and enclose it to you, which I have done.
A ship sailing from Havre to Philadelphia is giving the Fitzhughs a ride to that location. So, I’m trusting them with several letters and packages I’ve received for you from various sources, and I have no doubt they’ll deliver them safely. Among these is a letter from M. Du Plessis. After getting your letter in response to mine about his memorial, I reached out to M. La Motte, M. Chaumont, and anyone else I thought might help me find Du Plessis’ address. But it was all in vain. I intended to review his memoir as you requested and have it copied. Recently, he came and brought it with him, written out by himself. He asked me to read it and send it to you, which I’ve done.
We have no public news worth communicating to you, but the signing of preliminaries between the Emperor and Dutch. The question is, then, with whom the Emperor will pick the next quarrel. Our treaty with Prussia goes by this conveyance. But it is not to be spoken of till a convenient time is allowed for exchanging ratifications.
We don’t have any public news to share with you, except for the signing of preliminary agreements between the Emperor and the Dutch. So the question is, who will the Emperor choose to clash with next? Our treaty with Prussia is being sent through this courier. However, it won’t be mentioned until an appropriate time is given for exchanging ratifications.
Science offers nothing new since your departure, nor any new publication worth your notice. All your friends here are well. Those in England have carried you captive to Algiers. They have published a letter, as if written by Truxen, the 20th of August, from Algiers, stating the circumstances of the capture, and that you bore your slavery to admiration. I happened to receive a letter from Algiers, dated August the 24th, informing me that two vessels were then there, taken from us, and naming the vessels and captains. This was a satisfactory proof to us, that you were not there. The fact being so, we would have gladly dispensed with the proof, as the situation of our countrymen there was described as very distressing.
Science hasn't presented anything new since you left, nor are there any publications worth your attention. All your friends here are doing well. Those in England have taken you captive to Algiers. They published a letter, supposedly written by Truxen, dated August 20th from Algiers, detailing the circumstances of your capture and claiming that you handled your captivity with grace. I received a letter from Algiers, dated August 24th, which mentioned that two of our ships were there, naming the vessels and their captains. This provided us with satisfactory proof that you weren't there. Given the situation, we would have preferred not to have confirmation, as conditions for our countrymen there were described as very distressing.
Were I to mention all those who make inquiries after you, there would be no end to my letter. I cannot, however, pass over those of the good old Countess d’Hoditot, with whom I dined on Saturday, at Sanois. They were very affectionate. I hope you have had a good passage. Your essay in crossing the channel gave us great hopes you would experience little inconvenience on the rest of the voyage. My wishes place you in the bosom of your friends, in good health, and with a well grounded prospect of preserving it long, for your own sake, for theirs, and that of the world.
If I were to list everyone who asks about you, my letter would never end. However, I can't skip mentioning the lovely Countess d’Hoditot, with whom I had dinner on Saturday at Sanois. They were very warm and welcoming. I hope you had a smooth journey. Your experience crossing the channel gave us high hopes that the rest of your voyage would be easy as well. My wishes for you place you among your friends, in good health, and with solid reasons to keep it that way, for your own sake, for theirs, and for the sake of the world.
I am, with the sincerest attachment and respect, Dear Sir,
I am, with the utmost affection and respect, Dear Sir,
your most obedient
your obedient servant
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CXX.—TO SAMUEL OSGOOD, October 5, 1785
TO SAMUEL OSGOOD.
TO SAMUEL OSGOOD.
Paris, October 5, 1785.
Paris, Oct 5, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Dear Mr.,
It was with very sincere pleasure I heard of your appointment to the board of treasury, as well from the hope that it might not be disagreeable to yourself, as from the confidence that your administration would be wise. I heartily wish the States may, by their contributions, enable you to re-establish a credit, which cannot be lower than at present, to exist at all. This is partly owing to their real deficiencies, and partly to the lies propagated by the London papers, which are probably paid for by the minister, to reconcile the people to the loss of us. Unluckily, it indisposes them, at the same time, to form rational connections with us. Should this produce the amendment of our federal constitution, of which your papers give us hopes, we shall receive a permanent indemnification for a temporary loss.
I was genuinely pleased to hear about your appointment to the treasury board, both because I hope it won’t be unpleasant for you and because I trust your leadership will be smart. I sincerely wish the States can support you with their contributions to help restore a credit that can’t be worse than it is now, or else it might not exist at all. This situation is partly due to their actual shortcomings and partly because of the falsehoods spread by the London papers, which are likely funded by the minister to convince the public to accept our loss. Unfortunately, this also makes them less willing to form sensible connections with us. If this leads to improvements in our federal constitution, as your documents suggest, we will gain a lasting compensation for a temporary setback.
All things here promise an arrangement between the Emperor and Dutch. Their ministers have signed preliminary articles, some of which, however, leave room for further cavil. The Dutch pay ten millions of florins, yield some forts and territory, and the navigation of the Scheldt to Saftingen. Till our treaty with England be fully executed, it is desirable to us, that all the world should be in peace. That done, their wars would do us little harm.
All signs here indicate a deal between the Emperor and the Dutch. Their representatives have signed some initial agreements, though some parts are still open to debate. The Dutch will pay ten million florins, give up some forts and land, and allow navigation of the Scheldt to Saftingen. Until our treaty with England is fully carried out, it's in our best interest for everyone to be at peace. Once that's settled, their conflicts wouldn't impact us much.
I find myself under difficulties here, which I will take the liberty of explaining to you as a friend. Mr. Carmichael lately drew a bill on Mr. Grand for four thousand livres, I suppose for his salary. Mr. Grand said, he was not used to accept drafts but by the desire of Dr. Franklin, and rested it on me to say, whether this bill should be paid or not. I thought it improper, that the credit of so confidential a person, as Mr. Carmichael, should be affected by a refusal, and therefore advised payment. Mr. Dumas has drawn on me for twenty-seven hundred livres, his half year’s salary, informing me he always drew on Dr. Franklin. I shall advise the payment. I have had loan-office bills, drawn on the commissioners of the United States, presented to me. My answer has been, ‘These are very old bills. Had they been presented while those gentlemen were in Europe, they would have been paid. You have kept them up till Dr. Franklin, the last of them, has returned to America; you must therefore send them there, and they will be paid. I am not the drawee described in the bill.’ It is impossible for me to meddle with these bills. The gentlemen who had been familiar with them, from the beginning, who kept books of them, and knew well the form of these books, often paid bills twice. But how can I interfere with them, who have not a scrip of a pen on their subject, who never saw a book relating to them, and who, if I had the books, should much oftener be bewildered in the labyrinth, than the gentlemen who have kept them? I think it, therefore, most advisable, that what bills remain out, should be sent back to America for payment, and therefore advise Mr. Barclay to return thither all the books and papers relative to them. There, is the proper and ultimate deposite of all records of this nature. All these articles are very foreign to my talents, and foreign also, as I conceive, to the nature of my duties. Dr. Franklin was obliged to meddle with them, from the circumstances which existed. But, these having ceased, I suppose it practicable for your board to direct the administration of your monies here, in every circumstance. It is only necessary for me to draw my own allowances, and to order payment for services done by others, by my direction, and within the immediate line of my office; such as paying couriers, postage, and other extraordinary services, which must rest on my discretion, and at my risk, if disapproved by Congress. I will thank you for your advice on this subject, and if you think a resolution of your board necessary, I will pray you to send me such a one, and that it may relieve me from all concerns with the money of the United States, other than those I have just spoken of. I do not mean by this to testify a disposition to render no service but what is rigorously within my duty. I am the farthest in the world from this; it is a question I shall never ask myself; nothing making me more happy than to render any service in my power of whatever description. But I wish only to be excused from intermeddling in business, in which I have no skill, and should do more harm than good.
I’m facing some challenges here, and I’d like to explain them to you as a friend. Mr. Carmichael recently issued a bill to Mr. Grand for four thousand livres, probably for his salary. Mr. Grand mentioned that he usually doesn't accept drafts unless Dr. Franklin requests it, and he put it on me to decide whether this bill should be paid. I felt it wouldn't be right for the credit of such a trusted person as Mr. Carmichael to be jeopardized by a refusal, so I advised that it be paid. Mr. Dumas has drawn on me for twenty-seven hundred livres, his half-year salary, saying he always drew on Dr. Franklin. I will recommend payment for that as well. I’ve had loan-office bills presented to me that are drawn on the commissioners of the United States. My response has been, 'These are very old bills. If they had been presented while those gentlemen were in Europe, they would have been paid. You’ve held onto them until Dr. Franklin, the last of them, returned to America; so you need to send them there, and they will be paid. I am not the drawee mentioned in the bill.' I find it impossible to get involved with these bills. The gentlemen who were familiar with them from the start, who kept records of them, often paid bills twice. But how can I interfere with them when I don’t have a clue about them, have never seen a book related to them, and if I did have the books, I would be far more confused than the gentlemen who have managed them? Therefore, I think it would be best for any outstanding bills to be sent back to America for payment, so I suggest that Mr. Barclay return all the related books and papers there. That’s the appropriate and final place for all such records. All these issues are really outside my expertise and also, as I see it, outside the scope of my responsibilities. Dr. Franklin had to deal with them due to the existing circumstances. But since those have changed, I believe it’s doable for your board to manage your funds here in every aspect. I need only to draw my own allowances and arrange payments for services performed by others, as I direct, and that fall within my immediate responsibilities—like paying couriers, postage, and other extraordinary services, which must be at my discretion and risk if Congress disapproves. I would appreciate your advice on this matter, and if you think your board needs to pass a resolution, I kindly ask you to send me one that frees me from all concerns regarding U.S. money, except for those I’ve just mentioned. I don't mean to imply that I’m unwilling to help beyond what’s strictly my duty. That couldn't be further from the truth; I'm always eager to assist in any way I can, no matter what it is. I just wish to avoid getting involved in areas where I lack expertise and would likely cause more harm than good.
Congress were pleased to order me an advance of two quarters’ salary. At that time, I supposed that I might refund it, or spare so much from my expenses, by the time the third quarter became due. Probably, they might expect the same. But it has been impossible. The expense of my outfit, though I have taken it up on a scale as small as could be admitted, has been very far beyond what I had conceived. I have, therefore, not only been unable to refund the advance ordered, but been obliged to go beyond it. I wished to have avoided so much, as was occasioned by the purchase of furniture. But those who hire furniture, asked me forty per cent, a year for the use of it. It was better to buy, therefore; and this article, clothes, carriage, &c. have amounted to considerably more than the advance ordered. Perhaps it may be thought reasonable to allow me an outfit. The usage of every other nation has established this, and reason really pleads for it. I do not wish to make a shilling; but only my expenses to be defrayed, and in a moderate style. On the most moderate, which the reputation or interest of those I serve would admit, it will take me several years to liquidate the advances for my outfit. I mention this, to enable you to understand the necessities which have obliged me to call for more money than was probably expected, and, understanding them, to explain them to others. Being perfectly disposed to conform myself decisively to what shall be thought proper, you cannot oblige me more, than by communicating to me your sentiments hereon, which I shall receive as those of a friend, and govern myself accordingly.
Congress was pleased to grant me an advance of two quarters' salary. At that time, I thought I could pay it back or save that much from my expenses by the time the third quarter was due. They probably expected the same. However, it has been impossible. The cost of my setup, even though I've kept it as minimal as possible, has far exceeded what I expected. As a result, I've not only been unable to repay the advance I received, but I've also had to spend more than that. I wanted to avoid the additional costs from purchasing furniture, but those who rent it were asking me for forty percent a year for its use. So, it was better to buy; and expenses for things like clothing, a carriage, etc., have added up to much more than the advance. It might be reasonable to request an allowance for my setup. Every other nation has established this practice, and it really makes sense. I don’t want to profit; I just want to cover my expenses in a reasonable way. At the most modest level that would still maintain the reputation or interest of those I serve, it will take me several years to repay the advances for my setup. I'm mentioning this to help you understand the reasons that have led me to ask for more money than was probably anticipated, and to explain this to others. I’m fully willing to adapt to whatever seems appropriate, and you would do me a great favor by sharing your thoughts on this matter, which I will take as those of a friend, and I will adjust my actions accordingly.
I am, with the most perfect esteem, Dear Sir,
I hold you in the highest regard, Dear Sir,
your friend and servant,
your friend and servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CXXI.—TO JOHN JAY, October 6, 1785
TO JOHN JAY.
To John Jay.
Paris, October 6, 1785.
Paris, October 6, 1785.
Sir,
Sir,
My letter of August the 30th acknowledged the receipt of yours of July the 13th. Since that, I have received your letter of August the 13th, enclosing a correspondence between the Marquis de la Fayette and Monsieur de Calonne, and another of the same date, enclosing the papers in Fortin’s case. I immediately wrote to M. Limozin, at Havre, desiring he would send me a state of the case, and inform me what were the difficulties which suspended its decision. He has promised me, by letter, to do this as soon as possible, and I shall not fail in attention to it.
My letter from August 30 acknowledged that I received yours from July 13. Since then, I've received your letter from August 13, which included the correspondence between Marquis de la Fayette and Monsieur de Calonne, as well as another letter from the same date, which included the documents related to Fortin’s case. I immediately wrote to M. Limozin in Havre, asking him to send me an overview of the case and explain the issues that are delaying its decision. He promised in his letter to do this as soon as possible, and I will make sure to follow up on it.
The Emperor and Dutch have signed preliminaries, which are now made public. You will see them in the papers which accompany this. They still leave a good deal to discussion. However, it is probable they will end in peace. The party in Holland, possessed actually of the sovereignty, wish for peace, that they may push their designs on the Stadtholderate. This country wishes for peace, because her finances need arrangement. The Bavarian exchange has produced to public view that jealousy and. rancor between the courts of Vienna and Berlin, which existed before, though it was smothered. This will appear by the declarations of the two courts. The demarcation between the Emperor and Turk does not advance. Still, however, I suppose neither of those two germs of war likely to open soon. I consider the conduct of France as the best evidence of this. If she had apprehended a war from either of those quarters, she would not have been so anxious to leave the Emperor one enemy the less, by placing him at peace with the Dutch. While she is exerting all her powers to preserve peace by land, and making no preparation which indicates a fear of its being disturbed in that quarter, she is pushing her naval preparations, with a spirit unexampled in time of peace. By the opening of the next spring, she will have eighty ships, of seventy-four guns and upwards, ready for sea at a moment’s warning; and the further constructions proposed, will probably, within two years, raise the number to an hundred. New regulations have been made, too, for perfecting the classification of her seamen; an institution, which, dividing all the seamen of the nation into classes, subjects them to tours of duty by rotation and enables government, at all times, to man their ships. Their works for rendering Cherbourg a harbor for their vessels of war, and Dunkirk, for frigates and privateers, leave now little doubt of success. It is impossible that these preparations can have in view any other nation than the English. Of course, they show a greater diffidence of their peace with them, than with any other power.
The Emperor and the Dutch have signed preliminary agreements, which are now public. You'll find them in the accompanying papers. There's still a lot to discuss, but it’s likely they will lead to peace. The ruling party in Holland, which holds actual power, wants peace so they can pursue their goals regarding the Stadtholderate. This country also desires peace because it needs to sort out its finances. The Bavarian exchange has revealed the jealousy and resentment between the courts of Vienna and Berlin that existed before, though it was kept under wraps. This will be evident in the statements from both courts. The border discussions between the Emperor and the Turk are not progressing. However, I don’t think either of these two potential conflicts will escalate anytime soon. France's actions are the best indication of this. If she had feared a war from either side, she wouldn’t have been so eager to remove one of the Emperor’s enemies by bringing peace with the Dutch. While she is doing everything possible to maintain peace on land and isn’t making any preparations that suggest she’s worried about disruptions there, she is ramping up her naval preparations with unprecedented energy during peacetime. By next spring, she will have eighty ships, each with seventy-four guns or more, ready to set sail at a moment's notice, and the additional ships being planned will likely increase that number to a hundred within two years. New regulations have also been established to improve the classification of her sailors; this system divides all the nation’s seamen into classes, assigning them duty rotations and ensuring the government can man its ships at all times. Their efforts to make Cherbourg a harbor for naval vessels and Dunkirk a base for frigates and privateers now seem likely to succeed. It’s clear that these preparations are directed solely at the English. This indicates they have more uncertainty about their peace with the English than with any other power.
I mentioned to you, in my letter of August the 14th, that I had desired Captain John Paul Jones to inquire into the circumstances of Peyrouse’s expedition. I have now the honor of enclosing you copies of my letter to him, and of his answer. He refuses to accept of any indemnification for his expenses, which is an additional proof of his disinterested spirit, and of his devotion to the service of America. The circumstances are obvious, which indicate an intention to settle factories, and not colonies, at least, for the present. However, nothing shows for what place they are destined. The conjectures are divided between New Holland, and the northwest coast of America.
I mentioned in my letter from August 14th that I asked Captain John Paul Jones to look into the details of Peyrouse’s expedition. I'm now sending you copies of my letter to him and his response. He refuses to accept any compensation for his expenses, which further proves his selfless character and commitment to serving America. The circumstances clearly suggest an intention to establish trading posts, not colonies, at least for now. However, it’s unclear where they are headed. Speculation is split between New Holland and the northwest coast of America.
According to what I mentioned in my letter of August the 30th, I have appointed Mr. Short my secretary here. I enclose to you copies of my letters to him and Mr. Grand, which will show to Congress that he stands altogether at their pleasure. I mention this circumstance, that if what I have done meets with their disapprobation, they may have the goodness to signify it immediately, as I should otherwise conclude that they do not disapprove it. I shall be ready to conform myself to what would be most agreeable to them.
According to my letter from August 30th, I have appointed Mr. Short as my secretary here. I'm including copies of my letters to him and Mr. Grand, which will demonstrate to Congress that he is entirely at their discretion. I bring this up so that if what I’ve done doesn’t sit well with them, they can let me know right away; otherwise, I’ll assume they’re okay with it. I’m prepared to adjust to whatever they find most acceptable.
This will be accompanied by the gazettes of France and Ley-den, to the present date.
This will be accompanied by the official publications of France and Leiden, up to the current date.
I have the honor to be, with sentiments of the highest esteem and respect, Sir,
I am honored to express my highest regards and respect, Sir,
your most obedient
your most devoted
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CXXII.—TO ELBRIDGE GERRY, October 11, 1785
TO ELBRIDGE GERRY.
To Elbridge Gerry.
Paris, October 11, 1785.
Paris, October 11, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
I received, last night, the letter signed by yourself and the other gentlemen, delegates of Massachusetts and Virginia, recommending Mr. Sayre for the Barbary negotiations. As that was the first moment of its suggestion to me, you will perceive by my letter of this day, to Mr Jay, that the business was already established in other hands, as your letter came at the same time with the papers actually signed by Mr. Adams, for Messrs. Barclay and Lambe, according to arrangements previously taken between us. I should, with great satisfaction, have acceded to the recommendation in the letter: not indeed as to Morocco, because, no better man than Mr. Barclay could have been substituted; but as to Algiers, Mr. Lambe being less known to me. However, I hope well of him, and rely considerably on the aid he will receive from his secretary, Mr. Randall, who bears a very good character. I suppose Mr. Adams entitled to the same just apology, as matters were settled otherwise, before he probably received your letter. I pray you to communicate this to the other gentlemen of your and our delegation as my justification.
I received the letter signed by you and the other gentlemen, delegates from Massachusetts and Virginia, recommending Mr. Sayre for the Barbary negotiations last night. Since that was the first time I heard about this, you’ll see from my letter today to Mr. Jay that the matter was already assigned to others, as your letter arrived at the same time as the signed papers from Mr. Adams for Messrs. Barclay and Lambe, based on prior arrangements we made. I would have been happy to support the recommendation in your letter, not for Morocco, as there’s no one better than Mr. Barclay for that role, but for Algiers, since I know less about Mr. Lambe. Still, I have good hopes for him and trust he will get significant help from his secretary, Mr. Randall, who has a great reputation. I believe Mr. Adams deserves the same reasonable explanation, considering things were arranged differently before he likely received your letter. Please share this with the other gentlemen in our delegation as my justification.
The peace made between the Emperor and Dutch, leaves Europe quiet for this campaign. As yet, we do not know where the storm, dissipated for the moment, will gather again. Probably over Bavaria or Turkey. But this will be for another year.
The peace agreement between the Emperor and the Dutch leaves Europe calm for this campaign. Right now, we don’t know where the storm, which has calmed for the moment, will erupt again. Likely over Bavaria or Turkey. But that will be for another year.
When our instructions were made out, they were conceived on a general scale, and supposed that all the European nations would be disposed to form commercial connections with us. It is evident, however, that a very different degree of importance was annexed to these different states. Spain, Portugal, England, and France, were most important. Holland, Sweden, Denmark, in a middling degree. The others, still less so. Spain treats in another line. Portugal is disposed to do the same. England will not treat at all; nor will France, probably, add to her former treaty. Failing in the execution of these our capital objects, it has appeared to me, that the pushing the treaties with the lesser powers, might do us more harm than good, by hampering the measures the States may find it necessary to take, for securing those commercial interests, by separate measures, which is refused to be done here, in concert. I have understood through various channels, that the members of Congress wished a change in our instructions. I have, in my letter to Mr. Jay, of this date, mentioned the present situation and aspect of these treaties, for their information.
When our instructions were created, they were designed on a broad scale, assuming that all European nations would want to establish trade relations with us. However, it's clear that different states were viewed with varying levels of importance. Spain, Portugal, England, and France were the most significant. Holland, Sweden, and Denmark had moderate importance. The others were even less significant. Spain is negotiating in a different way. Portugal is likely to do the same. England probably won't negotiate at all, nor will France likely expand her previous treaty. Since we are struggling to achieve our main goals, it seems to me that pursuing treaties with the lesser powers could harm us more than help us by complicating the actions the States may need to take to protect their commercial interests separately, which cannot be done together here. I've learned from various sources that the members of Congress wanted a change in our instructions. In my letter to Mr. Jay, dated today, I mentioned the current situation and outlook of these treaties for their information.
My letter of the 6th instant to Mr. Jay, having communicated what little there is new here, I have only to add assurances of the sincere esteem, with which I have the honor to be, Dear Sir,
My letter from the 6th to Mr. Jay shared the little news we have here. I just want to add my genuine respect, with which I have the honor to be, Dear Sir,
your friend and servant,
your friend and servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CXXIII.—TO THE COUNT DE VERGENNES, October 11, 1785
TO THE COUNT DE VERGENNES.
To Count de Vergennes.
Paris, October 11, 1785.
Paris, Oct 11, 1785.
Sir,
Sir,
I have the honor of enclosing to your Excellency, a report of the voyage of an American ship, the first which has gone to China. The circumstance which induces Congress to direct this communication, is the very friendly conduct of the consul of his Majesty at Macao, and of the commanders and other officers of the French vessels in those seas. It has been with singular satisfaction, that Congress have seen these added to the many other proofs of the cordiality of this nation towards our citizens. It is the more pleasing, when it appears in the officers of government, because it is then viewed as an emanation of the spirit of the government. It would be an additional gratification to Congress, in this particular instance, should any occasion arise of notifying those officers, that their conduct has been justly represented to your Excellency, on the part of the United States, and has met your approbation. Nothing will be wanting, on our part, to foster corresponding dispositions in our citizens, and we hope that proofs of their actual existence have appeared, and will appear, whenever, occasion shall offer. A sincere affection between the two people, is the broadest basis on which their peace can be built.
I have the honor of enclosing a report to your Excellency about the voyage of an American ship, the first one to travel to China. The reason Congress is directing this communication is due to the very friendly behavior of the consul of His Majesty in Macao, as well as the commanders and other officers of the French ships in those waters. Congress has been particularly pleased to see these actions added to the many other signs of goodwill from this nation towards our citizens. It’s even more encouraging when this goodwill comes from government officials, as it reflects the spirit of the government. It would be an additional source of satisfaction for Congress, in this case, if there were an opportunity to inform those officials that their behavior has been appropriately acknowledged to your Excellency on behalf of the United States and has received your approval. We will do everything we can to encourage similar sentiments in our citizens, and we hope that evidence of this has been and will be apparent whenever the opportunity arises. A genuine bond between the two peoples is the strongest foundation for their peace.
It will always be among the most pleasing functions of my office, to be made the channel of communicating the friendly sentiments of the two governments. It is additionally so, as it gives me an opportunity of assuring your Excellency of the high respect and esteem, with which I have the honor to be,
It will always be one of the most enjoyable parts of my job to serve as the channel for sharing the friendly feelings between the two governments. It’s even more meaningful to me, as it allows me to express to your Excellency my deep respect and admiration, which I am honored to convey,
your Excellency’s most obedient
your Excellency’s most loyal
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CXXIV.—TO JOHN JAY, October 11,1785
TO JOHN JAY.
To John Jay.
Paris, October 11,1785.
Paris, October 11, 1785.
Sir,
Dude,
In my letter of August the 14th, I had the honor of expressing to you the uneasiness I felt at the delay of the instructions on the subject of the Barbary treaties, of which Mr.. Lambe was the bearer, and of informing you that I had proposed to Mr. Adams, that if he did not arrive either in the French or English packets, then expected, we should send some person to negotiate these treaties. As he did not arrive in those packets, and I found Mr. Barclay was willing to undertake the negotiations, I wrote to Mr. Adams (who had concurred in the proposition made him), informing him that Mr. Barclay would go, and proposing papers for our immediate signature. The day before the return of the courier, Mr. Lambe arrived with our instructions, the letters of credence, he enclosed in yours of March the 11th, 1785. Just about the same time, came to hand the letter No. 1, informing me, that two American vessels were actually taken and carried into Algiers, and leaving no further doubt that that power was exercising hostilities against us in the Atlantic. The conduct of the Emperor of Morocco had been such, as forbade us to postpone his treaty to that with Algiers. But the commencement of hostilities by the latter, and their known activity, pressed the necessity of immediate propositions to them. It was therefore thought best, while Mr. Barclay should be proceeding with the Emperor of Morocco, that some other agent should go to Algiers. We had few subjects to choose out of. Mr. Lambe’s knowledge of the country, of its inhabitants, of their manner of transacting business, the recommendations from his State to Congress, of his fitness for this employment, and other information founding a presumption that he would be approved, occasioned our concluding to send him to Algiers. The giving him proper authorities, and new ones to Mr. Barclay conformable to our own new powers, was the subject of a new courier between Mr. Adams and myself. He returned last night, and I have the honor of enclosing you copies of all the papers we furnish those gentlemen with; which will possess Congress fully of our proceedings herein. They are numbered from two to ten inclusive. The supplementary instruction to Mr. Lambe, No. 5, must rest for justification on the emergency of the case. The motives which led to it, must be found in the feelings of the human heart, in a partiality for those sufferers who are of our own country, and in the obligations of every government to yield protection to their citizens, as the consideration for their obedience. It will be a comfort to know, that Congress does not disapprove this step.
In my letter dated August 14th, I had the privilege of sharing my concerns about the delay in receiving instructions regarding the Barbary treaties, which Mr. Lambe was bringing. I also mentioned to Mr. Adams that if he didn’t arrive on either the French or English packets we were expecting, we should send someone to negotiate these treaties. Since he didn’t arrive on those packets and I learned that Mr. Barclay was willing to take on the negotiations, I wrote to Mr. Adams (who agreed with the proposal) letting him know that Mr. Barclay would go and suggesting we sign the necessary papers right away. Just before the courier returned, Mr. Lambe arrived with our instructions and the letters of credence included in your correspondence from March 11th, 1785. Around the same time, I received letter No. 1, informing me that two American ships had been captured and taken to Algiers, leaving no doubt that they were engaging in hostilities against us in the Atlantic. The actions of the Emperor of Morocco had made it clear that we couldn't delay his treaty in favor of the one with Algiers. However, the start of hostilities from the latter and their known aggressiveness necessitated immediate proposals to them. Therefore, it was decided that while Mr. Barclay dealt with the Emperor of Morocco, we should send another agent to Algiers. Our options were limited. Mr. Lambe’s understanding of the country, its people, their way of doing business, the endorsements from his State to Congress regarding his suitability for this job, and other information suggested that he would be a good choice, leading us to send him to Algiers. Granting him the appropriate authorities and updating Mr. Barclay's authorities to align with our new powers was the focus of a new courier between Mr. Adams and me. He returned last night, and I’m enclosing copies of all the papers we provided to those gentlemen, which will give Congress a complete overview of our actions in this matter. They are numbered from two to ten, inclusive. The supplemental instruction to Mr. Lambe, No. 5, must be justified by the urgency of the situation. The reasons for it stem from human compassion, a sympathy for those from our own country who are suffering, and the duty of every government to protect its citizens in exchange for their obedience. It will be reassuring to know that Congress does not disapprove of this action.
Considering the treaty with Portugal among the most interesting to the United States, I some time ago, took occasion at Versailles, to ask of the Portuguese ambassador, if he had yet received from his court an answer to our letter. He told me he had not, but that he would make it the subject of another letter. Two days ago, his secrétaire d’ambassade called on me, with a letter from his minister to the ambassador, in which was the following paragraph, as he translated it to me; and I committed it to writing from his mouth. ‘Your Excellency has communicated to us the substance of your conversation with the American minister. That power ought to have been already persuaded, by the manner in which its vessels have been received here; and consequently that his Majesty would have much satisfaction in maintaining perfect harmony and good understanding with the same United States. But it would be proper to begin with the reciprocal nomination, on both sides, of persons, who, at least with the character of agents, might reciprocally inform their constituents, of what might conduce to a knowledge of the interests of the two nations, without prejudice to either. This first step appears necessary to lead to the proposed object.’
Considering the treaty with Portugal to be one of the most interesting for the United States, I recently took the opportunity at Versailles to ask the Portuguese ambassador if he had received a response from his court regarding our letter. He informed me that he had not, but that he would make it the subject of another letter. Two days ago, his secrétaire d’ambassade visited me with a letter from his minister to the ambassador, which he translated for me, and I wrote it down as he spoke. ‘Your Excellency has shared with us the essence of your conversation with the American minister. That power should have already been convinced, based on how its vessels have been welcomed here; consequently, his Majesty would greatly appreciate maintaining perfect harmony and understanding with the United States. However, it would be appropriate to start by mutually appointing individuals, at least in the role of agents, who could keep both sides informed about what might contribute to understanding the interests of both nations, without harming either. This initial step seems essential to achieve the intended goal.’
By this, it would seem, that this power is more disposed to pursue a track of negotiation, similar to that which Spain has done. I consider this answer as definitive of all further measures, under our commission to Portugal. That to Spain was superseded by proceedings in another line. That to Prussia is concluded by actual treaty; to Tuscany will probably be so; and perhaps to Denmark: and these, I believe, will be the sum of the effects of our commissions for making treaties of alliance. England shows no disposition to treat. France, should her ministers be able to keep the ground of the Arrêt of August, 1784, against the clamors of her merchants, and should they be disposed, hereafter, to give us more, very probably will not bind herself to it by treaty, but keep her regulations dependent on her own will. Sweden will establish a free port at St. Bartholomew’s, which, perhaps, will render any new engagement, on our part, unnecessary. Holland is so immovable in her system of colony administration, that, as propositions to her, on that subject, would be desperate, they had better not be made. You will perceive by the letter No. 11, from the Marquis de la Fayette, that there is a possibility of an overture from the Emperor. A hint from the charge des affaires of Naples, lately, has induced me to suppose something of the same kind from thence. But the advanced period of our commissions now offers good cause for avoiding to begin, what probably cannot be terminated during their continuance; and with respect to these two, and all other powers not before mentioned, I doubt whether the advantages to be derived from treaties with them, will countervail the additional embarrassments they may impose on the States, when they shall proceed to make those commercial arrangements necessary to counteract the designs of the British cabinet. I repeat it, therefore, that the conclusion of the treaty with Prussia, and the probability of others with Denmark, Tuscany and the Barbary States, may be expected to wind up the proceedings of the general commissions. I think that, in possible events, it may be advantageous to us, by treaties with Prussia, Denmark, and Tuscany, to have secured ports in the Northern and Mediterranean seas. I have the honor to be, with sentiments of the highest respect and esteem,
By this, it seems that this power is more inclined to follow a path of negotiation, similar to what Spain has done. I see this response as final for any further actions under our commission to Portugal. The approach to Spain was replaced by actions taken in another direction. The matter with Prussia has been settled by an actual treaty; the same will likely happen with Tuscany and possibly Denmark. I believe these will be the total outcomes of our commissions for forming alliance treaties. England shows no interest in negotiating. France, if her ministers can maintain the ground of the Arrêt of August 1784 despite the complaints from her merchants, might not commit to a treaty but instead keep her regulations flexible. Sweden will set up a free port at St. Bartholomew’s, which might make any new commitments from us unnecessary. Holland is so rigid in her colonial policy that proposals to her on that matter would be pointless and should not be made. You will see from letter No. 11 from the Marquis de la Fayette that there’s a chance for an overture from the Emperor. A recent hint from the charge des affaires of Naples has led me to believe something similar may come from there. But given the late stage of our commissions, it's reasonable to avoid starting something that likely can’t be resolved before they expire; as for these two and all other powers not previously mentioned, I doubt the benefits of treaties with them will outweigh the extra complications they may cause for the States when it comes time to make the necessary trade arrangements to counter the plans of the British government. So I repeat that the completion of the treaty with Prussia, along with the likelihood of others with Denmark, Tuscany, and the Barbary States, should wrap up the overall activities of the general commissions. I believe that, in potential situations, having treaties with Prussia, Denmark, and Tuscany could be beneficial, securing us ports in the Northern and Mediterranean seas. I have the honor to be, with the utmost respect and esteem,
Sir, your most obedient
Your faithful servant
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CXXV.—TO MESSRS. VAN STAPHORST, October 12, 1785
TO MESSRS. VAN STAPHORST.
To Messrs. Van Staphorst.
Paris, October 12, 1785.
Paris, Oct 12, 1785.
Gentlemen,
Guys,
The receipt of your favor, of September the 19th, should not have been so long unacknowledged, but that I have been peculiarly and very closely engaged ever since it came to hand.
The receipt of your letter from September 19th should not have taken me so long to respond to, but I've been particularly busy and preoccupied ever since I received it.
With respect to the expediency of the arrangement you propose to make with Mr. Parker, I must observe to you, that it would be altogether out of my province to give an official opinion, for your direction. These transactions appertain altogether to the commissioners of the treasury, to whom you have very properly written on the occasion. I shall always be willing, however, to apprize you of any facts I may be acquainted with, and which might enable you to proceed with more certainty; and even to give my private opinion, where I am acquainted with the subject, leaving you the most perfect liberty to give it what weight you may think proper. In the present case, I cannot give even a private opinion, because I am not told what are precisely the securities offered by Mr. Parker. So various are the securities of the United States, that unless they are precisely described by their dates, consideration, and other material circumstances, no man on earth can say what they are worth. One fact, however, is certain, that all debts of any considerable amount contracted by the United States, while their paper money existed, are subject to a deduction, and not payable at any fixed period. I think I may venture to say, also, that there are no debts of the United States, ‘on the same footing with the money loaned by Holland,’ except those due to the Kings of France and Spain. However, I hope you will soon receive the answer of the commissioners, which alone can decide authoritatively what can be done.
Regarding the arrangement you plan to make with Mr. Parker, I need to point out that it's outside my area to give an official opinion for your guidance. These transactions are entirely the responsibility of the treasury commissioners, to whom you have rightly reached out. I'm always happy to share any facts I know that might help you move forward with more confidence, and I can provide my personal opinion when I'm familiar with the topic, leaving it up to you to consider it as you see fit. In this case, I can't even offer my personal opinion because I haven't been informed about the exact securities Mr. Parker is offering. The securities of the United States are so varied that unless they are described in detail by their dates, considerations, and other relevant details, no one can determine their value. One thing is clear: all significant debts contracted by the United States while their paper money was in circulation are subject to deduction and aren't due on a fixed schedule. I think I can also say that there are no debts of the United States "on the same level as the money loaned by Holland," except for those owed to the Kings of France and Spain. However, I hope you will receive a response from the commissioners soon, which is the only way to decisively determine what can be done.
Congress have thought proper to entrust to Mr. Adams and myself a certain business, which may eventually call for great advances of money: perhaps four hundred thousand livres or upwards. They have authorized us to draw for this on their funds in Holland. The separate situation of Mr. Adams and myself rendering joint drafts inconvenient, we have agreed that they shall be made by him alone. You will be pleased, therefore, to give the same credit to these bills, drawn by him, as if they were also subscribed by me.
Congress has decided to assign Mr. Adams and me a specific task that may eventually require a significant amount of funding—possibly four hundred thousand livres or more. They've authorized us to draw on their funds in Holland for this purpose. Since Mr. Adams and I have separate situations that make joint drafts impractical, we've agreed that he will issue the drafts by himself. Therefore, please extend the same credit to these bills drawn by him as if I had also signed them.
I have the honor to be, with high respect, Gentlemen,
I am honored to be, with great respect, gentlemen,
your most obedient
your most loyal
and most humble servant,
and your humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CXXVI.—TO MONSIEUR DESBORDES, October 12,1785
TO MONSIEUR DESBORDES.
To Monsieur Desbordes.
Paris, October 12,1785.
Paris, October 12, 1785.
Sir,
Sir,
There are, in the prison of St. Pol de Léon, six or seven citizens of the United States of America, charged with having attempted a contraband of tobacco, but, as they say themselves, forced into that port by stress of weather. I believe that they are innocent. Their situation is described to me to be as deplorable, as should be that of men found guilty of the worst of crimes. They are in close jail, allowed three sous a day only, and unable to speak a word of the language of the country. I hope their distress, which it is my duty to relieve, and the recommendation of Mr. Barclay to address myself to you, will apologize for the liberty I take, of asking you to advise them what to do for their defence, to engage some good lawyer for them, and to pass to them the pecuniary reliefs necessary. I write to Mr. Lister Asquith, the owner of the vessel, that he may draw bills on me, from time to time, for a livre a day for every person of them, and for what may be necessary to engage a lawyer for him. I will pray the favor of you to furnish him money for his bills drawn on me for these purposes, which I will pay on sight. You will judge if he should go beyond this allowance, and be so good as to reject the surplus. I must desire his lawyer to send me immediately a state of their case, and let me know in what court their process is, and when it is likely to be decided. I hope the circumstances of the case will excuse the freedom I take; and I have the honor to be, with great respect, Sir,
There are six or seven citizens of the United States of America in the St. Pol de Léon prison, accused of trying to smuggle tobacco, but as they claim, they were forced into that port due to bad weather. I believe they are innocent. Their situation is described to me as terrible, almost like that of men guilty of the worst crimes. They are in solitary confinement, given only three sous a day, and unable to speak the local language. I hope their suffering, which I feel responsible to help alleviate, along with Mr. Barclay's recommendation to contact you, will justify my request. I’m asking for your advice on how they can defend themselves, to find them a good lawyer, and to send them the financial assistance they need. I'm writing to Mr. Lister Asquith, the owner of the ship, so he can issue me bills for a livre a day for each of them and for any necessary lawyer fees. I kindly ask you to provide him with the funds for these bills, which I will pay upon receipt. You can decide if he should go beyond this amount and please reject any excess. I must request that their lawyer send me an update on their case right away, including in which court it is being handled and when a decision is expected. I hope the specifics of the situation will excuse my boldness; I remain, with great respect, Sir,
your most obedient, humble servant,
your most respectful, humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CXXVII.—TO HOGENDORP, October 13,1785
TO HOGENDORP.
TO HOGENDORP.
Paris, October 13,1785.
Paris, October 13, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
Having been much engaged lately, I have been unable sooner to acknowledge the receipt of your favor of September the 8th. What you are pleased to say on the subject of my Notes, is more than they deserve. The condition in which you first saw them, would prove to you how hastily they had been originally written; as you may remember the numerous insertions I had made in them, from time to time, when I could find a moment for turning to them from other occupations. I have never yet seen Monsieur de Buffon. He has been in the country all the summer. I sent him a copy of the book, and have only heard his sentiments on one particular of it, that of the identity of the mammoth and elephant. As to this, he retains his opinion that they are the same. If you had formed any considerable expectations from our revised code of laws, you will be much disappointed. It contains not more than three or four laws which could strike the attention of a foreigner. Had it been a digest of all our laws, it would not have been comprehensible or instructive, but to a native. But it is still less so, as it digests only the British statutes and our own acts of Assembly, which are but a supplementary part of our law. The great basis of it is anterior to the date of the Magna Charta, which is the oldest statute extant. The only merit of this work is, that it may remove from our book-shelves about twenty folio volumes of statutes, retaining all the parts of them, which either their own merit or the established system of laws required.
I’ve been really busy lately, so I’m sorry for not getting back to you sooner about your letter from September 8th. What you say about my Notes is more praise than they deserve. The condition in which you first saw them shows just how hastily they were written. You might recall the many insertions I made whenever I had a moment to work on them amidst other tasks. I still haven’t met Monsieur de Buffon. He’s been out of town all summer. I sent him a copy of the book, and I’ve only heard his thoughts on one specific point: the identity of the mammoth and the elephant. He still believes they’re the same. If you had high hopes for our revised code of laws, you’ll be quite disappointed. It includes only three or four laws that might catch the attention of an outsider. If it had been a comprehensive summary of all our laws, it would still be confusing and unhelpful except for locals. But it’s even less useful since it only summarizes British statutes and our own acts of Assembly, which are just a supplemental part of our law. The core of our legal system dates back before the Magna Carta, which is the oldest existing statute. The only value of this work is that it might clear out about twenty folio volumes of statutes from our shelves while keeping the parts that are actually deserving of mention or that our legal system requires.
You ask me what are those operations of the British nation, which are likely to befriend us, and how they will produce this effect? The British government, as you may naturally suppose, have it much at heart to reconcile their nation to the loss of America. This is essential to the repose, perhaps even to the safety of the King and his ministers. The most effectual engines for this purpose are the public papers. You know well, that that government always kept a kind of standing army of news-writers, who, without any regard to truth, or to what should be like truth, invented, and put into the papers, whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people, who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper. When forced to acknowledge our independence, they were forced to redouble their efforts to keep the nation quiet. Instead of a few of the papers, formerly engaged, they now engaged every one. No paper, therefore, comes out without a dose of paragraphs against America. These are calculated for a secondary purpose also, that of preventing the emigrations of their people to America. They dwell very much on American bankruptcies. To explain these, would require a long detail; but would show you that nine tenths of these bankruptcies are truly English bankruptcies, in no wise chargeable on America. However, they have produced effects the most desirable of all others for us. They have destroyed our credit, and thus checked our disposition to luxury; and, forcing our merchants to buy no more than they have ready money to pay for, they force them to go to those markets where that ready money will buy most. Thus you see, they check our luxury, they force us to connect ourselves with all the world, and they prevent foreign emigrations to our country, all of which I consider as advantageous to us. They are doing us another good turn. They attempt, without disguise, to possess themselves of the carriage of our produce, and to prohibit our own vessels from participating of it. This has raised a general indignation in America. The States see, however, that their constitutions have provided no means of counteracting it. They are therefore beginning to vest Congress with the absolute power of regulating their commerce, only reserving all revenue arising from it, to the State in which it is levied. This will consolidate our federal building very much, and for this we shall be indebted to the British.
You’re asking me what actions the British nation might take that could help us and how those actions would have that effect? The British government, as you might expect, is very focused on getting their nation to accept the loss of America. This is crucial for the peace, and possibly even the safety, of the King and his ministers. The most effective tools for this purpose are the newspapers. You know that this government always maintained a kind of standing army of journalists, who, without any regard for the truth or what should resemble the truth, created and published whatever might benefit the ministers. This is enough for the general public, who have no way of distinguishing the false from the true statements in a newspaper. When they were compelled to acknowledge our independence, they had to intensify their efforts to keep the nation calm. Instead of just a few newspapers that were previously involved, they now engaged every single one. Therefore, no newspaper is published without including sections against America. These articles are also meant to prevent their citizens from emigrating to America. They focus heavily on American bankruptcies. To explain these would require a long discussion, but it would show you that nine out of ten of these bankruptcies are actually English bankruptcies that can’t be blamed on America. However, they’ve produced the most favorable results for us. They’ve ruined our credit, which has limited our desire for luxury; and by forcing our merchants to buy only what they can pay for with cash, they make them go to those markets where that cash buys the most. So, you see, they limit our luxury, force us to engage with the rest of the world, and deter foreign immigrants to our country—all of which I view as benefits for us. They are also doing us another favor. They are openly trying to take control of transporting our goods while preventing our own ships from being involved. This has sparked widespread outrage in America. However, the States realize that their constitutions haven’t provided any means to counter this. Therefore, they are starting to give Congress the absolute power to regulate their commerce, while reserving all revenue generated from it to the State in which it is collected. This will significantly strengthen our federal structure, and for this, we will owe thanks to the British.
You ask what I think on the expediency of encouraging our States to be commercial? Were I to indulge my own theory, I should wish them to practise neither commerce nor navigation, but to stand, with respect to Europe, precisely on the footing of China. We should thus avoid wars, and all our citizens would be husbandmen. Whenever, indeed, our numbers should so increase, as that our produce would overstock the markets of those nations who should come to seek it, the farmers must either employ the surplus of their time in manufactures, or the surplus of our hands must be employed in manufactures, or in navigation. But that day would, I think, be distant, and we should long keep our workmen in Europe, while Europe should be drawing rough materials, and even subsistence, from America. But this is theory only, and a theory which the servants of America are not at liberty to follow. Our people have a decided taste for navigation and commerce. They take this from their mother country; and their servants are in duty bound to calculate all their measures on this datum: we wish to do it by throwing open all the doors of commerce, and knocking off its shackles. But as this cannot be done for others, unless they will do it for us, and there is no great probability that Europe will do this, I suppose we shall be obliged to adopt a system which may shackle them in our ports, as they do us in theirs. With respect to the sale of our lands, that cannot begin till a considerable portion shall have been surveyed. They cannot begin to survey till the fall of the leaf of this year, nor to sell probably till the ensuing spring. So that it will be yet a twelvemonth, before we shall be able to judge of the efficacy of our land-office, to sink our national debt. It is made a fundamental, that the proceeds shall be solely and sacredly applied as a sinking fund, to discharge the capital only of the debt.
You ask what I think about the wisdom of encouraging our states to engage in trade? If it were up to me, I would prefer they not participate in commerce or navigation at all, but instead, relate to Europe in the same way as China does. This would help us avoid wars, and all our citizens would be farmers. If our population increased to the point where our produce flooded the markets of those nations seeking it, then the farmers would either need to use their extra time for manufacturing, or we would have to employ our surplus labor in manufacturing or navigation. But I believe that day is far off, and we would continue to send our workers to Europe while Europe draws raw materials and even necessities from America. However, this is just a theory, and one that the leaders of America are not free to pursue. Our people have a strong inclination towards navigation and trade. They inherited this from their mother country, and their leaders are obliged to base all their plans on this fact: we want to achieve this by opening up all commercial avenues and removing its constraints. But because this cannot be accomplished for others unless they do it for us, and there’s little chance that Europe will cooperate, I assume we will have to adopt a system that may restrict them in our ports as they do in theirs. Regarding the sale of our lands, that can't start until a significant portion has been surveyed. They won't begin surveying until the leaves fall this year, nor will they likely sell until the following spring. So, it will be about a year before we can assess how effective our land office will be in reducing our national debt. It is established that the proceeds will be used solely and exclusively as a sinking fund to pay off the principal of the debt.
It is true that the tobaccos of Virginia go almost entirely to England. The reason is, the people of that State owe a great debt there, which they are paying as fast as they can. I think I have now answered your several queries, and shall be happy to receive your reflections on the same subjects, and at all times to hear of your welfare, and to give you assurances of the esteem, with which I have the honor to be, Dear Sir,
It’s true that Virginia's tobacco mostly goes to England. The reason is that the people in that state have a significant debt there, which they are repaying as quickly as possible. I believe I’ve answered your questions, and I would love to hear your thoughts on the same topics, as well as always be updated on how you’re doing. I want to express my respect and regard for you, Dear Sir.
your most obedient
yours faithfully
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CXXVIII.—TO J. BANNISTER, JUNIOR, October 15,1785
TO J. BANNISTER, JUNIOR.
To J. Bannister, Jr.
Paris, October 15,1785.
Paris, October 15, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Hello,
I should sooner have answered the paragraph in your letter, of September the 19th, respecting the best seminary for the education of youth, in Europe, but that it was necessary for me to make inquiries on the subject. The result of these has been, to consider the competition as resting between Geneva and Rome. They are equally cheap, and probably are equal in the course of education pursued. The advantage of Geneva is, that students acquire there the habit of speaking French. The advantages of Rome are, the acquiring a local knowledge of a spot so classical and so celebrated; the acquiring the true pronunciation of the Latin language; a just taste in the fine arts, more particularly those of painting, sculpture, architecture, and music; a familiarity with those objects and processes of agriculture, which experience has shown best adapted to a climate like ours; and lastly, the advantage of a fine climate for health. It is probable, too, that by being boarded in a French family, the habit of speaking that language may be obtained. I do not count on any advantage to be derived in Geneva from a familiar acquaintance with the principles of that government. The late revolution has rendered it a tyrannical aristocracy, more likely to give ill, than good ideas to an American. I think the balance in favor of Rome. Pisa is sometimes spoken of, as a place of education. But it does not offer the first and third of the advantages of Rome. But why send an American youth to Europe for education? What are the objects of an useful American education? Classical knowledge, modern languages, chiefly French, Spanish, and Italian; Mathematics, Natural Philosophy, Natural History, Civil History, and Ethics. In Natural Philosophy, I mean to include Chemistry and Agriculture, and in Natural History, to include Botany, as well as the other branches of those departments. It is true, that the habit of speaking the modern languages cannot be so well acquired in America; but every other article can be as well acquired at William and Mary College, as at any place in Europe. When college education is done with, and a young man is to prepare himself for public life, he must cast his eyes (for America) either on Law or Physic. For the former, where can he apply so advantageously as to Mr. Wythe? For the latter, he must come to Europe: the medical class of students, therefore, is the only one which need come to Europe. Let us view the disadvantages of sending a youth to Europe. To enumerate them all, would require a volume. I will select a few. If he goes to England, he learns drinking, horse-racing, and boxing. These are the peculiarities of English education. The following circumstances are common to education in that, and the other countries of Europe. He acquires a fondness for European luxury,and dissipation, and a contempt for the simplicity of his own country; he is fascinated with the privileges of the European aristocrats, and sees, with abhorrence, the lovely equality which the poor enjoy with the rich in his own country; he contracts a partiality for aristocracy or monarchy; he forms foreign friendships which will never be useful to him, and loses the season of life for forming in his own country those friendships, which, of all others, are the most faithful and permanent; he is led by the strongest of all the human passions into a spirit for female intrigue, destructive of his own and others’ happiness, or a passion for whores, destructive of his health, and in both cases, learns to consider fidelity to the marriage bed as an ungentlemanly practice, and inconsistent with happiness; he recollects the voluptuary dress and arts of the European women, and pities and despises the chaste affections and simplicity of those of his own country; he retains, through life, a fond recollection, and a hankering after those places, which were the scenes of his first pleasures and of his first connections; he returns to his own country a foreigner, unacquainted with the practices of domestic economy necessary to preserve him from ruin, speaking and writing his native tongue as a foreigner, and therefore unqualified to obtain those distinctions, which eloquence of the pen and tongue ensures in a free country; for, I would observe to you, that what is called style in writing or speaking, is formed very early in life, while the imagination is warm, and impressions are permanent. I am of opinion, that there never was an instance of a man’s writing or speaking his native tongue with elegance, who passed from fifteen to twenty years of age out of the country where it was spoken. Thus, no instance exists of a person’s writing two languages perfectly. That will always appear to be his native language, which was most familiar to him in his youth. It appears to me then, that an American coming to Europe for education, loses in his knowledge, in his morals, in his health, in his habits, and in his happiness. I had entertained only doubts on this head, before I came to Europe: what I see and hear, since I came here, proves more than I had even suspected. Cast your eye over America: who are the men of most learning, of most eloquence, most beloved by their countrymen, and most trusted and promoted by them? They are those who have been educated among them, and whose manners, morals, and habits, are perfectly homogeneous with those of the country.
I should have responded sooner to the section of your letter from September 19 regarding the best school for youth education in Europe, but I needed to do some research on the topic first. The outcome of this research leads me to believe that the competition lies between Geneva and Rome. Both options are similarly affordable and likely offer comparable educational paths. The advantage of Geneva is that students there develop the habit of speaking French. On the other hand, Rome provides several benefits, including a deep understanding of a historical and renowned location; the correct pronunciation of Latin; a good taste in fine arts, especially painting, sculpture, architecture, and music; knowledge of agricultural practices best suited to a climate like ours; and a pleasant climate that promotes good health. Additionally, staying with a French family could help students become fluent in the language. However, I don't see any benefits in Geneva regarding familiarity with its government principles. The recent revolution has turned it into a harsh aristocracy, likely to instill more harmful than beneficial ideas in an American. I lean towards favoring Rome. Pisa is sometimes mentioned as an educational location, but it lacks the first and third advantages of Rome. But why send an American student to Europe for their education? What should a practical American education include? Classical knowledge, modern languages—primarily French, Spanish, and Italian; Mathematics, Natural Philosophy, Natural History, Civil History, and Ethics. By Natural Philosophy, I mean to include Chemistry and Agriculture, and by Natural History, I mean to include Botany and other related fields. It's true that it's harder to become fluent in modern languages in America, but every other aspect can be learned just as well at William and Mary College as in Europe. Once college education is finished, and a young man prepares for public life, he must look towards either Law or Medicine (Physic) in America. For Law, where could he find a better mentor than Mr. Wythe? For Medicine, he must go to Europe; thus, the medical student is the only one who needs to study abroad. Let’s consider the downsides of sending a young person to Europe. Listing all of them would require a book, so I'll mention a few. If he goes to England, he learns to drink, engage in horse racing, and boxing—characteristics typical of English education. The following issues are common across educational systems in that country and others in Europe. He develops a taste for European luxury and excess, while simultaneously developing disdain for the simplicity in his own country; he becomes enamored with the privileges of European aristocrats, viewing with disdain the wonderful equality experienced by the poor and rich in America; he develops a preference for aristocracy or monarchy; he cultivates foreign friendships that won’t be beneficial, missing the opportunity to forge meaningful friendships back home, which are often the most lasting and loyal; he can be led by powerful human instincts into unhealthy relationships or a propensity for promiscuity, harmful to both his well-being and others, learning to view fidelity to marriage as unfashionable and incompatible with happiness; he remembers the alluring fashions and ways of European women, losing appreciation for the wholesome affections and simplicity of women in his own country; he carries with him, for life, a nostalgic yearning for the places where he first enjoyed life and formed connections; he returns home feeling out of place, unfamiliar with necessary domestic practices to thrive, speaking and writing his native language as if he were a foreigner, thus unprepared to gain the distinctions that eloquence in writing and speaking provides in a free country. I would point out that “style” in writing or speaking is formed early in life when the imagination is vibrant, and those impressions last. I believe there has never been a case of someone writing or speaking their native language with elegance after spending their late teens and early twenties outside the country where that language is spoken. Therefore, no one has ever written two languages with equal mastery. The language they studied in their youth will always feel like their native tongue. It seems to me, then, that an American traveling to Europe for education sacrifices knowledge, morals, health, habits, and happiness. I only had doubts about this before arriving in Europe; what I’ve seen and heard since has confirmed my suspicions more than I expected. Look around America: who are the most educated, eloquent, most loved, and most trusted and promoted by their fellow citizens? They are those who were educated among their own, whose manners, morals, and habits align seamlessly with those of their country.
Did you expect by so short a question, to draw such a sermon on yourself? I daresay you did not. But the consequences of foreign education are alarming to me, as an American. I sin, therefore, through zeal, whenever I enter on the subject. You are sufficiently American to pardon me for it. Let me hear of your health, and be assured of the esteem with which I am, Dear Sir,
Did you really think that such a short question would lead to a long lecture about you? I doubt you did. But as an American, I'm worried about the effects of foreign education. I admit, I get a little carried away whenever I talk about it. You’re American enough to forgive me for that. Please let me know how you’re doing, and know that I hold you in high regard, Dear Sir,
your friend and servant,
your friend and servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CXXIX.—TO MR. CARMICHAEL, October 18, 1785
TO MR. CARMICHAEL.
To Mr. Carmichael.
Paris, October 18, 1785.
Paris, Oct 18, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Hi there,
Your favor of the 29th of September came safely to hand: the constant expectation of the departure of the persons whom I formerly gave you reason to expect, has prevented my writing, as it has done yours. They will probably leave this in a week, but their route will be circuitous and attended with delays. Between the middle and last of November, they may be with you. By them, you will receive a cipher, by which you may communicate with Mr. Adams and myself. I should have sent it by Baron Dreyer, the Danish minister; but I then expected our own conveyance would have been quicker. Having mentioned this gentleman, give me leave to recommend him to your acquaintance. He is plain, sensible, and open: he speaks English well, and had he been to remain here, I should have cultivated his acquaintance much. Be so good as to present me very respectfully to him.
Your letter from September 29 arrived safely. The ongoing anticipation of the departure of the people I previously mentioned has kept me from writing, just as it has for you. They will likely leave within a week, but their journey will be indirect and filled with delays. They should reach you sometime between mid-November and the end of the month. You'll receive a code from them that will allow you to communicate with Mr. Adams and me. I had intended to send it with Baron Dreyer, the Danish minister, but I thought our own delivery would be faster. Speaking of him, I’d like to recommend him to you. He is straightforward, sensible, and genuine; he speaks English well, and if he were to stay here, I would have enjoyed getting to know him better. Please give him my kind regards.
This being to go by post, I shall only add the few articles of general American news, by the last packet. Dr. Franklin arrived in good health at Philadelphia, the 15th ult., and was received amidst the acclamations of an immense crowd. No late event has produced greater demonstrations of joy. It is doubted whether Congress will adjourn this summer; but they are so thin, they do not undertake important business. Our western posts are in statu quo.
This is to be sent by mail, so I’ll just add a few bits of general American news from the latest packet. Dr. Franklin arrived safe and sound in Philadelphia on the 15th of last month and was welcomed by a huge crowd cheering for him. No recent event has sparked such joy. It’s uncertain if Congress will take a break this summer; however, they’re so few in number that they aren’t tackling any significant issues. Our western posts remain the same.
I have the honor to be, with great esteem, Dear Sir,
I am honored to be, with great respect, Dear Sir,
your friend and servant,
your friend and helper,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CXXX.—TO MESSRS. VAN STAPHORSTS, October 25,1785
TO MESSRS. VAN STAPHORSTS.
To Messrs. Van Staphorsts.
Paris, October 25,1785.
Paris, October 25, 1785.
Gentlemen,
Guys,
I received yesterday your favor of the 20th instant. In order to give you the information you desire, on the subject of the liquidated debts of the United States, and the comparative footing on which they stand, I must observe to you, that the first and great division of our federal debt, is, into 1. foreign; and 2. domestic. The foreign debt comprehends, 1. the loan from the government of Spain; 2. the loans from the government of France, and from the Farmers General; 3. the loans negotiated in Holland, by order of Congress. This branch of our debt stands absolutely singular: no man in the United States having ever supposed that Congress, or their legislatures, can, in any wise, modify or alter it. They justly view the United States as the one party, and the lenders as the other, and that the consent of both would be requisite, were any modification to be proposed. But with respect to the domestic debt, they consider Congress as representing both the borrowers and lenders, and that the modifications which have taken place in this, have been necessary to do justice between the two parties, and that they flowed properly from Congress as their mutual umpire. The domestic debt comprehends 1. the army debt; 2. the loan-office debt; 3. the liquidated debt; and 4. the unliquidated debt. The first term includes debts to the officers and soldiers for pay, bounty, and subsistence. The second term means monies put into the loan-office of the United States. The third comprehends all debts contracted by quarter-masters, commissioners, and others duly authorized to procure supplies for the army, and which have been liquidated (that is, settled) by commissioners appointed under the resolution of Congress, of June the 12th, 1780, or by the officer who made the contract. The fourth comprehends the whole mass of debts, described in the preceding article, which have not yet been liquidated. These are in a course of liquidation, and are passing over daily into the third class. The debts of this third class, that is, the liquidated debt, is the object of your inquiry. No time is fixed for the payment of it, no fund as yet determined, nor any firm provision for the interest in the mean time. The consequence is, that the certificates of these debts sell greatly below par. When I left America, they could be bought for from two shillings and sixpence to fifteen shillings, in the pound: this difference proceeding from the circumstance of some STates having provided for paying the interest on those due in their own State, which others had not. Hence, an opinion had arisen with some, and propositions had even been made in the legislatures, for paying off the principal of these debts with what they had cost the holder, and interest on that. This opinion is far from being general, and I think will not prevail. But it is among possible events.
I received your letter dated the 20th yesterday. To provide you with the information you want about the liquidated debts of the United States and how they compare, I need to point out that our federal debt has two main divisions: 1. foreign, and 2. domestic. The foreign debt includes: 1. the loan from the government of Spain; 2. the loans from the government of France and from the Farmers General; 3. the loans negotiated in Holland by order of Congress. This part of our debt is unique; no one in the United States believes that Congress or any state legislatures can modify or change it in any way. They rightly see the United States as one party and the lenders as another, and that the consent of both would be necessary for any proposed changes. However, regarding the domestic debt, they view Congress as representing both the borrowers and lenders, and the modifications that have occurred in this case have been essential for fairness between the two parties, flowing justly from Congress as their mutual arbitrator. The domestic debt includes: 1. the army debt; 2. the loan-office debt; 3. the liquidated debt; and 4. the unliquidated debt. The first category includes debts owed to officers and soldiers for pay, bonuses, and subsistence. The second refers to money deposited in the United States loan-office. The third includes all debts incurred by quartermasters, commissioners, and others authorized to supply the army, which have been settled by commissioners appointed under the resolution of Congress from June 12, 1780, or by the officer who made the contract. The fourth includes all debts mentioned earlier that haven't been settled yet. These debts are currently being liquidated and are moving into the third category daily. The debts in this third class, which is the liquidated debt, is what you’re asking about. There is no set timeframe for its payment, no fund determined yet, nor any solid plan for interest in the meantime. As a result, the certificates for these debts sell significantly below par. When I left America, they could be purchased for between two shillings and sixpence to fifteen shillings per pound: this disparity arises because some states have set up plans to pay the interest on debts owed within their state, while others have not. Consequently, some people have developed an opinion, and even suggestions have been made in the legislatures, to pay off the principal of these debts at what they cost the holder plus interest on that. This opinion is not widespread, and I believe it will not prevail, but it remains a possibility.
I have been thus particular, that you might be able to judge, not only in the present case, but also in others, should any attempts be made to speculate in your city, on these papers. It is a business, in which foreigners will be in great danger of being duped. It is a science which bids defiance to the powers of reason. To understand it, a man must not only be on the spot, and be perfectly possessed of all the circumstances relative to every species of these papers, but he must have that dexterity which the habit of buying and selling them alone gives. The brokers of these certificates are few in number, and any other person venturing to deal with them, engages in a very unequal contest.
I’ve been specific about this so you can see, not just in this situation but also in others, if anyone tries to make money off these papers in your city. It's a business where outsiders risk being easily fooled. It's a field that goes against the rules of logic. To really get it, someone needs to be right there, fully aware of all the details related to each type of paper, and they must have the skill that only comes from regularly buying and selling them. There are only a few brokers for these certificates, and anyone else who tries to deal with them is basically entering a very unfair fight.
i have the honor to be, with the highest respect, gentlemen,
I am honored to be, with the utmost respect, gentlemen,
your most obedient humble servant,
your loyal servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CXXXI.—TO WILLIAM CARMICHAEL, November 4, 1785
TO WILLIAM CARMICHAEL.
TO WILLIAM CARMICHAEL.
Paris, November 4, 1785.
Paris, November 4, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Dear [Name],
I had the honor of writing you on the 18th of October, and again on the 25th of the same month. Both letters, being to pass through the post-offices, were confined to particular subjects. The first of them acknowledged the receipt of yours of September the 29th.
I had the pleasure of writing to you on October 18th and again on the 25th of the same month. Since both letters had to go through the post offices, they were limited to specific topics. The first one confirmed that I received your letter from September 29th.
At length a confidential opportunity arrives for conveying to you a cipher; it will be handed you by the bearer, Mr, Lambe. Copies of it are in the hands of Mr. Adams, at London, Mr. Barclay, who is proceeding to Morocco, and Mr. Lambe, who is proceeding to Algiers. This enables us to keep up such correspondences with each other, as maybe requisite. Congress, in the spring of 1784, gave powers to Mr. Adams, Dr. Franklin, and myself, to treat with the Barbary States. But they gave us no money for them, and the other duties assigned us rendered it impossible for us to proceed thither in person. These things having been represented to them, they assigned to us a certain sum of money, and gave us powers to delegate agents to treat with those States, and to form preliminary articles, but confining to us the signing of them in a definitive form. They did not restrain us in the appointment of the agents; but the orders of Congress were brought to us by Mr. Lambe, they had waited for him four months, and the recommendations he brought, pointed him out, in our opinion, as a person who would meet the approbation of Congress. We therefore appointed him to negotiate with the Algerines. His manners and appearance are not promising. But he is a sensible man, and seems to possess some talents which may be proper in a matter of bargain. We have joined with him, as secretary, a Mr. Randall, from New York, in whose prudence we hope he will find considerable aid. They now proceed to Madrid, merely with the view of seeing you, as we are assured they will receive from you lights which may be useful to them. I hear that D’Expilly and the Algerine ministers have gone from Madrid. Letters from Algiers, of August the 24th, inform me, that we had two vessels and their crews in captivity there, at that time. I have never had reason to believe certainly, that any others had been captured. Should Mr. Lambe have occasion to draw bills, while in Spain, on Mr. Adams, you may safely assure the purchasers that they will be paid.
At last, a secure opportunity has come to share a secret message with you; it will be delivered by Mr. Lambe. Copies of this message are with Mr. Adams in London, Mr. Barclay, who is on his way to Morocco, and Mr. Lambe, who is heading to Algiers. This allows us to keep in touch as needed. In the spring of 1784, Congress authorized Mr. Adams, Dr. Franklin, and me to negotiate with the Barbary States. However, they didn’t provide us with any funds, and the other responsibilities assigned to us made it impossible for us to go there in person. After we communicated these issues to them, they allocated a specific amount of money to us and granted us the authority to appoint agents to negotiate with those States and draft preliminary agreements, but limited us to signing those agreements in their final form. They didn’t limit us in choosing the agents; however, Mr. Lambe brought the orders from Congress to us after waiting four months for him. The recommendations he provided indicated that he would be well-received by Congress. Therefore, we decided to appoint him to negotiate with the Algerians. Although his demeanor and looks are not very promising, he is a sensible person and seems to have some skills that could be useful in negotiations. We also appointed a Mr. Randall from New York as his secretary, hoping his prudence will be a significant asset. They are now traveling to Madrid just to meet with you, as we believe you can provide them with valuable insights. I’ve heard that D’Expilly and the Algerine ministers have left Madrid. Letters from Algiers dated August 24th inform me that we had two ships and their crews being held captive there at that time. I have no reason to believe that any other ships have been captured. If Mr. Lambe needs to draw bills while in Spain on Mr. Adams, you can assure the buyers that they will be honored.
An important matter detains Mr. Barclay some days longer, and his journey to Madrid will be circuitous. Perhaps he may arrive there a month later than Lambe. It would be well if the Emperor of Morocco could, in the mean time, know that such a person is on the road. Perhaps you may have an opportunity of notifying this to him officially, by asking from him passports for Mr. Barclay and his suite. This would be effecting too[sp.] good purposes at once, if you can find an opportunity.
An important issue keeps Mr. Barclay a few days longer, and his trip to Madrid will take a roundabout route. He might arrive there a month after Lambe. It would be helpful if the Emperor of Morocco could be informed that such a person is on the way. You might have a chance to let him know officially by requesting passports for Mr. Barclay and his team. This would serve two good purposes at once if you can find the opportunity.
Your letter of September the 2d did not get to my hands till these arrangements were all taken between Mr. Adams and myself, and the persons appointed. That gave me the first hint that you would have acted in this business. I mean no flattery when I assure you, that no person would have better answered my wishes. At the same time, I doubt whether Mr. Adams and myself should have thought ourselves justifiable in withdrawing a servant of the United States from a post equally important with those, which prevented our acting personally in the same business. I am sure, that, remaining where you are, you will be able to forward much the business, and that you will do it with the zeal you have hitherto manifested on every occasion.
Your letter from September 2nd didn't reach me until after I had already made arrangements with Mr. Adams and the appointed individuals. That was my first clue that you would have been involved in this matter. I mean no flattery when I say that no one else would have better fulfilled my wishes. At the same time, I wonder if Mr. Adams and I would have felt justified in taking a representative of the United States away from a role that is just as important as the ones that kept us from handling this ourselves. I’m sure that, by staying where you are, you’ll be able to advance the work significantly, and that you will do it with the same enthusiasm you’ve shown on every occasion so far.
Your intercourse with America being less frequent than ours, from this place, I will state to you, generally, such new occurrences there, as may be interesting; some of which, perhaps, you will not have been informed of. It was doubtful, at the date of my last letters, whether Congress would adjourn this summer. They were too thin, however, to undertake important business. They had begun arrangements for the establishment of a mint. The Dollar was decided on as the money unit of America. I believe, they proposed to have gold, silver, and copper coins, descending and ascending decimally; viz. a gold coin of ten dollars, a silver coin of one tenth of a dollar (equal to a Spanish bit), and a copper, of one hundredth of a dollar. These parts of the plan, however, were not ultimately decided on. They have adopted the late improvement in the British post-office, of sending their mails by the stages. I am told, this is done from New Hampshire to Georgia, and from New York to Albany. Their treasury is administered by a board, of which Mr. Walter Livingston, Mr. Osgood, and Dr. Arthur Lee, are members. Governor Rutledge who had been appointed minister to the Hague, on the refusal of Governor Livingston, declines coming. We are uncertain whether the States will generally come into the proposition of investing. Congress with the regulation of their commerce. Massachusetts has passed an act, the first object of which seemed to be, to retaliate on the British commercial measures, but in the close of it, they impose double duties on all goods imported in bottoms not wholly owned by citizens of our States. New Hampshire has followed the example. This is much complained of here, and will probably draw retaliating measures from the States of Europe, if generally adopted in America, or not corrected by the States which have adopted it. It must be our endeavor to keep them quiet on this side the water, under the hope that our countrymen will correct this step; as I trust they will do. It is no ways akin to their general system. I am trying here to get contracts for the supplying the cities of France with whale-oil, by the Boston merchants. It would be the greatest relief possible to that State, whose commerce is in agonies, in consequence of being subjected to alien duties on their oil in Great Britain, which has been heretofore their only market. Can any thing be done, in this way, in Spain? Or do they there light their streets in the night?
Your interactions with America are less frequent than ours, so I'll share some updates from here that might interest you, some of which you might not have heard about. At the time of my last letters, it was uncertain if Congress would adjourn this summer. However, they were too few in number to tackle important issues. They had started planning for a mint. The Dollar was chosen as America’s unit of currency. I believe they proposed having gold, silver, and copper coins with decimal denominations: a gold coin worth ten dollars, a silver coin worth one-tenth of a dollar (equivalent to a Spanish bit), and a copper coin worth one-hundredth of a dollar. These parts of the plan, however, were not finalized. They adopted the recent improvement from the British post-office system, sending their mails by stagecoaches. I’ve heard this runs from New Hampshire to Georgia, and from New York to Albany. Their treasury is overseen by a board that includes Mr. Walter Livingston, Mr. Osgood, and Dr. Arthur Lee. Governor Rutledge, who was appointed as minister to The Hague after Governor Livingston declined, has also refused to go. We’re unsure if the States will generally agree to give Congress control over their commerce. Massachusetts has passed a law aimed primarily at retaliating against British trade measures, but in the end, they’ve imposed double duties on all goods imported on ships not entirely owned by our citizens. New Hampshire has followed suit. This is causing a lot of complaints here and could lead to retaliatory measures from European states if it becomes widespread in America or if the states that enacted it don’t reverse the decision. We must try to maintain peace on this side of the ocean, hoping that our fellow countrymen will rectify this move, as I trust they will. It doesn’t fit their overall strategy. Here, I’m attempting to secure contracts for supplying French cities with whale oil through Boston merchants. This would be a huge help to that state, whose trade is struggling due to alien duties on their oil in Great Britain, which has historically been their only market. Is there anything that can be done in this regard in Spain? Or do they light their streets at night?
A fracas, which has lately happened in Boston, becoming a serious matter, I will give you the details of it, as transmitted to Mr. Adams in depositions. A Captain Stanhope, commanding the frigate Mercury, was sent with a convoy of vessels from Nova Scotia to Boston, to get a supply of provisions for that colony. It had happened, that two persons living near Boston, of the names of Dunbar and Lowthorp, had been taken prisoners during the war, and transferred from one vessel to another, till they were placed on board Stanhope’s ship. He treated them most cruelly, whipping them frequently, in order to make them do duty against their country, as sailors, on board his ship. The ship going to Antigua to refit, he put all his prisoners into jail, first giving Dunbar twenty-four lashes. Peace took place, and the prisoners got home under the general liberation. These men were quietly pursuing their occupations at home, when they heard that Stanhope was in Boston. Their indignation was kindled. They immediately went there, and meeting Stanhope walking in the mall, Dunbar stepped up to him, and asked him if he recollected him, and the whipping him on board his ship. Having no weapon in his hand, he struck at Stanhope with his fist. Stanhope stepped back, and drew his sword. The people interposed, and guarded him to the door of a Mr. Morton, to which he retreated. There Dunbar again attempted to seize him; but the high-sheriff had by this time arrived, who interposed and protected him. The assailants withdrew, and here ended all appearance of force. But Captain Stanhope thought proper to write to the Governor, which brought on the correspondence published in the papers of Europe. Lest you should not have seen it, I enclose it, as cut from a London paper; though not perfectly exact, it is substantially so. You will doubtless judge, that Governor Bowdoin referred him properly to the laws for redress, as he was obliged to do, and as would have been done in England, in a like case. Had he applied to the courts, the question would have been whether they would have punished Dunbar. This must be answered now by conjecture only; and, to form that conjecture, every man must ask himself, whether he would not have done as Dunbar did; and whether the people should not have permitted him to return to Stanhope the twenty-four lashes. This affair has been stated in the London papers, without mixing with it one circumstance of truth.
A fight recently broke out in Boston, which has become a serious issue. I'll give you the details as reported to Mr. Adams in statements. Captain Stanhope, who was in charge of the frigate Mercury, was sent with a convoy of ships from Nova Scotia to Boston to get supplies for that colony. Two men living near Boston, named Dunbar and Lowthorp, had been taken prisoner during the war and moved from ship to ship until they ended up on Stanhope’s vessel. He treated them very harshly, frequently whipping them to force them to serve on his ship against their country. When the ship went to Antigua for repairs, he locked all his prisoners in jail, first giving Dunbar twenty-four lashes. Once peace was established, the prisoners returned home due to a general release. These men were quietly going about their lives when they learned that Stanhope was in Boston. They were outraged. They went to confront him and found him walking in a public space. Dunbar approached him, asking if he remembered him and the whipping on his ship. With no weapon in hand, he punched Stanhope. Stanhope stepped back and drew his sword. People intervened and escorted him to the door of Mr. Morton, where he took refuge. Dunbar tried again to reach him, but by this time the high sheriff had arrived and protected Stanhope. The attackers backed off, and that seemed to be the end of it. However, Captain Stanhope felt it necessary to write to the Governor, which led to the correspondence published in European papers. In case you haven't seen it, I’m including it as it appeared in a London paper; it's not perfectly accurate, but it is mostly correct. You'll likely agree that Governor Bowdoin appropriately referred Stanhope to the laws for remedy, as he was required to do, just as would have happened in England in a similar situation. If he had turned to the courts, the question would have been whether they would have punished Dunbar. This can only be speculated upon now, and to speculate, each person must consider whether they would have acted like Dunbar and if the public should have allowed him to return the twenty-four lashes to Stanhope. This incident has been reported in London papers without including a single truthful detail.
In your letter of the 27th of June, you were so good as to tell me that you should shortly send off some of the books I had taken the liberty to ask you to get for me, and that your correspondent at Bayonne would give me notice of their arrival there. Not having heard from him, I mention it to you, lest they should be stopped any where.
In your letter dated June 27th, you kindly mentioned that you would soon be sending some of the books I requested, and that your contact in Bayonne would notify me when they arrived. Since I haven't heard from him, I'm bringing it up to you in case there are any delays.
I am, with great respect, Dear Sir,
I am, with great respect, Dear Sir,
your most obedient, humble servant,
your obedient and humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CXXXII.—TO RICHARD O’BRYAN, November 4, 1785
TO RICHARD O’BRYAN.
TO RICHARD O’BRYAN.
Paris, November 4, 1785.
Paris, November 4, 1785.
Sir,
Hey there,
I wrote you a short letter on the 29th of September, acknowledging the receipt of yours of August the 24th, from Algiers, and promising that you should hear further from me soon. Mr. Adams, the American minister at London, and myself, have agreed to authorize the bearer hereof, Mr. Lambe, to treat for your redemption, and that of your companions taken in American vessels, and, if it can be obtained for sums within our power, we shall have the money paid. But in this we act without instruction from Congress, and are therefore obliged to take the precaution of requiring, that you bind your owners for yourself and crew, and the other captain, in like manner, his owners for himself and crew, and that each person separately make himself answerable for his own redemption, in case Congress requires it. I suppose Congress will not require it: but we have no authority to decide that, but must leave it to their own decision; which renders necessary the precautions I have mentioned, in order to justify ourselves for undertaking to redeem you without orders. Mr. Lambe is instructed to make no bargain without your approbation, and that of the other prisoners, each for himself. We also direct him to relieve your present necessities. I sincerely wish you a speedy deliverance from your distresses, and a happy return to your family.
I wrote you a short letter on September 29th, acknowledging that I received yours from Algiers dated August 24th, and promising that you would hear from me again soon. Mr. Adams, the American minister in London, and I have agreed to let Mr. Lambe, the bearer of this letter, negotiate for your release, as well as for your companions taken from American ships. If we can manage it within our means, we will arrange for the payment. However, we are doing this without instructions from Congress, so we need to make sure that you bind your owners for yourself and your crew, and that the other captain does the same for his owners and crew. Each person needs to be individually responsible for their own release, in case Congress requires it later. I believe Congress won't require it, but we can't make that call; it’s up to them. This is why we need the precautions I mentioned, to protect ourselves for trying to redeem you without official orders. Mr. Lambe has been told not to make any deals without your approval, and that of the other prisoners, each for themselves. We also instruct him to help meet your current needs. I sincerely hope you find relief from your troubles soon and can return to your family happily.
I am, Sir, your most obedient, humble servant,
I am, Sir, your most obedient and humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CXXXIII.—TO W. W. SEWARD, November 12,1785
TO W. W. SEWARD.
To W. W. Seward.
Paris, November 12,1785.
Paris, November 12, 1785.
Sir,
Hey,
I received the honor of your letter, of the 25th ult., written by desire of the associated company of Irish merchants, in London, and return you thanks for the kind congratulations you express therein. The freedom of commerce between Ireland and America is undoubtedly very interesting to both countries. If fair play be given to the natural advantages of Ireland, she must come in for a distinguished share of that commerce. She is entitled to it, from the excellence of some of her manufactures, the cheapness of most of them, their correspondence with the American taste, a sameness of language, laws, and manners, a reciprocal affection between the people, and the singular circumstance of her being the nearest European land to the United States. I am not, at present, so well acquainted with the trammels of Irish commerce, as to know what they are, particularly, which obstruct the intercourse between Ireland and America; nor, therefore, what can be the object of a fleet stationed in the western ocean, to intercept that intercourse. Experience, however, has taught us to infer that the fact is probable, because it is impolitic. On the supposition that this interruption will take place, you suggest Ostend as a convenient entrepot for the commerce between America and Ireland. Here, too, I find myself, on account of the same ignorance of your commercial regulations, at a loss to say why this is preferable to L’Orient, which, you know, is a free port and in great latitude, which is nearer to both parties, and accessible by a less dangerous navigation. I make no doubt, however, that the reasons of the preference are good. You find by this essay, that I am not likely to be a very instructive correspondent: you shall find me, however, zealous in whatever may concern the interests of the two countries. The system into which the United States wished to go, was that of freeing commerce from every shackle. A contrary conduct in Great Britain will occasion, them to adopt the contrary system, at least as to that island. I am sure they would be glad, if it should be, found practicable, to make that discrimination between Great Britain and Ireland, which their commercial principles, and their affection for the latter, would dictate.
I received your letter dated the 25th of last month, written on behalf of the group of Irish merchants in London, and I thank you for the kind congratulations you expressed. The open trade between Ireland and America is certainly very important for both countries. If Ireland’s natural advantages are given a fair chance, it will play a significant role in that trade. She deserves it because of the quality of some of her products, the low prices of most, their appeal to American tastes, a shared language, laws, and customs, a mutual affection between the people, and the unique fact that she is the closest European land to the United States. Right now, I don’t know enough about the obstacles facing Irish trade to pinpoint what is specifically blocking interaction between Ireland and America; therefore, I’m not sure what the purpose of a fleet stationed in the western ocean would be in disrupting that interaction. However, experience tells us that it’s likely since it doesn’t make sense politically. Assuming this interruption occurs, you suggest Ostend as a practical center for trade between America and Ireland. Again, due to my lack of knowledge about your trade regulations, I’m unsure why this location is better than L’Orient, which is a free port and has a more favorable position, being closer to both parties and safer to navigate. I have no doubt that the reasons for preferring Ostend are valid. From this note, you can see that I may not be a very knowledgeable correspondent, but I will be eager about anything concerning the interests of both countries. The approach that the United States wanted was to free trade from all restrictions. If Great Britain takes the opposite approach, the United States may adopt a contrasting system, at least regarding that island. I’m sure they would be pleased, if it can be done, to differentiate between Great Britain and Ireland, in line with their trade principles and their affection for the latter.
I have the honor to be, with the highest respect for yourself and the company for whom you write, Sir,
I am honored to address you, with the utmost respect for you and the organization you represent, Sir,
your most obedient
your most loyal
and most humble servant,
your most humble servant,
Tm: Jefferson.
Tm: Jefferson.
LETTER CXXXIV.—TO THE COUNT DE VERGENNES, November 14,1785
TO THE COUNT DE VERGENNES.
TO COUNT DE VERGENNES.
Paris, November 14,1785.
Paris, November 14, 1785.
Sir,
Hey,
I take the liberty of troubling your Excellency on behalf of six citizens of the United States, who have been for some time confined in the prison of St. Pol de Léon, and of referring for particulars to the enclosed state of their case. Some of the material facts therein mentioned, are founded on the bill of sale for the vessel, her clearance from Baltimore, and her log-book. The originals of the two last, and a copy of the first, are in my hands. I have, also, letters from a merchant in Liverpool to Asquith, which render it really probable that his vessel was bound to Liverpool. The other circumstances depend on their affirmation, but I must say that in these facts they have been uniform and steady. I have thus long avoided troubling your Excellency with this case, in hopes it would receive its decision in the ordinary course of law, and I relied, that that would indemnify the sufferers, if they had been used unjustly: but though they have been in close confinement now near three months, it has yet no appearance of approaching to decision. In the mean time, the cold of the winter is coming on, and to men in their situation, may produce events which would render all indemnification too late. I must, therefore, pray the assistance of your Excellency, for the liberation of their persons, if the established order of things may possibly admit of it. As to their property and their personal sufferings hitherto, I have full confidence that the laws have provided some tribunal where justice will be done them. I enclose the opinion of an advocate, forwarded to me by a gentleman whom I had desired to obtain, from some judicious person of that faculty, a state of their case. This may perhaps give a better idea than I can, of the situation of their cause. His inquiries have led him to believe they are innocent men, but that they must lose their vessel under the edict, which forbids those under thirty tons to approach the coast. Admitting their innocence, as he does, I should suppose them not the objects on whom such an edict was meant to operate. The essential papers, which he says they re-demanded from him, and did not return, were sent to me, at my desire. I am, with sentiments of the highest respect, your Excellency’s most obedient
I’m reaching out on behalf of six citizens of the United States who have been held in the St. Pol de Léon prison for quite a while, and I’m enclosing details about their situation. Some of the important facts mentioned are based on the bill of sale for their vessel, its clearance from Baltimore, and its logbook. I have the originals of the latter two documents and a copy of the first. I also have letters from a merchant in Liverpool to Asquith, which make it likely that the vessel was headed to Liverpool. The other circumstances rely on their statements, but I must say they have been consistent and steady. I have hesitated to bring this case to your attention, hoping it would be resolved through the usual legal process, trusting that this would compensate those wronged by any injustice. However, after being held for nearly three months without any sign of a resolution, time is running out. Winter is approaching, and for people in their situation, it could lead to consequences that would make any compensation too late. Therefore, I kindly request your help in securing their release, if it is at all possible within the existing legal framework. As for their property and personal suffering so far, I’m confident the laws have established a way for them to receive justice. I've enclosed an opinion from an advocate, which was sent to me by someone I asked to gather insights on their case from a knowledgeable source. This might provide a clearer understanding of their situation than I can. His inquiries have led him to believe they are innocent, but they would still lose their vessel due to the ruling that prohibits vessels under thirty tons from approaching the coast. Assuming their innocence, which he does, I believe they shouldn’t be affected by such a ruling. The essential documents he mentioned that they requested from him and weren’t returned were sent to me at my request. I remain, with the highest respect, your Excellency’s most obedient.
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Th: Jefferson.
The case of Lister Asquith, owner of the schooner William and Catharine, William M’Neil, captain, William Thomson, William Neily, Robert Anderson, mariners, and William Fowler, passenger.
The case of Lister Asquith, owner of the schooner William and Catharine, William M’Neil, captain, William Thomson, William Neily, Robert Anderson, mariners, and William Fowler, passenger.
Lister Asquith, citizen of the State of Maryland, having a lawsuit depending in England which required his presence, as involving in its issue nearly his whole fortune, determined to go thither in a small schooner of his own, that he might, at the same time, take with him an adventure of tobacco and flour to Liverpool, where he had commercial connections. This schooner he purchased as of fifty-nine and a quarter tons, as appears by his bill of sale, but she had been registered by her owner at twenty-one tons, in order to evade the double duties in England, to which American vessels are now subject. He cleared out from Baltimore for Liverpool, the 11th of June, 1785, with eight hogsheads of tobacco and sixty barrels of flour, but ran aground at Smith’s point, sprung a leak, and was obliged to return to Baltimore to refit. Having stopped his leak, he took his cargo on board again, and his health being infirm, he engaged Captain William M’Neil* to go with him, and on the 20th of June sailed for Norfolk in Virginia, and, on the 22nd, came to in Hampton road, at the mouth of the river on which Norfolk is. Learning here, that tobacco would be better than flour for the English market, he landed fifty barrels of his flour and one hogshead of tobacco, which he found to be bad, meaning to take, instead thereof, nine hogsheads of tobacco more. But the same night it began to blow very hard, with much rain. The 23d, the storm became more heavy; they let go both their anchors, but were driven, notwithstanding, from their anchorage, forced to put to sea and to go before the wind. The occurrences of their voyage will be best detailed by short extracts from the log-book.
Lister Asquith, a resident of Maryland, had a lawsuit pending in England that required his presence, as it involved almost his entire fortune. He decided to travel there in his own small schooner, allowing him to also transport a shipment of tobacco and flour to Liverpool, where he had business connections. He purchased the schooner, which was noted in his bill of sale as fifty-nine and a quarter tons, but it had been registered by its owner at twenty-one tons to avoid the double duties imposed on American vessels in England. He left Baltimore for Liverpool on June 11, 1785, with eight hogsheads of tobacco and sixty barrels of flour but ran aground at Smith’s Point, developed a leak, and had to return to Baltimore for repairs. After fixing the leak, he loaded his cargo back on board and, due to his poor health, hired Captain William M’Neil to accompany him. On June 20, he set sail for Norfolk, Virginia, and arrived in Hampton Roads at the mouth of the river near Norfolk on June 22. Here, he learned that tobacco would sell better than flour in the English market, so he unloaded fifty barrels of flour and one hogshead of tobacco, which turned out to be bad, planning to replace them with nine more hogsheads of tobacco. However, that night, a severe storm hit, bringing heavy rain. On the 23rd, the storm intensified; they dropped both anchors but were still driven from their anchorage, forcing them to set sail and head out into the open sea. The details of their voyage will be best described through brief excerpts from the logbook.
* This was the officer who, during the evacuation of Fort Mifflin, after the British had crossed the chevaux-de-frise on the Delaware, was left with fifteen men to destroy the fortifications, which he accomplished, successfully bringing his men back. Before this, he had been the captain of the Rattlesnake sloop of war and had significantly disrupted British trade. Having grown up as a sailor, he returned to that profession.
June 24. The weather becomes worse. One of the fore shrouds and the foremast, carried away.
June 24. The weather gets worse. One of the fore shrouds and the foremast got taken out.
June 25. Shifted their ballast, which threw them on their beam ends, and shipped a very heavy sea. Held a consultation; the result of which was, that seeing they were now driven so far to sea, and the weather continuing still very bad, it was better to steer for Liverpool, their port of destination, though they had not their cargo on board, and no other clearance but that which they took from Baltimore.
June 25. They adjusted their ballast, which caused the boat to tilt on its side, and faced a very rough sea. They held a meeting, and concluded that since they had been pushed so far out to sea and the weather remained very bad, it was better to head for Liverpool, their intended port, even though they didn’t have their cargo on board and only had the clearance they obtained from Baltimore.
June 29. The first observation they had been able to take N.lat. 38° 13’.
June 29. The first observation they were able to take was N.lat. 38° 13’.
June 30. Winds begin to be light, but the sea still very heavy.
June 30. The winds start to lighten up, but the sea is still very rough.
July 5. Light winds and a smooth sea for the first time, in lat. 43° 12’.
July 5. Gentle winds and a calm sea for the first time, at lat. 43° 12’.
July 9. Spoke a French brig, Comte D’Artois, Captain Mieaux, from St. Maloes, in distress for provisions. Relieved her with three barrels of flour.
July 9. Spoke with a French brig, Comte D’Artois, Captain Mieaux, from St. Malo, in need of supplies. Helped her with three barrels of flour.
Aug. 6. Thick weather and strong wind. Made the Land’s End of England.
Aug. 6. Thick clouds and strong winds. Reached the Land’s End of England.
Aug. 7. Unable to fetch the land, therefore bore off for Scilly, and came to with both anchors. Drove, notwithstanding, and obliged to get up the anchors, and put to sea, running southwardly.
Aug. 7. Unable to secure the land, we headed for Scilly and dropped anchor. However, we were still driven by the wind and had to lift the anchors, setting out to sea and heading south.
Aug. 8. Made the land of France, but did not know what part.
Aug. 8. Reached the land of France, but wasn't sure which part it was.
Here the log-book ends. At this time they had on board but ten gallons of water, four or five barrels of bread, two or three pounds of candles, no firewood. Their sails unfit to be trusted to any longer, and all their materials for mending them exhausted by the constant repairs which the violence of the weather had called for. They therefore took a pilot aboard, who carried them into Pont Duval; but being informed by the captain of a vessel there, that the schooner was too sharp built (as the American vessels mostly are) to lie in that port, they put out immediately, and the next morning the pilot brought them to anchor in the road of the Isle de Bas. Asquith went immediately to Roscaff, protested at the admiralty the true state of his case, and reported his vessel and cargo at the custom-house. In making the report of his vessel, he stated her as of twenty-one tons, according to his register. The officer informed him that if she was no larger, she would be confiscated by an edict, which forbids all vessels, under thirty tons, to approach the coast. He told the officer what was the real truth as to his register and his bill of sale, and was permitted to report her according to the latter. He paid the usual fees of ten livres and seven sols, and obtained a clearance. Notwithstanding this, he was soon visited by other persons, whom he supposes to have been commis of the Fermes, who seized his vessel, carried her to the pier, and confined the crew to the vessel and half the pier, putting centinels over them. They brought a guager, who measured only her hold and part of her steerage, allowing nothing for the cockpit, cabin, forecastle, and above one half of the steerage, which is almost half the vessel, and thus made her contents (if that had been of any importance) much below the truth. The tobacco was weighed, and found to be six thousand four hundred and eighty-seven pounds,* which was sent on the 18th to Landivisiau, and on the 19th, they were committed to close prison at St. Pol de Léon, where they have been confined ever since. They had, when they first landed, some money, of which they were soon disembarrassed by different persons, who, in various forms, undertook to serve them. Unable to speak or understand a word of the language of the country, friendless, and left without money, they have languished three months in a loathsome jail, without any other sustenance, a great part of the time, than what could be procured for three sous a day, which have been furnished them to prevent their perishing.
Here the logbook ends. At this point, they had only ten gallons of water, four or five barrels of bread, two or three pounds of candles, and no firewood. Their sails were no longer reliable, and they had exhausted all their supplies for repairing them due to the relentless weather. So, they took on a pilot who navigated them into Pont Duval; however, the captain of a vessel there informed them that their schooner was too sharply built (as most American vessels are) to stay in that port, so they left immediately. The next morning, the pilot helped them anchor in the anchorage of Isle de Bas. Asquith went straight to Roscaff, reported the true state of his situation to the admiralty, and registered his vessel and cargo at the customs office. When reporting his vessel, he claimed it was twenty-one tons based on his registration. The officer told him that if it was no larger, it would be confiscated under an edict that prohibits all vessels under thirty tons from approaching the coast. He explained the real details regarding his registration and bill of sale and was allowed to report according to the latter. He paid the usual fees of ten livres and seven sols and obtained a clearance. Despite this, he was soon approached by other individuals, whom he suspects were agents of the Fermes, who seized his vessel, took her to the pier, and confined the crew to the vessel and half the pier, placing guards over them. They brought a gauger, who only measured her hold and part of her steerage, ignoring the cockpit, cabin, forecastle, and more than half of the steerage, which is nearly half the vessel, thus recording her contents (if that had been important) as much less than reality. The tobacco was weighed at six thousand four hundred and eighty-seven pounds,* which was sent to Landivisiau on the 18th, and on the 19th, they were placed in close prison at St. Pol de Léon, where they have been held ever since. When they first landed, they had some money, but they soon lost it to various individuals who pretended to help them. Unable to speak or understand the local language, friendless, and left without any money, they languished for three months in a filthy jail, often surviving on just three sous a day, which were provided to prevent their starvation.
* A hogshead of tobacco typically weighs around one thousand pounds in English measurement, which is equal to nine hundred and seventeen pounds in French measurement. The seven hogsheads he set sail with would therefore weigh, based on this estimate, six thousand four hundred and twenty-three pounds. They actually weighed more on the initial try. When weighed later at Landivisiau, they had lost eighty-four pounds after being moved into drier air. There might have also been some differences in weight that contributed to this apparent loss.
They have been made to understand that a criminal process is going on against them under two heads. 1. As having sold tobacco in contraband; and 2., as having entered a port of France in a vessel of less than thirty tons’ burthen. In support of the first charge, they understand that the circumstance is relied on, of their having been seen off the coast by the employés des Fermes, one or two days. They acknowledge they may have been so seen while beating off Pont Duval, till they could get a pilot, while entering that port, and again going round from thence to the road of the Isle de Bas. The reasons for this have been explained. They further add, that all the time they were at Pont Duval they had a King’s officer on board, from whom, as well as from their pilot, and the captain, by whose advise they left that port for the Isle de Bas, information can be obtained by their accusers (who are not imprisoned) of the true motives for that measure. It is said to be urged also, that there was found in their vessel some loose tobacco in a blanket, which excites a suspicion that they had been selling tobacco. When they were stowing their loading, they broke a hogshead, as is always necessary, and is always done, to fill up the stowage, and to consolidate and keep the whole mass firm and in place. The loose tobacco which had come out of the broken hogshead, they re-packed in bags: but in the course of the distress of their disastrous voyage, they had employed these bags, as they had done every thing else of the same nature, in mending their sails. The condition of their sails when they came into port will prove this, and they were seen by witnesses enough, to whom their accusers, being at their liberty, can have access. Besides, the sale of a part of their tobacco is a fact, which, had it taken place, might have been proved; but they deny that it has been proved, or ever can be proved by true men, because it never existed. And they hope the justice of this country does not permit strangers, seeking in her ports an asylum from death, to be thrown into jail and continued there indefinitely, on the possibility of a fact, without any proof. More especially when, as in the present case, a demonstration to the contrary is furnished by their clearance, which shows they never had more than eight hogsheads of tobacco on board, of which one had been put ashore at Hampton in Virginia, as has been before related, and the seven others remained when they first entered port. If they had been smugglers of tobacco, the opposite coast offered a much fairer field, because the gain there is as great; because they understand the language and laws of the country, they know its harbors and coasts, and have connections in them. These circumstances are so important to smugglers, that it is believed no instance has ever occurred of the contraband tobacco, attempted on this side the channel, by a crew wholly American. Be this as it may, they are not of that description of men.
They have been informed that there is a criminal case against them for two reasons: 1. For selling illegal tobacco; and 2. For entering a port in France with a vessel that weighs less than thirty tons. To support the first charge, it is claimed that they were seen off the coast by the employés des Fermes for a day or two. They admit they might have been seen while navigating near Pont Duval, waiting for a pilot to enter that port, and then again when they headed over to the road of the Isle de Bas. The reasons for this have been explained. They also state that while they were at Pont Duval, they had a King’s officer on board, who, along with their pilot and the captain—who advised them to leave that port for the Isle de Bas—can provide their accusers (who are not imprisoned) with the real reasons for their actions. It is also claimed that loose tobacco was found in their vessel wrapped in a blanket, which raises suspicion that they were selling tobacco. While loading their cargo, they accidentally broke a hogshead, which is a common practice done to fill the stowage and make everything secure. The loose tobacco that spilled out of the broken hogshead was then repacked in bags. However, during the struggles of their difficult journey, they used these bags, like everything else, to repair their sails. The condition of their sails upon arrival in port will back this up, and plenty of witnesses can confirm it, whom their accusers, being free, can reach out to. Besides, the claim that part of their tobacco was sold could have been proven if it were true; they deny that it has been proven or ever can be by honest people, because it simply didn’t happen. They trust that the justice of this country does not allow foreigners, seeking refuge from death in its ports, to be imprisoned indefinitely on the possibility of an unproven fact. Especially when, as in this case, their clearance demonstrates otherwise, showing they never had more than eight hogsheads of tobacco on board, one of which had already been offloaded in Hampton, Virginia, as previously mentioned, and the other seven remained when they first entered port. If they had been tobacco smugglers, the opposite coast would have been a better choice since the profits there are just as high; they would understand the language and laws of the country, know its harbors and coasts, and have connections there. These factors are crucial for smugglers, and it is believed that no instance has ever happened of tobacco smuggling on this side of the channel by a crew entirely made up of Americans. Regardless, they are not that kind of people.
As to the second charge, that they have entered a port of France in a vessel of less than thirty tons’ burthen, they, in the first place, observe, that they saw the guager measure the vessel, and affirm that his method of measuring could render little more than half her true contents: but they say, further, that were she below the size of thirty tons, and, when entering the port, had they known of the alternative of either forfeiting their vessel and cargo, or of perishing at sea; they must still have entered the port: the loss of their vessel and cargo being the lesser evil. But the character of the lawgiver assures them, that the intention of his laws are perverted, when misapplied to persons, who, under their circumstances, take refuge in his ports. They have no occasion to recur from his clemency to his justice, by claiming the benefit of that article in the treaty which binds the two nations together, and which assures to the fugitives of either from the dangers of the sea, a hospitable reception and necessary aids in the ports of the other, and that, without measuring the size of their vessel.
Regarding the second accusation, that they entered a French port with a vessel under thirty tons, they first point out that they watched the customs officer measure the vessel and claim that his measuring method could only show about half of its true capacity. They also argue that even if their vessel was under thirty tons, if they had known upon entering the port that they had to choose between losing their vessel and cargo or facing death at sea, they would still have chosen to enter the port since losing their vessel and cargo would have been the lesser evil. However, the nature of the lawmaker reassures them that the intention of his laws is distorted when misapplied to individuals who, in their situation, seek refuge in his ports. They don't need to turn to his justice from his mercy by invoking the provision in the treaty that connects the two nations, which guarantees that those fleeing from sea dangers will receive a warm welcome and necessary assistance in each other's ports, and this is granted without assessing the size of their vessel.
Upon the whole, they protest themselves to have been as innocent as they have been unfortunate. Instead of relief in a friendly port, they have seen their misfortunes aggravated by the conduct of officers, who, in their greediness for gain, can see in no circumstance any thing but proofs of guilt. They have already long suffered and are still suffering whatever scanty sustenance, an inclement season, and close confinement can offer most distressing to men who have been used to neither, and who have wives and children at home participating of their distresses; they are utterly ignorant of the laws and language of the country, where they are suffering; they are deprived of that property which would have enabled them to procure counsel to place their injuries in a true light; they are distant from the stations of those who are appointed by their country to patronize their rights; they are not at liberty to go to them, nor able to have communication through any other than the uncertain medium of the posts; and they see themselves already ruined by the losses and delays they have been made to incur, and by the failure of the original object of their voyage. They throw themselves, therefore, on the patronage of the government, and pray that its energy may be interposed in aid of their poverty and ignorance, to restore them to their liberty, and to extend to them that retribution which the laws of every country mean to extend to those who suffer unjustly.
Overall, they claim to be just as innocent as they are unfortunate. Instead of finding relief in a friendly port, they have seen their hardships worsened by the actions of officers who, in their greed for profit, see nothing but signs of guilt in every situation. They have already suffered for a long time and continue to endure the meager provisions that a harsh season and confinement can provide, which is especially distressing for men unaccustomed to either and who have wives and children at home sharing in their struggles. They are completely unaware of the laws and language of the country where they are suffering; they lack the resources that would have allowed them to get legal help to present their situation accurately. They are far from the authorities appointed by their country to advocate for their rights, and they cannot reach out to them, nor can they communicate except through the unreliable postal system. They see themselves already ruined by the losses and delays they have suffered, along with the failure of the original purpose of their journey. Therefore, they appeal to the government for support, asking that its power be used to help alleviate their poverty and ignorance, to restore their freedom, and to provide them with the justice that the laws of every country intend for those who suffer unjustly.
LETTER CXXXV.—TO JOHN ADAMS, November 19, 1785
TO JOHN ADAMS.
To John Adams.
Paris, November 19, 1785.
Paris, Nov 19, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
I wrote to you on the 11th of October, by Mr. Preston, and again on the 18th of the same month, by post. Since that, yours of September the 25th, by Mr. Boylston, of October the 24th, November the 1st, and November the 4th, have come safe to hand. I will take up their several subjects in order. Boylston’s object was, first, to dispose of a cargo of spermaceti oil, which he brought to Havre. A secondary one, was to obtain a contract for future supplies. I carried him to the Marquis de la Fayette. As to his first object, we are in hopes of getting the duties taken off, which will enable him to sell his cargo. This has led to discussions with the ministers, which give us a hope that we may get the duties taken off in perpetuum. This done, a most abundant market for our oil will be opened by this country, and one which will be absolutely dependant on us; for they have little expectation themselves of establishing a successful whale-fishery. It is possible they may only take the duties off of those oils, which shall be the produce of associated companies of French and American merchants. But as yet, nothing certain can be said.
I wrote to you on October 11th through Mr. Preston, and again on the 18th of the same month by mail. Since then, I have received your letters from September 25th via Mr. Boylston, and from October 24th, November 1st, and November 4th. I will address their topics in order. Boylston's main goal was to sell a shipment of spermaceti oil that he brought to Havre. A secondary goal was to secure a contract for future supplies. I introduced him to the Marquis de la Fayette. Regarding his first goal, we are hopeful about getting the duties removed, which would allow him to sell his cargo. This has led to discussions with the ministers, giving us hope that we might have the duties removed permanently. If this happens, a huge market for our oil will open up in this country, and it will rely entirely on us because they don’t expect to establish a successful whale fishery on their own. It’s possible they may only lift the duties on oils produced by joint ventures of French and American merchants. But for now, nothing is certain.
I thank you for the trouble you have taken to obtain insurance on Houdon’s life. I place the thirty-two pounds and eleven shillings to your credit, and not being able, as yet, to determine precisely how our accounts stand, I send a sum by Colonel Smith, which may draw the scales towards a balance.
I appreciate the effort you've put into getting insurance on Houdon's life. I’ve credited you with thirty-two pounds and eleven shillings, and since I'm still unable to figure out exactly how our accounts are looking, I'm sending a sum with Colonel Smith that should help even things out.
The determination of the British cabinet to make no equal treaty with us, confirms me in the opinion expressed in your letter of October the 24th, that the United States must pass a navigation act against Great Britain, and load her manufactures with duties, so as to give a preference to those of other countries: and I hope our Assemblies will wait no longer, but transfer such a power to Congress, at the sessions of this fall. I suppose, however, it will only be against Great Britain, and I think it will be right not to involve other nations in the consequences of her injustice. I take for granted, that the commercial system wished for by Congress, was such a one, as should leave commerce on the freest footing possible. This was the plan on which we prepared our general draught for treating with all nations. Of those with whom we were to treat, I ever considered England, France, Spain, and Portugal as capitally important; the first two, on account of their American possessions, the last, for their European as well as American. Spain is treating in America, and probably will give an advantageous treaty. Portugal shows dispositions to do the same. France does not treat. It is likely enough she will choose to keep the staff in her own hands. But, in the mean time, she gives us an access to her West Indies, which, though not all we wish, is yet extremely valuable to us: this access, indeed, is much affected by the late Arrêts of the 18th and 25th of September, which I enclose to you. I consider these as a reprisal for the navigation acts of Massachusetts and New Hampshire. The minister has complained to me, officially, of these acts, as a departure from the reciprocity stipulated for by the treaty. I have assured him that his complaints shall be communicated to Congress, and in the mean time, observed that the example of discriminating between foreigners and natives had been set by the Arrêt of August, 1784, and still more remarkably by those of September the 18th and 25th, which, in effect, are a prohibition of our fish in their islands. However, it is better for us, that both sides should revise what they have done. I am in hopes this country did not mean these as permanent regulations. Mr. Bingham, lately from Holland, tells me that the Dutch are much dissatisfied with these acts. In fact, I expect the European nations, in general, will rise up against an attempt of this kind, and wage a general commercial war against us. They can do well without all our commodities except tobacco, and we cannot find, elsewhere, markets for them. The selfishness of England alone will not justify our hazarding a contest of this kind against all Europe. Spain, Portugal, and France, have not yet shut their doors against us: it will be time enough, when they do, to take up the commercial hatchet. I hope, therefore, those States will repeal their navigation clauses, except as against Great Britain and other nations not treating with us.
The British cabinet's insistence on not making an equal treaty with us reinforces my belief, as mentioned in your letter from October 24th, that the United States needs to pass a navigation act against Great Britain and impose duties on her manufactured goods to favor those from other countries. I hope our Assemblies act quickly and give this authority to Congress during the upcoming fall sessions. I expect this measure will only target Great Britain, and I think it’s right not to drag other nations into the fallout from her unfairness. I assume that the commercial system Congress desires aimed to keep trade as free as possible. This was the foundation for our general draft for negotiations with all nations. Among those we aimed to negotiate with, I always viewed England, France, Spain, and Portugal as crucial; the first two because of their American territories, and the latter two for their influence in Europe and America. Spain is negotiating in America and is likely to offer a favorable treaty. Portugal seems inclined to do the same. France isn’t negotiating. It’s quite possible she prefers to control things herself. Meanwhile, she does give us access to her West Indies, which, although not everything we desire, is still very valuable to us. This access is significantly impacted by the recent Arrêts from September 18th and 25th, which I’ve enclosed for you. I see these as a response to the navigation acts from Massachusetts and New Hampshire. The minister has officially complained to me about these acts, saying they deviate from the reciprocity agreed upon in the treaty. I assured him that his complaints would be passed on to Congress and pointed out that the idea of treating foreigners and natives differently was first shown in the Arrêt from August 1784, and even more so by those from September 18th and 25th, which effectively block our fish from their islands. However, it’s better for both sides to reconsider their actions. I hope this country didn’t intend these as permanent rules. Mr. Bingham, who just returned from Holland, tells me the Dutch are quite unhappy with these acts. In fact, I expect that the European nations will unite against such an attempt and initiate a widespread trade war against us. They can manage without most of our goods except tobacco, and we can’t easily find other markets for them. England's selfishness alone won’t justify us risking a conflict of this nature with all of Europe. Spain, Portugal, and France haven’t closed their doors on us yet; it will only be time to take up the commercial fight when they do. Therefore, I hope those states will repeal their navigation provisions, except those targeting Great Britain and any nations that aren’t negotiating with us.
I have made the inquiries you desire, as to American ship-timber for this country. You know they sent some person (whose name was not told us) to America, to examine the quality of our masts, spars, &c. I think this was young Chaumont’s business. They have, besides this, instructed the officer who superintends their supplies of masts, spars, foe., to procure good quantities from our northern States; but I think they have made no contract: on the contrary, that they await the trials projected, but with a determination to look to us for considerable supplies, if they find our timber answer. They have on the carpet a contract for live-oak from the southern States.
I've looked into what you wanted regarding American ship timber for this country. You know they sent someone (whose name we weren't told) to America to check the quality of our masts, spars, etc. I believe this was young Chaumont’s job. They've also instructed the officer in charge of their mast and spar supplies to get a good amount from our northern States; however, I don’t think they’ve made any contracts yet. Instead, they seem to be waiting for the planned tests, but they are determined to rely on us for a significant amount of supplies if our timber meets their standards. They’re also considering a contract for live oak from the southern States.
You ask why the Virginia merchants do not learn to sort their own tobaccos? They can sort them as well as any other merchants whatever. Nothing is better known than the quality of every hogshead of tobacco, from the place of its growth. They know, too, the particular qualities required in every market. They do not send their tobaccos, therefore, to London to be sorted, but to pay their debts: and though they could send them to other markets and remit the money to London, yet they find it necessary to give their English merchant the benefit of the consignment of the tobacco (which is enormously gainful), in order to induce him to continue his indulgence for the balance due.
You’re wondering why the Virginia merchants don’t sort their own tobacco? They’re just as capable of sorting it as any other merchants. Everyone knows the quality of each hogshead of tobacco based on where it was grown. They also understand the specific qualities needed for each market. So, they don’t send their tobacco to London just to be sorted, but to pay off their debts. Even though they could send it to other markets and wire the money back to London, they find it essential to give their English merchant the advantage of handling the tobacco (which is extremely profitable) to encourage him to keep being lenient about the outstanding balance.
Is it impossible to persuade our countrymen to make peace with the Nova Scotians? I am persuaded nothing is wanting but advances on our part; and that it is in our power to draw off the greatest proportion of that settlement, and thus to free ourselves from rivals who may become of consequence. We are, at present, co-operating with Great Britain, whose policy it is to give aliment to that bitter enmity between her States and ours, which may secure her against their ever joining us. But would not the existence of a cordial friendship between us and them, be the best bridle we could possibly put into the mouth of England?
Is it impossible to convince our fellow citizens to make peace with the Nova Scotians? I believe that all we need to do is take the first step; it’s within our power to draw a significant portion of that settlement away, freeing ourselves from rivals who could become a real threat. Right now, we’re working with Great Britain, whose strategy is to keep feeding that deep-seated hostility between our states and theirs, which helps prevent any alliance. But wouldn’t a genuine friendship between us and them be the best way to keep England in check?
With respect to the Danish business, you will observe that the instructions of Congress, article 3, of October the 29th, 1783, put it entirely into the hands of the Ministers Plenipotentiary of the United States of America at the court of Versailles, empower to to negotiate a peace, or to any one or more of them. At that time, I did not come under this description. I had received the permission of Congress to decline coming, in the spring preceding that date. On the first day of November, 1783, that is to say, two days after the date of the instructions to the commissioners, Congress recommended John Paul Jones to the Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States, at Versailles, as agent, to solicit, under his direction, the payment of all prizes taken in Europe under his command. But the object under their view, at that time, was assuredly the money due from the court of Versailles, for the prizes taken in the expedition by the Bon-homme Richard, the Alliance, &c. In this business, I have aided him effectually, having obtained a definitive order for paying the money to him, and a considerable proportion being actually paid him. But they could not mean by their resolution of November the 1st, to take from the commissioners, powers which they had given them two days before. If there could remain a doubt that this whole power has resulted to you, it would be cleared up by the instructions of May the 7th, 1784, article 9, which declare, ‘that these instructions be considered as supplementary to those of October the 29th, 1783, and not as revoking, except where they contradict them;’ which shows that they considered the instructions of October the 29th, 1783, as still in full force. I do not give you the trouble of this discussion, to save myself the trouble of the negotiation. I should have no objections to this part: but it is to avoid the impropriety of meddling in a matter wherein I am unauthorized to act, and where any thing I should pretend to conclude with the court of Denmark, might have the appearance of a deception on them. Should it be in my power to render any service in it, I shall do it with cheerfulness; but I repeat, that I think you are the only person authorized.
Regarding the Danish business, you’ll notice that the instructions from Congress, article 3, dated October 29, 1783, completely placed it in the hands of the Ministers Plenipotentiary of the United States of America at the court of Versailles, empowered to negotiate a peace, or to any one or more of them. At that time, I didn’t fall under this description. I had received permission from Congress to decline attending in the spring before that date. On November 1, 1783, just two days after the instructions were issued to the commissioners, Congress recommended John Paul Jones to the Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States at Versailles as an agent to seek, under his direction, payment for all prizes taken in Europe under his command. However, their primary focus at that moment was undoubtedly the funds owed from the court of Versailles for the prizes captured during the expedition of the Bon-homme Richard, the Alliance, etc. I effectively assisted him in this matter, securing a definitive order for him to receive the payment, with a significant amount already paid to him. Nevertheless, their resolution on November 1st could not have intended to strip the commissioners of the powers granted to them just two days prior. If any doubt remains about whether this entire authority has been transferred to you, it would be clarified by the instructions from May 7, 1784, article 9, which states, ‘that these instructions are to be considered supplemental to those of October 29, 1783, and not revoking them, except where they contradict;’ indicating that they regarded the October 29, 1783 instructions as still fully effective. I’m not bringing up this discussion to escape the negotiation. I wouldn’t mind participating in that aspect; however, it’s to avoid the inappropriateness of interfering in a matter where I’m not authorized to act, and anything I might attempt to conclude with the court of Denmark could seem deceptive to them. If it’s within my power to be of any help in this, I would gladly do so; but I reiterate that I believe you are the only one authorized.
I received, a few days ago, the Nuova Minuta of Tuscany, which Colonel Humphreys will deliver you. I have been so engaged that I have not been able to go over it with any attention. I observe, in general, that the order of the articles is entirely deranged, and their diction almost totally changed. When you shall have examined it, if you will be so good as to send me your observations by post, in cipher, I will communicate with you in the same way, and try to mature this matter.
I received the Nuova Minuta of Tuscany a few days ago, which Colonel Humphreys will deliver to you. I've been so busy that I haven’t been able to review it closely. I notice, overall, that the order of the articles is completely messed up, and their wording has changed almost entirely. Once you’ve looked it over, if you could please send me your thoughts by mail, in code, I will respond in the same way and work to refine this matter.
The deaths of the Dukes of Orleans and Praslin, will probably reach you through the channel of the public papers, before this letter does. Your friends the Abbes are well, and always speak of you with affection. Colonel Humphreys comes to pass some time in London. My curiosity would render a short trip thither agreeable to me also, but I see no probability of taking it. I will trouble you with my respects to Dr. Price. Those to Mrs. Adams, I witness in a letter to herself.
The deaths of the Dukes of Orleans and Praslin will probably reach you through the news before this letter does. Your friends, the Abbés, are doing well and always speak of you fondly. Colonel Humphreys is coming to spend some time in London. I’m curious and would enjoy a short trip there too, but I don't see any chance of making it. Please send my regards to Dr. Price. I’ll express my feelings to Mrs. Adams in a letter to her.
I am, with very great esteem, Dear Sir,
I am, with great respect, Dear Sir,
your most obedient
your most devoted
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CXXXVI.—TO THE COUNT DE VERGENNES, November 20, 1785
TO THE COUNT DE VERGENNES.
To Count de Vergennes.
Paris, November 20, 1785.
Paris, November 20, 1785.
Sir,
Sir,
I found here, on my return from Fontainebleau, the letter of October the 30th, which your Excellency did me the honor there of informing me had been addressed to me at this place; and I shall avail myself of the first occasion of transmitting it to Congress, who will receive, with great pleasure; these new assurances of the friendly sentiments, which his Majesty is pleased to continue towards the United States.
I found here, on my return from Fontainebleau, the letter dated October 30th, which your Excellency kindly informed me had been sent to me at this location; I will take the first opportunity to forward it to Congress, who will be very pleased to receive these new assurances of the friendly feelings that his Majesty continues to hold towards the United States.
I am equally persuaded they will pay the most serious attention to that part of your Excellency’s letter, which mentions the information you have received of certain acts or regulations of navigation and commerce, passed in some of the United States, which are injurious to the commerce of France. In the mean time, I wish to remove the unfavorable impressions which those acts seem to have made, as if they were a departure from the reciprocity of conduct, stipulated for by the treaty of February the 6th, 1776. The effect of that treaty is, to place each party with the other, always on the footing of the most favored nation. But those who framed the acts, probably did not consider the treaty as restraining either from discriminating between foreigners and natives. Yet this is the sole effect of these acts. The same opinion, as to the meaning of the treaty, seems to have been entertained by this government, both before and since the date of these acts. For the Arrêt of the King’s Council, of August the 30th, 1784, furnished an example of such a discrimination between foreigners and natives, importing salted fish into his Majesty’s dominions in the West Indies; by laying a duty on that imported, by foreigners, and giving out the same, in bounty, to native importers. This opinion shows itself more remarkably in the late Arrêts of the 18th and 25th of September, which, increasing to excess the duty on foreign importations of fish into the West Indies, giving the double, in bounty, on those of natives, and thereby rendering it impossible for the former to sell in competition with the latter, have, in effect, prohibited the importation of that article by the citizens of the United States.
I am equally convinced that they will pay serious attention to that part of your Excellency’s letter, which mentions the information you’ve received about certain acts or regulations regarding navigation and commerce passed in some of the United States that harm France's trade. In the meantime, I want to address the negative impressions that those acts seem to have created, as if they were a departure from the reciprocity of conduct agreed upon in the treaty of February 6, 1776. The effect of that treaty is to keep each party on equal footing with the other, always treating them as the most favored nation. However, those who created the acts probably didn't consider the treaty to prevent them from distinguishing between foreigners and natives. Yet this is exactly what these acts do. The same understanding of the treaty's meaning seems to have been held by this government, both before and after these acts were established. The Arrêt of the King’s Council, from August 30, 1784, provided an example of such a distinction between foreigners and natives importing salted fish into his Majesty’s territories in the West Indies, by imposing a duty on that imported by foreigners and providing the same amount as a bounty to native importers. This perspective is even more evident in the recent Arrêts from September 18 and 25, which excessively increased the duty on foreign fish imports into the West Indies, while giving double the bounty to those from natives, making it impossible for the former to compete with the latter, effectively prohibiting the importation of that item by the citizens of the United States.
Both nations, perhaps, may come into the opinion, that their friendship and their interests may be better cemented, by approaching the condition of their citizens, reciprocally, to that of natives, as a better ground of intercourse than that of the most favored nation. I shall rest with hopes of being authorized, in due time, to inform your Excellency that nothing will be wanting, on our part, to evince a disposition to concur in revising whatever regulations may, on either side, bear hard on the commerce of the other nation. In the mean time I have the honor to assure you of the profound respect and esteem, with which
Both countries might come to believe that their friendship and interests would be better strengthened by aligning the conditions of their citizens more closely with those of natives, as this could provide a better foundation for interaction than that of the most favored nation. I hope to be able, in due time, to inform your Excellency that we are fully committed to showing our willingness to revise any regulations that may negatively impact the trade of either nation. In the meantime, I have the honor to assure you of the deep respect and admiration with which
I have the honor to be,
I’m honored to be,
your Excellency’s
your Excellency
most obedient and most humble servant,
most devoted and humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CXXXVII.—TO LISTER ASQUITH, November 23, 1785
TO LISTER ASQUITH.
To Lister Asquith.
Paris, November 23, 1785.
Paris, Nov 23, 1785.
Sir,
Sir,
I have received your letter of the 14th instant. It was not till the 8th of this month, that I could obtain information from any quarter, of the particular court in which your prosecution was instituted, and the ground on which it was founded. I then received it through the hands of Monsieur Desbordes, at Brest. I have sent to the Count de Vergennes a statement of your case, of which the enclosed is a copy. I wish you would read it over, and if there be any fact stated in it, which is wrong, let me know it, that I may have it corrected. I at the same time wrote him an urgent letter in your behalf. I have daily expected an answer, which has occasioned my deferring writing to you. The moment I receive one, you may be assured of my communicating it to you. My hopes are, that I may obtain from the King a discharge of the persons of all of you: but, probably, your vessel and cargo must go through a process. I have sincerely sympathized with your misfortunes, and have taken every step in my power to get into the right line for obtaining relief. If it will add any comfort to your situation and that of your companions, to be assured that I never lose sight of your sufferings, and leave nothing undone to extricate you, you have that assurance. I am, Sir,
I got your letter dated the 14th of this month. It wasn't until the 8th of this month that I could get any information about the specific court where your case was filed and the basis for it. I received this information from Monsieur Desbordes in Brest. I have sent a summary of your case to Count de Vergennes, and I've enclosed a copy for you to review. Please read it over, and if there's any incorrect information, let me know so I can fix it. I also sent him an urgent letter on your behalf. I've been waiting for a response, which is why I haven't written to you sooner. As soon as I hear back, I promise to let you know. I hope to get the King to release all of you, but your ship and cargo might have to go through some legal process first. I've truly felt for your situation and have done everything I can to help you find relief. If it helps you and your companions to know that I’m always thinking about your struggles and trying hard to get you out of this, then consider that assured. I am, Sir,
your very humble servant,
your humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CXXXVIII.—TO JOHN ADAMS, November 27, 1785
TO JOHN ADAMS.
To John Adams.
Paris, November 27, 1785.
Paris, November 27, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
Your favor of the 5th came to hand yesterday, and Colonel Smith and Colonel Humphreys (by whom you will receive one of the 19th from me) being to set out to-morrow, I hasten to answer it. I sincerely rejoice that Portugal is stepping forward in the business of treaty, and that there is a probability that we may at length do something under our commissions, which may produce a solid benefit to our constituents. I as much rejoice, that it is not to be negotiated through the medium of the torpid, uninformed machine, at first made use of. I conjecture, from your relation of the conference with the Chevalier de Pinto, that he is well informed and sensible. So much the better. It is one of those cases, where the better the interests of the two parties are understood, the broader will be the basis on which they will connect them.
Your letter from the 5th arrived yesterday, and since Colonel Smith and Colonel Humphreys (who will deliver one of my letters from the 19th) are leaving tomorrow, I’m hurrying to respond. I’m really glad that Portugal is moving forward with the treaty, and there's a chance we might finally do something with our commissions that could bring real benefits to our constituents. I'm also pleased that it won’t be negotiated through that slow, outdated method that was initially used. From your description of the meeting with the Chevalier de Pinto, it sounds like he’s well-informed and sensible. That’s great news. The better both parties understand each other's interests, the stronger the foundation will be for their connection.
To the very judicious observations on the subjects of the conference, which were made by you, I have little to add.
To your very thoughtful observations on the topics discussed in the conference, I have little to add.
Flour. It may be observed, that we can sell them the flour ready manufactured, for much less than the wheat of which it is made. In carrying to them wheat, we carry also the bran, which does not pay its own freight. In attempting to save and transport wheat to them, much is lost by the weavil, and much spoiled by heat in the hold of the vessel. This loss must be laid on the wheat which gets safe to market, where it is paid for by the consumer. Now, this is much more than the cost of manufacturing it with us, which would prevent that loss. I suppose the cost of manufacturing does not exceed seven per cent, on the value. But the loss by the weavil, and other damage on ship-board, amount to much more. Let them buy of us as much wheat as will make a hundred weight of flour. They will find that they have paid more for the wheat, than we should have asked for the flour, besides having lost the labor of their mills in grinding it. The obliging us, therefore, to carry it to them in the form of wheat, is a useless loss to both parties.
Flour. It's clear that we can sell them flour that's already made for much less than the price of the wheat it's made from. When we transport wheat to them, we also include the bran, which doesn't cover its own shipping costs. In trying to save and transport wheat, a lot gets damaged by weevils and spoiled by heat in the ship's hold. This loss has to be accounted for in the wheat that actually reaches the market, which the consumer pays for. This cost is far higher than the expense of processing it here, which would help avoid that loss. I estimate the manufacturing cost doesn't go over seven percent of the value. However, the damage from weevils and other issues on the ship is much greater. If they buy enough wheat from us to produce a hundred pounds of flour, they'll find they've spent more on the wheat than we would have charged for the flour, not to mention losing the effort of their mills grinding it. So, forcing us to ship it as wheat results in unnecessary losses for both sides.
Iron. They will get none from us. We cannot make it in competition with Sweden, or any other nation of Europe, where labor is so much cheaper.
Iron. They won’t get any from us. We can’t produce it competitively with Sweden or any other country in Europe, where labor is much cheaper.
Wines. The strength of the wines of Portugal will give them always an almost exclusive possession of a country, where the summers are so hot as in America. The present demand will be very great, if they will enable us to pay for them; but if they consider the extent and rapid population of the United States, they must see that the time is not distant, when they will not be able to make enough for us, and that it is of great importance to avail themselves of the prejudices already established in favor of their wines, and to continue them, by facilitating the purchase. Let them do this, and they need not care for the decline of their use in England. They will be independent of that country.
Wines. The quality of Portuguese wines will always give them a strong hold in a country where summers are as hot as in America. The current demand will be very high if they allow us to afford them; however, considering the vast and rapidly growing population of the United States, they must realize that it won’t be long before they can't produce enough for us. It’s crucial for them to leverage the existing positive opinions about their wines and to maintain this momentum by making purchases easier. If they do this, they won’t need to worry about a decline in their popularity in England. They will become independent of that country.
Salt. I do not know where the northern States supplied themselves with salt, but the southern ones took great quantities from Portugal.
Salt. I don’t know where the northern states got their salt, but the southern ones imported large amounts from Portugal.
Cotton and Wool. The southern States will take manufactures, of both: the northern, will take both the manufactures and raw materials.
Cotton and Wool. The southern states will take manufactured goods from both, while the northern states will take both the manufactured goods and raw materials.
East India goods of every kind. Philadelphia and New York have begun a trade to the East Indies. Perhaps Boston may follow their example. But their importations will be sold only to the country adjacent to them. For a long time to come, the States south of the Delaware, will not engage in a direct commerce with the East Indies. They neither have nor will have ships or seamen for their other commerce: nor will they buy East India goods of the northern States. Experience shows that the States never bought foreign goods of one another. The reasons are, that they would, in so doing, pay double freight and charges; and again, that they would have to pay mostly in cash, what they could obtain for commodities in Europe. I know that the American merchants have looked, with some anxiety, to the arrangements to be taken with Portugual, in expectation that they could, through her, get their East India articles on better and more convenient terms; and I am of opinion, Portugal will come in for a good share of this traffic with the southern States, if they facilitate our payments.
East India goods of all kinds. Philadelphia and New York have started trading with the East Indies. Perhaps Boston will follow their lead. However, their imports will only be sold to the nearby areas. For the foreseeable future, the states south of Delaware won’t engage in direct trade with the East Indies. They lack ships and sailors for their other trades, and they won’t buy East India goods from the northern states. Experience shows that states generally don’t purchase foreign goods from each other. The reasons are that doing so would mean paying double for shipping and fees, plus they would mostly have to pay in cash for what they could obtain in Europe with commodities. I know that American merchants have been anxiously watching the arrangements being made with Portugal, hoping they could get their East India items on better and more convenient terms through them. I believe Portugal will capture a good portion of this trade with the southern states if they help facilitate our payments.
Coffee. Can they not furnish us with this article from Brazil?
Coffee. Can't they provide us with this product from Brazil?
Sugar. The Brazil sugars are esteemed, with us, more than any other.
Sugar. The Brazilian sugars are valued by us more than any others.
Chocolate. This article, when ready made, as also the cocoa, becomes so soon rancid, and the difficulties of getting it fresh, have been so great in America, that its use has spread but little. The way to increase its consumption would be, to permit it to be brought to us immediately from the country of its growth. By getting it good in quality, and cheap in price, the superiority of the article, both for health and nourishment, will soon give it the same preference over tea and coffee in America, which it has in Spain, where they can get it by a single voyage, and, of course, while it is sweet. The use of the sugars, coffee, and cotton of Brazil, would also be much extended by a similar indulgence.
Chocolate. This product, once prepared, as well as cocoa, goes bad quickly, and the challenges of getting it fresh in America have been so significant that its use hasn't expanded much. To boost its consumption, we should allow it to be imported directly from the country where it’s grown. By ensuring it’s high-quality and reasonably priced, its advantages for health and nutrition will soon make it as popular as tea and coffee in America, just as it is in Spain, where they can obtain it through a single shipment while it’s still fresh. The use of sugar, coffee, and cotton from Brazil would also see considerable growth with similar support.
Ginger and spices from the Brazils, if they had the advantage of a direct transportation, might take place of the same articles from the East Indies.
Ginger and spices from Brazil, if they had the benefit of direct transportation, could replace the same products from the East Indies.
Ginseng. We can furnish them with enough to supply their whole demand for the East Indies.
Ginseng. We can provide them with enough to meet their entire demand for the East Indies.
They should be prepared to expect, that in the beginning of this commerce, more money will be taken by us than after a while. The reasons are, that our heavy debt to Great Britain must be paid, before we shall be masters of our own returns; and again, that habits of using particular things are produced only by time and practice.
They should be ready to expect that at the start of this trade, we will take in more money than later on. The reasons are that we have to pay off our large debt to Great Britain before we can control our own profits, and also that habits of using specific items are developed only through time and experience.
That as little time as possible may be lost in this negotiation, I will communicate to you at once, my sentiments as to the alterations in the draught sent them, which will probably be proposed by them, or which ought to be proposed by us, noting only those articles.
That as little time as possible is wasted in this negotiation, I will share my thoughts on the changes in the draft sent to them right away, which they will probably suggest or which we should suggest, mentioning only those items.
Article 3. They will probably restrain us to their dominions in Europe. We must expressly include the Azores, Madeiras, and Cape de Verde Islands, some of which are deemed to be in Africa. We should also contend for an access to their possessions in America, according to the gradation in the 2nd article of our instructions, of May the 7th, 1784. But if we can obtain it in no one of these forms, I am of opinion we should give it up.
Article 3. They will likely confine us to their territories in Europe. We need to specifically mention the Azores, Madeiras, and Cape Verde Islands, some of which are considered part of Africa. We should also argue for access to their holdings in America, as outlined in the second article of our instructions from May 7, 1784. However, if we can't secure it in any of these ways, I believe we should let it go.
Article 4. This should be put into the form we gave it, in the draught sent you by Dr. Franklin and myself, for Great Britain. I think we had not reformed this article, when we sent our draught to Portugal. You know, the Confederation renders the reformation absolutely necessary; a circumstance which had escaped us at first.
Article 4. This should be put into the form we provided, in the draft sent to you by Dr. Franklin and me, for Great Britain. I believe we had not updated this article when we sent our draft to Portugal. As you know, the Confederation makes the update absolutely necessary; this was something we overlooked at first.
Article 9. Add, from the British draught, the clause about wrecks.
Article 9. Add the clause about wrecks from the British draft.
Article 13. The passage ‘nevertheless,’ &c. to run as in the British draught.
Article 13. The phrase 'nevertheless,' etc. should be written as in the British draft.
Article 18. After the word ‘accident,’ insert ‘or wanting supplies of provisions or other refreshments.’ And again, instead of ‘take refuge,’ insert ‘come,’ and after ‘of the other,’ insert ‘in any part of the world.’ The object of this is to obtain leave for our whaling vessels to refit and refresh on the coast of the Brazils; an object of immense importance to that class of our vessels. We must acquiesce under such modifications as they may think necessary for regulating this indulgence, in hopes to lessen them in time, and to get a pied a terre in that country.
Article 18. After the word ‘accident,’ add ‘or in need of supplies of provisions or other refreshments.’ And again, instead of ‘take refuge,’ use ‘come,’ and after ‘of the other,’ add ‘in any part of the world.’ The purpose of this is to get permission for our whaling ships to refit and rest on the coast of Brazil; this is extremely important for that type of vessel. We must agree to any changes they consider necessary for managing this allowance, hoping to reduce them over time and establish a foothold in that country.
Article 19. Can we get this extended to the Brazils? It would be precious in case of war with Spain.
Article 19. Can we extend this to Brazil? It would be invaluable in the event of a war with Spain.
Article 23. Between ‘places’ and ‘whose,’ insert ‘and in general, all others,’ as in the British draught.
Article 23. Between ‘places’ and ‘whose,’ insert ‘and in general, all others,’ as in the British draft.
Article 24. For ‘necessaries,’ substitute ‘comforts.’
Article 24. For ‘necessaries,’ substitute ‘comforts.’
Article 25. Add ‘but if any such consuls shall exercise commerce,’ &c. as in the British draught.
Article 25. Add 'but if any such consuls engage in commerce,' &c. as in the British draft.
We should give to Congress as early notice as possible, of the re-institution of this negotiation; because, in a letter by a gentleman who sailed from Havre, the 10th instant, I communicated to them the answer of the Portuguese minister, through the ambassador here, which I sent to you. They may, in consequence, be making other arrangements, which might do injury. The little time which now remains, of the continuance of our commissions, should also be used with the Chevalier de Pinto, to hasten the movements of his court.
We should notify Congress as soon as possible about the restart of this negotiation, because, in a letter from a gentleman who departed from Havre on the 10th of this month, I shared with them the Portuguese minister's response, given through the ambassador here, which I sent to you. As a result, they might be making other plans that could be harmful. The short time we have left for our commissions should also be used with Chevalier de Pinto to speed up his court’s actions.
But all these preparations for trade with Portugal will fail in their effect, unless the depredations of the Algerines can be prevented. I am far from confiding in the measures taken for this purpose. Very possibly war must be recurred to. Portugal is at war with them. Suppose the Chevalier de Pinto was to be sounded on the subject of an union of force, and even a stipulation for contributing each a certain force, to be kept in constant cruise. Such a league once begun, other nations would drop into it, one by one. If he should seem to approve it, it might then be suggested to Congress, who, if they should be forced to try the measure of war, would doubtless be glad of such an ally. As the Portuguese negotiation should be hastened, I suppose our communications must often be trusted to the post, availing ourselves of the cover of our cipher.
But all these preparations for trade with Portugal will be pointless unless we can stop the raids by the Algerians. I'm not confident in the actions taken to address this. It's very likely that we’ll need to resort to war. Portugal is already at war with them. What if we reached out to the Chevalier de Pinto about the idea of joining forces, and even discussed agreeing to contribute a specific military force to be on constant patrol? Once that alliance starts, other countries would likely join in one by one. If he seems open to it, we could then present the idea to Congress, which would surely appreciate having such an ally if they feel compelled to consider war. As we should expedite the negotiations with Portugal, I think we’ll need to rely on the mail frequently, using our cipher for security.
I am, with sincere esteem, Dear Sir,
I am, with genuine respect, Dear Sir,
your friend and servant,
your friend and servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Th: Jefferson.
LETTER CXXXIX.—TO COLONEL HUMPHREYS, December 4,1785
TO COLONEL HUMPHREYS.
To Colonel Humphreys.
Paris, December 4,1785.
Paris, December 4, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
I enclose you a letter from Gatteaux, observing that there will be an anachronism, if, in making a medal to commemorate the victory of Saratoga, he puts on General Gates the insignia of the Cincinnati, which did not exist at that date. I wrote him, in answer, that I thought so too, but that you had the direction of the business; that you were now in London; that I would write to you, and probably should have an answer within a fortnight; and that, in the mean time, he could be employed on other parts of the die. I supposed you might not have observed on the print of General Gates, the insignia of the Cincinnati, or did not mean that that particular should be copied. Another reason against it strikes me. Congress have studiously avoided giving to the public their sense of this institution. Should medals be prepared, to be presented from them to certain officers, and bearing on them the insignia of the order, as the presenting them would involve an approbation of the institution, a previous question would be forced on them, whether they would present these medals. I am of opinion it would be very disagreeable to them to be placed under the necessity of making this declaration. Be so good as to let me know your wishes on this subject by the first post.
I’m sending you a letter from Gatteaux, noting that it would be out of place if, while creating a medal to commemorate the victory at Saratoga, he includes General Gates with the insignia of the Cincinnati, which didn’t exist at that time. I replied to him that I agreed, but that you were in charge of the matter; that you were currently in London; that I would reach out to you, and I would likely have a response within two weeks; and that in the meantime, he could work on other parts of the die. I figured you might not have noticed the Cincinnati insignia on the print of General Gates or didn’t intend for that specific detail to be replicated. Another reason against it comes to mind. Congress has carefully avoided expressing their opinion on this institution. If medals are prepared to be given from them to certain officers featuring the insignia of the order, presenting these would imply their support of the institution, which would force a prior question: would they actually present these medals? I believe it would be quite uncomfortable for them to be put in the position of having to make this declaration. Please let me know your thoughts on this matter as soon as possible.
Mr. Short has been sick ever since you left us. Nothing new has occurred here, since your departure. I imagine you have American news. If so, pray give us some. Present me affectionately to Mr. Adams and the ladies, and to Colonel Smith; and be assured of the esteem with which I am, Dear Sir,
Mr. Short has been unwell ever since you left us. Nothing new has happened here since you departed. I assume you have some news from America. If so, please share it with us. Give my best to Mr. Adams and the ladies, as well as to Colonel Smith; and know that I hold you in high regard, Dear Sir,
your friend and servant,
your friend and servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CXL.—TO JOHN ADAMS, December 10, 1785
TO JOHN ADAMS,
TO JOHN ADAMS,
Paris, December 10, 1785.
Paris, Dec 10, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Dear [Name],
On the arrival of Mr. Boylston, I carried him to the Marquis de la Fayette, who received from him communications of his object. This was to get a remission of the duties on his cargo of oil, and he was willing to propose a future contract. I suggested however to the Marquis, when we were alone, that instead of wasting our efforts on individual applications, we had better take up the subject on general ground, and whatever could be obtained, let it be common to all. He concurred with me. As the jealousy of office between ministers does not permit me to apply immediately to the one in whose department this was, the Marquis’s agency was used. The result was to put us on the footing of the Hanseatic towns, as to whale-oil, and to reduce the duties to eleven livres and five sols for five hundred and twenty pounds French, which is very nearly two livres on the English hundred weight, or about a guinea and a half the ton. But the oil must be brought in American or French ships, and the indulgence is limited to one year. However, as to this, I expressed to Count de Vergennes my hopes that it would be continued; and should a doubt arise, I should propose, at the proper time, to claim it under the treaty on the footing gentis amicissimæ. After all, I believe Mr. Boylston has failed of selling to Sangrain, and from what I learn, through a little too much hastiness of temper. Perhaps they may yet come together, or he may sell to somebody else.
Upon Mr. Boylston's arrival, I took him to the Marquis de la Fayette, who received from him information about his purpose. This was to get a reduction of the duties on his oil shipment, and he was open to proposing a future contract. However, when we were alone, I suggested to the Marquis that instead of focusing on individual requests, we should tackle the issue on a broader scale, and whatever we could secure should be applicable to everyone. He agreed with me. Since the rivalry between ministers prevents me from approaching the one responsible for this directly, we used the Marquis’s influence. The outcome was that we were granted the same terms as the Hanseatic towns regarding whale oil, with the duties reduced to eleven livres and five sols for five hundred and twenty pounds French, which is roughly two livres per English hundredweight, or about a guinea and a half per ton. However, the oil must be transported in American or French ships, and this arrangement is only valid for one year. Still, I conveyed to Count de Vergennes my hopes that it would be extended; and if any doubts arise, I intend to claim it under the treaty on the basis of gentis amicissimæ. Ultimately, I believe Mr. Boylston has been unsuccessful in selling to Sangrain, reportedly due to a bit of impatience. There’s still a chance they might find an agreement, or he could sell to someone else.
When the general matter was thus arranged, a Mr. Barrett arrived here from Boston, with letters of recommendation from Governor Bowdoin, Gushing, and others. His errand was to get the whale business here put on a general bottom, instead of the particular one which had been settled, you know, the last year, for a special company. We told him what was done. He thinks it will answer, and proposes to settle at L’Orient for conducting the sales of the oil and the returns. I hope, therefore, that this matter is tolerably well fixed, as far as the consumption of this country goes. I know not as yet to what amount that is; but shall endeavor to find out how much they consume, and how much they furnish themselves. I propose to Mr. Barrett, that he should induce either his State, or individuals, to send a sufficient number of boxes of the spermaceti candle to give one to every leading house in Paris; I mean to those who lead the ton: and at the same time to deposite a quantity for sale here, and advertise them in the petites affiches. I have written to Mr. Carmichael to know on what footing the use and introduction of the whale-oil is there, or can be placed.
When everything was settled, a Mr. Barrett arrived here from Boston with letters of recommendation from Governor Bowdoin, Cushing, and others. His goal was to reorganize the whale business here on a broader scale instead of the specific arrangement made last year for a special company. We informed him of what had been done. He believes it will work well and plans to settle in L’Orient to manage the sales of the oil and the returns. Therefore, I hope this matter is reasonably well settled regarding the consumption in this country. I don’t yet know how much that is, but I will try to find out their consumption and how much they provide for themselves. I suggested to Mr. Barrett that he should persuade either his state or individuals to send enough boxes of spermaceti candles to give one to each leading household in Paris, specifically to those who are in high society. At the same time, he should leave a stock for sale here and advertise them in the petites affiches. I've written to Mr. Carmichael to find out about how whale oil is used and introduced there.
I have the honor to be, with very sincere esteem, Dear Sir,
I am honored to be, with great respect, Dear Sir,
your most obedient, humble servant,
your most obedient servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Th: Jefferson.
LETTER CXLI.—TO JOHN ADAMS, December 11, 1785
TO JOHN ADAMS.
To John Adams.
Paris, December 11, 1785.
Paris, December 11, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Dear Mr./Ms.,
Baron Polnitz not going off till to-day enables me to add some information which I received from Mr. Barclay this morning. You know the immense amount of Beaumarchais’ accounts with the United States, and that Mr. Barclay was authorized to settle them. Beaumarchais had pertinaciously insisted on settling them with Congress. Probably he received from them a denial: for just as Mr. Barclay was about to set out on the journey we destined him, Beaumarchais tendered him a settlement. It was thought best not to refuse this, and that it would produce a very short delay. However, it becomes long, and Mr. Barclay thinks it will occupy him all this month. The importance of the account, and a belief that nobody can settle it so well as Mr. Barclay, who is intimately acquainted with most of the articles, induce me to think we must yield to this delay. Be so good as to give me your opinion on this subject.
Baron Polnitz not leaving until today allows me to share some information I received from Mr. Barclay this morning. You know about the huge amount of Beaumarchais’ accounts with the United States, and that Mr. Barclay was authorized to settle them. Beaumarchais has stubbornly insisted on settling directly with Congress. He probably received a refusal from them because just as Mr. Barclay was about to start the journey we planned for him, Beaumarchais offered him a settlement. It seemed best not to refuse this, thinking it would only cause a short delay. However, it has turned into a long one, and Mr. Barclay believes it will take him all month. Given the importance of the account and the belief that no one can settle it better than Mr. Barclay, who is well-acquainted with most of the details, I think we must accept this delay. Please let me know your thoughts on this matter.
I have the honor to be, with very great esteem, Dear Sir,
I have the honor to be, with great respect, Dear Sir,
your most obedient
your most loyal
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CXLII.—TO THE COUNT DE VERGENNES, December 21, 1785
TO THE COUNT DE VERGENNES.
TO COUNT DE VERGENNES.
Paris, December 21, 1785.
Paris, December 21, 1785.
Sir,
Hey,
I have received this moment a letter, of which I have the honor to enclose your Excellency a copy. It is on the case of Asquith and others, citizens of the United States, in whose behalf I had taken the liberty of asking your interference. I understand by this letter, that they have been condemned to lose their vessel and cargo, and to pay six thousand livres and the costs of the prosecution before the 25th instant, or to go to the galleys. This payment being palpably impossible to men in their situation, and the execution of the judgment pressing, I am obliged to trouble your Excellency again, by praying, if the government can admit any mitigation of their sentence, it may be extended to them in time to save their persons from its effect.
I just received a letter that I’m honored to enclose a copy of for your Excellency. It concerns the case of Asquith and others, citizens of the United States, about whom I took the liberty of asking for your assistance. From this letter, I understand that they have been sentenced to lose their ship and cargo, and to pay six thousand livres plus the prosecution costs by the 25th of this month, or they will be sent to the galleys. This payment is clearly impossible for them given their situation, and with the judgment about to be enforced, I must trouble your Excellency once again. I kindly request that if the government can consider any reduction of their sentence, it may be applied in time to protect them from its consequences.
I have the honor to be, with very great respect, your Excellency’s most obedient
I have the honor to be, with great respect, your Excellency’s most obedient
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CXLIII.—TO THE GOVERNOR OF GEORGIA, December 22, 1785
TO THE GOVERNOR OF GEORGIA.
To the Governor of Georgia.
Paris, December 22, 1785.
Paris, December 22, 1785.
Sir,
Hey there,
The death of the late General Oglethorpe, who had considerable possessions in Georgia, has given rise, as we understand, to questions whether these possessions have become the property of the State, or have been transferred by his will to his widow, or descended on the nearest heir capable in law of taking them. In the latter case, the Chevalier de Mezieres, a subject of France, stands foremost, as being made capable of the inheritance by the treaty between this country and the United States. Under the regal government, it was the practice with us, when lands passed to the crown by escheat or forfeiture, to grant them to such relation of the party as stood on the fairest ground. This was even a chartered right in some of the States. The practice has been continued among them, as deeming that the late Revolution should in no instance abridge the rights of the people. Should this have been the practice in the State of Georgia, or should they in any instance think proper to admit it, I am persuaded none will arise in which it will be more expedient to do it, than in the present, and that no person’s expectations should be fairer than those of the Chevalier de Mezieres. He is the nephew of General Oglethorpe, he is of singular personal merit, an officer of rank, of high connections, and patronized by the ministers. His case has drawn their attention, and seems to be considered as protected by the treaty of alliance, and as presenting a trial of our regard to that. Should these lands be considered as having passed to the State, I take the liberty of recommending him to the legislature of Georgia, as worthy of their generosity, and as presenting an opportunity of proving the favorable dispositions which exist throughout America towards the subjects of this country, and an opportunity too, which will probably be known and noted here.
The death of General Oglethorpe, who owned a significant amount of land in Georgia, has raised questions about whether this land now belongs to the State, has been passed on to his widow according to his will, or has gone to the closest legal heir. In the last case, Chevalier de Mezieres, a French citizen, would be the frontrunner, as the treaty between this country and the United States allows him to inherit. Historically, when lands were transferred to the crown due to escheat or forfeiture, we would grant them to the relative with the strongest claim. This was even a recognized right in some states. This practice has continued, with the belief that the recent Revolution should not weaken the rights of the people. If Georgia has maintained this practice, or should choose to adopt it, I believe there’s no better occasion than the current situation, and that no one has a stronger claim than Chevalier de Mezieres. He is General Oglethorpe's nephew, possesses remarkable personal qualities, holds a position of rank, has strong connections, and has the support of the ministers. His situation has caught their attention and appears to be protected by the treaty of alliance, marking a test of our commitment to that agreement. If these lands are seen as belonging to the State, I recommend him to the Georgia legislature as deserving of their generosity, providing a chance to demonstrate the goodwill that exists throughout America towards the subjects of this country—an opportunity that will likely be recognized and noted here.
In the several views, therefore, of personal merit, justice, generosity and policy, I presume to recommend the Chevalier de Mezieres, and his interests, to the notice and patronage of your Excellency, whom the choice of your country has sufficiently marked as possessing the dispositions, while it has at the same time given you the power, to befriend just claims. The Chevalier de Mezieres will pass over to Georgia in the ensuing spring; but should he find an opportunity, he will probably forward this letter sooner. I have the honor to be, with sentiments of the most profound respect,
In light of the various aspects of personal merit, fairness, kindness, and practicality, I would like to recommend the Chevalier de Mezieres and his interests for your Excellency's attention and support. Your country has clearly recognized you as someone who has both the disposition and the ability to advocate for just claims. The Chevalier de Mezieres will be heading to Georgia in the coming spring; however, if he finds the chance, he may send this letter sooner. I am honored to express my deepest respect,
your Excellency’s most obedient
your Excellency’s most respectful
and most humble servant,
your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CXLIV.—TO THE GEORGIA DELEGATES IN CONGRESS, Dec. 22, 1785
TO THE GEORGIA DELEGATES IN CONGRESS.
Paris, December 22, 1785.
Paris, December 22, 1785.
Gentlemen,
Guys,
By my despatch to Mr. Jay which accompanies this, you will perceive that the claims of the Chevalier de Mezieres, nephew to the late General Oglethorpe, to his possessions within your State, have attracted the attention of the ministry here; and that considering them as protected by their treaty with us, they have viewed as derogatory of that, the doubts which have been expressed on the subject. I have thought it best to present to them those claims in the least favorable point of view, to lessen as much as possible the ill effects of a disappointment: but I think it my duty to ask your notice and patronage of this case, as one whose decision will have an effect on the general interests of the Union.
By my message to Mr. Jay, which is included with this, you’ll see that the claims of the Chevalier de Mezieres, nephew to the late General Oglethorpe, regarding his properties in your State have caught the attention of the ministry here. They see these claims as protected by their treaty with us, and they've considered the doubts expressed about them as undermining that agreement. I thought it best to present these claims in the least favorable light to minimize the potential negative impact of a disappointment. However, I feel it’s my responsibility to bring this case to your attention and support, as its outcome will affect the overall interests of the Union.
The Chevalier de Mezieres is nephew to General Oglethorpe; he is a person of great estimation, powerfully related and protected. His interests are espoused by those whom it is our interest to gratify. I will take the liberty, therefore, of soliciting your recommendations of him to the generosity of your legislature, and to the patronage and good offices of your friends, whose efforts, though in a private case, will do a public good. The pecuniary advantages of confiscation, in this instance, cannot compensate its ill effects. It is difficult to make foreigners understand those legal distinctions between the effects of forfeiture of escheat, and of conveyance, on which the professors of the law might build their opinions in this case. They can see only the outlines of the case; to wit, the death of a possessor of lands lying within the United States, leaving an heir in France, and the State claiming those lands in opposition to the heir. An individual thinking himself injured makes more noise than a State. Perhaps too, in every case which either party to a treaty thinks to be within its provisions, it is better not to weigh the syllables and letters of the treaty, but to show that gratitude and affection render that appeal unnecessary. I take the freedom, therefore, of submitting to your wisdom the motives which present themselves in favor of a grant to the Chevalier de Mezieres, and the expediency of urging them on your State as far as you may think proper.
The Chevalier de Mezieres is the nephew of General Oglethorpe; he is a well-respected individual who is well-connected and supported. His interests align with those we want to please. Therefore, I would like to request that you recommend him to the kindness of your legislature and to the support and assistance of your friends, whose efforts, even in a personal matter, will benefit the public. The financial gains from confiscation in this case cannot outweigh its negative impacts. It's hard for foreigners to understand the legal differences between forfeiture, escheat, and conveyance, which legal experts might use to form their opinions in this situation. They can only see the basic facts: specifically, that a property owner in the United States has passed away, leaving an heir in France, and the State is claiming the property against the heir. An individual who feels wronged tends to make more noise than a State. Moreover, in any situation where either party to a treaty believes it applies, it’s often best not to dissect the treaty’s language but to demonstrate that gratitude and goodwill make that argument unnecessary. Therefore, I respectfully present to you the reasons in favor of a grant to the Chevalier de Mezieres and the need to promote this with your State as you see fit.
I have the honor to be, with sentiments of the highest respect, Gentlemen,
I am honored to be, with the utmost respect, Gentlemen,
your most obedient
your most loyal
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Th: Jefferson.
LETTER CXLV.—TO JOHN ADAMS, December 27, 1785
TO JOHN ADAMS.
To John Adams.
Paris, December 27, 1785.
Paris, Dec 27, 1785.
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
Your favors of the 13th and 20th were put into my hands today. This will be delivered to you by Mr. Dalrymple, secretary to the legation of Mr. Crawford. I do not know whether you were acquainted with him here. He is a young man of learning and candor, and exhibits a phenomenon I never before met with, that is, a republican born on the north side of the Tweed.
Your letters from the 13th and 20th were handed to me today. This will be delivered to you by Mr. Dalrymple, the secretary to Mr. Crawford's legation. I'm not sure if you knew him while he was here. He is a young man of knowledge and honesty, and he presents a rare case I've never encountered before: a republican born on the north side of the Tweed.
You have been consulted in the case of the Chevalier de Mezieres, nephew to General Oglethorpe, and are understood to have given an opinion derogatory of our treaty with France. I was also consulted, and understood in the same way. I was of opinion the Chevalier had no right to the estate, and as he had determined the treaty gave him a right, I suppose he made the inference for me, that the treaty was of no weight. The Count de Vergennes mentioned it to me in such a manner, that I found it was necessary to explain the case to him, and show him that the treaty had nothing to do with it. I enclose you a copy of the explanation I delivered him.
You were consulted about the Chevalier de Mezieres, the nephew of General Oglethorpe, and it's understood that you expressed a negative opinion regarding our treaty with France. I was also consulted and understood it the same way. I believe the Chevalier had no claim to the estate, and since he thought the treaty granted him rights, I assume he inferred, incorrectly, that the treaty held no value. The Count de Vergennes brought it up with me in a way that made it clear I needed to clarify the matter for him and demonstrate that the treaty was irrelevant. I’m enclosing a copy of the explanation I gave him.
Mr. Boylston sold his cargo to an agent of Monsieur Sangrain. He got for it fifty-five livres the hundred weight. I do not think that his being joined to a company here would contribute to its success. His capital is not wanting. Le Conteux has agreed that the merchants of Boston, sending whale-oil here, may draw-on him for a certain proportion of money, only giving such a time in their drafts, as will admit the actual arrival of the oil into a port of France for his security. Upon these drafts, Mr. Barrett is satisfied they will be able to raise money to make their purchases in America. The duty is seven livres and ten sols on the barrel of five hundred and twenty pounds French, and ten sous on every livre, which raises it to eleven livres and five sols, the sum I mentioned to you. France uses between five and six millions of pounds’ weight French, which is between three and four thousand tons English. Their own fisheries do not furnish one million, and there is no probability of their improving. Sangrain purchases himself upwards of a million. He tells me our oil is better than the Dutch or English, because we make it fresh; whereas they cut up the whale, and bring it home to be made, so that it is by that time entered into fermentation. Mr. Barrett says, that fifty livres the hundred weight will pay the prime cost and duties, and leave a profit of sixteen per cent, to the merchant. I hope that England will, within a year or two, be obliged to come here to buy whale-oil for her lamps.
Mr. Boylston sold his cargo to an agent of Monsieur Sangrain. He got fifty-five livres per hundredweight for it. I don’t think joining a company here would help his success. He has enough capital. Le Conteux has agreed that the merchants of Boston sending whale oil here can draw on him for a certain amount of money, only specifying a time in their drafts that ensures the oil actually arrives at a port in France for his security. Based on these drafts, Mr. Barrett believes they will be able to raise money to make their purchases in America. The duty is seven livres and ten sols on the barrel of five hundred and twenty pounds French, and ten sous on every livre, which increases it to eleven livres and five sols, the amount I mentioned to you. France uses between five and six million pounds of French weight, which is between three and four thousand English tons. Their own fisheries barely supply one million, and there’s no chance of that improving. Sangrain buys over a million himself. He tells me our oil is better than the Dutch or English because we produce it fresh; whereas they cut up the whale and bring it home to process, allowing it to start fermenting. Mr. Barrett says fifty livres per hundredweight will cover the prime cost and duties, and leave a profit of sixteen percent for the merchant. I hope that within a year or two, England will have to come here to buy whale oil for her lamps.
I like as little as you do, to have the gift of appointments. I hope Congress will not transfer the appointment of their consuls to their ministers. But if they do, Portugal is more naturally under the superintendence of the minister at Madrid, and still more naturally under that of the minister at Lisbon, where it is clear they ought to have one. If all my hopes fail, the letters of Governor Bowdoin and Gushing, in favor of young Mr. Warren, and your more detailed testimony in his behalf, are not likely to be opposed by evidence of equal weight, in favor of any other. I think with you, too, that it is for the public interest to encourage sacrifices and services, by rewarding them, and that they should weigh to a certain point, in the decision between candidates.
I don't like it any more than you do to have the responsibility of appointments. I hope Congress won't hand over the appointment of their consuls to their ministers. But if they do, Portugal would naturally fall under the supervision of the minister in Madrid, and even more so under the minister in Lisbon, where it’s clear they should have one. If all my hopes don't pan out, the letters from Governor Bowdoin and Gushing supporting young Mr. Warren, along with your more detailed testimony in his favor, are unlikely to be countered by equally strong evidence for any other candidate. I also agree that it’s in the public interest to honor sacrifices and services by rewarding them, and that should factor into the decision between candidates.
I am sorry for the illness of the Chevalier Pinto. I think that treaty important: and the moment to urge it, is that of a treaty between France and England.
I’m sorry to hear about the Chevalier Pinto’s illness. I believe that treaty is important, and the right time to push for it is during a treaty between France and England.
Lambe, who left this place the 6th of November, was at Madrid the 10th of this month. Since his departure, Mr. Barclay has discovered that no copies of the full powers were furnished to himself, nor of course to Lambe. Colonel Franks has prepared copies, which I will endeavor to get, to send by this conveyance for your attestation: which you will be so good as to send back by the first safe conveyance, and I will forward them. Mr. Barclay and Colonel Franks being at this moment at St. Germain, I am not sure of getting the papers in time to go by Mr. Dalrymple. In that case, I will send them by Mr. Bingham.
Lambe, who left this place on November 6th, arrived in Madrid on the 10th of this month. Since he left, Mr. Barclay has found out that neither he nor Lambe received copies of the full powers. Colonel Franks has prepared copies, which I will try to obtain and send for your approval with this delivery. Please be so kind as to send them back by the first safe delivery, and I will forward them. Since Mr. Barclay and Colonel Franks are currently in St. Germain, I’m not sure I’ll get the papers in time to send them with Mr. Dalrymple. If that happens, I’ll send them with Mr. Bingham.
Be so good as to present me affectionately to Mrs. and Miss Adams, to Colonels Smith and Humphreys, and accept assurances of the esteem with which I am, Dear Sir,
Be so kind as to send my warm regards to Mrs. and Miss Adams, as well as Colonels Smith and Humphreys, and please accept my assurance of the respect I have for you, Dear Sir,
your friend and servant,
your friend and servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CXLVI.—TO JOHN JAY, January 2,1786
TO JOHN JAY.
To John Jay.
Sir,
Hey,
Paris, January 2,1786
Paris, January 2, 1786
Several conferences and letters having passed between the Count de Vergennes and myself, on the subject of the commerce of this country with the United States, I think them sufficiently interesting to be communicated to Congress. They are stated in the form of a report, and are herein enclosed. The length of this despatch, perhaps, needs apology. Yet I have not been able to abridge it, without omitting circumstances which I thought Congress would rather choose to know. Some of the objects of these conferences present but small hopes for the present, but they seem to admit a possibility of success at some future moment.
Several conferences and letters have exchanged between the Count de Vergennes and me regarding this country’s trade with the United States. I believe they are interesting enough to share with Congress. They are summarized in a report, which is attached. I apologize for the length of this message. However, I couldn’t shorten it without leaving out details that I think Congress would prefer to know. Some of the topics from these discussions offer little hope for now, but they do suggest a chance of success in the future.
I am, Sir, your most obedient
I am, Sir, your most obedient
and most humble servant,
your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
[The following is an excerpt from the report mentioned in the previous letter, covering everything interesting in it that wasn't shared with the reader in the earlier correspondence.]
The next levee day at Versailles, I meant to bring again under the view of the Count de Vergennes, the whole subject of our commerce with France; but the number of audiences of ambassadors and other ministers, which take place, of course, before mine, and which seldom, indeed, leave me an opportunity of audience at all, prevented me that day. I was only able to ask of the Count de Vergennes, as a particular favor, that he would permit me to wait on him some day that week. He did so, and I went to Versailles the Friday following, (the 9th of December.) M. de Reyneval was with the Count. Our conversation began with the usual topic; that the trade of the United States had not yet learned the way to France, but continued to centre in England, though no longer obliged by law to go there. I observed, that the real cause of this was to be found in the difference of the commercial arrangements in the two countries; that merchants would not, and could not, trade but where there was to be some gain; that the commerce between two countries could not be kept up, but by an exchange of commodities; that, if an American merchant was forced to carry his produce to London, it could not be expected he would make a voyage from thence to France, with the money, to lay it out here; and, in like manner, that if he could bring his commodities with advantage to this country, he would not make another voyage to England, with the money, to lay it out there, but would take in exchange the merchandise of this country. The Count de Vergennes agreed to this, and particularly, that where there was no exchange of merchandise, there could be no durable commerce; and that it was natural for merchants to take their returns in the port where they sold their cargo. I desired his permission then, to take a summary view of the productions of the United States, that we might see which of them could be brought here to advantage.
The next levee day at Versailles, I intended to again bring up the topic of our trade with France to the Count de Vergennes. However, the numerous meetings with ambassadors and other ministers, which obviously happened before mine and rarely left me an opportunity for an audience at all, prevented me that day. I could only request, as a special favor, that he allow me to meet with him sometime that week. He agreed, and I went to Versailles the following Friday (December 9th). M. de Reyneval was with the Count. Our conversation started with the usual subject: that trade from the United States hadn’t yet found its way to France and still centered on England, even though there was no legal obligation to go there anymore. I pointed out that the real issue was the differences in commercial arrangements between the two countries; that merchants wouldn’t and couldn’t trade unless there was a profit to be made; that commerce between two countries couldn’t be sustained without an exchange of goods; and that if an American merchant had to take his produce to London, it was unrealistic to expect him to make a trip from there to France with the money to spend it here. Similarly, if he could bring his goods here profitably, he wouldn’t make another trip to England with the money to spend it there, but would instead exchange for the merchandise from this country. The Count de Vergennes agreed and noted that without an exchange of goods, there could be no lasting trade, and that it was only natural for merchants to get their returns at the port where they sold their cargo. I then sought his permission to give an overview of the products from the United States so we could identify which of them could be profitably brought here.
1. Rice. France gets from the Mediterranean a rice not so good indeed, but cheaper than ours. He said that they bought of our rice, but that they got from Egypt, also, rice of a very fine quality. I observed that such was the actual state of their commerce in that article, that they take little from us. 2. Indigo. They make a plenty in their own colonies. He observed that they did, and that they thought it better than ours. 3. Flour, fish, and provisions of all sorts, they produce for themselves. That these articles might, therefore, be considered as not existing, for commerce, between the United States and the kingdom of France.
1. Rice. France obtains rice from the Mediterranean that isn't very good, but it's cheaper than ours. He mentioned that they buy some of our rice, but they also get high-quality rice from Egypt. I noted that their trade situation for this product is such that they buy very little from us. 2. Indigo. They produce a lot in their own colonies. He pointed out that they do and that they believe it's better than ours. 3. Flour, fish, and all kinds of provisions are produced domestically. Therefore, these items could be considered non-existent for trade between the United States and France.
I proceeded to those capable of becoming objects of exchange between the two nations. 1. Peltry and furs. Our posts being in the hands of the English, we are cut off from that article. I am not sure even, whether we are not obliged to buy of them, for our own use. When these posts are given up, if ever they are, we shall be able to furnish France with skins and furs, to the amount of two millions of livres, in exchange for her merchandise: but, at present, these articles are to be counted as nothing. 2. Potash. An experiment is making whether this can be brought here. We hope it may, but at present it stands for nothing. He observed that it was much wanted in France, and he thought it would succeed. 3. Naval stores. Trials are also making on these, as subjects of commerce with France. They are heavy, and the voyage long. The result, therefore, is doubtful. At present, they are as nothing in our commerce with this country. 4. Whale-oil: I told him I had great hopes, that the late diminution of duty would enable us to bring this article with advantage, to France: that a merchant was just arrived (Mr. Barrett), who proposed to settle at L’Orient, for the purpose of selling the cargoes of this article, and choosing the returns. That he had informed me, that in the first year, it would be necessary to take one third in money, and the remainder only in merchandise; because the fishermen require, indispensably, some money. But he thought that after the first year, the merchandise of the preceding year would always produce money for the ensuing one, and that the whole amount would continue to be taken annually afterwards, in merchandise. I added, that though the diminution of duty was expressed to be but for one year, yet I hoped they would find their advantage in renewing and continuing it: for that if they intended really to admit it for one year only, the fishermen would not find it worth while to rebuild their vessels and to prepare themselves for the business. The Count expressed satisfaction on the view of commercial exchange held up by this article. He made no answer as to the continuance of it; and I did not choose to tell him, at that time, that we should claim its continuance under their treaty with the Hanseatic towns, which fixes this duty for them, and our own treaty, which gives us the rights of the most favored nation. 5. Tobacco. I recalled to the memory of the Count de Vergennes the letter I had written to him on this article; and the object of the present conversation being, how to facilitate the exchange of commerciable articles between the two countries, I pressed that of tobacco in this point of view; observed that France, at present, paid us two millions of livres for this article; that for such portions of it as were bought in London, they sent the money directly there, and for what they bought in the United States, the money was still remitted to London, by bills of exchange: whereas, if thy would permit our merchants to sell this article freely, they would bring it here, and take the returns on the spot, in merchandise, not money. The Count observed, that my proposition contained what was doubtless useful, but that the King received on this article, at present, a revenue of twenty-eight millions, which was so considerable, as to render them fearful of tampering with it; that the collection of this revenue by way of Farm, was of very ancient date, and that it was always hazardous to alter arrangements of long standing, and of such infinite combinations with the fiscal system. I answered, that the simplicity of the mode of collection proposed for this article, withdrew it from all fear of deranging other parts of their system; that I supposed they would confine the importation to some of their principal ports, probably not more than five or six; that a single collector in each of these, was the only new officer requisite; that he could get rich himself on six livres a hogshead, and would receive the whole revenue, and pay it into the treasury, at short hand. M. de Reyneval entered particularly into this part of the conversation, and explained to the Count, more in detail, the advantages and simplicity of it, and concluded by observing to me, that it sometimes happened that useful propositions, though not practicable at one time, might become so at another. I told him that that consideration had induced me to press the matter when I did, because I had understood the renewal of the Farm was then on the carpet, and that it was the precise moment, when I supposed that this portion might be detached from the mass of the Farms. I asked the Count de Vergennes whether, if the renewal of the Farm was pressing, this article might not be separated, merely in suspense, till government should have time to satisfy themselves on the expediency of renewing it. He said no promise could be made.
I went to those who could be objects of exchange between the two nations. 1. Peltry and furs. Since our posts are in the hands of the English, we are cut off from this product. I'm not even sure if we have to buy it from them for our own use. When these posts are given up, if they ever are, we could provide France with skins and furs worth two million livres in exchange for their goods: but right now, these items count for nothing. 2. Potash. We're experimenting to see if this can be brought here. We hope it will, but right now, it stands for nothing. It was noted that it’s in high demand in France, and there’s a belief it could succeed. 3. Naval stores. We're also testing these as possible trade items with France. They’re heavy, and the voyage is long, so the outcome is uncertain. For now, they contribute nothing to our trade with this country. 4. Whale oil: I mentioned that I was hopeful the recent reduction in duty would allow us to bring this item profitably to France: that a merchant named Mr. Barrett had just arrived and planned to set up in L’Orient to sell the cargoes of this item and choose the returns. He told me that in the first year, it would be necessary to take a third in cash and the rest only in goods because fishermen need cash. But he believed that after the first year, the merchandise from the previous year would always generate cash for the following year, and that the entire amount would continue to be taken annually afterwards in goods. I added that even though the duty reduction was stated to be just for one year, I hoped they would see the benefits in renewing and extending it: because if they only intended to allow it for one year, the fishermen wouldn’t bother to rebuild their vessels and prepare for the business. The Count expressed satisfaction regarding the potential trade this article represented. He didn’t respond about continuing it, and I didn’t want to mention then that we would claim its continuation under their treaty with the Hanseatic towns, which establishes this duty for them, and our own treaty, which grants us the rights of the most favored nation. 5. Tobacco. I reminded Count de Vergennes of the letter I had sent about this item; and since the purpose of our discussion was to facilitate the exchange of tradable items between the two countries, I emphasized tobacco in this context; pointing out that France currently paid us two million livres for it; that for the portions purchased in London, they sent the money directly there, and for those bought in the United States, the money was still sent to London via bills of exchange: whereas, if they allowed our merchants to sell this item freely, they would bring it here and take their returns on the spot in goods, not cash. The Count observed that my proposition was undoubtedly beneficial, but that the King currently received a revenue of twenty-eight million from this item, which was substantial enough to make them wary of interfering with it; that the collection of this revenue through the Farm was very old, and that altering long-standing arrangements tied into their fiscal system was always risky. I responded that the simplicity of the proposed collection method would alleviate any fears of disturbing other parts of their system; that I assumed they would limit the importation to some of their main ports, probably no more than five or six; that a single collector in each of these ports would be the only new official needed; that he could easily get wealthy on six livres per hogshead, and would collect the entire revenue and pay it into the treasury promptly. M. de Reyneval engaged in this part of the conversation and explained to the Count in more detail the advantages and simplicity of this approach, concluding by noting that sometimes useful proposals, while not feasible at one time, could become so later. I told him that this consideration had prompted me to push the issue at this time, because I had learned that the renewal of the Farm was currently under discussion, and that this was the exact moment when I thought this item might be separated from the bulk of the Farms. I asked Count de Vergennes if, given the urgency of renewing the Farm, this item could be set aside, even just temporarily, until the government had time to assess the wisdom of renewing it. He said no promises could be made.
In the course of this conversation, he had mentioned the liberty we enjoyed of carrying our fish to the French islands. I repeated to him what I had hinted in my letter of November the 20th, 1785, that I considered as a prohibition, the laying such duties on our fish, and giving such premiums on theirs, as made a difference between their and our fishermen of fifteen livres the quintal, in an article which sold for but fifteen livres. He said it would not have that effect, for two reasons. 1. That their fishermen could not furnish supplies sufficient for their islands, and, of course, the inhabitants must, of necessity, buy our fish. 2. That from the constancy of our fishery, and the short season during which theirs continued, and also from the economy and management of ours, compared with the expense of theirs, we had always been able to sell our fish, in their islands, at twenty-five livres the quintal, while they were obliged to ask thirty-six livres. (I suppose he meant the livre of the French islands.) That thus, the duty and premium had been a necessary operation on their side, to place the sale of their fish on a level with ours, and, that without this, theirs could not bear the competition.
During our conversation, he mentioned the freedom we had to sell our fish to the French islands. I reiterated what I hinted at in my letter dated November 20, 1785, that I saw the imposed duties on our fish and the premiums on theirs as a way of prohibiting us, creating a difference of fifteen livres per quintal in a market where our fish sold for only fifteen livres. He argued that this wouldn’t be the case for two reasons. 1. Their fishermen couldn't supply enough for their islands, so the locals would have to buy our fish. 2. Due to the reliability of our fishing industry and the short season for theirs, along with our cost-effectiveness in comparison to theirs, we had consistently sold our fish in their islands at twenty-five livres per quintal, while they had to charge thirty-six livres. (I assume he was referring to the livre of the French islands.) Therefore, he claimed that the duty and premium were necessary for them to make their fish competitive with ours, and without these measures, theirs couldn't compete at all.
I have here brought together the substance of what was said on the preceding subjects, not pretending to give it verbatim, which my memory does not enable me to do. I have, probably, omitted many things which were spoken, but have mentioned nothing which was not. I was interrupted, at times, with collateral matters. One of these was important. The Count de Vergennes complained, and with a good deal of stress, that they did not find a sufficient dependence on arrangements taken with us. This was the third time, too, he had done it; first, in a conversation at Fontainebleau, when he first complained to me of the navigation acts of Massachusetts and New Hampshire; secondly, in his letter of October the 30th, 1785, on the same subject; and now, in the present conversation, wherein he added, as another instance, the case of the Chevalier de Mezieres, heir of General Oglethorpe, who, notwithstanding that the 11th article of the treaty provides, that the subjects or citizens of either party shall succeed, ab intestato, to the lands of their ancestors, within the dominions of the other, had been informed from Mr. Adams, and by me also, that his right of succession to the General’s estate in Georgia was doubtful. He observed too, that the administration of justice with us was tardy, insomuch, that their merchants, when they had money due to them within our States, considered it as desperate; and, that our commercial regulations, in general, were disgusting to them. These ideas were new, serious, and delicate. I decided, therefore, not to enter into them at that moment, and the rather, as we were speaking in French, in which language I did not choose to hazard myself. I withdrew from the objections of the tardiness of justice with us, and the disagreeableness of our commercial regulations, by a general observation, that I was not sensible they were well founded. With respect to the case of the Chevalier de Mezieres, I was obliged to enter into some explanations. They related chiefly to the legal operation of our Declaration of Independence, to the undecided question whether our citizens and British subjects were thereby made aliens to one another, to the general laws as to conveyances of land to aliens, and the doubt, whether an act of the Assembly of Georgia might not have been passed, to confiscate General Oglethorpe’s property, which would of course prevent its devolution on any heir. M. Reyneval observed, that in this case, it became a mere question of fact, whether a confiscation of these lands had taken place before the death of General Oglethorpe, which fact might be easily known by, inquiries in Georgia, where the possessions lay. I thought it very material, that the opinion of this court should be set to rights on these points. On my return, therefore, I wrote the following observations on them, which, the next time I went to Versailles (not having an opportunity of speaking to the Count de Vergennes), I put into the hands of M. Reyneval, praying him to read them, and to ask the favor of the Count to do the same.
I’ve gathered the main points from our previous discussions, not claiming to have captured everything exactly, which my memory doesn’t allow. I may have left out several things that were said, but I haven’t included anything that wasn’t mentioned. I got interrupted at times with related issues. One of these was significant. The Count de Vergennes expressed, quite emphatically, that they didn’t feel there was enough reliance on the agreements made with us. This was the third time he raised this concern; first, during a conversation at Fontainebleau when he complained about the navigation acts of Massachusetts and New Hampshire; second, in his letter dated October 30, 1785, on the same topic; and now, in the current conversation, he added another instance regarding the Chevalier de Mezieres, heir of General Oglethorpe. Despite the 11th article of the treaty stating that the subjects or citizens of either party would inherit, ab intestato, their ancestors' lands within the other's territory, he was informed by Mr. Adams and me that his right to inherit the General’s estate in Georgia was uncertain. He also pointed out that our justice system was slow, making their merchants regard any money owed to them in our States as hopeless, and that our commercial regulations were generally unappealing to them. These points were new, serious, and sensitive. Therefore, I decided not to delve into them at that moment, especially since we were speaking in French, a language I didn’t want to risk stumbling over. I sidestepped the issues of our slow justice and the unpleasantness of our commercial regulations with a general remark that I didn’t think they were justified. As for the case of the Chevalier de Mezieres, I had to provide some clarifications. These primarily concerned the legal implications of our Declaration of Independence, the unresolved question of whether our citizens and British subjects became aliens to each other as a result, and the general laws regarding land transfers to aliens, along with the uncertainty of whether the Georgia Assembly had passed a law to confiscate General Oglethorpe’s property, which would obviously prevent it from passing to any heir. M. Reyneval noted that in this instance, it became a straightforward factual question of whether the confiscation of those lands occurred before General Oglethorpe’s death, a fact that could easily be verified through inquiries in Georgia, where the properties were located. I thought it was very important to correct the court's understanding on these matters. So, upon my return, I wrote down the following points, which, the next time I went to Versailles (not having the chance to speak with Count de Vergennes), I handed to M. Reyneval, asking him to read them and to request the Count to do the same.
Explanations on some of the subjects of the conversation, which I had the honor of having with his Excellency, the Count de Vergennes, when I was last at Versailles.
Details about some topics we discussed during my meeting with his Excellency, the Count de Vergennes, when I was last at Versailles.
The principal design of that conversation was, to discuss, those articles of commerce which the United States could spare, which are wanted in France, and, if received there on a convenient footing, would be exchanged for the productions of France. But in the course of the conversation, some circumstances were incidentally mentioned by the Count de Vergennes, which induced me to suppose he had received impressions, neither favorable to us, nor derived from perfect information.
The main goal of that conversation was to talk about the goods that the United States could provide, which France needed, and if they could be exchanged on good terms for French products. However, during the discussion, the Count de Vergennes casually mentioned some things that made me think he had opinions that weren’t in our favor and came from incomplete information.
The case of the Chevalier de Mezieres was supposed to furnish an instance of our disregard to treatises; and the event of that case was inferred from opinions supposed to have been given by Mr. Adams and myself. This is ascribing a weight to our opinions, to which they are not entitled. They will have no influence on the decision of the case. The judges in our courts would not suffer them to be read. Their guide is the law of the land, of which law its treaties make a part. Indeed, I know not what opinion Mr. Adams may have given on the case. And, if any be imputed to him derogatory of our regard to the treaty with France, I think his opinion has been misunderstood. With respect to myself, the doubts which I expressed to the Chevalier de Mezieres, as to the success of his claims, were not founded on any question whether the treaty between France and the United States would be observed. On the contrary, I venture to pronounce that it will be religiously observed, if his case comes under it. But I doubted whether it would come under the treaty. The case, as I understand it, is this. General Oglethorpe, a British subject, had lands in Georgia. He died since the peace, having devised these lands to his wife. His heirs are the Chevalier de Mezieres, son of his eldest sister, and the Marquis de Bellegarde, son of his younger sister. This case gives rise to legal questions, some of which have not yet been decided, either in England or America, the laws of which countries are nearly the same.
The situation with the Chevalier de Mezieres was meant to illustrate our indifference towards treaties, and the outcome of that situation was supposedly drawn from opinions attributed to Mr. Adams and me. This gives our opinions more weight than they deserve. They won't have any effect on the case's decision. The judges in our courts wouldn’t allow them to be considered. Their authority is the law of the land, which includes its treaties. In fact, I’m not even sure what opinion Mr. Adams might have expressed on this matter. If any opinion attributed to him suggests that we don’t value the treaty with France, I believe it has been misconstrued. As for me, the concerns I raised with the Chevalier de Mezieres about his claims' success were not based on any doubt that the treaty between France and the United States would be honored. On the contrary, I confidently assert that it will be honored if his case falls under it. However, I questioned whether it would actually fall under the treaty. As I understand it, the scenario is this: General Oglethorpe, a British subject, owned land in Georgia. He passed away after the peace and left this land to his wife. His heirs are the Chevalier de Mezieres, the son of his oldest sister, and the Marquis de Bellegarde, the son of his younger sister. This situation raises legal questions, some of which haven’t been resolved yet, in either England or America, where the laws are quite similar.
1. It is a question under the laws of those countries, whether persons born before their separation, and once completely invested, in both, with the character of natural subjects, can ever become aliens in either? There are respectable opinions on both sides. If the negative be right, then General Oglethorpe having never become an alien, and having devised his lands to his wife, who, on this supposition, also, was not an alien, the devise has transferred the lands to her, and there is nothing left for the treaty to operate on.
1. The question under the laws of those countries is whether people born before their separation, who were fully recognized as natural subjects in both, can ever become aliens in either country. There are valid opinions on both sides. If the answer is no, then General Oglethorpe never became an alien, and since he left his lands to his wife, who also, under this assumption, was not an alien, the inheritance has transferred the lands to her, leaving nothing for the treaty to apply to.
2. If the affirmative opinion be right, and the inhabitants of Great Britain and America, born before the Revolution, are become aliens to each other, it follows by the laws of both, that the lands which either possessed, within the jurisdiction of the other, became the property of the State in which they are. But a question arises, whether the transfer of the property took place on the Declaration of Independence, or not till an office, or an act of Assembly, had declared the transfer. If the property passed to the State on the Declaration of Independence, then it did not remain in General Oglethorpe, and, of course, at the time of his death, he having nothing, there was nothing to pass to his heirs, and so nothing for the treaty to operate on.
2. If the positive viewpoint is correct, and the people of Great Britain and America, who were born before the Revolution, are now strangers to each other, it follows according to the laws of both that the lands either side owned within the territory of the other became the property of the State where they are located. However, a question comes up: did the transfer of property happen with the Declaration of Independence, or did it require an official act or a law to declare the transfer? If the property was transferred to the State upon the Declaration of Independence, then it didn't stay with General Oglethorpe, and therefore, at the time of his death, he owned nothing, which means there was nothing to pass on to his heirs, and thus nothing for the treaty to act upon.
3. If the property does not pass till declared by an office found by jury, or an act passed by the Assembly, the question then is, whether an office had been found, or an act of Assembly been passed for that purpose, before the peace. If there was, the lands had passed to the State during his life, and nothing being left in him, there is nothing for his heirs to claim under the treaty.
3. If the property isn’t transferred until declared by an office established by a jury, or an act passed by the Assembly, the question then is whether an office was established or an act of Assembly was passed for that purpose before the peace. If there was, the lands were transferred to the State during his lifetime, and since nothing remains with him, there’s nothing for his heirs to claim under the treaty.
4. If the property had not been transferred to the State, before the peace, either by the Declaration of Independence, or an office or an act of Assembly, then it remained in General Oglethorpe at the epoch of the peace and it will be insisted, no doubt, that, by the sixth article of the treaty of peace between the United States and Great Britain, which forbids future confiscations, General Oglethorpe acquired a capacity of holding and of conveying his lands. He has conveyed them to his wife. But, she being an alien, it will be decided by the laws of the land, whether she took them for her own use, or for the use of the State. For it is a general principle of our law, that conveyances to aliens pass the lands to the State; and it may be urged, that though, by the treaty of peace, General Oglethorpe could convey, yet that treaty did not mean to give him a greater privilege of conveyance, than natives hold, to wit, a privilege of transferring the property to persons incapable, by law, of taking it. However, this would be a question between the State of Georgia and the widow of General Oglethorpe, in the decision of which the Chevalier de Mezieres is not interested, because, whether she takes the land by the will, for her own use, or for that of the State, it is equally prevented from descending to him: there is neither a conveyance to him, nor a succession ab intestato devolving on him, which are the cases provided for by our treaty with France. To sum up the matter in a few words; if the lands had passed to the State before the epoch of peace, the heirs of General Oglethorpe cannot say they have descended on them, and if they remained in the General at that epoch, the treaty saving them to him, he could convey them away from his heirs, and he has conveyed them to his widow, either for her own use, or for that of the State.
4. If the property hadn't been transferred to the State before the peace, either through the Declaration of Independence, or through an office or an act of Assembly, then it remained with General Oglethorpe at the time of the peace. It's likely that it will be argued that, according to the sixth article of the treaty of peace between the United States and Great Britain, which prohibits future confiscations, General Oglethorpe had the ability to hold and transfer his lands. He has transferred them to his wife. However, since she is an alien, it will be determined by the laws whether she received them for her own use or for the use of the State. It is a general principle of our law that transfers to aliens pass the lands to the State. It could be argued that even though General Oglethorpe could transfer under the peace treaty, the treaty did not grant him greater conveyance privileges than those held by natives, specifically the privilege of transferring property to individuals who are legally incapable of receiving it. Nonetheless, this would be a question between the State of Georgia and General Oglethorpe's widow, in which Chevalier de Mezieres has no stake, because whether she receives the land by the will for her own use or for the State's benefit, it cannot descend to him: there is neither a transfer to him, nor an inheritance ab intestato going to him, which are the conditions covered by our treaty with France. To summarize, if the lands passed to the State before the peace, General Oglethorpe's heirs cannot claim they have descended to them, and if they stayed with the General at that time, the treaty retaining them for him means he could transfer them away from his heirs, and he has transferred them to his widow, either for her own use or for that of the State.
Seeing no event, in which, according to the facts stated to me, the treaty could be applied to this case, or could give any right, whatever, to the heirs of General Oglethorpe, I advised the Chevalier de Mezieres not to urge his pretensions on the footing of right, nor under the treaty, but to petition the Assembly of Georgia for a grant of these lands. If, in the question between the State and the widow of General Oglethorpe, it should be decided that they were the property of the State, I expected from their generosity, and the friendly dispositions in America towards the subjects of France, that they would be favorable to the Chevalier de Mezieres. There is nothing in the preceding observations, which would not have applied against the heir of General Ogiethorpe, had he been a native citizen of Georgia, as it now applies against him, being a subject of France. The treaty has placed the subjects of France on a footing with natives, as to conveyances and descent of property. There was no occasion for the assemblies to pass laws on this subject; the treaty being a law, as I conceive, superior to those of particular Assemblies, and repealing them where they stand in the way of its operations.
Seeing no event where, based on what I've been told, the treaty could apply to this situation or grant any rights to the heirs of General Oglethorpe, I advised Chevalier de Mezieres not to push his claims on the basis of rights under the treaty, but to instead ask the Assembly of Georgia for a grant of these lands. If it turns out that the property in question belongs to the State rather than the widow of General Oglethorpe, I anticipated that, given their generosity and the friendly attitude in America towards French subjects, they would be supportive of Chevalier de Mezieres. None of the previous points would have favored the heir of General Oglethorpe any more if he were a native Georgian than it does now, as he is a subject of France. The treaty has treated French subjects the same as natives regarding property transfers and inheritance. There was no need for the assemblies to create laws on this topic; the treaty itself is a law that, in my opinion, takes precedence over specific Assembly laws, nullifying them when they conflict with its provisions.
The supposition that the treaty was disregarded on our part, in the instance of the acts of Assembly of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, which made a distinction between natives and foreigners, as to the duties to be paid on commerce, was taken notice of in the letter of November the 20th, which I had the honor of addressing to the Count de Vergennes. And while I express my hopes, that, on a revision of these subjects, nothing will be found in them derogatory from either the letter or spirit of our treaty, I will add assurances that the United States will not be behind hand, in going beyond both, when occasions shall ever offer of manifesting their sincere attachment to this country.
The idea that we ignored the treaty with the actions taken by the legislatures of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, which created a difference between natives and foreigners regarding trade duties, was mentioned in my letter dated November 20th, which I had the privilege of sending to Count de Vergennes. While I hope that, upon reviewing these matters, nothing will be found that undermines either the letter or spirit of our treaty, I want to assure you that the United States will be proactive and go above and beyond whenever opportunities arise to demonstrate our genuine commitment to this country.
I will pass on to the observation, that our commercial regulations are difficult and repugnant to the French merchants. To detail these regulations minutely, as they exist in every State, would be beyond my information. A general view of them, however, will suffice because the States differ little in their several regulations. On the arrival of a ship in America, her cargo must be reported at the proper office. The duties on it are to be paid. These are commonly from two and a half to five per cent, on its value. On many articles, the value of which is tolerably uniform, the precise sum is fixed by law. A tariff of these is presented to the importer, and he can see what he has to pay, as well as the officer. For other articles, the duty is such a per cent, on their value. That value is either shown by the invoice, or by the oath of the importer. This operation being once over, and it is a very short one, the goods are considered as entered, and may then pass through the whole thirteen States, without their being ever more subject to a question, unless they be re-shipped. Exportation is still more simple: because, as we prohibit the exportation of nothing, and very rarely lay a duty on any article of export, the State is little interested in examining outward bound vessels. The captain asks a clearance for his own purposes. As to the operations of internal commerce, such as matters of exchange, of buying, selling, bartering, &c, our laws are the same as the English. If they have been altered in any instance, it has been to render them more simple. Lastly, as to the tardiness of the administration of justice with us, it would be equally tedious and impracticable for me to give a precise account of it in every State. But I think it probable, that it is much on the same footing through all the States, and that an account of it in any one of them, may found a general presumption of it in the others. Being best acquainted with its administration in Virginia, I shall confine myself to that. Before the Revolution, a judgment could not be obtained under eight years, in the supreme court, where the suit was in the department of the common law, which department embraces about nine tenths of the subjects of legal contestation. In that of the chancery, from twelve to twenty years were requisite. This did not proceed from any vice in the laws, but from the indolence of the judges appointed by the King: and these judges holding their offices during his will only, he could have reformed the evil at any time. This reformation was among the first works of the legislature, after our independence. A judgment can now be obtained in the supreme court, in one year, at the common law, and in about three years, in the chancery. But more particularly to protect the commerce of France, which at that moment was considerable with us, a law was passed, giving all suits wherein a foreigner was a party, a privilege to be tried immediately, on the return of his process, without waiting till those of natives, which stand before them, shall have been decided on. Out of this act, however, the British stand excluded by a subsequent one. This, with its causes, must be explained. The British army, after ravaging the State of Virginia, had sent off a very great number of slaves to New York. By the seventh article of the treaty of peace, they stipulated not to carry away any of these. Notwithstanding this, it was known, when they were evacuating New York, that they were carrying away the slaves. General Washington made an official demand of Sir Guy Carleton, that he should cease to send them away. He answered, that these people had come to them under promise of the King’s protection, and that that promise should be fulfilled, in preference to the stipulation in the treaty. The State of Virginia, to which nearly the whole of these slaves belonged, passed a law to forbid the recovery of debts due to British subjects. They declared, at the same time, they would repeal the law, if Congress were of opinion they ought to do it. But, desirous that their citizens should be discharging their debts, they afterwards permitted British creditors to prosecute their suits, and to receive their debts in seven equal and annual payments; relying that the demand for the slaves would either be admitted or denied, in time to lay their hands on some of the latter payments for reimbursement. The immensity of this debt was another reason for forbidding such a mass of property to be offered for sale under execution at once, as, from the small quantity of circulating money, it must have sold for little or nothing, whereby the creditor would have failed to receive his money, and the debtor would have lost his whole estate, without being discharged of his debt. This is the history of the delay of justice in that country, in the case of British creditors. As to all others, its administration is as speedy as justice itself will admit. I presume it is equally so in all the other States, and can add, that it is administered in them all with a purity and integrity, of which few countries afford an example.
I want to point out that our commercial rules are difficult and off-putting for French merchants. Going into detail about these rules, as they exist in each state, would be beyond my knowledge. However, a general overview will be enough since the states don’t vary much in their regulations. When a ship arrives in America, its cargo must be reported to the appropriate office. Duties must be paid on it, typically ranging from two and a half to five percent of its value. For many items with relatively stable values, the exact cost is specified by law. A tariff list is provided to the importer, so both he and the officer know what needs to be paid. For other items, duties are calculated as a percentage of their value, which is either indicated on the invoice or declared under oath by the importer. Once this process is completed, and it's quite quick, the goods are considered entered and can move freely through all thirteen states without further scrutiny, unless they are re-shipped. Exporting is even simpler: since we don’t prohibit the export of anything and rarely impose duties on exported goods, the state has little interest in checking outbound vessels. The captain requests a clearance for his own needs. Regarding internal commerce operations, like exchanges, buying, selling, and bartering, our laws are similar to the English. If there have been any changes, they were made to simplify things. Finally, concerning the delay in administering justice in our system, it would be tedious and impractical for me to provide a detailed account for each state. However, I think it’s likely to be quite similar across the states, so an account from any one state could be taken as a general indication for the others. Since I am most familiar with Virginia's justice system, I'll focus on that. Before the Revolution, it took at least eight years to get a judgment in the supreme court for common law cases, which cover about ninety percent of legal disputes. For chancery cases, it required twelve to twenty years. This delay didn’t stem from flaws in the laws but from the laziness of judges appointed by the King, who held their positions at his pleasure and could have corrected the issue at any time. This reform was among the first tasks of the legislature after our independence. Now, a judgment can be obtained in the supreme court in about a year for common law cases, and about three years for chancery cases. Specifically, to protect French commerce, which at that time was significant for us, a law was enacted allowing suits involving foreigners to be tried right away, without waiting for domestic cases to be resolved first. However, the British were excluded from this provision by a later law, which needs further explanation. The British army, after devastating Virginia, had sent a large number of slaves to New York. According to the seventh article of the peace treaty, they were not supposed to take any of these slaves. Nevertheless, it was known that as they evacuated New York, they were taking the slaves with them. General Washington officially demanded Sir Guy Carleton stop this. Carleton replied that these people had come to them under the King's promise of protection, and that promise should take precedence over the treaty's stipulation. The state of Virginia, which owned most of these slaves, enacted a law to prevent the collection of debts owed to British subjects. At the same time, they stated they would repeal the law if Congress believed it was necessary. However, wanting their citizens to pay their debts, they later allowed British creditors to pursue their claims and receive payments in seven equal annual installments, hoping that the outcome regarding the slaves would become clear in time to seize some of the later payments for reimbursement. The sheer size of this debt was another reason to prevent such a large amount of property from being auctioned at once, as the limited circulating money would have caused it to sell for very little, meaning creditors would not get paid, and debtors would lose everything without settling their debts. This is the background on the delays in justice in that state regarding British creditors. For all others, the administration is as swift as justice permits. I believe it is similarly efficient in all other states, and I can add that it is conducted in all of them with a level of purity and integrity rarely seen in other countries.
I cannot take leave, altogether, of the subjects of this conversation, without recalling the attention of the Count de Vergennes to what had been its principal drift. This was to endeavor to bring about a direct exchange between France and the United States, (without the intervention of a third nation) of those productions, with which each could furnish the other. We can furnish to France (because we have heretofore furnished to England) of whale-oil and spermaceti, of furs and peltry, of ships and naval stores, and of potash, to the amount of fifteen millions of livres; and the quantities will admit of increase. Of our tobacco, France consumes the value of ten millions more. Twenty-five millions of livres, then, mark the extent of that commerce of exchange, which is, at present, practicable between us. We want, in return, productions and manufactures, not money. If the duties on our produce are light, and the sale free, we shall undoubtedly bring it here, and lay out the proceeds on the spot, in the productions and manufactures which we want. The merchants of France will, on their part, become active in the same business. We shall no more think, when we shall have sold our produce here, of making an useless voyage to another country, to lay out the money, than we think, at present, when we have sold it elsewhere, of coming here to lay out the money. The conclusion is, that there are commodities which form a basis of exchange, to the extent of a million of guineas annually: it is for the wisdom of those in power, to contrive that the exchange shall be made.
I can't completely step away from this conversation without reminding Count de Vergennes of its main point. We aimed to create a direct trade relationship between France and the United States, without a third party involved, exchanging products that each can provide the other. We can supply France (just as we have supplied England) with whale oil and spermaceti, furs and pelts, ships and naval supplies, and potash, totaling about fifteen million livres, and we can increase those amounts. France consumes our tobacco worth an additional ten million. So, there’s a potential trade of twenty-five million livres between us right now. In return, we need products and manufactured goods, not cash. If taxes on our goods are low and sales are unrestricted, we’ll definitely bring them here and spend the profits locally on the products and goods we need. French merchants will also get involved in this trade. Once we sell our products here, we won’t think about making a pointless trip to another country to spend the money, just as we don't currently consider coming here to spend money from sales made elsewhere. In conclusion, there are goods available for exchange, amounting to a million guineas each year: it’s up to those in power to ensure that this exchange happens.
Having put this paper into the hands of Monsieur Reyneval, we entered into conversation again, on the subject of the Farms, which were now understood to be approaching to a conclusion. He told me, that he was decidedly of opinion, that the interest of the State required the Farm of tobacco to be discontinued, and that he had, accordingly, given every aid to my proposition, which lay within his sphere: that the Count de Vergennes was very clearly of the same opinion, and had supported it strongly with reasons of his own, when he transmitted it to the Comptroller General; but that the Comptroller, in the discussions of this subject which had taken place, besides the objections which the Count de Vergennes had repeated to me, and which are before mentioned, had added, that the contract with the Farmers General was now so far advanced, that the article of tobacco could not be withdrawn from it, without unraveling the whole transaction. Having understood, that, in this contract, there was always reserved to the crown, a right to discontinue it at any moment, making just reimbursements to the Farmers, I asked M. Reyneval, if the contract should be concluded in its present form, whether it might still be practicable to have it discontinued, as to the article of tobacco, at some future moment. He said it might be possible.
Having given this paper to Monsieur Reyneval, we started talking again about the Farms, which were now seen as nearing a conclusion. He told me that he firmly believed that the interest of the State required the tobacco Farm to be ended, and that he had, therefore, offered all the support he could to my proposal: that the Count de Vergennes was also clearly of the same view and had strongly backed it with his own reasons when he sent it to the Comptroller General; however, the Comptroller, in the discussions about this issue which had occurred, in addition to the objections that the Count de Vergennes had mentioned to me, which I already referenced, had added that the contract with the Farmers General was now so far along that the tobacco article could not be removed without untangling the entire deal. Having understood that, in this contract, there was always a reserved right for the crown to terminate it at any moment, with fair reimbursements to the Farmers, I asked M. Reyneval if, should the contract be finalized in its current form, it would still be feasible to discontinue it regarding the tobacco article at some point in the future. He replied that it might be possible.
Upon the whole, the true obstacle to this proposition has penetrated, in various ways, through the veil which covers it. The influence of the Farmers General has been heretofore found sufficient to shake a minister in his office. Monsieur de Calonne’s continuance or dismission has been thought, for some time, to be on a poise. Were he to shift this great weight, therefore, out of his own scale into that of his adversaries, it would decide their preponderance. The joint interests of France and America would be an insufficient counterpoise in his favor.
Overall, the real barrier to this proposal has managed to break through the facade surrounding it in various ways. The influence of the Farmers General has previously proven strong enough to unsettle a minister in his position. For a while now, there has been speculation about whether Monsieur de Calonne would stay or be dismissed. If he were to transfer this significant burden from his side to that of his opponents, it would tip the scales in their favor. The shared interests of France and America wouldn’t be enough to support him.
It will be observed, that these efforts to improve the commerce of the United States have been confined to that branch only, which respects France itself, and that nothing passed on the subject of our commerce with the West Indies, except an incidental conversation as to our fish. The reason of this was no want of a due sense of its importance. Of that I am thoroughly sensible. But efforts in favor of this branch would, at present, be desperate. To nations with which we have not yet treated, and who have possessions in America, we may offer a free vent of their manufactures in the United States, for a full, or a modified admittance into those possessions. But to France, we are obliged to give that freedom for a different compensation; to wit, for her aid in effecting our independence. It is difficult, therefore, to say what we have now to offer her, for an admission into her West Indies. Doubtless it has its price. But the question is, what this would be, and whether worth our while to give it. Were we to propose to give to each other’s citizens all the rights of natives, they would, of course, count what they should gain by this enlargement of right, and examine whether it would be worth to them, as much as their monopoly of their West India commerce. If not, that commercial freedom which we wish to preserve, and which, indeed, is so valuable, leaves us little else to offer. An expression in my letter to the Count de Vergennes, of November the 20th, wherein I hinted, that both nations might, perhaps, come into the opinion, that the condition of natives might be a better ground of intercourse for their citizens, than that of the most favored nation, was intended to furnish an opportunity to the minister, of parleying on that subject, if he was so disposed, and to myself, of seeing whereabouts they would begin, that I might communicate it to Congress, and leave them to judge of the expediency of pursuing the subject. But no overtures have followed; for I have no right to consider, as coming from the minister, certain questions which were, very soon after, proposed to me by an individual. It sufficiently accounts for these questions, that that individual had written a memorial on the subject, for the consideration of the minister, and might wish to know what we would be willing to do. The idea that I should answer such questions to him, is equally unaccountable, whether we suppose them originating with himself, or coming from the minister. In fact, I must suppose them to be his own; and I transmit them, only that Congress my see what one Frenchman, at least, thinks on the subject. If we can obtain from Great Britain reasonable conditions of commerce (which, in my idea, must for ever include an admission into her islands), the freest ground between these two nations would seem to be the best. But if we can obtain no equal terms from her, perhaps Congress might think it prudent, as Holland has done, to connect us unequivocally with France. Holland has purchased the protection of France. The price she pays is, aid in time of war. It is interesting for us to purchase a free commerce with the French islands. But whether it is best to pay for it, by aids in war, or by privileges in commerce; or not to purchase it at all, is the question.
It can be seen that these efforts to boost U.S. trade have only focused on our relationship with France, and nothing has been discussed regarding our trade with the West Indies, aside from a brief mention of our fishing. The reason for this isn’t because we don’t recognize its significance—I fully understand its importance. However, pushing for improvements in this area right now would be futile. We can offer nations that we haven’t negotiated with yet, and that have territories in America, a chance to freely sell their goods in the U.S. in exchange for full or modified access to those territories. But with France, we have to provide that access in return for her support in achieving our independence. It's hard to determine what we can currently offer her for entry into her West Indies. It certainly holds value, but the issue is figuring out what that value is and if it's worth pursuing. If we suggested granting each other's citizens the same rights as natives, they would naturally evaluate what they would gain from this expanded right and see if it matches the worth of their monopoly on West Indian trade. If it doesn’t, then the trade freedom we want to maintain—which is, in fact, very valuable—leaves us with little else to negotiate. In my letter to Count de Vergennes on November 20th, I mentioned that both countries might consider that the status of natives could be a better basis for trade than that of the most favored nation. This was meant to give the minister a chance to discuss this topic if he wanted to and for me to gauge where they stood so I could report it back to Congress and let them decide if pursuing it was a good idea. However, no proposals have come forward; I can’t treat certain inquiries that were soon after made by an individual as coming from the minister. It's clear why those questions arose—this individual had drafted a memorial on the topic to present to the minister and might have wanted to know what we were willing to offer. It's baffling to think that I should discuss such questions with him, regardless of whether they originated from him or the minister. In fact, I assume they are his own thoughts; I'm sharing them so Congress can see what at least one French person thinks on the matter. If we can negotiate reasonable trade terms with Great Britain (which, in my view, must include access to her islands), then having the freest possible arrangements between these two nations seems ideal. But if we can’t reach an equitable agreement with her, perhaps Congress should consider firmly aligning with France, as Holland has done. Holland has secured France's protection, paying for it with military support when necessary. It's appealing for us to establish unrestricted trade with the French islands, but the question is whether it’s better to pay for it through military support, through trade privileges, or not to pursue it at all.
LETTER CXLVII.—TO T. HOPKINSON, January 3, 1786
TO T. HOPKINSON.
To T. Hopkinson.
Paris, January 3, 1786.
Paris, January 3, 1786.
Dear Sir,
Hi there,
I wrote you last on the 25th of September. Since that I have received yours of October the 25th, enclosing a duplicate of the last invented tongue for the harpsichord. The letter enclosing another of them, and accompanied by newspapers, which you mention in that of October the 25th, has never come to hand. I will embrace the first opportunity of sending you the crayons. Perhaps they may come with this, which I think to deliver to Mr. Bingham, who leaves us on Saturday, for London. If, on consulting him, I find the conveyance from London uncertain, you shall receive them by a Mr. Barrett, who goes from hence for New York, next month. You have not authorized me to try to avail you of the new tongue. Indeed, the ill success of my endeavors with the last does not promise much with this. However, I shall try. Houdon only stopped a moment, to deliver me your letter, so that I have not yet had an opportunity of asking his opinion of the improvement. I am glad you are pleased with his work. He is among the foremost, or, perhaps, the foremost artist in the world.
I last wrote to you on September 25th. Since then, I have received your letter from October 25th, which included a duplicate of the newly invented harpsichord tongue. The letter that had another one of those tongues, along with some newspapers you mentioned in your October 25th letter, has not arrived. I will take the first chance to send you the crayons. They might come with this letter, which I plan to give to Mr. Bingham, who is leaving for London on Saturday. If I find out that the delivery from London isn't reliable after talking to him, you'll receive them through Mr. Barrett, who is heading to New York next month. You haven't told me to try to get you the new tongue. Honestly, my past attempts with the last one didn't go well, so I'm not expecting much this time. Still, I'll give it a shot. Houdon only stopped briefly to hand me your letter, so I haven't had a chance to ask him what he thinks of the improvement. I'm glad you like his work. He’s one of the best, if not the best, artist in the world.
Turning to your Encyclopédie, Arts et Metiers, tome 3, part 1, page 393, you will find mentioned an instrument, invented by a Monsieur Renaudin, for determining the true time of the musical movements, largo, adagio, &c. I went to see it. He showed me his first invention; the price of the machine was twenty-five guineas: then his second, which he had been able to make for about half that sum. Both of these had a mainspring and a balance-wheel, for their mover and regulator. The strokes are made by a small hammer. He then showed me his last, which is moved by a weight and regulated by a pendulum, and which cost only-two guineas and a half. It presents, in front, a dial-plate like that of a clock, on which are arranged, in a circle, the words largo, adagio, andante, allegro, presto. The circle is moreover divided into fifty-two equal degrees. Largo is at 1, adagio at 11, andante at 22, allegro at 36, and presto at 46. Turning the index to any one of these, the pendulum (which is a string, with a ball hanging to it) shortens or lengthens, so that one of its vibrations gives you a crochet for that movement. This instrument has been examined by the academy of music here, who were so well satisfied of its utility, that they have ordered all music which shall be printed here, in future, to have the movements numbered in correspondence with this plexi-chronometer. I need not tell you that the numbers between two movements, as between 22 and 36, give the quicker or slower degrees of the movements, such as the quick andante, or moderate allegro. The instrument is useful, but still it may be greatly simplified. I got him to make me one, and having fixed a pendulum vibrating seconds, I tried by that the vibrations of his pendulum, according to the several movements. I find the pendulum regulated to Largo
Turning to your Encyclopédie, Arts et Métiers, volume 3, part 1, page 393, you'll find a mention of an instrument invented by a Mr. Renaudin, designed to determine the precise timing of musical movements like largo, adagio, etc. I went to check it out. He showed me his first invention; the price of the machine was twenty-five guineas. Then he showed me his second invention, which he was able to make for about half that price. Both of these had a mainspring and a balance wheel for their movement and regulation. The strokes are made by a small hammer. He then showed me his latest version, which is powered by a weight and regulated by a pendulum, costing only two and a half guineas. It has a dial plate in front, similar to a clock, with the words largo, adagio, andante, allegro, presto arranged in a circle. The circle is also divided into fifty-two equal degrees. Largo is at 1, adagio at 11, andante at 22, allegro at 36, and presto at 46. By turning the index to any of these, the pendulum (which is a string with a ball hanging from it) either shortens or lengthens, so one of its vibrations matches a crochet for that movement. This instrument has been reviewed by the local academy of music, who were so impressed with its usefulness that they've mandated that all music printed here in the future will have movements numbered according to this plexi-chronometer. I don't need to tell you that the numbers between two movements, like between 22 and 36, indicate quicker or slower variations of the movements, such as the fast andante or moderate allegro. The instrument is certainly useful, but it can still be significantly simplified. I had him make me one, and after attaching a pendulum that ticks seconds, I tested the vibrations of his pendulum against the various movements. I find the pendulum adjusted to Largo.

Every one, therefore, may make a chronometer adapted to his instrument.
Everyone can create a chronometer suited to their instrument.
For a harpsichord, the following occurs to me:
For a harpsichord, I think the following:
In the wall of your chamber, over the instrument, drive five little brads, as, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, in the following manner. Take a string with a bob to it, of such length, as, that hung on No. 1, it shall vibrate fifty-two times in a minute. Then proceed by trial to drive No. 2, at such a distance, that drawing the loop of the string to that, the part remaining between 1 and the bob, shall vibrate sixty times in a minute. Fix the third for seventy vibrations, &c.; the cord always hanging over No. 1, as the centre of vibration. A person playing on the violin may fix this on his music-stand. A pendulum thrown into vibration will continue in motion long enough to give you the time of your piece. I have been thus particular, on the supposition that you would fix one of these simple things for yourself.
In the wall of your room, above the instrument, drive in five small nails, like this: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. First, take a string with a bob attached, long enough so that when it’s hung on No. 1, it vibrates fifty-two times in a minute. Then, based on trial, position No. 2 at a distance so that when you pull the loop of the string to it, the part between No. 1 and the bob vibrates sixty times in a minute. Set the third for seventy vibrations, and so on; the cord should always hang over No. 1, which acts as the center of vibration. A violinist could attach this to their music stand. A pendulum set in motion will keep swinging long enough to give you the timing for your piece. I’ve included these details assuming you would want to set one of these simple devices up for yourself.
You have heard often of the metal called platina, to be found only in South America. It is insusceptible of rust, as gold and silver are, none of the acids affecting it, excepting the aqua regia. It also admits of as perfect a polish as the metal hitherto used for the specula of telescopes. These two properties had suggested to the Spaniards the substitution of it for that use. But the mines being closed up by the government, it is difficult to get the metal. The experiment has been lately tried here by the Abbe Rochon (whom I formerly mentioned to Mr. Rittenhouse, as having discovered that lenses of certain natural crystals have two different and uncombined magnifying powers), and he thinks the polish as high as that of the metal heretofore used, and that it will never be injured by the air, a touch of the finger, &c. I examined it in a dull day, which did not admit a fair judgment of the strength of its reflection.
You’ve often heard about a metal called platina, which can only be found in South America. It doesn’t rust like gold and silver, and none of the acids can affect it, except for aqua regia. It can also be polished as perfectly as the metal that has been used for telescope mirrors. These two qualities led the Spaniards to consider using it for that purpose. However, since the mines are closed by the government, it’s hard to obtain the metal. Recently, Abbe Rochon (whom I mentioned to Mr. Rittenhouse as having discovered that lenses made from certain natural crystals have two different, unblended magnifying powers) has tried it out here, and he believes its polish is as good as that of the metal previously used, and that it won’t be damaged by air, a finger touch, etc. I examined it on a cloudy day, which didn’t allow for a proper judgment of its reflective strength.
Good qualities are sometimes misfortunes. I will prove it from your own experience. You are punctual; and almost the only one of my correspondents on whom I can firmly rely, for the execution of commissions which combine a little trouble with more attention. I am very sorry however that I have three commissions to charge you with, which will give you more than a little trouble. Two of them are for Monsieur de Buffon. Many, many years ago, Cadwallader Golden wrote a very small pamphlet on the subjects of attraction and impulsion, a copy of which he sent to Monsieur de Buffon. He was so charmed with it, that he put it into the hands of a friend to translate, who lost it. It has ever since weighed on his mind, and he has made repeated trials to have it found in England. But in vain. He applied to me. I am in hopes, if you will write a line to the booksellers of Philadelphia to rummage their shops, that some of them may find it. Or, perhaps, some of the careful old people of Pennsylvania or New Jersey may have preserved a copy. In the King’s cabinet of Natural History, of which Monsieur de Buffon has the superintendence, I observed that they had neither our grouse nor our pheasant. These, I know, may be bought in the market of Philadelphia, on any day while they are in season. Pray buy the male and female of each, and employ some apothecary’s boys to prepare them, and pack them. Methods may be seen in the preliminary discourse to the first volume of Birds, in the Encyclopédie, or in the Natural History of Buffon, where he describes the King’s cabinet. And this done, you will be so good as to send them to me. The third commission is more distant. It is to precure me two or three hundred paccan nuts from the western country. I expect they can always be got at Pittsburgh and am in hopes, that by yourself or your friends, some attentive person there may be engaged to send them to you. They should come as fresh as possible, and come best, I believe, in a box of sand. Of this, Barham could best advise you. I imagine vessels are always coming from Philadelphia to France. If there be a choice of ports, Havre would be the best. I must beg you to direct them to the care of the American consul or agent at the port, to be sent by the Diligence or Fourgon. A thousand apologies would not suffice for this trouble, if I meant to pay you in apologies only. But I sincerely ask, and will punctually execute, the appointment of your chargé des affaires in Europe generally. From the smallest to the highest commission, I will execute with zeal and punctually, in buying, or doing any thing you wish, on this side the water. And you may judge from the preceding specimen, that I shall not be behind hand in the trouble I shall impose on you. Make a note of all the expenses attending my commissions, and favor me with it every now and then, and I will replace them. My daughter is well, and retains an affectionate remembrance of her ancient patroness, your mother, as well as of your lady and family. She joins me in wishing to them, and to Mr. and Mrs. Rittenhouse and family, every happiness. Accept, yourself, assurances of the esteem with which I am, Dear Sir,
Good qualities can sometimes lead to misfortune. I'll prove this using your own experience. You are punctual and almost the only one of my contacts I can truly depend on for handling tasks that require a bit of effort and attention. I'm really sorry, though, that I have three tasks to ask you to take on, which will give you more than just a little trouble. Two of them are for Monsieur de Buffon. Many years ago, Cadwallader Golden wrote a tiny pamphlet about attraction and impulsion, which he sent to Monsieur de Buffon. He was so taken with it that he had a friend translate it, but unfortunately, that friend lost it. This has been on his mind ever since, and he's made many attempts to locate it in England, but without success. He reached out to me for help. I'm hopeful that if you write to the booksellers in Philadelphia to check their shops, one of them might stumble upon it. Or perhaps some of the careful older residents of Pennsylvania or New Jersey might have kept a copy. In the King’s cabinet of Natural History, which Monsieur de Buffon oversees, I noticed they didn’t have either our grouse or our pheasant. I know these can be found in the Philadelphia market whenever they’re in season. Please purchase a male and female of each, and have some apothecary’s boys prepare and pack them. You can find methods outlined in the preliminary discourse of the first volume of Birds, in the Encyclopédie, or in Buffon’s Natural History, where he talks about the King’s cabinet. Once that’s done, please send them to me. The third task is a bit more complicated. It’s to get me two or three hundred pecan nuts from the western territories. I think they can always be found in Pittsburgh, and I'm hopeful that either you or your friends can find someone there to send them to you. They should be as fresh as possible and are best transported in a box of sand. Barham could give you the best advice on that. I imagine that ships are always traveling between Philadelphia and France. If there’s a choice of ports, Havre would be the best option. Please have them address it to the attention of the American consul or agent at that port, to be sent via the Diligence or Fourgon. A thousand apologies won’t cover this trouble, if I only meant to repay you with apologies. But I genuinely ask for your help and will promptly fulfill the requests of your chargé des affaires in Europe in general. From the smallest to the largest task, I’ll handle with enthusiasm and promptly, whether it’s buying something or taking care of anything you need on this side of the ocean. You can tell from what I've mentioned previously that I won’t hesitate to impose on you for help. Please keep track of all the expenses related to my requests and send me updates now and then, and I’ll make sure to reimburse you. My daughter is doing well and remembers your mother, her former patroness, with fondness, as well as your lady and family. She joins me in wishing them, and Mr. and Mrs. Rittenhouse and their family, all the best. Accept, yourself, the assurances of the esteem with which I am, Dear Sir,
your friend and servant,
your friend and assistant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
P.S. What is become of the Lunarium for the King?
P.S. What happened to the Lunarium for the King?
LETTER CXLVIII.—TO GENERAL WASHINGTON, January 4, 1786
TO GENERAL WASHINGTON.
To General Washington.
Paris, January 4, 1786.
Paris, January 4, 1786.
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
I have been honored with your letter of September the 26th, which was delivered me by Mr. Houdon, who is safely returned. He has brought with him the mould of the face only, having left the other parts of his work with his workmen to come by some other conveyance. Doctor Franklin, who was joined with me in the superintendence of this just monument, having left us before what is called the costume of the statue was decided on, I cannot so well satisfy myself, and I am persuaded I should not so well satisfy the world, as by consulting your own wish or inclination as to this article. Permit me, therefore, to ask you whether there is any particular dress, or any particular attitude, which you would rather wish to be adopted. I shall take a singular pleasure in having your own idea executed, if you will be so good as to make it known to me.
I am grateful to have received your letter dated September 26th, delivered to me by Mr. Houdon, who has returned safely. He brought with him only the mold of the face, leaving the other parts of his work with his team to be sent by a different means. Doctor Franklin, who was working with me on the oversight of this important monument, left us before the statue's costume was decided, so I feel uncertain about it. I believe that I would not be able to meet my own satisfaction, nor that of the public, without considering your preferences regarding this matter. Therefore, I would like to ask if there’s a specific outfit or particular pose you would prefer. I would be very pleased to bring your vision to life if you could kindly share it with me.
I thank you for the trouble you have taken in answering my inquiries on the subject of Bushnel’s machine. Colonel Humphreys could only give me a general idea of it from the effects proposed, rather than the means contrived to produce them.
I appreciate the effort you put into answering my questions about Bushnel's machine. Colonel Humphreys was only able to provide me with a general understanding based on the intended effects, rather than the methods used to achieve them.
I sincerely rejoice that three such works as the opening the Potomac and James rivers, and a canal from the Dismal Swamp are likely to be carried through. There is still a fourth, however, which I had the honor I believe of mentioning to you in a letter of March the 15th, 1784, from Annapolis. It is the cutting a canal which shall unite the heads of the Cayahoga and Beaver Creek. The utility of this, and even the necessity of it, if we mean to aim at the trade of the lakes, will be palpable to you. The only question is its practicability. The best information I could get as to this was from General Hand, who described the country as champain, and these waters as heading in lagoons, which would be easily united. Maryland and Pennsylvania are both interested to concur with us in this work. The institutions you propose to establish by the shares in the Potomac and James river companies, given you by the Assembly, and the particular objects of those institutions, are most worthy. It occurs to me, however, that if the bill ‘for the more general diffusion of knowledge,’ which is in the revisal, should be passed, it would supersede the use and obscure the existence of the charity schools you have thought of. I suppose in fact, that that bill or some other like it will be passed. I never saw one received with more enthusiasm than that was in the year 1778, by the House of Delegates, who ordered it to be printed. And it seemed afterwards, that nothing but the extreme distress of our resources prevented its being carried into execution even during the war. It is an axiom in my mind, that our liberty can never be safe but in the hands of the people themselves, and that too of the people with a certain degree of instruction. This it is the business of the State to effect, and on a general plan. Should you see a probability of this, however, you can never be at a loss for worthy objects of this donation. Even the remitting that proportion of the toll on all articles transported, would present itself under many favorable considerations, and it would in effect be to make the State do in a certain proportion what they ought to have done wholly: for I think they should clear all the rivers, and lay them open and free to all. However, you are infinitely the best judge, how the most good may be effected with these shares.
I’m really glad that projects like opening the Potomac and James rivers and creating a canal from the Dismal Swamp are likely to move forward. However, there’s a fourth project I believe I mentioned in a letter to you on March 15, 1784, from Annapolis. It involves building a canal that would connect the heads of the Cayahoga and Beaver Creek. The usefulness, and even the necessity, of this for aiming at trade on the lakes will be evident to you. The only question is whether it’s feasible. The best information I could get was from General Hand, who described the area as flat, with these waters starting in lagoons that would be easy to connect. Both Maryland and Pennsylvania have a stake in collaborating with us on this project. The institutions you propose to set up through the shares in the Potomac and James river companies, given to you by the Assembly, are very commendable. However, I’m concerned that if the bill for ‘the more general diffusion of knowledge,’ which is under review, gets passed, it might overshadow the charity schools you have in mind. I assume that bill or something similar will pass. I’ve never seen a bill received with more enthusiasm than the one in 1778, which the House of Delegates ordered to be printed. It seemed that only the extreme strain on our resources prevented it from being implemented even during the war. I firmly believe that our liberty can only be safe in the hands of the people themselves, and only if those people have a certain level of education. It’s the State’s duty to achieve this, and to do it in a comprehensive way. If you see a chance of this happening, you won’t have trouble finding worthy causes for this donation. Even reducing the toll on all goods transported would be beneficial in many ways, and effectively mean the State would be doing a part of what they should fully handle: I believe they should clear all the rivers and make them accessible and free for everyone. However, you are undoubtedly the best judge of how to achieve the most good with these shares.
All is quiet here. There are indeed two specks in the horizon: the exchange of Bavaria, and the demarcation between the Emperor and Turks. We may add as a third, the interference by the King of Prussia in the domestic disputes of the Dutch. Great Britain, it is said, begins to look towards us with a little more good humor. But how true this may be, I cannot say with certainty. We are trying to render her commerce as little necessary to us as possible, by finding other markets for our produce. A most favorable reduction of duties on whale-oil has taken place here, which will give us a vent for that article, paying a duty of a guinea and a half a ton only.
Everything is quiet here. There are indeed two points on the horizon: the exchange in Bavaria and the border between the Emperor and the Turks. We can also mention the King of Prussia's interference in the internal issues of the Dutch as a third point. It’s said that Great Britain is starting to look at us with a bit more friendliness. But I'm not sure how true that is. We are working to make her trade less essential for us by finding other markets for our products. There has been a very favorable reduction in duties on whale oil here, which will allow us to sell that product while paying only a duty of a guinea and a half per ton.
I have the honor to be, with the highest esteem and respect, Dear Sir,
I’m honored to be, with the utmost esteem and respect, Dear Sir,
your most obedient and
your most loyal and
most humble servant,
most humble servant,
Tm: Jefferson.
Tm: Jefferson.
LETTER CXLIX.—TO A. CARY, January 7, 1786
TO A. CARY.
Paris, January 7, 1786.
Paris, January 7, 1786.
Dear Sir,
Dear [Name],
The very few of my countrymen who happen to be punctual, will find their punctuality a misfortune to them. Of this I shall give you a proof by the present application, which I should not make to you, if I did not know you to be superior to the torpidity of our climate. In my conversations with the Count de Buffon on the subjects of Natural History, I find him absolutely unacquainted with our elk and our deer. He has hitherto believed that our deer never had horns more than a foot long; and has, therefore, classed them with the roe-buck, which I am sure you know them to be different from. I have examined some of the red deer of this country at the distance of about sixty yards, and I find no other difference between them and ours, than a shade or two in the color. Will you take the trouble to procure for me the largest pair of buck’s horns you can, and a large skin of each color, that is to say, a red and a blue? If it were possible to take these from a buck just killed, to leave all the bones of the head in the skin with the horns on, to leave the bones of the legs in the skin also, and the hoofs to it, so that having only made an incision all along the belly and neck to take the animal out at, we could by sewing up that incision and stuffing the skin, present the true size and form of the animal, it would be a most precious present. Our deer have been often sent to England and Scotland. Do you know (with certainty) whether they have ever bred with the red deer of those countries? With respect to the elk, I despair of your being able to get for me any thing but the horns of it. David Ross I know has a pair; perhaps he would give them to us. It is useless to ask for the skin and skeleton, because I think it is not in your power to get them, otherwise they would be most desirable. A gentleman, fellow-passenger with me from Boston to England, promised to send to you in my name some hares, rabbits, pheasants, and partridges, by the return of the ship which was to go to Virginia, and the captain promised to take great care of them. My friend procured the animals, and the ship changing her destination, he kept them, in hopes of finding some other conveyance, till they all perished. I do not despair, however, of finding some opportunity still of sending a colony of useful animals. I am making a collection of vines for wine, and for the table; also of some trees, such as the cork-oak, &c. &c.
The few people from my country who are actually punctual will find that their punctuality becomes a disadvantage. I’ll prove this to you with my current request, which I wouldn’t make if I didn’t believe you were above the sluggishness of our climate. In my discussions with Count de Buffon about Natural History, I’ve realized he knows nothing about our elk and deer. He has mistakenly thought that our deer never had antlers longer than a foot, which is why he has classified them with the roe deer, which I’m sure you know are different. I’ve observed some red deer in this country from about sixty yards away, and the only difference between them and ours seems to be a slight variation in color. Could you please get me the largest pair of buck’s antlers you can find, along with a large skin in each color, specifically one red and one blue? If it’s possible to obtain these from a freshly killed buck while keeping all the bones of the head and legs in the skin along with the hooves, it would be fantastic. We could make a cut along the belly and neck to remove the animal, then sew up the incision and stuff the skin to show the true size and shape of the animal—it would be an invaluable gift. Our deer have often been sent to England and Scotland. Do you know for sure if they have ever interbred with the red deer in those countries? As for the elk, I doubt you’ll be able to get me anything but the antlers. I know David Ross has a pair; maybe he can give them to us. It’s pointless to ask for the skin and skeleton because I think it’s beyond your reach; otherwise, I’d love to have them. A gentleman I traveled with from Boston to England said he would send you some hares, rabbits, pheasants, and partridges in my name through the ship returning to Virginia, and the captain promised to take good care of them. My friend managed to gather the animals, but when the ship changed its route, he held onto them in hopes of finding another way to send them, but they all died. Nonetheless, I still hope to find a way to send a group of useful animals. I’m also collecting vines for wine and table use, as well as some trees like cork oak, and so on.
Every thing is absolutely quiet in Europe. There is not, therefore, a word of news to communicate. I pray you to present me affectionately to your family and that of Tuckahoe. Whatever expense is necessary for procuring me the articles above-mentioned, I will instantly replace, either in cash, or in any thing you may wish from hence.
Everything is completely quiet in Europe. So, there’s no news to share. Please send my warm regards to your family and the Tuckahoe family. I will promptly reimburse you for any costs incurred in getting the items I mentioned, either in cash or with whatever you might want from here.
I am with very sincere esteem, Dear Sir,
I have great respect for you, Dear Sir,
your most obedient, humble servant,
your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CL.—TO MAJOR GENERAL GREENE, January 12, 1786
TO MAJOR GENERAL GREENE.
To Major General Greene.
Paris, January 12, 1786.
Paris, Jan 12, 1786.
Dear Sir,
Dear [Name],
Your favor of June the 1st did not come to hand till the 3rd of September. I immediately made inquiries on the subject of the frigate you had authorized your relation to sell to this government, and I found that he had long before that sold her to government, and sold her very well, as I understood. I noted the price on the back of your letter, which I have since unfortunately mislaid, so that I cannot at this moment state to you the price. But the transaction is of so long standing that you cannot fail to have received advice of it. I should without delay have given you this information, but that I hoped to be able to accompany it with information as to the live-oak, which was another object of your letter. This matter, though it has been constantly pressed by Mr. St. John, and also by the Marquis de la Fayette, since his return from Berlin, has been spun to a great length, and at last they have only decided to send to you for samples of the wood. Letters on this subject from the Marquis de la Fayette accompany this.
Your letter from June 1st didn’t reach me until September 3rd. I quickly looked into the frigate you had authorized your relative to sell to the government. I found out that he had already sold it to them well before that date, as far as I understand. I noted the price on the back of your letter, but unfortunately, I've misplaced it, so I can’t tell you the price right now. However, the transaction happened long enough ago that you must have already been informed about it. I would have given you this information sooner, but I was hoping to include details about the live-oak, which was another topic of your letter. This issue has been frequently pushed by Mr. St. John and also by the Marquis de la Fayette since his return from Berlin, but it has dragged on for quite some time, and in the end, they’ve only decided to ask you for wood samples. Letters on this subject from the Marquis de la Fayette are included with this.
Every thing in Europe is quiet, and promises quiet for at least a year to come. We do not find it easy to make commercial arrangements in Europe. There is a want of confidence in us. This country has lately reduced the duties on American whale-oil to about a guinea and a half the ton, and I think they will take the greatest part of what we can furnish. I hope, therefore, that this branch of our commerce will resume its activity. Portugal shows a disposition to court our trade; but this has for some time been discouraged by the hostilities of the piratical states of Barbary. The Emperor of Morocco, who had taken one of our vessels, immediately consented to suspend hostilities and ultimately gave up the vessel, cargo, and crew. I think we shall be able to settle matters with him. But I am not sanguine as to the Algerines. They have taken two of our vessels, and I fear will ask such a tribute for a forbearance of their piracies as the United States would be unwilling to pay. When this idea comes across my mind, my faculties are absolutely suspended between indignation and impatience. I think whatever sums we are obliged to pay for freedom of navigation in the European seas, should be levied on the European commerce with us by a separate impost, that these powers may see that they protect these enormities for their own loss. I have the honor to be, with sentiments of the most perfect esteem and respect, Dear Sir,
Everything in Europe is quiet, and it looks like it will stay that way for at least a year. We find it challenging to set up commercial agreements in Europe. There's a lack of confidence in us. This country has recently lowered the duties on American whale oil to about one and a half guineas per ton, and I believe they'll take most of what we can supply. So, I’m hopeful that this part of our trade will regain its momentum. Portugal seems eager to engage with our trade, but for some time this has been hindered by the actions of the pirate states of Barbary. The Emperor of Morocco, who seized one of our ships, quickly agreed to stop hostilities and eventually returned the ship, cargo, and crew. I think we’ll be able to resolve this issue with him. However, I’m not optimistic about the Algerians. They have taken two of our vessels, and I worry they will demand such a tribute for stopping their piracy that the United States would find unacceptable. When I think about this, I feel torn between anger and impatience. I believe that any payments we have to make for safe passage in European waters should be charged to the European trade with us through a separate tax, so these powers can see they’re protecting these wrongdoings at their own expense. I have the honor to be, with the highest regard and respect, Dear Sir,
your most obedient
your most devoted
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CLI.—TO LISTER ASQUITH, January 13, 1786
TO LISTER ASQUITH.
To Lister Asquith.
Paris, January 13, 1786.
Paris, Jan 13, 1786.
Sir,
Hey,
I have duly received your letter of the 2nd instant. The delays, which have attended your enlargement, have been much beyond my expectation. The reason I have not written to you for some time, has been the constant expectation of receiving an order for your discharge. I have not received it however. I went to Versailles three days ago, and made fresh applications on the subject. I received assurances which give me reason to hope that the order for your discharge will soon be made out. Be assured it shall not be delayed a moment after it comes to my hands, and that I shall omit no opportunity of hastening it. In the mean time, I think you may comfort yourself and companions with the certainty of receiving it ere long.
I have received your letter from the 2nd. The delays regarding your release have been much longer than I expected. The reason I haven’t written to you in a while is that I've been constantly expecting to get an order for your discharge. Unfortunately, I haven't received it yet. I went to Versailles three days ago and made further inquiries about it. I received assurances that make me hopeful the order for your discharge will be issued soon. Rest assured that I won’t delay it for a moment once I have it, and I will do everything I can to speed it up. In the meantime, you and your companions can find comfort in knowing that you will receive it before long.
I am, Sir, your most humble servant,
I am, Sir, your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Jefferson.
RE QUESTIONS FOR ECONOMIE POLITIQUE ET DIPLOMATIQUE
[The following were answers by Mr. Jefferson to questions put to him by Monsieur de Meusnier, the author of that section of the Encyclopédie Méthodique, titled Économie Politique et Diplomatique.]
1. What has led Congress to determine that the concurrence of seven votes is requisite in questions, which by the Confederation are submitted to the decision of a majority of the United States in Congress assembled?
1. What has caused Congress to decide that the agreement of seven votes is necessary for questions that, according to the Confederation, are decided by a majority of the United States in Congress assembled?
The ninth article of Confederation, section sixth, evidently establishes three orders of questions in Congress. 1. The greater ones which relate to making peace or war, alliances, coinage, requisitions for money, raising military force, or appointing its commander-in-chief. 2. The lesser ones which comprehend all other matters submitted by the Confederation to the federal head. 3. The single question of adjourning from day to day. This gradation of questions is distinctly characterized by the article.
The ninth article of the Confederation, section six, clearly sets out three categories of issues in Congress. 1. The major ones that deal with making peace or war, forming alliances, minting money, requesting funds, raising military forces, or appointing the commander-in-chief. 2. The minor ones that include all other matters submitted by the Confederation to the federal government. 3. The single issue of adjourning from day to day. This hierarchy of questions is clearly defined by the article.
In proportion to the magnitude of these questions, a greater concurrence of the voices composing the Union was thought necessary. Three degrees of concurrence, well distinguished by substantial circumstances, offered themselves to notice. 1. A concurrence of a majority of the people of the Union. It was thought that this would be insured by requiring the voices of nine States; because according to the loose estimates which had then been made of the inhabitants, and the proportion of them which were free, it was believed, that even the nine smallest would include a majority of the free citizens of the Union. The voices, therefore, of nine States were required in the greater questions. 2. A concurrence of the majority of the States. Seven constitute that majority. This number, therefore, was required in the lesser questions. 3. A concurrence of the majority of Congress, that is to say, of the States actually present in it. As there is no Congress when there are not seven States present, this concurrence could never be of less than four States. But these might happen to be the four smallest, which would not include one ninth part of the free citizens of the Union. This kind of majority, therefore, was entrusted with nothing but the power of adjourning themselves from day to day.
In relation to the importance of these issues, a greater agreement among the states in the Union was deemed necessary. Three levels of agreement, clearly marked by significant circumstances, came to attention. 1. An agreement from a majority of the people in the Union. It was believed that this would be guaranteed by requiring the votes of nine States; since, based on the rough estimates at that time of the population and the fraction of them that were free, it was thought that even the nine smallest states would represent a majority of the free citizens of the Union. Therefore, nine States' votes were needed for major issues. 2. An agreement from a majority of the States. Seven States make up that majority, so that number was required for minor issues. 3. An agreement from the majority of Congress, meaning the States that were actually present. Since there can't be a Congress without at least seven States present, this agreement could never involve fewer than four States. However, these could potentially be the four smallest states, which would not represent even one-ninth of the free citizens in the Union. Therefore, this type of majority was only given the authority to adjourn themselves day to day.
Here then are three kinds of majorities. 1. Of the people. 2. Of the States. 3. Of the Congress. Each of which is entrusted to a certain length.
Here are three types of majorities. 1. Of the people. 2. Of the States. 3. Of the Congress. Each of which is given a specific duration.
Though the paragraph in question be clumsily expressed, yet it strictly announces its own intentions. It defines with precision, the greater questions, for which nine votes shall be requisite. In the lesser questions, it then requires a majority of the United States in Congress assembled: a term which will apply either to the number seven, as being a majority of the States, or to the number four, as being a majority of Congress. Which of the two kinds of majority was meant. Clearly that which would leave a still smaller kind for the decision of the question of adjournment. The contrary construction would be absurd.
Although the paragraph in question is awkwardly phrased, it clearly states its intentions. It precisely defines the larger issues, which require nine votes. For the smaller issues, it calls for a majority of the United States in Congress assembled: a term that can either refer to seven, as a majority of the States, or four, as a majority of Congress. It's clear which type of majority was intended. Clearly, it refers to that which would leave an even smaller majority to decide on the question of adjourning. The opposite interpretation would be unreasonable.
This paragraph, therefore, should be understood as if it had been expressed in the following terms. ‘The United States in Congress assembled, shall never engage in war, &c. but with the consent of nine States: nor determine any other question, but with the consent of a majority of the whole States, except the question of adjournment from day to day, which may be determined by a majority of the States actually present in Congress.’
This paragraph should be understood as if it had been stated like this: 'The United States in Congress convened shall never go to war, etc., without the consent of nine States; nor decide any other issue without a majority of all the States agreeing, except for the question of adjourning from day to day, which can be decided by a majority of the States that are actually present in Congress.'
2. How far is it permitted to bring on the reconsideration of a question which Congress has once determined?
2. How far can we go in reevaluating a question that Congress has already decided?
The first Congress which met being composed mostly of persons who had been members of the legislatures of their respective States, it was natural for them to adopt those rules in their proceedings, to which they had been accustomed in their legislative houses; and the more so, as these happened to be nearly the same, as having been copied from the same original, those of the British parliament. One of those rules of proceeding was, that ‘a question once determined cannot be proposed a second time in the same session.’ Congress, during their first session in the autumn of 1774, observed this rule strictly. But before their meeting in the spring of the following year, the war had broken out. They found themselves at the head of that war, in an executive as well as legislative capacity. They found that a rule, wise and necessary for a legislative body, did not suit an executive one, which, being governed by events, must change their purposes as those change. Besides, their session was then to become of equal duration with the war; and a rule, which should render their legislation immutable during all that period, could not be submitted to. They, therefore, renounced it in practice, and have ever since continued to reconsider their questions freely. The only restraint, as yet provided against the abuse of this permission to reconsider, is, that when a question has been decided, it cannot be proposed for reconsideration, but by some one who voted in favor of the former decision, and declares that he has since changed his opinion. I do not recollect accurately enough, whether it be necessary that his vote should have decided that of his State, and the vote of his State have decided that of Congress.
The first Congress was mostly made up of people who had been members of their state legislatures, so it made sense for them to adopt the rules they were used to from those legislative bodies. These rules were quite similar because they were modeled after the British Parliament. One of these rules was that "a question once decided cannot be raised again in the same session." During their first session in the fall of 1774, Congress followed this rule strictly. However, before they met again in the spring of the next year, the war had begun. They found themselves leading that war, both as an executive and legislative body. They realized that a rule that was wise and necessary for a legislative group did not fit an executive one, which must adapt to changing circumstances. Additionally, their session would last as long as the war, and a rule that made their legislation permanent throughout that time was unacceptable. So, they decided to abandon that rule in practice and have since allowed themselves to reconsider decisions freely. The only limit on this ability to reconsider is that a question can only be brought back for reconsideration by someone who initially voted in favor of it and states that they have since changed their mind. I'm not sure if it's necessary for their vote to have influenced their state's decision, which in turn affected Congress's vote.
Perhaps it might have been better, when they were forming the federal constitution, to have assimilated it as much as possible to the particular constitutions of the States. All of these have distributed the legislative, executive, and judiciary powers into different departments. In the federal constitution the judiciary powers are separated from the others; but the legislative and executive are both exercised by Congress. A means of amending this defect has been thought of. Congress having a power to establish what committees of their own body they please, and to arrange among them the distribution of their business, they might, on the first day of their annual meeting, appoint an executive committee consisting of a member from each State, and refer to them all executive business which should occur during their session; confining themselves to what is of a legislative nature, that is to say, to the heads described in the ninth article, as of the competence of nine States only, and to such other questions as should lead to the establishment of general rules. The journal of this committee of the preceding day might be read the next morning in Congress, and considered as approved, unless a vote was demanded on a particular article, and that article changed. The sessions of Congress would then be short, and when they separated, the Confederation authorizes the appointment of a committee of the States which would naturally succeed to the business of the executive committee. The legislative business would be better done, because the attention of the members would not be interrupted by the details of execution; and the executive business would be better done, because business of this nature is better adapted to small than great bodies. A monarchical head should confide the execution of its will to departments, consisting each of a plurality of hands, who would warp that will as much as possible towards wisdom and moderation, the two qualities it generally wants. But a republican head, founding its decrees originally in these two qualities, should commit them to a single hand for execution, giving them thereby a promptitude which republican proceedings generally want. Congress could not, indeed, confide their executive business to a smaller number than a committee consisting of a member from each State. This is necessary to insure the confidence of the Union. But it would be gaining a great deal to reduce the executive head to thirteen, and to relieve themselves of those details. This, however, has as yet been the subject of private conversations only.
Maybe it would have been better, when they were creating the federal constitution, to align it as closely as possible with the individual constitutions of the States. Each of these has divided the legislative, executive, and judicial powers into different departments. In the federal constitution, the judicial powers are separate from the others, but both the legislative and executive functions are handled by Congress. A way to fix this issue has been considered. Since Congress has the power to create any committees they choose and to organize the distribution of their work, they could, on the first day of their annual meeting, set up an executive committee made up of one member from each State and assign all executive tasks from their session to them, limiting their focus to legislative matters — specifically those described in the ninth article that require the consensus of nine States, along with any other issues that would help establish general rules. The minutes from the previous day's committee meeting could be read the next morning in Congress and treated as approved unless a vote was requested on a specific item, which could then be amended. This approach would shorten the sessions of Congress, and once they adjourned, the Confederation allows for the formation of a committee of the States, which would take over the responsibilities of the executive committee. Legislative work would improve because members wouldn't be distracted by execution details, and executive tasks would also improve since these tasks are more suited for smaller groups than large ones. A monarch should delegate the implementation of their decisions to departments made up of multiple people, who would steer those decisions towards wisdom and moderation, which they often lack. However, a republican leader, whose decisions are based on these qualities, should assign them to a single person for execution, thus ensuring the promptness that is often missing in republican processes. Congress couldn’t, in fact, delegate their executive duties to fewer members than a committee representing each State. This is essential to maintain the Union's confidence. But it would be a significant improvement to limit the executive authority to thirteen members and relieve themselves of the minutiae. Nonetheless, this idea has only been discussed privately so far.
3. A succinct account of paper money, in America?
3. A brief overview of paper money in America?
Previous to the late revolution, most of the States were in the habit, whenever they had occasion for more money than could be raised immediately, by taxes, to issue paper notes or bills, in the name of the State, wherein they promised to pay to the bearer the sum named in the note or bill. In some of the States, no time of payment was fixed, nor tax laid to enable payment. In these, the bills depreciated. But others of the States named in the bill the day when it should be paid, laid taxes to bring in money enough for that purpose, and paid the bills punctually, on or before the day named. In these States, paper money was in as high estimation as gold and silver. On the commencement of the late Revolution, Congress had no money. The external commerce of the States being suppressed, the farmer could not sell his produce, and, of course, could not pay a tax. Congress had no resource then, but in paper money. Not being able to lay a tax for its redemption, they could only promise that taxes should be laid for that purpose, so as to redeem the bills by a certain day. They did not foresee the long continuance of the war, the almost total suppression of their exports, and other events, which rendered the performance of their engagement impossible. The paper money continued, for a twelvemonth, equal to gold and silver. But the quantities which they were obliged to emit, for the purposes of the war, exceeded what had been the usual quantity of the circulating medium. It began, therefore, to become cheaper, or, as we expressed it, it depreciated, as gold and silver would have done, had they been thrown into circulation in equal quantities. But not having, like them, an intrinsic value, its depreciation was more rapid, and greater, than could ever have happened with them. In two years, it had fallen to two dollars of paper money for one of silver; in three years, to four for one; in nine months more, it fell to ten for one; and in the six months following, that is to say, by September, 1779, it had fallen to twenty for one.
Before the late revolution, most states would, whenever they needed more money than they could raise immediately through taxes, issue paper notes or bills in the name of the state, promising to pay the bearer the amount stated on the note or bill. In some states, there was no specific time set for payment, nor were taxes imposed to facilitate it. In these instances, the bills lost value. However, other states specified a payment date on the bill, imposed taxes to generate enough funds for that payment, and paid the bills on or before the due date. In these states, paper money was valued just as highly as gold and silver. At the beginning of the recent Revolution, Congress had no funds. With external trade being restricted, farmers couldn't sell their produce and couldn't pay their taxes. Congress then relied solely on paper money. Unable to impose a tax to redeem it, they could only promise that taxes would be enacted for that purpose to redeem the bills by a certain deadline. They didn’t foresee the extended duration of the war, the near-total halt of their exports, and other circumstances that would make fulfilling their promise impossible. For a year, paper money held equal value to gold and silver. However, the amount they had to issue for the war exceeded the usual amount in circulation. Consequently, it began to lose value, or as we say, depreciated, just as gold and silver would have if they’d been circulated in equal amounts. But lacking intrinsic value like gold and silver, its depreciation was quicker and more severe than would ever happen to them. Within two years, it had depreciated to two dollars in paper for one dollar in silver; in three years, it was four to one; in another nine months, it was ten to one; and in the following six months, by September 1779, it had dropped to twenty to one.
Congress, alarmed at the consequences which were to be apprehended, should they lose this resource altogether, thought it necessary to make a vigorous effort to stop its further depreciation. They, therefore, determined, in the first place, that their emissions should not exceed two hundred millions of dollars, to which term they were then nearly arrived: and, though they knew that twenty dollars of what they were then issuing, would buy no more for their army than one silver dollar would buy, yet they thought it would be worth while to submit to the sacrifices of nineteen out of twenty dollars, if they could thereby stop further depreciation. They, therefore, published an address to their constituents, in which they renewed their original declarations, that this paper money should be redeemed at dollar for dollar. They proved the ability of the States to do this, and that their liberty would be cheaply bought at that price. The declaration was ineffectual. No man received the money at a better rate; on the contrary, in six months more, that is, by March, 1780, it had fallen to forty for one. Congress then tried an experiment of a different kind. Considering their former offers to redeem this money, at par, as relinquished by the general refusal to take it, but in progressive depreciation, they required the whole to be brought in, declared it should be redeemed at its present value, of forty for one, and that they would give to the holders new bills, reduced in their denomination to the sum of gold or silver, which was actually to be paid for them. This would reduce the nominal sum of the mass in circulation, to the present worth of that mass, which was five millions; a sum not too great for the circulation of the States, and which, they therefore hoped, would not depreciate further, as they continued firm in their purpose of emitting no more. This effort was as unavailing as the former. Very little of the money was brought in. It continued to circulate and to depreciate, till the end of 1780, when it had fallen to seventy-five for one, and the money circulated from the French army, being, by that time, sensible in all the States north of the Potomac, the paper ceased its circulation altogether, in those States. In Virginia and North Carolina, it continued a year longer, within which time it fell to one thousand for one, and then expired, as it had done in the other States, without a single groan. Not a murmur was heard, on this occasion, among the people. On the contrary, universal congratulations took place, on their seeing this gigantic mass, whose dissolution had threatened convulsions which should shake their infant confederacy to its centre, quietly interred in its grave. Foreigners, indeed, who do not, like the natives, feel indulgence for its memory, as of a being which has vindicated their liberties, and fallen in the moment of victory, have been loud, and still are loud in their complaints. A few of them have reason; but the most noisy are not the best of them. They are persons who have become bankrupt, by unskilful attempts at commerce with America. That they may have some pretext to offer to their creditors, they have bought up great masses of this dead money in America, where it is to be had at five thousand for one, and they show the certificates of their paper possessions, as if they had all died in their hands, and had been the cause of their bankruptcy. Justice will be done to all, by paying to all persons what this money actually cost them, with an interest of six per cent, from the time they received it. If difficulties present themselves in the ascertaining the epoch of the receipt, it has been thought better that the State should lose, by admitting easy proofs, than that individuals, and especially foreigners, should, by being held to such as would be difficult, perhaps impossible.
Congress, worried about the consequences if they lost this resource completely, felt it was necessary to make a strong effort to stop its further decline in value. They decided, first, that their emissions shouldn’t exceed two hundred million dollars, which they were almost at that point. Although they realized that twenty dollars of what they were issuing would buy their army no more than one silver dollar would, they thought it would be worth the sacrifice of nineteen out of twenty dollars if it meant they could prevent further depreciation. They published an address to their constituents, reiterating their original promise that this paper money would be redeemed dollar for dollar. They demonstrated the States’ ability to do this, claiming that their liberty would be a bargain at that price. However, this declaration had no effect. No one accepted the money for a better rate; instead, by March 1780, it had fallen to forty to one. Congress then tried a different approach. They considered their previous offers to redeem this money at face value as given up due to the general refusal to accept it, and instead required all of it to be brought in. They declared it would be redeemed at its current value of forty to one and that they would issue new bills, reduced to the worth of gold or silver that would actually be paid for them. This would lower the total nominal amount in circulation to its present value of five million, which was not too large for circulation in the States, and they hoped it wouldn’t depreciate further, as they remained committed to issuing no more. This effort was just as unsuccessful as the last. Very little of the money came back. It continued to circulate and depreciate until the end of 1780, when it had fallen to seventy-five to one. By that time, the money from the French army was noticeable in all states north of the Potomac, and the paper money completely stopped circulating in those states. In Virginia and North Carolina, it continued for another year, during which time it dropped to one thousand to one, and then it faded away like it had in the other states, without a single complaint. There wasn't a peep of discontent among the people. Instead, there was widespread celebration as they saw this enormous mass, which had threatened to disrupt their young confederacy, quietly laid to rest. Foreigners, however, who do not share the natives’ fondness for its memory, as something that defended their liberties and expired victorious, have been vocal and continue to complain. Some of them have a point, but the loudest critics aren’t necessarily the most valid. They are those who went bankrupt due to poor attempts at trading with America. To present a case to their creditors, they have bought up large amounts of this worthless money in America, where it’s available at five thousand to one, and they display the certificates of their paper assets as if they had all lost value in their hands and caused their bankruptcies. Justice will be served by compensating everyone based on what this money originally cost them, plus six percent interest from when they received it. If any difficulties arise in determining when it was received, it has been deemed better for the State to lose by accepting simpler evidence rather than individuals, especially foreigners, being held to proofs that would be difficult and possibly impossible to provide.
4. Virginia certainly owed two millions, sterling, to Great Britain, at the conclusion of the war. Some have conjectured the debt as high as three millions. I think that state owed near as much as all the rest put together. This is to be ascribed to peculiarities in the tobacco trade. The advantages made by the British merchants, on the tobaccos consigned to them, were so enormous, that they spared no means of increasing those consignments. A powerful engine for this purpose, was the giving good prices and credit to the planter, till they got him more immersed in debt than he could pay, without selling his lands or slaves. They then reduced the prices given for his tobacco, so that let his shipments be ever so great, and his demand of necessaries ever so economical, they never permitted him to clear off his debt. These debts had become hereditary from father to son, for many generations, so that the planters were a species of property, annexed to certain mercantile houses in London.
4. Virginia definitely owed two million pounds to Great Britain at the end of the war. Some have speculated that the debt was as high as three million. I believe that state owed nearly as much as all the others combined. This can be attributed to specific issues in the tobacco trade. The profits that British merchants made on the tobacco they received were so massive that they did everything possible to increase those shipments. A key strategy for this was offering good prices and credit to the planter, until he became so deep in debt that he couldn’t pay it off without selling his land or slaves. Then they lowered the prices they paid for his tobacco, so that no matter how large his shipments were or how frugally he lived, he was never able to pay off his debt. These debts became hereditary, passed down from father to son for many generations, making the planters a kind of property tied to certain mercantile houses in London.
5. The members of Congress are differently paid by different States. Some are on fixed allowances, from four to eight dollars a day. Others have their expenses paid, and a surplus for their time. This surplus is of two, three, or four dollars a day.
5. Members of Congress are paid differently by various states. Some receive fixed daily allowances ranging from four to eight dollars. Others have their expenses covered and also get an extra amount for their time. This extra amount is two, three, or four dollars a day.
6. I do not believe there has ever been a moment, when a single whig, in any one State, would not have shuddered at the very idea of a separation of their State from the confederacy. The tories would, at all times, have been glad to see the confederacy dissolved, even by particles at a time, in hopes of their attaching themselves again to Great Britain.
6. I don't think there was ever a time when a single Whig in any state didn't cringe at the thought of their state separating from the confederacy. The Tories would have always been happy to see the confederacy break apart, even bit by bit, hoping to reconnect with Great Britain.
7. The 11th article of Confederation admits Canada to accede to the Confederation, at its own will, but adds, ‘no other colony shall be admitted to the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States.’ When the plan of April, 1784, for establishing new States, was on the carpet, the committee who framed the report of that plan, had inserted this clause, ‘provided nine States agree to such admission, according to the reservation of the 11th of the articles of Confederation.’ It was objected, 1. That the words of the Confederation, ‘no other colony,’ could refer only to the residuary possessions of Great Britain, as the two Floridas, Nova Scotia, &c. not being already parts of the Union; that the law for ‘admitting’ a new member into the Union, could not be applied to a territory which was already in the Union, as making part of a State which was a member of it. 2. That it would be improper to allow ‘nine’ States to receive a new member, because the same reasons which rendered that number proper now, would render a greater one proper, when the number composing the Union should be increased. They therefore struck out this paragraph, and inserted a proviso, that, ‘the consent of so many States, in Congress, shall be first obtained, as may, at the time, be competent;’ thus leaving the question, whether the 11th article applies to the admission of new States, to be decided when that admission shall be asked. See the Journal of Congress of April 20, 1784. Another doubt was started in this debate; viz. whether the agreement of the nine Stales, required by the Confederation, was to be made by their legislatures, or by their delegates in Congress. The expression adopted, viz. ‘so many States, in Congress, is first obtained,’ show what was their sense of this matter. If it be agreed, that the 11th article of the Confederation is not to be applied to the admission of these new States, then it is contended that their admission comes within the 13th article, which forbids ‘any alteration, unless agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.’ The independence of the new States of Kentucky and Franklin, will soon bring on the ultimate decision of all these questions.
7. The 11th article of the Confederation allows Canada to join the Confederation if it chooses, but adds, "no other colony can join unless nine States agree to it." When the April 1784 plan to create new States was being discussed, the committee that prepared the report included this clause: "provided nine States agree to such admission, according to the stipulation in the 11th article of the Confederation." There were objections: 1. The phrase "no other colony" could only apply to the remaining possessions of Great Britain, like the two Floridas, Nova Scotia, etc., since they were not already part of the Union; the process for "admitting" a new member couldn't apply to a territory that was already part of the Union, as it was part of a State that was already a member. 2. It would be inappropriate to allow "nine" States to admit a new member because the same reasons that made that number appropriate now would justify a larger number when the total number of States in the Union increased. Therefore, they removed this paragraph and added a proviso that "the consent of an appropriate number of States in Congress must first be obtained," leaving the question of whether the 11th article applies to the admission of new States to be determined at the time admission is requested. See the Journal of Congress of April 20, 1784. Another question arose in this debate: whether the agreement of the nine States required by the Confederation had to come from their legislatures or their delegates in Congress. The language used, "so many States in Congress must be obtained first," indicates their view on this issue. If it is agreed that the 11th article of the Confederation does not apply to the admission of these new States, then it is argued that their admission falls under the 13th article, which prohibits "any alteration unless agreed to in a Congress of the United States and later confirmed by the legislatures of every State." The independence of the new States of Kentucky and Franklin will soon lead to a final decision on all these questions.
8. Particular instances, whereby the General Assembly of Virginia have shown, that they considered the ordinance called their constitution, as every other ordinance, or act of the legislature, subject to be altered by the legislature for the time being.
8. Specific instances where the General Assembly of Virginia has demonstrated that they viewed the ordinance known as their constitution, like any other ordinance or legislative act, as something that could be changed by the current legislature.
1. The convention which formed that constitution, declared themselves to be the House of Delegates, during the term for which they were originally elected, and, in the autumn of the year, met the Senate, elected under the new constitution, and did legislative business with them. At this time, there were malefactors in the public jail, and there was, as yet, no court established for their trial. They passed a law, appointing certain members by name, who were then members of the Executive Council, to be a court for the trial of these malefactors, though the constitution had said, in express words, that no person should exercise the powers of more than one of the three departments, legislative, executive, and judiciary, at the same time. This proves, that the very men who had made that constitution, understood that it would be alterable by the General Assembly. This court was only for that occasion. When the next General Assembly met, after the election of the ensuing year, there was a new set of malefactors in the jail, and no court to try them. This Assembly passed a similar law to the former, appointing certain members of the Executive Council to be an occasional court for this particular case. Not having the journals of Assembly by me, I am unable to say whether this measure was repealed afterwards. However, they are instances of executive and judiciary powers exercised by the same persons, under the authority of a law, made in contradiction to the constitution.
1. The group that created that constitution called themselves the House of Delegates during their elected term and met with the Senate, elected under the new constitution, to conduct legislative business. At that time, there were criminals in the public jail, and no court had been established to try them. They passed a law naming certain members, who were part of the Executive Council, to serve as a court for trying these criminals, even though the constitution explicitly stated that no one should hold powers from more than one of the three branches: legislative, executive, and judiciary, at the same time. This shows that the very people who created that constitution knew it could be changed by the General Assembly. This court was only established for that occasion. When the next General Assembly convened after the following year's election, there was a new group of criminals in jail and still no court to try them. This Assembly passed a similar law to the previous one, appointing certain members of the Executive Council to act as a temporary court for this specific case. I don’t have the Assembly journals with me, so I can’t say if this measure was later repealed. However, these instances demonstrate the exercise of executive and judicial powers by the same individuals, authorized by a law that contradicted the constitution.
2. There was a process depending in the ordinary courts of justice, between two individuals of the name of Robinson and Fauntleroy, who were relations, of different descriptions, to one Robinson, a British subject, lately dead. Each party claimed a right to inherit the lands of the decedent, according to the laws. Their right should, by the constitution, have been decided by the judiciary courts; and it was actually depending before them. One of the parties petitioned the Assembly, (I think it was in the year 1782,) who passed a law deciding the right in his favor. In the following year, a Frenchman, master of a vessel, entered into port without complying with the laws established in such cases, whereby he incurred the forfeitures of the law to any person who would sue for them. An individual instituted a legal process to recover these forfeitures, according to the law of the land. The Frenchman petitioned the Assembly, who passed a law deciding the question of forfeiture in his favor. These acts are occasional repeals of that part of the constitution, which forbids the same persons to exercise legislative and judiciary powers, at the same time.
2. There was a legal case in the regular courts between two people named Robinson and Fauntleroy, who were related in different ways to one Robinson, a British citizen who had recently passed away. Both sides claimed the right to inherit the decedent's land according to the law. By the constitution, their rights should have been decided by the judicial courts, and the case was actually ongoing there. One of the parties appealed to the Assembly (I believe it was in 1782), which passed a law ruling in his favor. The following year, a Frenchman, the captain of a ship, entered the port without following the required laws, which resulted in potential forfeitures for anyone willing to sue for them. Someone initiated legal action to recover these forfeitures as per the local laws. The Frenchman then petitioned the Assembly, which passed another law deciding in his favor regarding the forfeiture issue. These actions represent temporary repeals of that part of the constitution that prevents the same individuals from exercising both legislative and judicial powers at the same time.
3. The Assembly is in the habitual exercise, during their sessions, of directing the Executive what to do. There are few pages of their journals, which do not furnish proofs of this, and, consequently, instances of the legislative and executive powers exercised by the same persons, at the same time. These things prove, that it has been the uninterrupted opinion of every Assembly, from that which passed the ordinance called the constitution, down to the present day, that their, acts may control that ordinance, and, of course, that the State of Virginia has no fixed constitution at all.
3. The Assembly regularly instructs the Executive on what actions to take during their sessions. Few pages of their records lack evidence of this, and as a result, there are examples of both legislative and executive powers being exercised by the same individuals simultaneously. These instances demonstrate that every Assembly, from the one that enacted the ordinance known as the constitution to the present day, has consistently believed that their actions can override that ordinance, indicating that the State of Virginia doesn’t have a stable constitution at all.
ARTICLE BY JEFFERSON: ‘Etats Unis,’ FOR THE Encyclopédie Méthodique
[The following observations were made by Mr. Jefferson on an article titled 'Etats Unis,' prepared for the Encyclopédie Méthodique, and presented to him before it was published.]
Page 8. The malefactors sent to America were not sufficient in number to merit enumeration, as one class out of three, which peopled America. It was at a late period of their history, that this practice began. I have no book by me, which enables me to point out the date of its commencement. But I do not think the whole number sent would amount to two thousand, and being principally men, eaten up with disease, they married seldom and propagated little. I do not suppose that themselves and their descendants are, at present, four thousand, which is little more than one thousandth part of the whole inhabitants.
Page 8. The criminals sent to America were too few to warrant a detailed count, representing just one class out of three that populated the country. This practice started at a later stage in their history. I don’t have a book on hand that can tell me when it began. However, I don’t think the total number sent was more than two thousand, and since they were mainly men plagued by illness, they married infrequently and had few children. I doubt that they and their descendants now total more than four thousand, which is barely one thousandth of the entire population.
Indented servants formed a considerable supply. These were poor Europeans, who went to America to settle themselves. If they could pay their passage, it was well. If not, they must find means of paying it. They were at liberty, therefore, to make an agreement with any person they chose, to serve him such a length of time as they agreed on, upon condition that he would repay, to the master of the vessel, the expenses of their passage. If, being foreigners, unable to speak the language, they did not know how to make a bargain for themselves, the captain of the vessel contracted for them, with such persons as he could. This contract was by deed indented, which occasioned them to be called indented servants. Sometimes they were called redemptioners, because, by their agreement with the master of the vessel, they could redeem themselves from his power by paying their passage; which they frequently effected, by hiring themselves on their arrival, as is before mentioned. In some States, I know that these people had a right of marrying themselves, without their master’s leave, and I did suppose they had that right every where. I did not know, that, in any of the States, they demanded so much as a week for every day’s absence, without leave. I suspect this must have been at a very early period, while the governments were in the hands of the first emigrants, who, being mostly laborers, were narrow-minded and severe. I know that in Virginia, the laws allowed their servitude to be protracted only two days for every one they were absent without leave. So mild was this kind of servitude, that it was very frequent for foreigners, who carried to America money enough, not only to pay their passage, but to buy themselves a farm, to indent themselves to a master for three years, for a certain sum of money, with a view to learn the husbandry of the country. I will here make a general observation. So desirous are the poor of Europe to get to America, where they may better their condition, that, being unable to pay their passage, they will agree to serve two or three years on their arrival there, rather than not go. During the time of that service, they are better fed, better clothed, and have lighter labor, than while in Europe. Continuing to work for hire, a few years longer, they buy a farm, marry, and enjoy all the sweets of a domestic society of their own. The American governments are censured for permitting this species of servitude, which lays the foundation of the happiness of these people. But what should these governments do? Pay the passage of all those who choose to go into their country? They are not able; nor, were they able, do they think the purchase worth the price. Should they exclude these people from their shores? Those who know their situations in Europe and America, would not say, that this is the alternative which humanity dictates. It is said these people are deceived by those who carry them over. But this is done in Europe. How can the American governments prevent it? Should they punish the deceiver? It seems more incumbent on the European government, where the act is done, and where a public injury is sustained from it. However, it is only in Europe that this deception is heard of. The individuals are generally satisfied in America, with their adventure, and very few of them wish not to have made it. I must add, that the Congress have nothing to do with this matter. It belongs to the legislatures of the several States.
Indented servants were a significant source of labor. These were poor Europeans who traveled to America to start a new life. If they could pay their own passage, that was great. If not, they had to find a way to cover the cost. They were free to make arrangements with anyone they wanted to work for, agreeing to serve for a set period in exchange for having their travel expenses paid back to the ship’s captain. If they couldn’t speak the language and didn’t know how to negotiate for themselves, the captain would make the arrangements on their behalf. This agreement was documented as an indented contract, which is why they were called indented servants. Sometimes they were referred to as redemptioners because they could buy their freedom from the captain by repaying their passage, which they often did by finding work upon their arrival. In some states, these individuals had the right to marry without their master’s permission, and I thought this was generally true everywhere. I didn’t realize that in some states, they faced penalties for being absent without permission. I suspect this was more common in the earlier days, when the governments were run by the initial immigrants, who were mostly laborers and rather strict. In Virginia, the laws only allowed their service to be extended by two days for every day they were absent without permission. This form of servitude was so mild that it was common for foreigners who had enough money to pay their passage and buy land to choose to indent themselves to a master for three years for a set sum, intending to learn local farming practices. I want to emphasize that the poor in Europe are so eager to move to America for better opportunities that they are willing to agree to work for two or three years upon arrival rather than miss the chance. During their service, they receive better food, clothing, and lighter work than they did in Europe. After working for a few more years, they are able to buy a farm, get married, and enjoy the benefits of having their own household. American governments face criticism for allowing this type of servitude, which lays the groundwork for these people's happiness. But what should these governments do? Should they pay for the passage of everyone who wants to come to their country? They can’t afford it; even if they could, they don’t see it as worth the cost. Should they keep these people off their shores? Those who understand the conditions in Europe and America wouldn't argue that this is the humane choice. Some claim these individuals are misled by those who bring them over, but that happens in Europe. How can American governments stop it? Should they punish the deceivers? It seems more appropriate for the European governments to handle this, as that’s where the wrongdoing occurs and the public harm is felt. Yet, this deception is only talked about in Europe. Generally, individuals feel satisfied with their experiences in America, with very few regretting their decision. I should also mention that Congress has no jurisdiction in this matter; it falls under the authority of the legislatures of the individual states.
Page 26. ‘Une puissance, en effet,’ &c. The account of the settlement of the colonies, which precedes this paragraph, shows that that settlement was not made by public authority, or at the public expense of England; but by the exertions, and at the expense, of individuals. Hence it happened, that their constitutions were not formed systematically, but according to the circumstances which happened to exist in each. Hence, too, the principles of the political connection between the old and new countries were never settled. That it would have been advantageous to have settled them, is certain; and, particularly, to have provided a body which should decide, in the last resort, all cases wherein both parties were interested. But it is not certain that that right would have been given, or ought to have been given, to the Parliament; much less, that it resulted to the Parliament, without having been given to it expressly. Why was it necessary, that there should have been a body to decide in the last resort? Because, it would have been for the good of both parties. But this reason shows, it ought not to have been the Parliament, since that would have exercised it for the good of one party only.
Page 26. ‘A power, indeed,’ &c. The account of the settlement of the colonies that comes before this paragraph indicates that the settlement wasn’t organized by public authority or funded by England; it was the result of the efforts and expenses of individual people. As a result, their constitutions weren’t created systematically but were shaped by the specific circumstances that existed in each case. Consequently, the principles of the political relationship between the old and new countries were never established. It’s clear that establishing those principles would have been beneficial, especially to create a body that could ultimately resolve all cases where both parties were involved. However, it’s uncertain if that right would have been granted, or should have been granted, to Parliament; even less so that it would have come to Parliament automatically without explicit authorization. Why was it necessary to have a body to make final decisions? Because it would have benefited both parties. But this reason indicates that it shouldn’t have been Parliament, since it would have acted in favor of one party only.
Page 105. As to the change of the 8th article of Confederation, for quotaing requisitions of money on the States.
Page 105. Regarding the revision of the 8th article of the Confederation, relating to the allocation of financial requests to the States.
By a report of the secretary of Congress, dated January the 4th, 1786, eight States had then acceded to the proposition; to wit, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina.
By a report from the secretary of Congress, dated January 4, 1786, eight States had then agreed to the proposal; namely, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina.
Congress, on the 18th of April, 1783, recommended to the States to invest them with a power, for twenty-five years, to levy an impost of five per cent, on all articles imported from abroad. New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, had complied with this, before the 4th of January, 1786. Maryland had passed an act for the same purpose; but, by a mistake in referring to the date of the recommendation of Congress, the act failed of its effect. This was therefore to be rectified. Since the 4th of January, the public papers tell us, that Rhode Island has complied fully with this recommendation. It remains still for New York and Georgia to do it. The exportations of America, which are tolerably well known, are the best measure for estimating the importations. These are probably worth about twenty millions of dollars annually. Of course, this impost will pay the interest of a debt to that amount. If confined to the foreign debt, it will pay the whole interest of that, and sink half a million of the capital annually. The expenses of collecting this impost, will probably be six per cent, on its amount, this being the usual expense of collection in the United States. This will be sixty thousand dollars.
On April 18, 1783, Congress recommended that the states be given the authority to impose a 5% tax on all goods imported from abroad for a period of 25 years. By January 4, 1786, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina had complied with this recommendation. Maryland passed a law for the same purpose, but it failed due to an error in referencing the date of Congress's recommendation. This needs to be corrected. Since January 4, public reports have indicated that Rhode Island has fully complied. New York and Georgia still need to take action. The export numbers for America, which are fairly well known, provide a good estimate for imports, likely amounting to about $20 million annually. Thus, this tax could cover the interest on that debt. If used solely for the foreign debt, it would cover all the interest and reduce the principal by half a million each year. The cost of collecting this tax is estimated to be around 6% of the total, which is typical in the United States, amounting to about $60,000.
On the 30th of April, 1784, Congress recommended to the States, to invest them with a power, for fifteen years, to exclude from their ports the vessels of all nations, not having a treaty of commerce with them; and to pass, as to all nations, an act on the principles of the British navigation act. Not that they were disposed to carry these powers into execution, with such as would meet them in fair and equal arrangements of commerce; but that they might be able to do it against those who should not. On the 4th of January, 1786, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina, had done it: It remained for New Jersey, Delaware, South Carolina, and Georgia to do the same.
On April 30, 1784, Congress advised the States to empower themselves for fifteen years to block ships from all nations that didn’t have a trade agreement with them from entering their ports. They also suggested passing a law based on the principles of the British navigation act that would apply to all nations. This wasn’t because they intended to enforce these powers against those willing to engage in fair and equal trade, but rather to enable them to take action against those who wouldn’t. By January 4, 1786, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina had implemented this. It was left for New Jersey, Delaware, South Carolina, and Georgia to follow suit.
in the mean time, the general idea has advanced before the demands of Congress, and several States have passed acts, for vesting Congress with the whole regulation of their commerce, reserving the revenue arising from these regulations, to the disposal of the State in which it is levied. The States which, according to the public papers, have passed such acts, are New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, and Virginia: but the Assembly of Virginia, apprehensive that this disjointed method of proceeding may fail in its effect, or be much retarded, passed a resolution on the 21st of January, 1786, appointing commissioners to meet others from the other States, whom they invite into the same measure, to digest the form of an act for investing Congress with, such powers over their commerce, as shall be thought expedient, which act is to be reported to their several Assemblies for their adoption. This was the state of the several propositions relative to the impost and regulation of commerce at the date of our latest advices from America.
In the meantime, the general idea has progressed before the requests of Congress, and several states have passed laws giving Congress full control over their commerce, while keeping the revenue generated from these regulations for the state where it was collected. The states that have passed such laws, according to public records, are New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, and Virginia. However, the Virginia Assembly, concerned that this disorganized approach may be ineffective or significantly delayed, passed a resolution on January 21, 1786, appointing commissioners to meet with others from the other states, whom they invited to join in this initiative, to draft a proposal for granting Congress appropriate powers over their commerce, which will then be reported to their respective Assemblies for approval. This was the status of the various proposals concerning tariffs and commerce regulation at the time of our most recent updates from America.
Page 125. The General Assembly of Virginia, at their session in 1785, passed an act, declaring that the district called Kentucky shall be a separate and independent State on these conditions. 1. That the people of that district shall consent to it. 2. That Congress shall consent to it, and shall receive them into the federal Union. 3. That they shall take on themselves a proportionable part of the public debt of Virginia. 4. That they shall confirm all titles to lands within their district made by the State of Virginia before their separation.
Page 125. The General Assembly of Virginia, during their session in 1785, passed a law stating that the area known as Kentucky would become a separate and independent state under the following conditions: 1. The people of that area must agree to it. 2. Congress must agree to it and welcome them into the federal Union. 3. They must assume a fair share of Virginia's public debt. 4. They must validate all land titles within their area that were issued by the State of Virginia before their separation.
Page 139. It was in 1783, and not in 1781, that Congress quitted Philadelphia.
Page 139. It was in 1783, not in 1781, that Congress left Philadelphia.
Page 140, ‘Le Congrès qui se trouvoit a la portée des rebelles fut effrayé.’ I was not present on this occasion, but, I have had relations of the transaction from several who were. The conduct of Congress was marked with indignation and firmness. They received no propositions from the mutineers. They came to the resolutions which may be seen in the journals of June the 21st, 1783, then adjourned regularly and went through the body of the mutineers to their respective lodgings. The measures taken by Dickinson, the President of Pennsylvania, for punishing this insult, not being satisfactory to Congress, they assembled nine days after at Princeton, in Jersey. The people of Pennsylvania sent petitions, declaring their indignation at what had passed, their devotion to the federal head, and their dispositions to protect it, and praying them to return; the legislature as soon as assembled did the same thing; the Executive, whose irresolution had been so exceptionable, made apologies. But Congress were now removed; and to the opinion that this example was proper, other causes were now added sufficient to prevent their return to Philadelphia.
Page 140, ‘The Congress that was within reach of the rebels was terrified.’ I wasn't there at the time, but I've heard about the event from several who were. Congress showed anger and determination in their response. They didn't entertain any proposals from the mutineers. They reached the resolutions documented in the journals of June 21, 1783, then adjourned as scheduled and made their way through the group of mutineers to their respective lodgings. The actions taken by Dickinson, the President of Pennsylvania, to address this insult were unsatisfactory to Congress, so they gathered again nine days later in Princeton, New Jersey. The people of Pennsylvania sent petitions expressing their outrage at what had happened, their loyalty to the federal government, and their willingness to protect it, urging Congress to return; the legislature did the same as soon as they convened; the Executive, whose indecisiveness had been so glaring, offered apologies. But Congress was now gone; and in addition to the belief that this precedent was justified, other reasons emerged that were enough to stop them from returning to Philadelphia.
Page 155, I. 2. Omit ‘La dette actuelle,’ &c.
Page 155, I. 2. Remove ‘The current debt,’ &c.
And also, ‘Les details,’ &c. &c. to the end of the paragraph, ‘celles des Etats Unis’ page 156. The reason is, that these passages seem to suppose that the several sums emitted by Congress at different times, amounting nominally to two hundred millions of dollars, had been actually worth that at the time of emission, and of course, that the soldiers and others had received that sum from Congress. But nothing is further from the truth. The soldier, victualler, or other persons who received forty dollars for a service at the close of the year 1779, received, in fact, no more than he who received one dollar for the same service in the year 1775, or 1776; because in those years the paper money was at par with silver; whereas, by the close of 1779, forty paper dollars were worth but one of silver, and would buy no more of the necessaries of life. To know what the monies emitted by Congress were worth to the people at the time they received them, we will state the date and amount of every several emission, the depreciation of paper money at the time, and the real worth of the emission in silver or gold.
And also, ‘Les details,’ etc. etc. to the end of the paragraph, ‘celles des Etats Unis’ page 156. The reason is that these passages seem to suggest that the various amounts released by Congress at different times, totaling a nominal two hundred million dollars, were actually worth that much when they were issued, and thus, that the soldiers and others received that sum from Congress. But that couldn't be further from the truth. The soldier, supplier, or anyone who received forty dollars for a service at the end of 1779 actually got no more than someone who received one dollar for the same service in 1775 or 1776; because in those earlier years, paper money was equivalent to silver, whereas by the end of 1779, forty paper dollars were worth only one silver dollar and couldn't buy any more of the necessities of life. To understand what the money issued by Congress was worth to the people when they received it, we will list the date and amount of each issuance, the depreciation of paper money at that time, and the actual worth of the issuance in silver or gold.
[Illustration: Depreciation of Money 1775-1779, page411] [* The total amount approved was 50,000,400, but some of that was for exchanging old bills, although the exact amount isn’t specified. It's estimated that these exchanges took up 25,552,780, leaving a remainder of 24,447,620. Together with all the other issues before September 2nd, 1779, this totals 159,948,880, which Congress stated was in circulation at that time.]
Thus it appears that the two hundred millions of dollars, emitted by Congress, were worth to those who received them, but about thirty-six millions of silver dollars. If we estimate at the same value the like sum of two hundred millions, supposed to have been emitted by the States, and reckon the Federal debt, foreign and domestic, at about forty-three millions, and the State debts at about twenty-five millions, it will form an amount of one hundred and forty millions of dollars, or seven hundred and thirty-five millions of livres Tournois, the total sum which the war has cost the inhabitants of the United States. It continued eight years, from the battle of Lexington to the cessation of hostilities in America. The annual expense then was about seventeen millions and five hundred thousand dollars, while that of our enemies was a greater number of guineas.
It seems that the two hundred million dollars issued by Congress were only worth about thirty-six million silver dollars to those who received them. If we value another two hundred million, supposedly issued by the states, in the same way, and consider the federal debt, both foreign and domestic, to be around forty-three million and the state debts at about twenty-five million, it totals one hundred and forty million dollars, or seven hundred and thirty-five million livres Tournois, which is the total cost of the war for the people of the United States. The war lasted eight years, from the battle of Lexington to the end of hostilities in America. The annual cost was then about seventeen million five hundred thousand dollars, while our enemies' expenses were even higher, measured in guineas.
It will be asked, how will the two masses of Continental and of State money have cost the people of the United States seventy-two millions of dollars, when they are to be redeemed now with about six millions? I answer, that the difference, being sixty-six millions, has been lost on the paper bills separately by the successive holders of them. Every one through whose hands a bill passed lost on that bill what it lost in value, during the time it was in his hands. This was a real tax on him; and in this way, the people of the United States actually contributed those sixty-six millions of dollars during the war, and by a mode of taxation the most oppressive of all, because the most unequal of all.
It will be asked, how did the two types of Continental and State money end up costing the people of the United States seventy-two million dollars when they can now be redeemed for about six million? I reply that the difference, which is sixty-six million, has been lost by the various holders of those paper bills. Each person who handled a bill lost what it decreased in value while it was in their possession. This was a real tax on them; and in this way, the people of the United States actually contributed those sixty-six million dollars during the war, through a method of taxation that was the most oppressive of all, because it was the most unfair of all.
Page 166; bottom line. Leave out ‘Et c’est une autre économie,’ &c. The reason of this is, that in 1784, purchases of lands were to be made of the Indians, which were accordingly made. But in 1785 they did not propose to make any purchase. The money desired in 1785, five thousand dollars, was probably to pay agents residing among the Indians, or balances of the purchases of 1784. These purchases will not be made every year; but only at distant intervals, as our settlements are extended: and it may be regarded as certain, that not a foot of land will ever be taken from the Indians without their own consent. The sacredness of their rights is felt by all thinking persons in America, as much as in Europe.
Page 166; bottom line. Leave out ‘And it's another economy,’ &c. The reason for this is that in 1784, land purchases were meant to be made from the Indians, which did happen. But in 1785, there were no plans to make any purchases. The five thousand dollars requested in 1785 was likely intended to pay agents living among the Indians or settle balances from the 1784 purchases. These land purchases won't occur every year; they'll happen only at long intervals as our settlements expand. It's pretty much certain that not a single inch of land will ever be taken from the Indians without their consent. All thoughtful people in America recognize the sacredness of their rights just as much as in Europe.
Page 170. Virginia was quotaed the highest of any State in the Union. But during the war several States appear to have paid more, because they were free from the enemy, whilst Virginia was cruelly ravaged. The requisition of 1784 was so quotaed on the several States, as to bring up their arrearages; so that, when they should have paid the sums then demanded, all would be on an equal footing. It is necessary to give a further explanation of this requisition. The requisitions of one million and two hundred thousand dollars, of eight millions, and two millions, had been made during the war, as an experiment to see whether in that situation the States could furnish the necessary supplies. It was found they could not. The money was thereupon obtained by loans in Europe: and Congress meant by their requisition of 1784, to abandon the requisitions of one million and two hundred thousand dollars, and of two millions, and also one half of the eight millions. But as all the States almost had made some payments in part of that requisition, they were obliged to retain such a proportion of it as would enable them to call for equal contributions from all the others.
Page 170. Virginia had the highest quota of any state in the Union. However, during the war, several states seemed to have contributed more because they were not affected by the enemy, while Virginia was severely devastated. The requisition of 1784 was set up to address the back payments from the various states, so that when they were supposed to pay the amounts then requested, everyone would be on the same level. It's important to explain this requisition further. The requisitions of one million two hundred thousand dollars, eight million dollars, and two million dollars were made during the war as a trial to see if the states could provide the necessary supplies in that situation. It was discovered they could not. The funds were then raised through loans in Europe: Congress intended with their requisition of 1784 to discard the requisitions of one million two hundred thousand dollars, two million dollars, and half of the eight million dollars. However, since almost all the states had made some payments toward that requisition, they were forced to keep a portion of it to ensure they could demand equal contributions from all the others.
Page 170. I cannot say how it has happened, that the debt of Connecticut is greater than that of Virginia. The latter is the richest in productions, and, perhaps, made greater exertions to pay for her supplies in the course of the war.
Page 170. I can’t explain how it happened that Connecticut’s debt is higher than Virginia’s. Virginia is the wealthiest in terms of resources and probably made more efforts to cover its expenses during the war.
Page 172. ‘Les Americains levant après une banqueroute, &c. The objections made to the United States being here condensed together in a short compass, perhaps it would not be improper to condense the answers in as small a compass in some such form as follows. That is, after the words ‘aucun espoir,’ add, ‘But to these charges it may be justly answered, that those are no bankrupts who acknowledge the sacredness of their debts in their just and real amount, who are able within a reasonable time to pay them, and who are actually proceeding in that payment; that they furnish, in fact, the supplies necessary for the support of their government; that their officers and soldiers are satisfied, as the interest of their debt is paid regularly, and the principal is in a course of payment; that the question, whether they fought ill should be asked of those who met them at Bunker’s Hill, Bennington, Stillwater, King’s Mountain, the Cowpens, Guilford, and the Eutaw. And that the charges of ingratitude, madness, infidelity, and corruption, are easily made by those to whom falsehoods cost nothing; but that no instances in support of them have been produced or can be produced.’
Page 172. ‘Les Americains levant après une banqueroute, &c. The objections raised against the United States are summarized here, and it might be helpful to summarize the responses in a similar brief format. In other words, after the phrase ‘aucun espoir,’ add, ‘But in response to these accusations, it can be rightly stated that those who recognize the sanctity of their debts in their accurate and true amounts, who are able to pay them within a reasonable time, and who are actively in the process of doing so, are not bankrupts; that they actually provide the necessary resources for the maintenance of their government; that their officers and soldiers are content, as the interest on their debt is paid regularly, and the principal is being paid down; that the question of whether they fought poorly should be directed at those who faced them at Bunker’s Hill, Bennington, Stillwater, King’s Mountain, the Cowpens, Guilford, and Eutaw. Furthermore, accusations of ingratitude, madness, infidelity, and corruption are easily hurled by those for whom falsehoods have no cost; however, no evidence supporting these claims has been presented, nor can it be.’
Page 182. ‘Les officiers et les soldats ont été payés,’ &c. The balances due to the officers and soldiers have been ascertained, and a certificate of the sum given to each; on these the interest is regularly paid; and every occasion is seized of paying the principal by receiving these certificates as money whenever public property is sold, till a more regular and effectual method can be taken for paying the whole.
Page 182. ‘The officers and soldiers have been paid,’ &c. The amounts owed to the officers and soldiers have been determined, and a certificate of the total given to each; interest on these is paid regularly, and every opportunity is taken to pay the principal by accepting these certificates as currency whenever public property is sold, until a more consistent and effective method can be established for paying the total amount.
Page 191. ‘Quoique la loi dont nous parlons, ne s’observe plus en Angleterre.’ ‘An alien born may purchase lands or other estates, but not for his own use; for the King is thereupon entitled to them.’ ‘Yet an alien may acquire a property in goods, money, and other personal estate, or may hire a house for his habitation. For this is necessary for the advancement of trade.’ ‘Also, an alien may bring an action concerning personal property, and may make a will and dispose of his personal estate.’ When I mention these rights of an alien, I must be understood of alien friends only, or such whose countries are in peace with ours; for alien enemies have no rights, no privileges, unless by the King’s special favor during the time of war.‘Blackstone, B.1. c.10. page 372. ‘An alien friend may have personal actions, but not real; an alien enemy shall have neither real, personal, nor mixed actions. The reason why an alien friend is allowed to maintain a personal action is, because he would otherwise be incapacitated to merchandise, which may be as much to our prejudice as his.’ Cunningham’s Law Diet, title, Aliens. The above is the clear law of England, practised from the earliest ages to this day, and never denied. The passage quoted by M. de Meusnier from Black-stone, c.26. is from his chapter ‘Of title to things personal by occupancy.’ The word ‘personal’ shows that nothing in this chapter relates to lands which are real estate; and therefore, this passage does not contradict the one before quoted from the same author (1.B. c.10.), which says, that the lands of an alien belong to the King. The words, ‘of title by occupancy,’ show, that it does not relate to debts, which being a moral existence only, cannot be the subject of occupancy. Blackstone, in this passage (B.2. c.26.), speaks only of personal goods of an alien, which another may find and seize as prime occupant.
Page 191. ‘Although the law we’re discussing is no longer observed in England.’ ‘A foreign-born person can buy land or other properties, but not for their own use; the King is entitled to them.’ ‘However, a foreigner can own personal property like goods and money or rent a house for living. This is necessary for promoting trade.’ ‘Also, a foreigner can file a claim regarding personal property and create a will to dispose of their personal assets.’ When I refer to these rights for foreigners, I mean only those who are friends, or from countries at peace with ours; because foreign enemies have no rights or privileges, unless granted by the King’s special favor during wartime. ‘Blackstone, B.1. c.10. page 372. ‘A foreign friend can engage in personal legal actions but not real ones; a foreign enemy has no rights to real, personal, or mixed actions. The reason a foreign friend is allowed to pursue a personal action is that otherwise, they would be unable to engage in commerce, which could be as harmful to us as it is to them.’ Cunningham’s Law Diet, title, Aliens. The above is the clear law of England, practiced from the earliest times to today, and has never been denied. The passage quoted by M. de Meusnier from Blackstone, c.26. is taken from his chapter ‘On the ownership of personal things by occupancy.’ The word ‘personal’ indicates that nothing in this chapter pertains to land, which falls under real estate; thus, this passage does not contradict the previous one cited from the same author (1.B. c.10.), which states that an alien’s lands belong to the King. The phrase ‘of title by occupancy’ indicates that it does not refer to debts, which only have a moral existence and cannot be the subject of occupancy. In this passage (B.2. c.26.), Blackstone refers solely to the personal goods of a foreigner, which someone else may find and claim as the first occupant.
Page 193. ‘Le remboursement presentera des difficultés des sommes considérables,’ &c. There is no difficulty nor doubt on this subject. Every one is sensible how this is to be ultimately settled. Neither the British creditor, nor the State, will be permitted to lose by these payments. The debtor will be credited for what he paid, according to what it was really worth at the time he paid it, and he must pay the balance. Nor does he lose by this; for if a man who owed one thousand dollars to a British merchant, paid eight hundred paper dollars into the treasury, when the depreciation was at eight for one, it is clear he paid but one hundred real dollars, and must now pay nine hundred. It is probable he received those eight hundred dollars for one hundred bushels of wheat, which were never worth more than one hundred silver dollars. He is credited, therefore, the full worth of his wheat. The equivoque is in the use of the word ‘dollar.’
Page 193. ‘Refunds will face difficulties with significant amounts,’ &c. There’s no confusion or uncertainty about this topic. Everyone understands how this will be ultimately resolved. Neither the British creditor nor the State will be allowed to lose out because of these payments. The debtor will be credited for what he actually paid, based on its real value at the time of payment, and he must settle the remaining amount. He doesn't lose out on this; for example, if a man who owed one thousand dollars to a British merchant paid eight hundred paper dollars into the treasury when the depreciation rate was eight to one, it's clear he effectively paid only one hundred real dollars, and still needs to pay nine hundred. It’s likely he received those eight hundred dollars for one hundred bushels of wheat, which were never valued at more than one hundred silver dollars. Therefore, he is credited with the full value of his wheat. The misunderstanding lies in the use of the term ‘dollar.’
Page 226. ‘Qu’on abolisse les privilèges du clergé.’ This privilege, originally allowed to the clergy, is now extended to every man, and even to women. It is a right of exemption from capital punishment for the first offence in most cases. It is then a pardon by the law. In other cases, the Executive gives the pardon. But when laws are made as mild as they should be, both those pardons are absurd. The principle of Beccaria is sound. Let the legislators be merciful, but the executors of the law inexorable. As the term ‘privilèges du clergé’ may be misunderstood by foreigners, perhaps it will be better to strike it out here and substitute the word ‘pardon.’
Page 226. ‘Let’s abolish the privileges of the clergy.’ This privilege, originally given to the clergy, is now extended to every man and even to women. It’s a right to be exempt from capital punishment for the first offense in most cases. It’s essentially a pardon from the law. In other situations, the Executive grants the pardon. But when laws are made as lenient as they should be, both types of pardons are pointless. The principle of Beccaria makes sense. Legislators should be compassionate, but those enforcing the law must be relentless. Since the term ‘privilèges du clergé’ might be misunderstood by foreigners, it might be better to remove it here and replace it with the word ‘pardon.’
Page 239. ‘Les commissaires veulent,’ &c. Manslaughter is the killing a man with design, but in a sudden gust of passion, and where the killer has not had time to cool. The first offence is not punished capitally, but the second is. This is the law of England and of all the American States; and is not a new proposition. Those laws have supposed that a man, whose passions have so much dominion over him, as to lead him to repeated acts of murder, is unsafe to society: that it is better he should be put to death by the law, than others more innocent than himself on the movements of his impetuous passions.
Page 239. ‘Les commissaires veulent,’ &c. Manslaughter is the intentional killing of a person in a sudden fit of passion, where the killer hasn't had time to cool down. The first offense isn't punishable by death, but the second one is. This is the law in England and all the American States, and it's not a new idea. These laws assume that a person whose emotions control them enough to commit repeated murder is a danger to society. It's better for them to face the death penalty than to put innocent people at risk because of their uncontrollable emotions.
Ibid. ‘Mal-aisé d’indiquer la nuance précise,’ &c. In forming a scale of crimes and punishments, two considerations have principal weight. 1. The atrocity of the crime. 2. The peculiar circumstances of a country, which furnish greater temptations to commit it, or greater facilities for escaping detection, The punishment must be heavier to counterbalance this. Were the first the only consideration, all nations would form the same scale. But as the circumstances of a country have influence on the punishment, and no two countries exist precisely under the same circumstances, no two countries will form the same scale of crimes and punishments. For example; in America the inhabitants let their horses go at large in the uninclosed lands which are so extensive as to maintain them altogether. It is easy, therefore, to steal them and easy to escape. Therefore the laws are obliged to oppose these temptations with a heavier degree of punishment. For this reason the stealing of a horse in America is punished more severely, than stealing the same value in any other form. In Europe where horses are confined so securely, that it is impossible to steal them, that species of theft need not be punished more severely than any other. In some countries of Europe, stealing fruit from trees in punished capitally. The reason is, that it being impossible to lock fruit trees up in coffers, as we do our money, it is impossible to oppose physical bars to this species of theft. Moral ones are therefore opposed by the laws. This to an unreflecting American appears the most enormous of all the abuses of power; because he has been used to see fruits hanging in such quantities, that if not taken by men they would rot: he has been used to consider them therefore as of no value, and as not furnishing materials for the commission of a crime. This must serve as an apology for the arrangement of crimes and punishments in the scale under our consideration. A different one would be formed here; and still different ones in Italy, Turkey, China, &c.
Ibid. ‘Mal-aisé d’indiquer la nuance précise,’ &c. When creating a scale of crimes and punishments, two main factors are important. 1. The severity of the crime. 2. The unique circumstances of a country, which create greater temptations to commit the crime or make it easier to avoid detection. The punishment needs to be harsher to counter these factors. If only the first factor mattered, all countries would have the same scale. However, since the circumstances of a country affect the punishment and no two countries are exactly alike in this regard, no two countries will have the same scale of crimes and punishments. For instance, in America, people allow their horses to roam freely in vast, open lands that can sustain them entirely. It's therefore easy to steal them and to avoid getting caught. Consequently, the laws must impose heavier penalties to deter such temptations. This is why stealing a horse in America is punished more severely than stealing the same value in any other way. In Europe, where horses are kept securely enough that they can't be stolen, this type of theft doesn't need to carry a harsher punishment than any other. In some European countries, stealing fruit from trees is punished with capital punishment. This is because, unlike our money, it’s not possible to lock fruit trees in safes, making it impossible to set up physical barriers against this kind of theft. Therefore, laws impose moral barriers. To an unthinking American, this seems like one of the biggest abuses of power because they are used to seeing fruits in such abundance that if not picked, they would simply rot. They therefore regard them as having no value and not being a basis for committing a crime. This helps explain the arrangement of crimes and punishments in this scale. A different one would be created here, and still different ones in Italy, Turkey, China, &c.
Page 240. ‘Les officiers Americains,’ &c. to page 264, ‘qui le méritoient.’ I would propose to new-model this section in the following manner, 1. Give a succinct history of the origin and establishment of the Cincinnati. 2. Examine whether in its present form it threatens any dangers to the State. 3. Propose the most practicable method of preventing them.
Page 240. ‘The American officers,’ &c. to page 264, ‘who deserved it.’ I would suggest redesigning this section in the following way: 1. Provide a brief history of the origin and establishment of the Cincinnati. 2. Analyze whether its current form poses any risks to the State. 3. Suggest the most practical way to mitigate those risks.
Having been in America during the period in which this institution was formed, and being then in a situation which gave me opportunities of seeing it in all its stages, I may venture to give M. de Meusnier materials for the first branch of the preceding distribution of the subject. The second and third he will best execute himself. I should write its history in the following form. When on the close of that war which established the independence of America, its army was about to be disbanded, the officers, who, during the course of it, had gone through the most trying scenes together, who by mutual aids and good offices had become dear to one another, felt with great oppression of mind the approach of that moment which was to separate them, never perhaps to meet again. They were from different States, and from distant parts of the same State. Hazard alone could therefore give them but rare and partial occasions of seeing each other. They were of course to abandon altogether the hope of ever meeting again, or to devise some occasion which might bring them together. And why not come together on purpose at stated times? Would not the trouble of such a journey be greatly overpaid by the pleasure of seeing each other again, by the sweetest of all consolations, the talking over the scenes of difficulty and of endearment they had gone through? This too would enable them to know who of them should succeed in the world, who should be unsuccessful, and to open the purses of all to every laboring brother. This idea was too soothing not to be cherished in conversation. It was improved into that of a regular association, with an organized administration, with periodical meetings, general and particular, fixed contributions for those who should be in distress, and a badge by which not only those who had not had occasion to become personally known should be able to recognise one another, but which should be worn by their descendants, to perpetuate among them the friendships which had bound their ancestors together.
Having been in America during the time this institution was established, and being in a position that allowed me to witness it at all its stages, I feel confident in providing M. de Meusnier with materials for the first part of the previous topic. He will be best suited to handle the second and third parts himself. I would outline its history like this: At the end of the war that secured America’s independence, as the army was getting ready to disband, the officers—who had endured the toughest experiences together, and who had grown close through mutual support—felt a heavy sadness as they faced the moment of separation, which might lead to them never seeing each other again. They came from different states and far corners of the same state, so only chance would give them rare opportunities to meet. They had to either completely give up the hope of reuniting or think of a way to come together. Why not plan to meet regularly? Wouldn't the effort of making that journey be well worth it for the joy of reconnecting and discussing the challenges and bonds they had experienced? This would also help them see who would thrive in life and who would struggle, allowing everyone to support one another. This comforting idea quickly took hold in their conversations. It evolved into the concept of a formal association with organized leadership, scheduled meetings, mandatory contributions for those in need, and a badge that not only would help those who hadn’t yet met recognize each other, but also be worn by their descendants to keep the friendships that connected their ancestors alive.
General Washington was, at that moment, oppressed with the operation of disbanding an army which was not paid, and the difficulty of this operation was increased, by some two or three States having expressed sentiments, which did not indicate a sufficient attention to their payment. He was sometimes present, when his officers were fashioning, in their conversations, their newly proposed society. He saw the innocence of its origin, and foresaw no effects less innocent. He was, at that time, writing his valedictory letter to the States, which has been so deservedly applauded by the world. Far from thinking it a moment to multiply the causes of irritation, by thwarting a proposition which had absolutely no other basis but that of benevolence and friendship, he was rather satisfied to find himself aided in his difficulties by this new incident, which occupied, and, at the same time, soothed the minds of the officers. He thought, too, that this institution would be one instrument the more, for strengthening the federal bond, and for promoting federal ideas. The institution was formed. They incorporated into it the officers of the French army and navy, by whose sides they had fought, and with whose aid they had finally prevailed, extending it to such grades, as they were told might be permitted to enter into it. They sent an officer to France, to make the proposition to them, and to procure the badges which they had devised for their order. The moment of disbanding the army having come, before they could have a full meeting to appoint their President, the General was prayed to act in that office till their first general meeting, which was to be held at Philadelphia, in the month of May following.
General Washington was, at that moment, burdened with the task of disbanding an unpaid army, and the difficulty of this process was heightened by a few states showing little concern for their financial obligations. He sometimes listened as his officers discussed forming a new society. He recognized the good intentions behind its creation and anticipated no consequences that would be less than positive. At that time, he was writing his farewell letter to the states, which has been rightly praised by the world. Instead of seeing it as a moment to create more conflict by opposing a proposal rooted in goodwill and friendship, he felt relieved to be supported in his challenges by this new development, which both engaged and calmed the minds of the officers. He also believed that this organization would further strengthen the federal bond and promote federal ideals. The organization was established. They included the officers of the French army and navy, with whom they had fought and ultimately succeeded, and extended invitations to all ranks that were said to be allowed to join. They sent an officer to France to present the proposal and to obtain the insignia they had designed for their order. As the time to disband the army approached, before they could hold a full meeting to elect their President, the General was asked to serve in that role until their first general meeting, which was scheduled to be held in Philadelphia the following May.
The laws of the society were published. Men who read them in their closers, unwarmed by those sentiments of friendship which had produced them, inattentive to those pains which an approaching separation had excited in the minds of the instituters, politicians, who see in every thing only the dangers with which it threatens civil society, in fine, the laboring people, who, shielded by equal laws, had never seen any difference between man and man, but had read of terrible oppressions, which people of their description experience in other countries, from those who are distinguished by titles and badges, began to be alarmed at this new institution. A remarkable silence, however, was observed. Their solicitudes were long confined within the circles of private conversation. At length, however, a Mr. Burke, Chief Justice of South Carolina, broke that silence. He wrote against the new institution, foreboding its dangers, very imperfectly indeed, because he had nothing but his imagination to aid him. An American could do no more; for to detail the real evils of aristocracy, they must be seen in Europe. Burke’s fears were thought exaggerations in America; while in Europe, it is known that even Mirabeau has but faintly sketched the curses of hereditary aristocracy, as they are experienced here, and as they would have followed in America, had this institution remained. The epigraph of Burke’s pamphlet, was ‘Blow ye the trumpet in Zion.’ Its effect corresponded with its epigraph. This institution became, first, the subject of general conversation. Next, it was made the subject of deliberation in the legislative Assemblies of some of the States. The Governor of South Carolina censured it, in an address to the Assembly of that State. The Assemblies of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania condemned its principles. No circumstance, indeed, brought the consideration of it expressly before Congress; yet it had sunk deep into their minds. An offer having been made to them, on the part of the Polish order of Divine Providence, to receive some of their distinguished citizens into that order, they made that an occasion to declare, that these distinctions were contrary to the principles of their Confederation.
The laws of society were published. Men who read them in their private spaces, without the warmth of the friendship that inspired them, and who were unaware of the pain caused by an impending separation felt by those who created them, along with politicians who saw only the threats to civil society, and finally, the working-class people, who had never experienced any difference between individuals but had read about horrific oppressions faced by people like them in other countries at the hands of those with titles and special statuses, began to feel uneasy about this new institution. However, there was a notable silence. Their concerns were mostly kept to private discussions. Eventually, Mr. Burke, the Chief Justice of South Carolina, broke that silence. He wrote against the new institution, warning of its dangers, but he did so inadequately, as he relied solely on his imagination. An American could do no more; to fully elaborate on the real problems of aristocracy, one would need to see them in Europe. Burke's fears were seen as exaggerations in America, while in Europe, it's known that even Mirabeau barely scratched the surface of the curses of hereditary aristocracy, as experienced in Europe and how they would have manifested in America had this institution prevailed. The title of Burke's pamphlet was ‘Blow ye the trumpet in Zion.’ Its impact matched its title. This institution became the topic of widespread discussion. Soon after, it was deliberated in the legislative assemblies of some states. The Governor of South Carolina criticized it in a speech to that state's assembly. The assemblies of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania condemned its principles. No specific circumstances brought the issue directly before Congress, yet it had made a significant impression on their minds. When an offer was made to them from the Polish order of Divine Providence to accept some of their notable citizens into that order, they used that opportunity to announce that such distinctions were against the principles of their Confederation.
The uneasiness excited by this institution had very early caught the notice of General Washington. Still recollecting all the purity of the motives which gave it birth, he became sensible that it might produce political evils, which the warmth of those motives had masked. Add to this, that it was disapproved by the mass of citizens of the Union. This, alone, was reason strong enough, in a country where the will of the majority is the law, and ought to be the law. He saw that the objects of the institution were too light to be opposed to considerations as serious as these; and that it was become necessary to annihilate it absolutely. On this, therefore, he was decided. The first annual meeting at Philadelphia was now at hand; he went to that, determined to exert all his influence for its suppression. He proposed it to his fellow officers, and urged it with all his powers. It met an opposition which was observed to cloud his face with an anxiety, that the most distressful scenes of the war had scarcely ever produced. It was canvassed for several days, and, at length, it was no more a doubt, what would be its ultimate fate. The order was on the point of receiving its annihilation, by the vote of a great majority of its members. In this moment, their envoy arrived from France, charged with letters from the French officers, accepting with cordiality the proposed badges of union, with solicitations from others to be received into the order, and with notice that their respectable Sovereign had been pleased to recognise it, and to permit his officers to wear its badges. The prospect was now changed. The question assumed a new form. After the offer made by them, and accepted by their friends, in what words could they clothe a proposition to retract it, which would not cover themselves with the reproaches of levity and ingratitude? which would not appear an insult to those whom they loved? Federal principles, popular discontent, were considerations, whose weight was known and felt by themselves. But would foreigners know and feel them equally? Would they so far acknowledge their cogency, as to permit, without any indignation, the eagle and ribbon to be torn from their breasts, by the very hands which had placed them there? The idea revolted the whole society. They found it necessary, then, to preserve so much of their institution as might continue to support this foreign branch, while they should prune off every other, which would give offence to their fellow citizens: thus sacrificing, on each hand, to their friends and to their country.
The discomfort caused by this organization had caught General Washington’s attention very early on. While he remembered the purity of the intentions that gave rise to it, he realized that it could lead to political issues that those good intentions had concealed. Moreover, it was not well-received by most citizens of the Union. This alone was a strong enough reason in a country where the majority's will is law and should be law. He saw that the goals of the organization were too trivial compared to these serious considerations, and it had become necessary to completely eliminate it. Therefore, he was determined. The first annual meeting in Philadelphia was approaching, and he planned to use all his influence to suppress it. He brought it up with his fellow officers and pushed for it with all his might. However, he faced opposition that visibly troubled him more than the most distressing moments of the war. The matter was debated for several days, and eventually, it was clear what the outcome would be. The order was on the verge of being dissolved by a significant majority vote from its members. At that moment, their envoy from France arrived with letters from French officers, eagerly accepting the proposed symbols of unity, along with requests from others to join the order, and news that their esteemed Sovereign had officially recognized it and allowed his officers to wear its insignia. The situation changed dramatically. The question took on a new dimension. After their offer, and with it accepted by their supporters, how could they propose to withdraw it without appearing trivial and ungrateful? How could they avoid insulting those they cared about? Federal principles and popular discontent were issues whose importance they understood and felt themselves. But would foreigners understand and feel the same way? Would they accept the idea of having the eagle and ribbon forcibly removed from their chests by the very hands that had placed them there? This notion repulsed the entire society. They realized they needed to retain enough of their organization to maintain this connection with foreigners while trimming away any elements that might offend their fellow citizens, thus making sacrifices on both sides for their friends and their country.
The society was to retain its existence, its name, its meetings, and its charitable funds: but these last were to be deposited with their respective legislatures. The order was to be no longer hereditary; a reformation, which had been pressed even from this side the Atlantic; it was to be communicated to no new members; the general meetings, instead of annual, were to be triennial only. The eagle and ribbon, indeed, were retained, because they were worn, and they wished them to be worn, by their friends who were in a country where they would not be objects of offence; but themselves never wore them. They laid them up in their bureaus, with the medals of American Independence, with those of the trophies they had taken, and the battles they had won. But through all the United States, no officer is seen to offend the public eye with the display of this badge. These changes have tranquillized the American States. Their citizens feel too much interest in the reputation of their officers, and value too much whatever may serve to recall to the memory of their allies, the moments wherein they formed but one people, not to do justice to the circumstance which prevented a total annihilation of the order. Though they are obliged by a prudent foresight, to keep out every thing from among themselves, which might pretend to divide them into orders, and to degrade one description of men below another, yet they hear with pleasure, that their allies, whom circumstances have already placed under these distinctions, are willing to consider it as one, to have aided them in the establishment of their liberties, and to wear a badge which may recall them to their remembrance; and it would be an extreme affliction to them, if the domestic reformation which has been found necessary, if the censures of individual writers, or if any other circumstance, should discourage the wearing of their badge, or lessen its reputation.
The society was to maintain its existence, its name, its meetings, and its charitable funds, but these funds were to be deposited with their respective legislatures. The order was no longer to be hereditary; this change had been suggested even from across the Atlantic. It was not to be communicated to any new members; instead of annual meetings, there would be only triennial ones. The eagle and ribbon were retained because they were worn, and they wanted them to be worn by their friends in a country where it wouldn’t be offensive; however, they themselves never wore them. They kept them in their bureaus, along with the medals of American Independence and the trophies and battles they had won. Yet throughout the United States, no officer is seen displaying this badge publicly. These changes have brought peace to the American States. Their citizens care too much about their officers' reputation and value anything that might remind their allies of the times they were united as one people, not to overlook the circumstances that prevented the complete dissolution of the order. Even though they must prudently exclude anything that might divide them into ranks and undermine one group of people compared to another, they are pleased to hear that their allies, who have already been classified in such ways, are willing to acknowledge having helped them establish their freedoms and to wear a badge that may remind them of that. It would be very upsetting to them if the necessary domestic reforms, criticisms from individual writers, or any other issues discouraged the wearing of their badge or diminished its standing.
This short but true, history of the order of the Cincinnati, taken from the mouths of persons on the spot, who were privy to its origin and progress, and who know its present state, is the best apology which can be made for an institution, which appeared to be, and was really, so heterogeneous to the governments in which it was erected.
This brief but factual history of the order of the Cincinnati, gathered from those who were there and were aware of its beginnings and development, as well as its current situation, serves as the best justification for an institution that seemed, and truly was, so different from the governments it was established within.
It should be further considered, that, in America, no other distinction between man and man had ever been known, but that of persons in office, exercising powers by authority of the laws, and private individuals. Among these last, the poorest laborer stood on equal ground with the wealthiest millionary, and generally, on a more favored one, whenever their rights seemed to jar. It has been seen that a shoemaker, or other artisan, removed by the voice of his country from his work-bench, into a chair of office, has instantly commanded all the respect and obedience, which the laws ascribe to his office. But of distinctions by birth or badge, they had no more idea than they had of the mode of existence in the moon or planets. They had heard only that there were such, and knew that they must be wrong. A due horror of the evils which flow from these distinctions, could be excited in Europe only, where the dignity of man is lost in arbitrary distinctions, where the human species is classed into several stages of degradation, where the many are crouched under the weight of the few, and where the order established can present to the contemplation of a thinking being, no other picture, than that of God Almighty and his angels, trampling under foot the host of the damned. No wonder, then, that the institution of the Cincinnati should be innocently conceived by one order of American citizens, should raise in the other orders, only a slow, temperate, and rational opposition, and should be viewed in Europe as a detestable parricide.
It should be further considered that, in America, the only distinction between individuals was that of people in positions of authority, exercising powers granted by law, and private citizens. Among the latter, the poorest worker stood on equal ground with the wealthiest millionaire, often in a more favorable position whenever their rights clashed. It's been observed that a shoemaker, or another tradesperson, who was chosen by his country to leave his work and take a position of authority, instantly earned all the respect and obedience that the law required of his role. However, distinctions based on birth or status were as unfamiliar to them as the way of life on the moon or other planets. They had only heard that such distinctions existed and knew they must be wrong. A proper sense of the harms caused by these distinctions could only arise in Europe, where human dignity is lost in arbitrary classifications, where people are divided into various levels of degradation, where the many are burdened by the few, and where the established order presents no other image to a thinking being than that of God Almighty and his angels trampling the damned. It's no surprise, then, that the Cincinnati institution should be naively imagined by one group of American citizens, should provoke only a gradual, measured, and rational opposition from other groups, and should be seen in Europe as a despicable betrayal.
The second and third branches of this subject, nobody can better execute than M. de Meusnier. Perhaps it may be curious to him to see how they strike an American mind at present. He shall, therefore, have the ideas of one, who was an enemy to the institution from the first moment of its conception, but who was always sensible, that the officers neither foresaw nor intended the injury they were doing to their country.
The second and third parts of this topic are something M. de Meusnier can handle better than anyone else. It might be interesting for him to see how an American thinks about them today. So, he will get the perspective of someone who opposed the institution from the very beginning, yet always understood that the officers didn't foresee or intend the harm they were causing to their country.
As to the question, then, whether any evil can proceed from the institution, as it stands at present, I am of opinion there may. 1. From the meetings. These will keep the officers formed into a body; will continue a distinction between the civil and military, which, it would be for the good of the whole to obliterate, as soon as possible; and military assemblies will not only keep alive the jealousies and fears of the civil government, but give ground for these fears and jealousies. For when men meet together, they will make business, if they have none; they will collate their grievances, some real, some imaginary, all highly painted; they will communicate to each other the sparks of discontent; and these may engender a flame, which will consume their particular, as well as the general happiness. 2. The charitable part of the institution is still more likely to do mischief, as it perpetuates the dangers apprehended in the preceding clause. For here is a fund provided, of permanent existence. To whom will it belong? To the descendants of American officers, of a certain description. These descendants, then, will form a body, having a sufficient interest to keep up an attention to their description, to continue meetings, and perhaps, in some moment, when the political eye shall be slumbering, or the firmness of their fellow citizens relaxed, to replace the insignia of the order, and revive all its pretensions. What good can the officers propose, which may weigh against these possible evils? The securing their descendants against want? Why afraid to trust them to the same fertile soil, and the same genial climate, which will secure from want the descendants of their other fellow citizens? Are they afraid they will be reduced to labor the earth for their sustenance? They will be rendered thereby both more honest and happy. An industrious farmer occupies a more dignified place in the scale of beings, whether moral or political, than a lazy lounger, valuing himself on his family, too proud to work, and drawing out a miserable existence, by eating on that surplus of other men’s labor, which is the sacred fund of the helpless poor. A pitiful annuity will only prevent them from exerting that industry and those talents, which would soon lead them to better fortune.
As for the question of whether any harm can come from the institution as it currently exists, I believe there is potential for it. 1. From the meetings. These will keep the officers grouped together, maintaining a separation between civil and military roles, which should be eliminated for the benefit of everyone as soon as possible. Military gatherings will not only fuel distrust and fears of the civil government but also create reasons for such fears and distrust. When people come together, they tend to create issues if none exist; they will gather their grievances, whether real or imagined, and often exaggerate them; they will share their feelings of discontent, which can spark a fire that may threaten both their individual and collective well-being. 2. The charitable aspect of the institution is even more likely to cause harm, as it reinforces the concerns mentioned earlier. There is a fund available that will exist indefinitely. To whom will it belong? To the descendants of certain American officers. These descendants will then form a group with enough interest to maintain their status, continue meeting, and perhaps, at some point when the political environment is relaxed, reintroduce the symbols of the order and revive its claims. What benefits can the officers offer that would outweigh these potential dangers? Protecting their descendants from poverty? Why not trust them to the same fertile land and welcoming environment that will safeguard the descendants of other citizens? Are they worried that these descendants will need to work the land for their livelihood? Doing so would make them both more honest and happier. An industrious farmer holds a more respected position in both moral and political contexts than a lazy person who prides themselves on their family, too proud to work, and living off the hard work of others, which is the sparse resource of the needy. A meager annuity will only hinder them from developing the work ethic and skills that would quickly lead them to greater success.
How are these evils to be prevented? 1. At their first general meeting, let them distribute the funds on hand to the existing objects of their destination, and discontinue all further contributions. 2. Let them declare, at the same time, that their meetings, general and particular, shall thenceforth cease. 3. Let them melt up their eagles, and add the mass to the distributable fund, that their descendants may have no temptation to hang them in their button-holes.
How can we prevent these problems? 1. At their first general meeting, they should distribute the available funds to the intended causes and stop any further donations. 2. They should also announce that their meetings, both general and specific, will come to an end from that point forward. 3. They should melt down their eagles and add the total amount to the distributable fund, so that their descendants won't be tempted to pin them on their clothes.
These reflections are not proposed as worthy the notice of M. de Meusnier. He will be so good as to treat the subject in his own way, and no body has a better. I will only pray him to avail us of his forcible manner, to evince that there is evil to be apprehended, even from the ashes of this institution, and to exhort the society in America to make their reformation complete; bearing in mind, that we must keep the passions of men on our side, even when we are persuading them to do what they ought to do.
These reflections are not intended to catch the attention of M. de Meusnier. He is welcome to approach the topic in his own style, and no one does it better. I only ask him to use his powerful approach to show that there is danger to be anticipated, even from the remnants of this institution, and to encourage the society in America to complete their reform; keeping in mind that we need to keep people's passions on our side, even when we're convincing them to do what they should.
Page 268. ‘Et en effet la population,’ &c. Page 270. ‘Plus de confiance.’
Page 268. ‘And indeed the population,’ &c. Page 270. ‘More trust.’
To this, we answer, that no such census of the numbers was ever given out by Congress, nor ever presented to them: and further, that Congress never have, at any time, declared by their vote, the number of inhabitants in their respective States. On the 22nd of June, 1775, they first resolved to emit paper money. The sum resolved on was two millions of dollars. They declared, then, that the twelve confederate colonies (for Georgia had not yet joined them) should be pledged for the redemption of these bills. To ascertain in what proportion each State should be bound, the members from each were desired to say, as nearly as they could, what was the number of the inhabitants of their respective States. They were very much unprepared for such a declaration. They guessed, however, as well as they could. The following are the numbers, as they conjectured them, and the consequent apportionment of the two millions of dollars.
To this, we reply that Congress never provided any census of the population numbers, nor was any presented to them: and moreover, Congress has never, at any time, stated by their vote the number of residents in their respective States. On June 22, 1775, they first decided to issue paper money. The amount agreed upon was two million dollars. They then declared that the twelve confederate colonies (since Georgia had not yet joined them) should be held responsible for the redemption of these bills. To determine how much each State would be accountable for, the representatives from each were asked to estimate, as accurately as they could, the population of their respective States. They were quite unprepared for such a declaration. However, they made their best guesses. The following are the numbers, as they estimated them, along with the resulting distribution of the two million dollars.

Georgia, having not yet acceded to the measures of the other States, was not quotaed; but her numbers were generally estimated at about thirty thousand, and so would have made the whole, two million four hundred and forty-eight thousand persons, of every condition. But it is to be observed, that though Congress made this census the basis of their apportionment, yet they did not even give it a place on their journals; much less, publish it to the world with their sanction. The way it got abroad was this. As the members declared from their seats the number of inhabitants which they conjectured to be in their State, the secretary of Congress wrote them on a piece of paper, calculated the portion of two millions of dollars, to be paid by each, and entered the sum only in the journals. The members, however, for their own satisfaction, and the information of their States, took copies of this enumeration, and sent them to their States. From thence, they got into the public papers: and when the English news-writers found it answer their purpose to compare this with the enumeration of 1783, as their principle is ‘to lie boldly, that they may not be suspected of lying,’ they made it amount to three millions one hundred and thirty-seven thousand eight hundred and nine, and ascribed its publication to Congress itself.
Georgia, not yet aligned with the measures of the other States, was not included in the population count; but her numbers were generally estimated at around thirty thousand, which would have brought the total to two million four hundred forty-eight thousand people, of all backgrounds. However, it's worth noting that while Congress used this census as the basis for their apportionment, they didn’t even record it in their journals, let alone publish it to the public with their approval. The way it spread was as follows: as the members announced from their seats the estimated number of inhabitants in their State, the Congress secretary recorded these numbers on a piece of paper, calculated the share of the two million dollars owed by each, and only noted the total in the journals. Nonetheless, the members, for their own knowledge and to inform their States, made copies of this enumeration and sent them back home. From there, the information made its way into the newspapers. When English journalists found it useful to compare this with the census from 1783, knowing their principle was "to lie boldly, so they aren't suspected of lying," they inflated it to three million one hundred thirty-seven thousand eight hundred nine and falsely attributed its publication to Congress itself.
in April, 1785, Congress being to call on the States to raise a million and a half of dollars annually, for twenty-five years, it was necessary to apportion this among them. The States had never furnished them with their exact numbers. It was agreed, too, that in this apportionment, five slaves should be counted as three freemen only. The preparation of this business was in the hands of a committee; they applied to the members for the best information they could give them, of the numbers of their States. Some of the States had taken pains to discover their numbers. Others had done nothing in that way, and, of course, were now where they were in 1775, when their members were first called on to declare their numbers. Under these circumstances, and on the principle of counting three fifths only of the slaves, the committee apportioned the money among the States, and reported their work to Congress. In this, they had assessed South Carolina as having one hundred and seventy thousand inhabitants. The delegates for that State, however, prevailed on Congress to assess them on the footing of one hundred and fifty thousand only, in consideration of the state of total devastation, in which the enemy had left their country. The difference was then laid on the other States, and the following was the result.
In April 1785, Congress needed to ask the states to raise a million and a half dollars each year for twenty-five years, so they had to divide this amount among them. The states had never provided their exact population figures. It was also agreed that when calculating this division, five slaves would be counted as three free people. A committee was responsible for preparing this matter; they reached out to the members for the best information they could provide on their state populations. Some states made efforts to find their numbers, while others did nothing, leaving them in the same position as in 1775, when they were first asked to report their populations. Under these circumstances, and based on the principle of counting three-fifths of the slaves, the committee divided the funds among the states and submitted their findings to Congress. In this report, they assessed South Carolina's population at one hundred seventy thousand. However, the delegates from that state convinced Congress to assess them at only one hundred fifty thousand due to the total devastation the enemy had inflicted on their region. The difference was then distributed among the other states, resulting in the following outcome.

Still, however, Congress refused to give the enumeration the sanction of a place on their journals, because it was not formed on such evidence, as a strict attention to accuracy and truth required. They used it from necessity, because they could get no better rule, and they entered on their journals only the apportionment of money. The members, however, as before, took copies of the enumeration, which was the ground work of the apportionment, sent them to their States, and thus, this second enumeration got into the public papers, and was, by the English, ascribed to Congress, as their declaration of their present numbers. To get at the real numbers which this enumeration supposes, we must add twenty thousand to the number, on which South Carolina was quotaed; we must consider, that seven hundred thousand slaves are counted but as four hundred and twenty thousand persons, and add, on that account, two hundred and eighty thousand. This will give us a total of two millions six hundred and thirty-nine thousand three hundred inhabitants, of every condition, in the thirteen States; being two hundred and twenty-one thousand three hundred more, than the enumeration of 1775, instead of seven hundred and ninety-eight thousand five hundred and nine less, which the English papers asserted to be the diminution of numbers, in the United States, according to the confession of Congress themselves.
Still, Congress refused to officially record the count in their journals because it wasn’t based on the evidence that strict accuracy and truth demanded. They used it out of necessity since they couldn’t find a better guideline, and they only entered the allocation of funds in their journals. However, as before, the members took copies of the count, which was the basis for the funding distribution, sent them to their states, and thus this second count made its way into public documents, being attributed to Congress by the English as their declaration of current population figures. To determine the actual population that this count suggests, we need to add twenty thousand to the number on which South Carolina's quota was based; we must take into account that seven hundred thousand slaves are counted as only four hundred and twenty thousand people, which means we add another two hundred and eighty thousand. This gives us a total of two million six hundred thirty-nine thousand three hundred inhabitants of all kinds in the thirteen states, which is two hundred twenty-one thousand three hundred more than the count of 1775, instead of the seven hundred ninety-eight thousand five hundred nine fewer that the English papers claimed was the population decrease in the United States, according to Congress's own admission.
Page 272.‘Comportera, peut être, une population de 30,000,000.’ The territory of the United States contains about a million of square miles, English. There is, in them, a greater proportion of fertile lands, than in the British dominions in Europe. Suppose the territory of the United States, then, to attain an equal degree of population, with the British European dominions; they will have an hundred millions of inhabitants. Let us extend our views to what may be the population of the two continents of North and South America, supposing them divided at the narrowest part of the isthmus of Panama. Between this line and that of 50° of north latitude, the northern continent contains about five millions of square miles, and south of this line of division, the southern continent contains about seven millions of square miles. I do not pass the 50th degree of northern latitude in my reckoning, because we must draw a line somewhere, and considering the soil and climate beyond that, I would only avail my calculation of it, as a make-weight, to make good what the colder regions, within that line, may be supposed to fall short in their future population. Here are twelve millions of square miles, then, which, at the rate of population before assumed, will nourish twelve hundred millions of inhabitants, a number greater than the present population of the whole globe is supposed to amount to. If those who propose medals for the resolution of questions, about which nobody makes any question, those who have invited discussion on the pretended problem, Whether the discovery of America was for the good of mankind? if they, I say, would have viewed it only as doubling the numbers of mankind, and, of course, the quantum of existence and happiness, they might have saved the money and the reputation which their proposition has cost them. The present population of the inhabited parts of the United States is of about ten to the square mile; and experience has shown us, that wherever we reach that, the inhabitants become uneasy, as too much compressed, and go off, in great numbers, to search for vacant country. Within forty years, their whole territory will be peopled at that rate. We may fix that, then, as the term, beyond which the people of those States will not be restrained within their present limits; we may fix that population, too, as the limit which they will not exceed, till the whole of those two continents are filled up to that mark; that is to say, till they shall contain one hundred and twenty millions of inhabitants. The soil of the country, on the western side of the Mississippi, its climate, and its vicinity to the United States, point it out as the first which will receive population from that nest. The present occupiers will just have force enough to repress and restrain the emigrations, to a certain degree of consistence. We have seen, lately, a single person go, and decide on a settlement in Kentucky, many hundred miles from any white inhabitant, remove thither with his family and a few neighbors, and though perpetually harassed by the Indians, that settlement in the course of ten years has acquired thirty thousand inhabitants; its numbers are increasing while we are writing, and the State, of which it formerly made a part, has offered it independence.
Page 272. ‘Comportera, peut-être, une population de 30,000,000.’ The territory of the United States covers about a million square miles. It has a larger proportion of fertile land than the British territories in Europe. If we assume that the population of the United States reaches the same level as that of the British European territories, it could reach one hundred million inhabitants. Let’s also consider the potential population of North and South America if they are split at the narrowest part of the isthmus of Panama. Between this line and the 50° north latitude, the northern continent consists of about five million square miles, while south of this dividing line, the southern continent has about seven million square miles. I don’t extend my calculations beyond the 50th degree of northern latitude because we need to set a boundary somewhere, and taking into account the soil and climate beyond that point, I would only use it to balance out what the colder regions within that line might lack in future population. So, there are twelve million square miles, which, at the earlier assumed population rate, could support twelve hundred million inhabitants, a figure larger than the current total population of the entire world. If those who propose medals to solve questions that no one really questions, those who debate the supposed issue of whether the discovery of America was beneficial for humanity, if they had only considered it as a way to double the number of people and, consequently, the amount of existence and happiness, they could have spared the expense and damage to their reputation that their proposal has caused. The current population density in the populated areas of the United States is about ten people per square mile, and experience shows that whenever we reach that point, people become restless due to overcrowding and move in large numbers to find unoccupied land. Within forty years, their entire territory will be populated at that rate. We can set that as the point at which the people of those States will no longer be contained within their current borders; we can also set that population as the threshold they won’t surpass until all of those two continents are filled to that level, which means until they reach one hundred and twenty million inhabitants. The land on the western side of the Mississippi, along with its climate and proximity to the United States, makes it the first area likely to receive population from that origin. The current occupants will have just enough power to limit and control emigration to a manageable degree. Recently, we saw an individual go out and decide on a settlement in Kentucky, many miles away from any white inhabitants, relocating there with his family and a few neighbors. Despite being continually harassed by Indians, that settlement has grown to thirty thousand inhabitants over the course of ten years; its population is still increasing as we write this, and the state it once belonged to has offered it independence.
Page 280, line five. ‘Huit des onze Etats,’ &c. Say, ‘there were ten States present; six voted unanimously for it, three against it, and one was divided: and seven votes being requisite to decide the proposition affirmatively, it was lost. The voice of a single individual of the State which was divided, or of one of those which were of the negative, would have prevented this abominable crime from spreading itself over the new country. Thus we see the fate of millions unborn, hanging on the tongue of one man, and Heaven was silent in that awful moment! But it is to be hoped it will not always be silent, and that the friends to the rights of human nature will, in the end, prevail.
Page 280, line five. ‘Huit des onze Etats,’ &c. It states, ‘there were ten States present; six voted in favor, three opposed, and one was split: since seven votes were needed to approve the proposal, it did not pass. The vote of just one person from the divided State, or one from the opposing States, could have stopped this terrible act from taking root in the new country. We can see that the fate of millions yet to be born rested on the decision of one individual, and in that dreadful moment, Heaven was silent! However, we hope it won’t always remain silent, and that the advocates for human rights will ultimately succeed.’
On the 16th of March, 1785, it was moved in Congress, that the same proposition should be referred to a committee, and it was referred by the votes of eight States against three. We do not hear that any thing further is yet done on it.’
On March 16, 1785, a motion was made in Congress to refer the same proposal to a committee, and it was approved by a vote of eight States to three. We haven't heard of any further actions taken on it yet.
Page 286. ‘L’autorité du Congrès étoit nécessaire.’ The substance of the passage alluded to, in the journal of Congress, May the 26th, 1784, is, ‘That the authority of Congress to make requisitions of troops, during peace, is questioned; that such an authority would be dangerous, combined with the acknowledged one of emitting or of borrowing money; and that a few troops only, being wanted, to guard magazines and garrison the frontier posts, it would be more proper, at present, to recommend than to require.’
Page 286. ‘The authority of Congress was necessary.’ The main point of the passage mentioned in the Congress journal from May 26, 1784, is that ‘The authority of Congress to request troops during peacetime is being questioned; this authority could be dangerous when combined with the recognized power to issue or borrow money; and since only a few troops are needed to secure warehouses and man the frontier posts, it would be better to recommend this instead of demanding it.’
Mr. Jefferson presents his compliments to M. de Meusnier, and sends him copies of the thirteenth, twenty-third, and twenty-fourth articles of the treaty between the King of Prussia and the United States.
Mr. Jefferson sends his regards to M. de Meusnier and provides him with copies of the thirteenth, twenty-third, and twenty-fourth articles of the treaty between the King of Prussia and the United States.
If M. de Meusnier proposes to mention the facts of cruelty, of which he and Mr Jefferson spoke yesterday, the twenty-fourth article will introduce them properly, because they produced a sense of the necessity of that article. These facts are, 1. The death of upwards of eleven thousand American prisoners, in one prison-ship (the Jersey), and in the space of three years. 2. General Howe’s permitting our prisoners, taken at the battle of Germantown, and placed under a guard, in the yard of the State-house of Philadelphia, to be so long without any food furnished them, that many perished with hunger. Where the bodies lay, it was seen that they had eaten all the grass around them, within their reach, after they had lost the power of rising or moving from their place. 3. The second fact was the act of a commanding officer: the first, of several commanding officers, and, for so long a time, as must suppose the approbation of government. But the following was the act of government itself. During the periods that our affairs seemed unfavorable, and theirs successful, that is to say, after the evacuation of New York, and again after the taking of Charleston, in South Carolina, they regularly sent our prisoners, taken on the seas and carried to England, to the East Indies. This is so certain, that in the month of November or December, 1785, Mr. Adams having officially demanded a delivery of the American prisoners sent to the East Indies, Lord Caermarthen answered, officially, ‘that orders were immediately issued for their discharge.’ M. de Meusnier is at liberty to quote this fact. 4. A fact, to be ascribed not only to the government, but to the parliament, who passed an act for that purpose, in the beginning of the war, was the obliging our prisoners, taken at sea, to join them, and fight against their countrymen. This they effected by starving and whipping them. The insult on Captain Stanhope, which happened at Boston last year, was a consequence of this. Two persons, Dunbar and Lowthorp, whom Stanhope had treated in this manner (having particularly inflicted twenty-four lashes on Dunbar), meeting him at Boston, attempted to beat him. But the people interposed, and saved him. The fact is referred to in that paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, which says, ‘He has constrained our fellow citizens, taken captive on the high seas, to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.’ This was the most afflicting to our prisoners, of all the cruelties exercised on them. The others affected the body only, but this the mind; they were haunted by the horror of having, perhaps, themselves shot the ball by which a father or a brother fell. Some of them had constancy enough to hold out against half-allowance of food and repeated whippings. These were generally sent to England, and from thence to the East Indies. One of them escaped from the East Indies, and got back to Paris, where he gave an account of his sufferings to Mr. Adams, who happened to be then at Paris.
If M. de Meusnier wants to talk about the cruel facts he and Mr. Jefferson discussed yesterday, the twenty-fourth article will cover them well since they highlight the need for that article. These facts are: 1. The death of over eleven thousand American prisoners on one prison ship (the Jersey) over a span of three years. 2. General Howe allowing our prisoners, captured at the battle of Germantown and kept under guard in the yard of the State House in Philadelphia, to go so long without food that many starved to death. Where the bodies lay, it was evident that they had eaten all the grass around them within reach after they could no longer rise or move. 3. The second fact involved an act by a commanding officer: the first of several commanding officers, and for such an extended period that it suggested government approval. However, the next fact was a direct act by the government itself. During times when our situation looked bleak and theirs seemed successful—after the evacuation of New York and again after the capture of Charleston, South Carolina—they systematically sent our prisoners taken at sea to the East Indies. This is so certain that in November or December of 1785, when Mr. Adams officially requested the release of the American prisoners sent to the East Indies, Lord Caermarthen responded officially that "orders were immediately issued for their discharge." M. de Meusnier is free to cite this fact. 4. Another fact, attributed not only to the government but also to the parliament, which passed a law for this purpose at the beginning of the war, was forcing our prisoners captured at sea to join them in fighting against their fellow countrymen. They achieved this by starving and whipping them. The attack on Captain Stanhope in Boston last year was a result of this. Two individuals, Dunbar and Lowthorp, whom Stanhope had treated this way (specifically inflicting twenty-four lashes on Dunbar), confronted him in Boston and tried to assault him. But bystanders intervened and saved him. This fact is referenced in that paragraph of the Declaration of Independence which states, "He has constrained our fellow citizens, taken captive on the high seas, to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands." This was the most distressing cruelty to our prisoners, more so than any physical abuse; it tormented their minds. They were haunted by the thought that they might have caused the death of a father or brother. Some had enough resilience to endure reduced food rations and repeated beatings. These individuals were mostly sent to England and then to the East Indies. One managed to escape from the East Indies and returned to Paris, where he shared his suffering with Mr. Adams, who was also in Paris at the time.
M. de Meusnier, where he mentions that the slave-law has been passed in Virginia, without the clause of emancipation, is pleased to mention, that neither Mr. Wythe nor Mr. Jefferson was present, to make the proposition they had meditated; from which, people, who do not give themselves the trouble to reflect or inquire, might conclude, hastily, that their absence was the cause why the proposition was not made; and, of course, that there were not, in the Assembly, persons of virtue and firmness enough to propose the clause for emancipation. This supposition would not be true. There were persons there, who wanted neither the virtue to propose, nor talents to enforce the proposition, had they seen that the disposition of the legislature was ripe for it. These worthy characters would feel themselves wounded, degraded, and discouraged by this idea. Mr. Jefferson would therefore be obliged to M. de Meusnier to mention it in some such manner as this. ‘Of the two commissioners, who had concerted the amendatory clause for the gradual emancipation of slaves, Mr. Wythe could not be present, he being a member of the judiciary department, and Mr. Jefferson was absent on the legation to France. But there were not wanting in that Assembly, men of virtue enough to propose, and talents to vindicate this clause. But they saw, that the moment of doing it with success, was not yet arrived, and that an unsuccessful effort, as too often happens, would only rivet still closer the chains of bondage, and retard the moment of delivery to this oppressed description of men. What a stupendous, what an incomprehensible machine is man! who can endure toil, famine, stripes, imprisonment, and death itself, in vindication of his own liberty, and, the next moment, be deaf to all those motives whose power supported him through his trial, and inflict on his fellow men a bondage, one hour of which is fraught with more misery, than ages of that which he rose in rebellion to oppose! But we must await, with patience, the workings of an overruling Providence, and hope that that is preparing the deliverance of these our suffering brethren. When the measure of their tears shall be full, when their groans shall have involved heaven itself in darkness, doubtless, a God of justice will awaken to their distress, and by diffusing light and liberality among their oppressors, or, at length, by his exterminating thunder, manifest his attention to the things of this world, and that they are not left to the guidance of a blind fatality.’
M. de Meusnier notes that the slave law was passed in Virginia without the emancipation clause and is pleased to mention that neither Mr. Wythe nor Mr. Jefferson was present to propose the idea they had considered; people who don’t take the time to reflect or inquire might quickly conclude that their absence was the reason the proposal wasn’t made, and therefore that there weren’t any individuals of virtue and strength in the Assembly who could advocate for the emancipation clause. This assumption would be incorrect. There were individuals present who had the virtue to propose and the ability to back up the proposal, had they sensed that the legislature was ready for it. These honorable individuals would feel offended, diminished, and disheartened by such an idea. Mr. Jefferson would therefore feel obligated to M. de Meusnier to state it something like this: “Of the two commissioners who had put together the amendment for the gradual emancipation of slaves, Mr. Wythe couldn’t be present, as he was a member of the judiciary, and Mr. Jefferson was absent on a mission to France. However, there were indeed men of virtue in that Assembly who could have proposed and defended this clause. They realized that the time for a successful attempt wasn’t right yet, and that an unsuccessful effort, as is often the case, would only tighten the chains of bondage and delay the liberation of this oppressed group. What an astonishing and incomprehensible creature man is! He can endure hard labor, hunger, beatings, imprisonment, and even death for the sake of his own freedom, yet in the next moment, he can be indifferent to all those motivations that helped him through his struggle and impose a bondage on his fellow human beings, one hour of which brings more suffering than the ages of tyranny he rebelled against! But we must patiently wait for the workings of a higher power and hope that it is preparing the deliverance of our suffering brothers. When their tears have filled to the brim, and their groans have cast a shadow over heaven itself, surely a just God will respond to their suffering, either by bringing enlightenment and compassion to their oppressors or, eventually, by unleashing His wrath, showing that He cares about the affairs of this world and that they aren’t governed by blind fate.”
[Here are the articles of the treaty with Prussia, mentioned in the previous comments.]
Article 13. And in the same case, of one of the contracting parties being engaged in war with any other power, to prevent all the difficulties and misunderstandings, that usually arise respecting the merchandise heretofore called contraband, such as arms, ammunition, and military stores of every kind, no such articles, carried in the vessels, or by the subjects or citizens of one of the parties, to the enemies of the other, shall be deemed contraband, so as to induce confiscation or condemnation, and a loss of property to individuals. Nevertheless, it shall be lawful to stop such vessels and articles, and to detain them for such length of time, as the captors may think necessary to prevent the inconvenience or damage that might ensue from their proceeding, paying, however, a reasonable compensation for the loss such arrest shall occasion to the proprietors: and it shall further be allowed to use, in the service of the captors, the whole or any part of the military stores so detained, paying the owners the full value of the same, to be ascertained by the current price at the place of its destination. But in the case supposed, of a vessel stopped for articles heretofore deemed contraband, if the master of the vessel stopped will deliver out the goods supposed to be of contraband nature, he shall be admitted to do it, and the vessel shall not, in that case be carried into any port, nor further detained, but shall be allowed to proceed on her voyage.
Article 13. In the event that one of the parties involved is at war with another power, to avoid any difficulties and misunderstandings that typically arise regarding goods previously labeled as contraband, like weapons, ammunition, and military supplies of any kind, none of these items carried on vessels or by the subjects or citizens of one party to the enemies of the other will be classified as contraband, thus preventing confiscation or condemnation and a loss of property for individuals. However, it is permissible to stop such vessels and goods and detain them for as long as the captors believe necessary to avoid any inconvenience or damage that might occur from their actions, providing a reasonable compensation for the loss caused by the detention to the owners. Additionally, it will be allowed to use all or part of the military supplies that have been detained in the service of the captors, compensating the owners at full value based on the current price at the destination. If a vessel is stopped for items previously considered contraband, and the captain of the vessel agrees to hand over the goods in question, they will be permitted to do so, and in that case, the vessel will not be taken to any port or held further, but will be allowed to continue on its voyage.
Article 23. If war should arise between the two contracting parties, the merchants of either country, then residing in the other, shall be allowed to remain nine months to collect their debts, and settle their affairs, and may depart freely, carrying off all their effects, without molestation or hindrance: and all women and children, scholars of every faculty, cultivators of the earth, artisans, manufacturers, and fishermen, unarmed, and inhabiting unfortified towns, villages, or places, and, in general, all others whose occupations are for the common subsistence and benefit of mankind, shall be allowed to continue their respective employments, and shall not be molested in their persons, nor shall their houses be burned or otherwise destroyed, nor their fields wasted by the armed force of the enemy, into whose power, by the events of war, they may happen to fall: but if any thing is necessary to be taken from them, for the use of such armed force, the same shall be paid for at a reasonable price. And all merchant and trading vessels, employed in exchanging the products of different places, and thereby rendering the necessaries, conveniences, and comforts of human life more easy to be obtained, and more general, shall be allowed to pass free and unmolested. And neither of the contracting parties shall grant or issue any commission to any private armed vessels, empowering them to take or destroy such trading vessels, or interrupt such commerce.
Article 23. If war breaks out between the two parties involved, merchants from either country who are living in the other country will be allowed to stay for nine months to collect their debts and settle their affairs. They can leave freely, taking all their belongings without interference or obstruction. Women and children, students of all fields, farmers, artisans, manufacturers, and fishermen—who are unarmed and live in unfortified towns, villages, or locations—along with anyone else whose work is essential for the common well-being of society, will be allowed to continue their jobs without being harmed. Their homes will not be burned or destroyed, nor will their fields be damaged by the enemy's armed forces, even if they end up under enemy control due to the war. If anything needs to be taken from them for the use of the armed forces, it will be paid for at a fair price. All merchant and trading vessels that help exchange products and make essential goods more accessible will be allowed to pass freely and without harassment. Neither party involved will grant any commissions to private armed vessels to seize or destroy these trading vessels or disrupt this commerce.
Article 24. And to prevent the destruction of prisoners of war, by sending them into distant and inclement countries, or by crowding them into close and noxious places, the two contracting parties solemnly pledge themselves to each other and the world, that they will not adopt any such practice: that neither will send the prisoners whom they may take from the other, into the East Indies or any other parts of Asia or Africa: but that they shall be placed in some part of their dominions in Europe or America, in wholesome situations; that they shall not be confined in dungeons, prison-ships, nor prisons, nor be put into irons, nor bound, nor otherwise restrained in the use of their limbs. That the officers shall be enlarged, on their paroles, within convenient districts, and have comfortable quarters, and the common men be disposed in cantonments, open and extensive enough for air and exercise, and lodged in barracks as roomy and good, as are provided by the party, in whose power they are, for their own troops; that the officers shall be daily furnished by the party, in whose power they are, with as many rations, and of the same articles and quality, as are allowed by them, either in kind or by commutation, to officers of equal rank in their own army; and all others shall be daily furnished by them, with such rations as they allow to a common soldier in their own service; the value whereof shall be paid by the other party, on a mutual adjustment of accounts for the subsistence of prisoners, at the close of the war: and the said accounts shall not be mingled with, or set off against any others, nor the balances due on them, be withheld as a satisfaction or reprisal for any other article, or for any other cause, real or pretended, whatever. That each party shall be allowed to keep a commissary of prisoners, of their own appointment, with every separate cantonment of prisoners in possession of the other, which commissary shall see the prisoners as often as he pleases, shall be allowed to receive and distribute whatever comforts may be sent to them by their friends, and shall be free to make his reports, in open letters, to those who employ him. But if any officer shall break his parole, or any other prisoner shall escape from the limits of his cantonment, after they shall have been designated to him, such individual officer, or other prisoner, shall forfeit so much of the benefit of this article, as provides for his enlargement on parole or cantonment. And it is declared, that neither the pretence that war dissolves all treaties, nor any other whatever, shall be considered as annulling or suspending this, or the next preceding article, but, on the contrary, that the state of war is precisely that for which they are provided, and during which, they are to be as sacredly observed, as the most acknowledged articles in the law of nature and nations.
Article 24. To prevent the mistreatment of prisoners of war by sending them to far-off and harsh countries or by putting them in crowded and unhealthy conditions, both parties involved commit to each other and the world that they will not engage in such practices. Neither side will send the prisoners they capture from the other into the East Indies or any parts of Asia or Africa; instead, they will be kept in a part of their territories in Europe or America, in healthy locations. They will not be confined in dungeons, prison ships, or jails, nor will they be shackled, bound, or otherwise restricted in their movement. Officers will be released on their word within reasonable areas and provided with comfortable accommodations. The common soldiers will be placed in open, spacious camps that allow for fresh air and exercise, and will be housed in barracks that are as spacious and well-maintained as those provided for the troops of the party holding them. Officers will be supplied daily by the party in control with the same number of rations and of the same quality as those provided to similarly ranked officers in their own army, and all other prisoners will receive daily rations equivalent to what a common soldier in their own service receives. The value of these rations will be reimbursed by the other party after a mutual account adjustment for the sustenance of prisoners at the end of the war. These accounts will not be mixed with or offset against any others, nor will any payments due be withheld as compensation or retaliation for any other reason, whether real or imagined. Each party will be allowed to maintain a prisoner commissary of their own choosing with every group of prisoners held by the other, who will be able to visit the prisoners as often as desired, receive and distribute comforts sent by their friends, and report freely in open letters to those who appointed them. However, if any officer violates their parole, or if any prisoner escapes from their designated area, that individual officer or prisoner will lose the benefits outlined in this article that pertain to their release on parole or their settlement. It is stated that the argument that war nullifies all treaties, or any other claim, will not be accepted as canceling or suspending this article or the previous one. On the contrary, the wartime situation is precisely why these provisions exist, and they are to be observed as strictly as the most recognized rules in natural and international law.
LETTER CLII.—TO MR. RITTENHOUSE, January 25,1786
TO MR. RITTENHOUSE.
To Mr. Rittenhouse.
Paris, January 25,1786.
Paris, January 25, 1786.
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir/Madam,
Your favor of September the 28th came to hand a few days ago. I thank you for the details on the subject of the southern and western lines. There remains thereon, one article, however, which I will still beg you to inform me of; viz. how far is the western boundary beyond the meridian of Pittsburg? This information is necessary, to enable me to trace that boundary in my map. I shall be much gratified, also, with a communication of your observations on the curiosities of the western country. It will not be difficult to induce me to give up the theory of the growth of shells, without their being the nidus of animals. It is only an idea, and not an opinion with me. In the Notes, with which I troubled you, I had observed that there were three opinions as to the origin of these shells. 1. That they have been deposited even in the highest mountains, by an universal deluge. 2. That they, with all the calcareous stones and earths, are animal remains. 3. That they grow or shoot as crystals do. I find that I could swallow the last opinion, sooner than either of the others; but I have not yet swallowed it. Another opinion might have been added, that some throe of nature has forced up parts which had been the bed of the ocean. But have we any better proof of such an effort of nature, than of her shooting a lapidific juice into the form of a shell? No such convulsion has taken place in our time, nor within the annals of history: nor is the distance greater, between the shooting of the lapidific juice into the form of a crystal or a diamond, which we see, and into the form of a shell, which we do not see, than between the forcing volcanic matter a little above the surface, where it is in fusion, which we see, and the forcing the bed of the sea fifteen thousand feet above the ordinary surface of the earth, which we do not see. It is not possible to believe any of these hypotheses; and if we lean towards any of them, it should be only till some other is produced, more analogous to the known operations of nature. In a letter to Mr. Hopkinson, I mentioned to him that the Abbe Rochon, who discovered the double refracting power in some of the natural crystals, had lately made a telescope with the metal called platina, which, while it is as susceptible of as perfect a polish as the metal heretofore used for the specula of telescopes, is insusceptible of rust, as gold and silver are. There is a person here, who has hit on a new method of engraving. He gives you an ink of his composition. Write on copper plates, any thing of which you would wish to take several copies, and, in an hour, the plate will be ready to strike them off; so of plans, engravings, &c. This art will be amusing to individuals, if he should make it known. I send you herewith, the Nautical Almanacs for 1786, 1787, 1788, 1789, 1790, which are as late as they are published. You ask, how you may reimburse the expense of these trifles? I answer, by accepting them; as the procuring you a gratification, is a higher one to me than money. We have had nothing curious published lately. I do not know whether you are fond of chemical reading. There are some things in this science worth reading. I will send them to you, if you wish it. My daughter is well, and joins me in respects to Mrs. Rittenhouse and the young ladies. After asking when we are to have the Lunarium, I will close with assurances of the sincere regard and esteem, with which I am, Dear Sir, your most obedient,
Your letter from September 28th arrived a few days ago. Thank you for the details about the southern and western borders. However, there's still one thing I need you to clarify: how far is the western boundary beyond the meridian of Pittsburgh? I need this information to mark that boundary on my map. I would also appreciate any observations you have about the curiosities of the western country. It wouldn’t take much to convince me to abandon the theory that shells can grow without being produced by animals. It's just an idea for me, not a strong opinion. In the notes I previously shared with you, I mentioned three theories about the origin of these shells: 1. That they were deposited even in the highest mountains by a universal flood. 2. That they, along with all calcareous stones and soils, are remains of animals. 3. That they grow like crystals. I find it easier to accept the last theory than the other two, but I still haven't fully bought into it. Another theory could suggest that some natural upheaval has raised parts that were once the ocean floor. But do we have better evidence for such a natural event than for nature producing a shell from a lapidifying substance? No such upheaval has happened in our time or recorded history, and the distance between the formation of crystal or diamond, which we observe, and the formation of a shell, which we do not, is no greater than the distance between volcanic material rising slightly above the surface, which we see, and raising the ocean floor fifteen thousand feet above the regular surface of the earth, which we do not see. It's hard to believe any of these theories, and if we lean toward one, it should only be until a better theory comes along that aligns more closely with known natural processes. In a letter to Mr. Hopkinson, I mentioned that Abbé Rochon, who discovered double refraction in some natural crystals, recently made a telescope using platinum, which can be polished just as smoothly as the metals used for telescope mirrors, yet it doesn’t rust like gold or silver. There’s someone here who has developed a new engraving method. He provides a special ink. You can write on copper plates whatever you want to copy multiple times, and in about an hour, the plate will be ready for printing. This technique will be enjoyable for individuals if he makes it known. I’m also sending you the Nautical Almanacs for 1786, 1787, 1788, 1789, and 1790—the latest versions available. You asked how you could reimburse the cost of these trifles. I say, just accept them; providing you with something enjoyable means more to me than money. We haven’t had anything interesting published lately. I’m not sure if you enjoy reading about chemistry, but there are some worthwhile topics in that field. I can send you some if you’d like. My daughter is well and sends her regards to Mrs. Rittenhouse and the young ladies. After asking when we can expect the Lunarium, I’ll close with sincere respect and admiration, and remain, Dear Sir, your most obedient,
humble servant,
humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CLIII.—TO A. STEWART, January 25, 1786
TO A. STEWART.
To A. Stewart.
Paris, January 25, 1786.
Paris, Jan 25, 1786.
Dear Sir,
Dear Mr.
I have received your favor of the 17th of October, which, though you mention it as the third you have written me, is the first that has come to hand. I sincerely thank you for the communications it contains. Nothing is so grateful to me, at this distance, as details, both great and small, of what is passing in my own country. Of the latter, we receive little here, because they either escape my correspondents, or are thought unworthy of notice. This, however, is a very mistaken opinion, as every one may observe, by recollecting, that when he has been long absent from his neighborhood, the small news of that is the most pleasing, and occupies his first attention, either when he meets with a person from thence, or returns thither himself. I still hope, therefore, that the letter, in which you have been so good as to give me the minute occurrences in the neighborhood of Monticello, may yet come to hand, and I venture to rely on the many proofs of friendship I have received from you for a continuance of your favors. This will be the more meritorious, as I have nothing to give you in exchange.
I received your letter dated October 17th, which you mentioned is the third you've sent, but it's the first one I've actually got. I really appreciate the information in it. Nothing makes me happier from this distance than hearing both the big happenings and little details about what's going on back home. We don’t get much of that here, as my contacts either miss sending it or think it's not important. However, that's a real misunderstanding, as anyone can see—when you’ve been away from your neighborhood for a long time, it’s the little news that’s most enjoyable and captures your attention first, whether you run into someone from back home or go back yourself. I still hope that the letter where you kindly shared the little happenings around Monticello will arrive soon, and I trust you'll keep sending me news, considering all the kindness you've shown me so far. It will be especially generous since I have nothing to offer in return.
The quiet of Europe at this moment furnishes little which can attract your notice. Nor will that quiet be soon disturbed, at least for the current year. Perhaps it hangs on the life of the King of Prussia, and that hangs by a very slender thread. American reputation in Europe is not such as to be flattering to its citizens. Two circumstances are particularly objected to us; the nonpayment of our debts, and the want of energy in our government. These discourage a connection with us. I own it to be my opinion, that good will arise from the destruction of our credit. I see nothing else which can restrain our disposition to luxury, and to the change of those manners, which alone can preserve republican government. As it is impossible to prevent credit, the best way would be to cure its ill effects by giving an instantaneous recovery to the creditor. This would be reducing purchases on credit to purchases for ready money. A man would then see a prison painted on every thing he wished, but had not ready money to pay for.
The silence in Europe right now doesn’t offer much that catches your attention. And this calm isn’t likely to be interrupted anytime soon, at least not this year. Maybe it depends on the life of the King of Prussia, which is hanging by a very thin thread. America's reputation in Europe isn’t exactly flattering to its citizens. Two main issues are particularly criticized: our failure to pay our debts and the lack of energy in our government. These factors discourage connections with us. I honestly believe that some good can come from the loss of our credit. I don’t see any other way to curb our tendency toward luxury and the changes in behavior that are vital for preserving a republican government. Since it’s impossible to eliminate credit, the best solution would be to minimize its negative effects by allowing creditors to recover immediately. This would shift purchases on credit to being cash-only transactions. A person would then see a prison looming over everything they wanted but couldn't afford to pay for upfront.
I fear from an expression in your letter, that the people of Kentucky think of separating, not only from Virginia (in which they are right), but also from the confederacy. I own, I should think this a most calamitous event, and such a one as every good citizen should set himself against. Our present federal limits are not too large for good government, nor will the increase of votes in Congress produce any ill effect. On the contrary, it will drown the little divisions at present existing there. Our confederacy must be viewed as the nest from which all America, North and South, is to be peopled. We should take care, too, not to think it for the interest of that great continent to press too soon on the Spaniards. Those countries cannot be in better hands. My fear is, that they are too feeble to hold them till our population can be sufficiently advanced to gain it from them piece by piece. The navigation of the Mississippi we must have. This is all we are, as yet, ready to receive. I have made acquaintance with a very sensible, candid gentleman here, who was in South America during the revolt which took place there while our Revolution was going on. He says, that those disturbances (of which we scarcely heard any thing) cost, on both sides, an hundred thousand lives.
I’m worried by something in your letter that suggests the people of Kentucky are considering separating not just from Virginia (which they are right about), but also from the confederacy. Honestly, I think that would be a disastrous outcome, and every good citizen should oppose it. Our current federal boundaries aren’t too large for effective governance, and an increase in congressional votes won’t have any negative impact. In fact, it will overshadow the small divisions that currently exist. We need to see our confederacy as the foundation for populating all of America, both North and South. We should also be careful not to push too hard on the Spaniards regarding that vast continent. Those territories are better off in their hands. My concern is that they may be too weak to maintain control until our population is ready to gradually take it from them. We absolutely need to have access to the Mississippi River. That is all we’re prepared for right now. I’ve met a very intelligent and straightforward gentleman here who was in South America during the upheaval there while our Revolution was happening. He says that those disturbances, which we barely heard about, resulted in about a hundred thousand deaths on both sides.
I have made a particular acquaintance here with Monsieur de Buffon, and have a great desire to give him the best idea I can of our elk. Perhaps your situation may enable you to aid me in this. You could not oblige me more, than by sending me the horns, skeleton, and skin of an elk, were it possible to procure them. The most desirable form of receiving them would be to have the skin slit from the under jaw along the belly to the tail, and down the thighs to the knee, to take the animal out, leaving the legs and hoofs, the bones of the head, and the horns attached to the skin. By sewing-up the belly, &c. and stuffing the skin, it would present the form of the animal. However, as an opportunity of doing this is scarcely to be expected, I shall be glad to receive them detached, packed in a box and sent to Richmond, to the care of Dr. Currie. Every thing of this kind is precious here. And to prevent my adding to your trouble, I must close my letter with assurances of the esteem and attachment, with which I am, Dear Sir,
I’ve become acquainted with Monsieur de Buffon here and really want to give him a good idea of our elk. Maybe your position could help me with this. You would do me a huge favor by sending me the horns, skeleton, and skin of an elk, if it’s possible to get them. The best way to receive them would be to have the skin cut from the under jaw along the belly to the tail, and down the thighs to the knee, so I can remove the body while keeping the legs, hooves, bones of the head, and horns attached to the skin. By sewing up the belly and stuffing the skin, it would look like the animal. However, since it’s unlikely I’ll get such an opportunity, I would be happy to receive everything separately, packed in a box and sent to Richmond, to the care of Dr. Currie. Everything like this is valuable here. To avoid adding to your troubles, I’ll end my letter with my sincere respect and affection, dear Sir,
your friend and servant,
your friend and servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CLIV.—TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE TREASURY, January 26, 1786
TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE TREASURY.
TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE TREASURY.
Paris, January 26, 1786.
Paris, Jan 26, 1786.
Gentlemen,
Guys,
I have been duly honored by the receipt of your letter of December the 6th, and am to thank you for the communications it contained on the state of our funds and expectations here. Your idea, that these communications, occasionally, may be useful to the United States, is certainly just, as I am frequently obliged to explain our prospects of paying interest, &c. which I should better do with fuller information. If you would be so good as to instruct Mr. Grand, always to furnish me with a duplicate of those cash accounts which he furnishes to you, from time to time, and if you would be so good as to direct your secretary to send me copies of such letters, as you transmit to Mr. Grand, advising him of the remittances he may expect, from time to time. I should, thereby, be always informed of the sum of money on hand here, and the probable expectations of supply. Dr. Franklin, during his residence here, having been authorized to borrow large sums of money, the disposal of that money seemed naturally to rest with him. It was Mr. Grand’s practice, therefore, never to pay money, but on his warrant. On his departure, Mr. Grand sent all money drafts to me, to authorize their payment. I informed him, that this was in nowise within my province; that I was unqualified to direct him in it, and that were I to presume to meddle, it would be no additional sanction to him. He refused, however, to pay a shilling without my order. I have been obliged, therefore, to a nugatory interference, merely to prevent the affairs of the United States from standing still. I need not represent to you the impropriety of my continuing to direct Mr. Grand, longer than till we can receive your orders, the mischief which might ensue from the uncertainty in which this would place you, as to the extent to which you might venture to draw on your funds here, and the little necessity there is for my interference. Whenever you order a sum of money into Mr. Grand’s hands, nothing will be more natural than your instructing him how to apply it, so as that he shall observe your instructions alone. Among these, you would doubtless judge it necessary to give him one standing instruction, to answer my drafts for such sums, as my office authorizes me to call for. These would be salary, couriers, postage, and such other articles as circumstances will require, which cannot be previously defined. These will never be so considerable as to endanger the honor of your drafts. I shall certainly exercise in them the greatest caution, and stand responsible to Congress.
I was truly honored to receive your letter dated December 6th, and I want to thank you for the information about our funds and expectations here. Your point that these updates might occasionally be useful to the United States is definitely valid, as I often need to explain our ability to pay interest, etc., which I could do much better with more complete information. If you could please ask Mr. Grand to always provide me with a duplicate of the cash accounts he sends you from time to time, and if you could also instruct your secretary to send me copies of the letters you send to Mr. Grand regarding any remittances he can expect, that would keep me well-informed about the money available here and our expected supplies. During Dr. Franklin's time here, he was authorized to borrow large sums of money, and it naturally seemed that managing that money was his responsibility. Therefore, Mr. Grand’s practice was to only disburse funds based on his warrants. When Mr. Franklin left, Mr. Grand sent all money requests to me for approval. I told him this was not within my responsibilities; I wasn’t qualified to advise him on it, and intervening wouldn’t provide him with any additional authority. However, he refused to pay anything without my approval. As a result, I’ve been forced to get involved unnecessarily just to keep the United States' affairs moving. I shouldn’t have to continue directing Mr. Grand until we receive your orders, as that could create uncertainty regarding how much you can safely draw from your funds here and there’s little reason for my involvement. Whenever you authorize a payment to Mr. Grand, it makes sense for you to instruct him on how to handle it, ensuring he only follows your directions. Among these, you’d surely see the need to give him a standard instruction to cover my requests for amounts my office is permitted to call for. This would include salary, couriers, postage, and other expenses as needed, which cannot be predetermined. These requests will never be so significant as to compromise your drafts. I will certainly act with the utmost caution and take responsibility to Congress for them.
Mr. Grand conceives that he has suffered in your opinion, by an application of two hundred thousand livres, during the last year, differently from what the office of finance had instructed him. This was a consequence of his being thought subject to direction here, and it is but justice to relieve him from blame on that account, and to show that it ought to fall, if any where, on Dr. Franklin, Mr. Adams, and myself. The case was thus. The monies here were exhausted, Mr. Grand was in advance about fifty thousand livres, and the diplomatic establishments in France, Spain, and Holland, subsisting on his bounties, which they were subject to see stopped every moment, and feared a protest on every bill. Other current expenses, too, were depending on advances from him, and though these were small in their amount, they sometimes involved great consequences. In this situation, he received four hundred thousand livres, to be paid to this government for one year’s interest. We thought the honor of the United States would suffer less by suspending half the payment to this government, replacing Mr. Grand’s advances, and providing a fund for current expenses. We advised him so to do. I still think it was for the best, and I believe my colleagues have continued to see the matter in the same point of view. We may have been biassed by feelings excited by our own distressing situation. But certainly, as to Mr. Grand, no blame belongs to him. We explained this matter in a letter to Congress, at the time, and justice requires this explanation to you, as I conjecture that the former one has not come to your knowledge.
Mr. Grand believes he has suffered in your eyes because of an application of two hundred thousand livres over the past year, contrary to what the finance office had instructed him. This happened because people thought he was supposed to take direction here, and it’s only fair to exonerate him from blame on that front, and to show that any blame should fall, if anywhere, on Dr. Franklin, Mr. Adams, and myself. Here’s the situation: the funds here were depleted, Mr. Grand had advanced about fifty thousand livres, and the diplomatic posts in France, Spain, and Holland were dependent on his generosity, which they feared could be stopped at any moment, and they worried about a protest on every bill. Other current expenses were also relying on his advances, and while these amounts were small, they could lead to significant consequences. In this context, he received four hundred thousand livres, meant to be paid to this government for a year’s interest. We thought it would harm the honor of the United States less to hold back half the payment to this government, to replace Mr. Grand’s advances, and to create a fund for current expenses. We advised him to do this. I still believe it was the best course of action, and I think my colleagues have maintained the same perspective. We might have been influenced by the emotions triggered by our own troubling situation. But clearly, as for Mr. Grand, he deserves no blame. We explained this in a letter to Congress at the time, and fairness demands that I provide this explanation to you, as I suspect the earlier letter has not reached you.
The two hundred thousand livres retained, as before mentioned, have been applied to the purposes described, to the payment of a year’s interest to the French officers (which is about forty-two thousand livres), and other current expenses, which, doubtless, Mr. Grand has explained to you. About a week ago, there remained in his hands but about twelve thousand livres. In this situation, the demands of the French officers for a second year’s interest were presented. But Mr. Grand observed there were neither money nor orders for them. The payment of these gentlemen, the last year, had the happiest effect imaginable; it procured so many advocates for the credit and honor of the United States, who were heard, in all companies. It corrected the idea that we were unwilling to pay our debts. I fear that our present failure towards them will give new birth to new imputations, and a relapse of credit. Under this fear I have written to Mr. Adams, to know whether he can have this money supplied from the funds in Holland; though I have little hope from that quarter, because he had before informed me, that those funds would be exhausted by the spring of the present year, and I doubt, too, whether he would venture to order these payments, without authority from you. I have thought it my duty to state these matters to you.
The two hundred thousand livres mentioned earlier have been used for the purposes described, including the payment of a year’s interest to the French officers (which is about forty-two thousand livres) and other ongoing expenses, which Mr. Grand has likely explained to you. About a week ago, he had only about twelve thousand livres left. At this point, the French officers were asking for a second year's interest. However, Mr. Grand pointed out that there was neither money nor orders for that payment. Last year's payment had an incredibly positive effect; it gained many supporters for the credit and honor of the United States, who spoke highly of us in various circles. It changed the perception that we were unwilling to pay our debts. I'm worried that our current failure to pay them might give rise to new accusations and damage our credit again. With this concern, I've written to Mr. Adams to see if he can secure these funds from the resources in Holland; although I have little hope for that, since he previously told me those funds would be depleted by spring this year, and I also doubt he would proceed with these payments without your approval. I felt it was important to bring these issues to your attention.
I have had the honor of enclosing to Mr. Jay, Commodore Jones’s receipts for one hundred and eighty-one thousand and thirty-nine livres, one sol and ten deniers, prize-money, which (after deducting his own proportion) he is to remit to you, for the officers and soldiers who were under his command. I take the liberty of suggesting, whether the expense and risk of double remittances might not be saved, by ordering it into the hands of Mr. Grand immediately, for the purposes of the treasury in Europe, while you could make provision at home for the officers and soldiers, whose demands will come in so slowly, as to leave you the use of a great proportion of this money for a considerable time, and some of it for ever. We could then, immediately, quiet the French officers.
I have the honor of sending Mr. Jay Commodore Jones’s receipts for 181,039 livres, one sol, and ten deniers in prize money. After taking out his share, he will send the rest to you for the officers and soldiers under his command. I’d like to suggest whether we could save the expense and risk of sending money twice by having Mr. Grand manage it right away for the treasury in Europe. Meanwhile, you could take care of the officers and soldiers at home. Their payments will come in slowly, allowing you to use a significant part of this money for a long time, and some of it possibly forever. This way, we could quickly settle things with the French officers.
I have the honor to be, with the most perfect respect and esteem, Gentlemen,
I am honored to be, with the utmost respect and admiration, Gentlemen,
your most obedient
your obedient servant
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CLV.—TO MESSRS. BUCHANAN AND HAY, January 26, 1786
TO MESSRS. BUCHANAN AND HAY.
To Messrs. Buchanan and Hay.
Paris, January 26, 1786.
Paris, Jan 26, 1786.
Gentlemen,
Gentlemen,
I had the honor of writing to you on the receipt of your orders to procure draughts for the public buildings, and again on the 13th of August. In the execution of these orders, two methods of proceeding presented themselves to my mind. The one was, to leave to some architect to draw an external according to his fancy, in which way, experience shows, that about once in a thousand times a pleasing form is hit upon; the other was, to take some model already devised, and approved by the general suffrage of the world. I had no hesitation in deciding that the latter was best, nor after the decision, was there any doubt what model to take, There is at Nismes, in the south of France, a building, called the Maison Quarrée, erected in the time of the Cæsars, and which is allowed, without contradiction, to be the most perfect and precious remain of antiquity in existence. Its superiority over any thing at Rome, in Greece, at Balbec, or Palmyra, is allowed on all hands; and this single object has placed Nismes in the general tour of travellers. Having not yet had leisure to visit it, I could only judge of it from drawings, and from the relation of numbers who had been to see it. I determined, therefore, to adopt this model, and to have all its proportions justly observed. As it was impossible for a foreign artist to know what number and sizes of apartments would suit the different corps of our government, nor how they should be connected with one another, I undertook to form that arrangement, and this being done, I committed them to an architect (Monsieur Clerissauk), who had studied this art twenty years in Rome, who had particularly studied and measured the Maison Quarrée of Nismes, and had published a book containing most excellent plans, descriptions, and observations on it. He was too well acquainted with the merit of that building, to find himself restrained by my injunctions not to depart from his model. In one instance, only, he persuaded me to admit of this. That was, to make the portico two columns deep only, instead of three, as the original is. His reason was, that this latter depth would too much darken the apartments. Economy might be added, as a second reason. I consented to it, to satisfy him, and the plans are so drawn. I knew that it would still be easy to execute the building with a depth of three columns, and it is what I would certainly recommend. We know that the Maison Quarrée has pleased, universally, for near two thousand years. By leaving out a column, the proportions will be changed, and perhaps the effect may be injured more than is expected. What is good, is often spoiled by trying to make it better.
I was honored to write to you upon receiving your orders to get designs for the public buildings, and again on August 13th. While carrying out these orders, two approaches came to mind. One was to let an architect create a design based on his imagination, which, as experience shows, might result in a pleasing form about once in a thousand attempts; the other was to use an existing model that has been widely recognized and admired. I had no doubt that the latter was the better choice, and once I decided, there was no question about which model to use. In Nîmes, in southern France, there is a building called the Maison Carrée, built during the time of the Caesars, which is universally acknowledged as the most perfect and valuable remnant of antiquity still in existence. It is recognized as superior to anything in Rome, Greece, Baalbek, or Palmyra, which is why it has become a must-see for travelers. Since I hadn't yet had the chance to visit it, I could only assess it through drawings and the accounts of many who had seen it. So, I decided to adopt this model and ensure that all its proportions were accurately maintained. Since it was impossible for a foreign artist to know the number and sizes of the rooms suited for our government’s various functions, and how they should be related to each other, I took charge of that arrangement. Once that was established, I handed it over to an architect (Monsieur Clerissauk) who had studied this art for twenty years in Rome and who had specifically studied and measured the Maison Carrée of Nîmes, even publishing a book with excellent plans, descriptions, and observations about it. He was well aware of the importance of that building to deviate from my instructions not to stray from his model. There was one instance where he convinced me to make a change: he suggested having the portico be two columns deep instead of three, as the original is. His reasoning was that three columns would make the rooms too dark. Economical concerns could be another reason. I agreed to this to accommodate him, and the plans reflect that. I knew it would still be feasible to build with three columns deep, and I would definitely recommend that. The Maison Carrée has been admired universally for nearly two thousand years. By removing a column, the proportions will change, and the overall effect may be compromised more than anticipated. What is good is often ruined by attempts to improve it.
The present is the first opportunity which has occurred of sending the plans. You will, accordingly, receive herewith the ground plan, the elevation of the front, and the elevation of the side. The architect having been much busied, and knowing that this was all which would be necessary in the beginning, has not yet finished the sections of the building. They must go by some future occasion, as well as the models of the front and side, which are making in plaster of Paris. These were absolutely necessary for the guide of workmen, not very expert in their art. It will add considerably to the expense, and I would not have incurred it, but that I was sensible of its necessity. The price of the model will be fifteen guineas. 1 shall know, in a few days, the cost of the drawings, which probably will be the triple of the model: however, this is but conjecture. I will make it as small as possible, pay it, and render you an account in my next letter. You will find, on examination, that the body of this building covers an area but two fifths of that which is proposed and begun; of course, it will take but about one half the bricks; and, of course, this circumstance will enlist all the workmen, and people of the art, against the plan. Again, the building begun is to have four porticoes; this but one. It is true that this will be deeper than those were probably proposed, but even if it be made three columns deep, it will not take half the number of columns. The beauty of this is insured by experience, and by the suffrage of the whole world: the beauty of that is problematical, as is every drawing, however well it looks on paper, till it be actually executed: and though I suppose there is more room in the plan begun, than in that now sent, yet there is enough in this for all the three branches of government, and more than enough is not wanted. This contains sixteen rooms; to wit, four on the first floor, for the General Court, Delegates, lobby, and conference. Eight on the second floor, for the Executive, the Senate, and six rooms for committees and juries: and over four of these smaller rooms of the second floor, are four mezzininos or entresols, serving as offices for the clerks of the Executive, the Senate, the Delegates, and the Court in actual session. It will be an objection, that the work is begun on the other plan. But the whole of this need not be taken to pieces, and of what shall be taken to pieces, the bricks will do for inner work. Mortar never becomes so hard and adhesive to the bricks, in a few months, but that it may be easily chipped off. And upon the whole, the plan now sent will save a great proportion of the expense.
The present is the first chance to send the plans. So, you’ll find attached the ground plan, the front elevation, and the side elevation. The architect has been very busy and, knowing this was all that was needed at the start, hasn’t finished the building sections yet. They’ll need to be sent later, along with the plaster models of the front and side, which are being made. These models are essential to guide the workers, who aren't very skilled in their craft. This will significantly increase the cost, and I wouldn't have taken it on if I didn’t realize it was necessary. The model will cost fifteen guineas. In a few days, I'll find out the cost of the drawings, which will probably be three times the model's price; however, that’s just an estimate. I’ll keep it as low as possible, pay for it, and provide you with an account in my next letter. If you take a look, you'll see that the main structure covers only two-fifths of what has been planned and started; therefore, it will require about half the bricks. This will likely get all the workers and craftsmen against the plan. Also, the current design is supposed to have four porticoes, while this one has only one. It’s true that this one will be deeper than the proposed ones, but even if it has three columns deep, it won’t need half the columns. The beauty of this design is assured by experience and broad acceptance: the beauty of the other one is uncertain, as with any drawing, no matter how good it looks on paper until it’s actually built. And while I believe the initial plan has more space than the one submitted now, there’s still enough in this design for all three branches of government, and we don’t need more than that. This design has sixteen rooms: four on the first floor for the General Court, Delegates, lobby, and conference area. Eight on the second floor are for the Executive, the Senate, and six rooms for committees and juries. Above four of those smaller second-floor rooms, there are four mezzanines or entresols that will serve as offices for the clerks of the Executive, the Senate, the Delegates, and the Court in session. One objection might be that work is already underway on the other plan. However, the entire structure doesn’t need to be torn down, and the materials that will be removed can be reused for interior work. Mortar never becomes so hard and sticky to the bricks after a few months that it can't be easily chipped off. Overall, the plan now submitted will save a significant amount of money.
Hitherto, I have spoken of the capital only. The plans for the prison, also, accompany this. They will explain themselves. I send, also, the plan of the prison proposed at Lyons, which was sent me by the architect, and to which we are indebted for the fundamental idea of ours. You will see, that of a great thing a very small one is made. Perhaps you may find it convenient to build, at first, only two sides, forming an L; but of this, you are the best judges. It has been suggested to me, that fine gravel, mixed in the mortar, prevents the prisoners from cutting themselves out, as that will destroy their tools. In my letter of August the 13th, I mentioned that I could send workmen from hence. As I am in hopes of receiving your orders precisely, in answer to that letter, I shall defer actually engaging any, till I receive them. In like manner, I shall defer having plans drawn for a Governor’s house, &c, till further orders; only assuring you, that the receiving and executing these orders, will always give me a very great pleasure, and the more, should I find that what I have done meets your approbation.
So far, I have only talked about the capital. The plans for the prison are also included, and they speak for themselves. I'm also sending the design of the prison proposed in Lyons, which I received from the architect and which inspired our fundamental idea. You'll see that a significant concept has been turned into a much smaller one. You might find it practical to build just two sides at first, forming an L shape, but you are the best judges of that. I've been told that adding fine gravel to the mortar makes it harder for prisoners to dig themselves out, as it will ruin their tools. In my letter from August 13th, I mentioned that I could send workers from here. I’m hoping to receive your specific orders in response to that letter, so I will hold off on hiring anyone until I get your instructions. Similarly, I’ll wait to have plans drawn up for a Governor's house, etc., until I receive further orders; just know that receiving and carrying out these orders will always give me great pleasure, especially if I find that what I’ve done is to your liking.
I have the honor to be, with sentiments of the most perfect esteem, Gentlemen,
I am honored to express my deepest respect, Gentlemen,
your most obedient
your most loyal
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Jefferson.
LETTER CLVI.—TO JOHN ADAMS, February 7, 1786
TO JOHN ADAMS.
TO JOHN ADAMS.
Paris, February 7, 1786.
Paris, Feb 7, 1786.
Dear Sir,
Dear [Name],
I am honored with yours of January the 19th. Mine of January the 12th, had not, I suppose, at that time got to your hands, as the receipt of it is unacknowledged. I shall be anxious till I receive your answer to it.
I’m grateful for your letter from January 19th. I guess you hadn’t received mine from January 12th yet, since you didn’t acknowledge getting it. I’ll be anxious until I get your response.
I was perfectly satisfied before I received your letter, that your opinion had been misunderstood or misrepresented in the case of the Chevalier de Mezieres. Your letter, however, will enable me to say so with authority. It is proper it should be known, that you had not given the opinion imputed to you, though, as to the main question, it is become useless; Monsieur de Reyneval having assured me, that what I had written on that subject had perfectly satisfied the Count de Vergennes and himself, that this case could never come under the treaty. To evince, still further, the impropriety of taking up subjects gravely, on such imperfect information as this court had, I have this moment received a copy of an act of the Georgia Assembly, placing the subjects of France, as to real estates, on the footing of natural citizens, and expressly recognising the treaty. Would you think any thing could be added, after this, to put this question still further out of doors? A gentleman of Georgia assured me, General Oglethorpe did not own a foot of land in the State. I do not know whether there has been any American determination on the question, whether American citizens and British subjects, born before the Revolution, can be aliens to one another. I know there is an opinion of Lord Coke’s, in Colvin’s case, that if England and Scotland should, in a course of descent, pass to separate Kings, those born under the same sovereign during the union, would remain natural subjects and not aliens. Common sense urges some considerations against this. Natural subjects owe allegiance; but we owe none. Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power; we are subjects of a foreign power. The King, by the treaty, acknowledges our independence; how then can we remain natural subjects? The King’s power is, by the constitution, competent to the making peace, war, and treaties. He had, therefore, authority to relinquish our allegiance by treaty. But if an act of parliament had been necessary, the parliament passed an act to confirm the treaty. So that it appears to me, that in this question, fictions of law alone are opposed to sound sense.
I was completely fine before I got your letter, believing that your opinion about the Chevalier de Mezieres had been misunderstood or misrepresented. However, your letter allows me to state this with confidence. It's important to clarify that you didn't give the opinion attributed to you; although regarding the main question, it's become irrelevant, as Monsieur de Reyneval has assured me that what I wrote on the matter completely satisfied both the Count de Vergennes and him, and that this case could never fall under the treaty. To further demonstrate the inappropriateness of addressing serious issues based on such incomplete information as this court had, I've just received a copy of an act from the Georgia Assembly, which places subjects of France regarding real estate on the same level as natural citizens and explicitly recognizes the treaty. Would you think anything could be added after this to push this question even further out of consideration? A gentleman from Georgia informed me that General Oglethorpe doesn’t own a single piece of land in the State. I'm not sure if there's been any American ruling on whether American citizens and British subjects born before the Revolution can be aliens to each other. I know there’s an opinion from Lord Coke in Colvin’s case, suggesting that if England and Scotland were to eventually pass to separate kings, those born under the same king during the union would continue to be natural subjects and not aliens. Common sense raises some arguments against this. Natural subjects owe allegiance; we don’t owe any. Aliens are subjects of a foreign power; we are subjects of a foreign power. The King, through the treaty, recognizes our independence; so how can we still be considered natural subjects? The King’s power, according to the constitution, includes making peace, war, and treaties. Therefore, he had the authority to release us from our allegiance by treaty. But even if an act of parliament had been necessary, parliament passed an act to confirm the treaty. It seems to me that in this matter, only legal fictions stand against common sense.
I am in hopes Congress will send a minister to Lisbon. I know no country, with which we are likely to cultivate a more useful commerce. I have pressed this in my private letters.
I hope Congress will send a minister to Lisbon. I can't think of any country where we could develop a more beneficial trade. I've emphasized this in my private letters.
It is difficult to learn any thing certain here, about the French and English treaty. Yet, in general, little is expected to be done between them. I am glad to hear that the Delegates of Virginia had made the vote relative to English commerce, though they afterwards repealed it. I hope they will come to again. When my last letters came away, they were engaged in passing the revisal of their laws, with some small alterations. The bearer of this, Mr. Lyons, is a sensible, worthy young physician, son of one of our judges, and on his return to Virginia. Remember me with affection to Mrs. and Miss Adams, Colonels Smith and Humphreys, and be assured of the esteem with which I am, Dear Sir,
It’s hard to get clear information here about the French and English treaty. Still, overall, not much is expected to happen between them. I’m glad to hear that the Virginia Delegates voted on English commerce, even though they later overturned it. I hope they reconsider. When my last letters were sent, they were busy revising their laws with some minor changes. The person delivering this, Mr. Lyons, is a smart and decent young doctor, son of one of our judges, and he’s heading back to Virginia. Please send my warm regards to Mrs. and Miss Adams, Colonels Smith and Humphreys, and know that I hold you in high regard, Dear Sir.
your friend and servant,
your friend and servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CLVII.—TO JAMES MADISON, February 8, 1786
TO JAMES MADISON.
Paris, February 8, 1786.
Paris, Feb 8, 1786.
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
My last letters were of the 1st and 20th of September, and the 28th of October. Yours, unacknowledged, are of August the 20th, October the 3rd, and November the 15th. I take this, the first safe opportunity, of enclosing to you the bills of lading for your books, and two others for your namesake of Williamsburg, and for the attorney, which I will pray you to forward. I thank you for the communication of the remonstrance against the assessment. Mazzei, who is now in Holland, promised me to have it published in the Leyden gazette. It will do us great honor. I wish it may be as much approved by our Assembly, as by the wisest part of Europe. I have heard, with great pleasure, that our Assembly have come to the resolution, of giving the regulation of their commerce to the federal head. I will venture to assert, that there is not one of its opposers, who, placed on this ground, would not see the wisdom of this measure. The politics of Europe render it indispensably necessary, that, with respect to every thing external, we be one nation only, firmly hooped together. Interior government is what each State should keep to itself. If it were seen in Europe, that all our States could be brought to concur in what the Virginia Assembly has done, it would produce a total revolution in their opinion of us, and respect for us. And it should ever be held in mind, that insult and war are the consequences of a want of respectability in the national character. As long as the States exercise, separately, those acts of power which respect foreign nations, so long will there continue to be irregularities committed by some one or other of them, which will constantly keep us on an ill footing with foreign nations.
My last letters were dated September 1st and 20th, and October 28th. Yours, which I haven’t acknowledged yet, are from August 20th, October 3rd, and November 15th. I’m taking this first safe chance to send you the bills of lading for your books, plus two others for your namesake in Williamsburg and for the attorney. I’d appreciate it if you could forward those. Thank you for sharing the remonstrance against the assessment. Mazzei, who is currently in Holland, promised to get it published in the Leyden gazette. It will greatly enhance our reputation. I hope it gets as much support from our Assembly as it does from the wisest part of Europe. I was pleased to hear that our Assembly has decided to hand over the regulation of commerce to the federal government. I would bet that not a single one of its opponents would fail to see the wisdom of this decision if they were in a position to understand it. The politics of Europe make it absolutely necessary that, regarding everything external, we function as one nation, tightly united. Each state should handle its own internal governance. If Europe were to observe that all our states could come together like the Virginia Assembly has, it would completely change their view and respect for us. We must always remember that lack of respectability in our national character leads to insults and wars. As long as the states act separately in matters concerning foreign nations, there will continue to be irregularities from one state or another, which will keep us in a poor relationship with foreign countries.
I thank you for your information as to my Notes. The copies I have remaining shall be sent over, to be given to some of my friends and to select subjects in the College. I have been unfortunate here with this trifle. I gave out a few copies only, and to confidential persons, writing in every copy a restraint against its publication. Among others, I gave a copy to a Mr. Williams: he died. I immediately took every precaution I could to recover this copy. But, by some means or other, a bookseller had got hold of it. He employed a hireling translator, and is about publishing it in the most injurious form possible. I am now at a loss what to do as to England. Every thing, good or bad, is thought worth publishing there; and I apprehend a translation back from the French, and a publication there. I rather believe it will be most eligible to let the original come out in that country: but am not yet decided.
I appreciate you letting me know about my Notes. I'll send over the remaining copies to share with some friends and selected subjects at the College. Unfortunately, I've had some issues with this minor matter. I only distributed a few copies to trusted people, making sure to include a note in each one asking them not to publish it. One of the copies went to a Mr. Williams: he passed away. I took every possible step to get that copy back. However, somehow a bookseller got their hands on it. They hired a translator and are planning to publish it in the worst way possible. Now, I'm unsure what to do about England. Everything, whether good or bad, seems to be considered worth publishing there, and I worry there might be a translation back from the French and a publication over there. I think it might be best to let the original be published in that country, but I haven't made a final decision yet.
I have purchased little for you in the book way since I sent the catalogue of my former purchases. I wish, first, to have your answer to that, and your information, what parts of these purchases went out of your plan. You can easily say, Buy more of this kind, less of that, &c. My wish is to conform myself to yours. I can get for you the original Paris edition of the Encyclopédie, in thirty-five volumes, folio, for six hundred and twenty livres; a good edition, in thirty-nine volumes, 4to, for three hundred and eighty livres; and a good one, in thirty-nine volumes, 8vo, for two hundred and eighty livres. The new one will be superior in far the greater number of articles; but not in all. And the possession of the ancient one has, moreover, the advantage of supplying present use. I have bought one for myself, but wait your orders as to you. I remember your purchase of a watch in Philadelphia. If it should not have proved good, you can probably sell it. In that case, I can get for you here, one made as perfect as human art can make it, for about twenty-four louis. I have had such a one made, by the best and most faithful hand in Paris. It has a second hand, but no repeating, no day of the month, nor other useless thing to impede and injure the movements which are necessary. For twelve louis more, you can have in the same cover, but on the back, and absolutely unconnected with the movements of the watch, a pedometer, which shall render you an exact account of the distances you walk. Your pleasure hereon shall be awaited.
I haven’t bought much for you in terms of books since I sent the list of my previous purchases. First, I’d like to know what you think about that and which parts of those purchases didn’t fit into your plan. You can easily say, buy more of this kind, less of that, etc. I want to make sure I follow your preferences. I can get you the original Paris edition of the Encyclopédie, in thirty-five volumes, folio size, for six hundred and twenty livres; a good edition, in thirty-nine volumes, quarto size, for three hundred and eighty livres; and a good edition, in thirty-nine volumes, octavo size, for two hundred and eighty livres. The new one will be better in most articles, but not in all. Plus, having the older edition has the benefit of being useful right now. I’ve bought one for myself, but I’m waiting for your instructions about yours. I remember you bought a watch in Philadelphia. If it didn’t turn out well, you might be able to sell it. If so, I can get you one here, made as perfectly as humanly possible, for about twenty-four louis. I’ve had one made by the best and most reliable craftsman in Paris. It has a second hand, but no repeating feature, no day of the month, or any other useless things that could disrupt and damage the necessary movements. For twelve more louis, you can get a pedometer in the same case, but on the back, completely separate from the watch’s mechanics, which will give you an accurate account of the distances you walk. I’ll await your pleasure on this.
Houdon has returned. He called on me, the other day, to remonstrate against the inscription proposed for General Washington’s statue. He says it is too long to be put on the pedestal. I told him, I was not at liberty to permit any alteration, but I would represent his objection to a friend, who could judge of its validity, and whether a change could be authorized. This has been the subject of conversations here, and various devices and inscriptions have been suggested. The one which has appeared best to me, may be translated as follows: ‘Behold, Reader, the form of George Washington. For his worth, ask History; that will tell it, when this stone shall have yielded to the decays of time. His country erects this monument.’ Houdon makes it.‘This for one side. On the second, represent the evacuation of Boston, with the motto, ‘Hostibus primum fugatis.’ On the third, the capture of the Hessians, with ‘Hostibus iterum devictis.’ On the fourth, the surrender of York, with ‘Hostibus ultimum debellatis.’ This is seizing the three most brilliant actions of his military life. By giving out, here, a wish of receiving mottos for this statue, we might have thousands offered, from which still better might be chosen. The artist made the same objection, of length, to the inscription for the bust of the Marquis de la Fayette. An alteration of that might come in time still, if an alteration was wished. However, I am not certain that it is desirable in either case. The State of Georgia has given twenty thousand acres of land, to the Count d’Estaing. This gift is considered here as very honorable to him, and it has gratified him much. I am persuaded, that a gift of lands by the State of Virginia to the Marquis de la Fayette, would give a good opinion here of our character, and would reflect honor on the Marquis. Nor am I sure that the day will not come, when it might be an useful asylum to him. The time of life at which he visited America was too well adapted to receive good and lasting impressions, to permit him ever to accommodate himself to the principles of monarchical government; and it will need all his own prudence, and that of his friends, to make this country a safe residence for him. How glorious, how comfortable in reflection, will it be, to have prepared a refuge for him in case of a reverse. In the mean time, he could settle it with tenants from the freest part of this country, Bretaigne. I have never suggested the smallest idea of this kind to him: because the execution of it should convey the first notice. If the State has not a right to give him lands with their own officers, they could buy up, at cheap prices, the shares of others. I am not certain, however, whether, in the public or private opinion, a similar gift to Count Rochambeau could be dispensed with. If the State could give to both, it would be better: but, in any event, I think they should to the Marquis. Count Rochambeau, too, has really deserved more attention than he has received. Why not set up his bust, that of Gates, Greene, Franklin, in your new capitol? A propos of the capital. Do, my dear friend, exert yourself to get the plan begun on set aside, and that adopted, which was drawn here. It was taken from a model which has been the admiration of sixteen centuries; which has been the object of as many pilgrimages as the tomb of Mahomet; which will give unrivalled honor to our State, and furnish a model whereon to form the taste of our young men. It will cost much less too, than the one begun; because it does not cover one half of the area. Ask, if you please, a sight of my letter of January the 26th, to Messrs. Buchanan and Hay, which will spare me the repeating its substance here.
Houdon has returned. He visited me the other day to express his concerns about the inscription proposed for General Washington’s statue. He feels it’s too long to be placed on the pedestal. I told him I couldn’t authorize any changes, but I would share his concern with a friend who could evaluate its validity and determine if a change could be permitted. This has been a topic of discussion here, and various suggestions for devices and inscriptions have come up. The one I think works best could be translated as follows: ‘Look, Reader, at the form of George Washington. To understand his worth, consult History; it will tell you when this stone has succumbed to the ravages of time. His country sets up this monument.’ Houdon will create it. For one side, we should depict the evacuation of Boston, with the motto, ‘Hostibus primum fugatis.’ On the second side, the capture of the Hessians, with ‘Hostibus iterum devictis.’ On the third side, the surrender of York, with ‘Hostibus ultimum debellatis.’ This captures the three most remarkable moments of his military career. By announcing a call for mottos for this statue, we might receive countless suggestions, some of which could be even better. The artist made a similar point about the length of the inscription for the bust of the Marquis de la Fayette. An alteration could still happen in time if desired. However, I'm not sure if a change is necessary in either situation. The State of Georgia has granted twenty thousand acres of land to Count d’Estaing. This gift is viewed here as highly honorable for him, and he has expressed much appreciation for it. I believe that a land grant from the State of Virginia to the Marquis de la Fayette would enhance people’s opinions of us here and reflect well on the Marquis. I wouldn’t be surprised if, in the future, this land could become a useful refuge for him. The stage of life in which he visited America was perfectly suited to instill lasting impressions, making it hard for him to adapt to the principles of monarchy; he will need all his own wisdom and that of his friends to ensure this country is a safe place for him. How glorious and reassuring it would be to have established a refuge for him in case of misfortune. In the meantime, he could lease it out to tenants from the freest part of this country, Bretaigne. I have never suggested this to him, as the execution of such an idea should be the first notice. If the State isn’t legally able to grant him land with their own officials, they could purchase shares from others at low prices. However, I’m uncertain whether a similar gift to Count Rochambeau could be arranged. If the State could give land to both, that would be better; but regardless, I think it’s essential to give it to the Marquis. Count Rochambeau also genuinely deserves more recognition than he has received. Why not erect his bust, along with those of Gates, Greene, and Franklin, in your new capitol? A propos of the capital. Please, my dear friend, make an effort to ensure the previously started plan is set aside and that the one designed here is adopted. It was modeled after an admired design that's been revered for sixteen centuries; it's attracted as many visitors as the tomb of Muhammad; it will bring unmatched honor to our State and serve as a template to foster the taste of our young people. Plus, it will be much more cost-effective than the one already underway, as it doesn’t cover even half the area. Please request to see my letter from January 26th to Messrs. Buchanan and Hay, which will save me from repeating its contents here.
Every thing is quiet in Europe. I recollect but one new invention in the arts which is worth mentioning. It is a mixture of the arts of engraving and printing, rendering both cheaper. Write or draw any thing on a plate of brass, with the ink of the inventor, and, in half an hour, he gives you engraved copies of it, so perfectly like the original, that they could not be suspected to be copies. His types for printing a whole page, are all in one solid piece. An author, therefore, only prints a few copies of his work, from time to time, as they are called for. This saves the loss of printing more copies than may possibly be sold, and prevents an edition from being ever exhausted.
Everything is quiet in Europe. I can only think of one new invention in the arts that's worth mentioning. It's a mix of engraving and printing, making both cheaper. You can write or draw anything on a brass plate using the inventor's ink, and within half an hour, you'll get engraved copies that look so much like the original that they can't be mistaken for copies. His types for printing an entire page are all in one solid piece. This means that an author only prints a few copies of their work when they're needed. This approach avoids the loss of printing more copies than may actually sell and prevents an edition from ever running out.
I am, with a lively esteem, Dear Sir,
I am, with great respect, Dear Sir,
your sincere friend and servant,
your loyal friend and servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CLVIII.—TO THE MARQUIS DE LA FAYETTE, February 9, 1786
TO THE MARQUIS DE LA FAYETTE.
TO THE MARQUIS DE LA FAYETTE.
Paris, February 9, 1786.
Paris, Feb 9, 1786.
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
The Mr. John Ledyard, who proposes to undertake the journey through the northern parts of Asia and America, is a citizen of Connecticut, one of the United States of America. He accompanied Captain Cook in his last voyage to the northwestern parts of America, and rendered himself useful to that officer, on some occasions, by a spirit of enterprise which has distinguished his whole life. He has genius, and education better than the common, and a talent for useful and interesting observation. I believe him to be an honest man, and a man of truth. To all this, he adds just as much singularity of character, and of that particular kind too, as was necessary to make him undertake the journey he proposes. Should he get safe through it, I think he will give an interesting account of what he shall have seen.
Mr. John Ledyard, who plans to embark on a journey through the northern parts of Asia and America, is a resident of Connecticut, one of the United States. He joined Captain Cook on his last voyage to the northwestern regions of America and was helpful to that officer on several occasions, thanks to a spirit of adventure that has marked his entire life. He has talent and a better-than-average education, as well as a knack for making useful and fascinating observations. I believe he is an honest man and a person of integrity. On top of all that, he has just enough uniqueness in his character—of a particular kind—to motivate him to undertake the journey he has in mind. If he makes it through safely, I think he will provide an interesting account of what he has experienced.
I have the honor to be, with sentiments of sincere esteem and respect, Dear Sir,
I’m honored to express my genuine esteem and respect, Dear Sir,
your most obedient
your most loyal
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CLIX.—TO MONSIEUR HILLIARD d’AUBERTEUIL, Feb. 20, 1786
TO MONSIEUR HILLIARD d’AUBERTEUIL.
To Mr. Hilliard d’Auberteuil.
Paris, February 20, 1786.
Paris, Feb 20, 1786.
Sir,
Sir,
I have been honored with your letter, and the books which accompanied it, for which I return you my hearty thanks. America cannot but be flattered with the choice of the subject, on which you are at present employing your pen. The memory of the American Revolution will be immortal, and will immortalize those who record it. The reward is encouraging, and will justify all those pains, which a rigorous investigation of facts will render necessary. Many important facts, which preceded the commencement of hostilities, took place in England. These may mostly be obtained from good publications in that country. Some took place in this country. They will be probably hidden from the present age. But America is the field where the greatest mass of important events were transacted, and where, alone, they can now be collected. I therefore much applaud your idea of going to that country, for the verification of the facts you mean to record. Every man there can tell you more than any man here, who has not been there: and the very ground itself will give you new insight into some of the most interesting transactions. If I can be of service to you, in promoting your object there, I offer myself freely to your use. I shall be flattered by the honor of your visit here, at any time. I am seldom from home before noon; but if any later hour should suit you better, I will take care to be at home, at any hour and day, you will be pleased to indicate.
I’m grateful for your letter and the books that came with it, and I sincerely thank you for them. America can only feel honored by the topic you're currently writing about. The memory of the American Revolution will last forever, and those who write about it will also be remembered. The recognition is motivating and will justify all the effort that a thorough investigation of the facts will require. Many important events that led up to the start of hostilities happened in England, and you can mostly find reliable accounts of these in good publications there. Some events occurred in this country, but they might be overlooked by today's generation. However, America is where the majority of significant events took place, and this is where they can now be gathered. I strongly support your idea of traveling there to verify the facts you intend to document. Everyone there can provide you with more information than anyone here who hasn't been there, and even the land itself will offer you new perspectives on some of the most fascinating events. If I can help you in any way to advance your goal there, I’m more than happy to assist. I would be honored by your visit here at any time. I’m usually home after noon, but if a later time works better for you, I’ll make sure to be available at any hour and day that you choose.
I have the honor to be, with great respect, Sir,
I’m honored to be, with high regard, Sir,
your most obedient, humble servant,
your most devoted, humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CLX.—TO THE COUNT DE VERGENNES, February 28,1786
TO THE COUNT DE VERGENNES.
TO COUNT DE VERGENNES.
Paris, February 28,1786.
Paris, February 28, 1786.
Sir,
Hey there,
Circumstances of public duty calling me suddenly to London, I take the liberty of mentioning it to your Excellency, and of asking a few minutes’ audience of you, at as early a day and hour as will be convenient to you, and that you will be so good as to indicate them to me. I would wish to leave Paris about Friday or Saturday, and suppose that my stay in London will be of about three weeks. I shall be happy to be the bearer of any commands your Excellency may have for that place, and will faithfully execute them. I cannot omit mentioning, how pleasing it would be to me to be enabled, before my departure, to convey to the American prisoners at St. Pol de Léon such mitigation of their fate, as may be thought admissible.
Due to a sudden public duty requiring me to go to London, I’d like to respectfully mention this to you and request a brief meeting at your earliest convenience. Please let me know what day and time work for you. I plan to leave Paris around Friday or Saturday, and I expect my stay in London to last about three weeks. I’d be glad to deliver any messages you may have for that location and will carry them out reliably. I also want to express how much it would mean to me to be able to share any possible relief for the American prisoners at St. Pol de Léon before I leave.
I have the honor to be, with sentiments of the highest respect and esteem, your Excellency’s
I am honored to express my highest respect and admiration, your Excellency’s
most obedient
most compliant
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CLXI.—TO MONSIEUR DE REYNEVAL, March 8, 1786
TO MONSIEUR DE REYNEVAL.
TO MR. DE REYNEVAL.
Paris, March 8, 1786.
Paris, March 8, 1786.
Sir,
Hey there,
His Excellency, Count de Vergennes, having been pleased to say that he would give orders at Calais, for the admission of certain articles which I wish to bring with me from England, I have thought it best to give a description of them, before my departure. They will be as follows:
His Excellency, Count de Vergennes, has kindly agreed to arrange for the admission of certain items that I want to bring with me from England. I thought it would be best to describe them before I leave. They are as follows:
1. A set of table furniture, consisting of China, silver, and plated ware, distributed into three or four boxes or canteens, for the convenience of removing them.
1. A set of tableware, including china, silver, and plated items, packed into three or four boxes or containers to make them easier to transport.
2. A box containing small tools for wooden and iron work, for my own amusement.
2. A box filled with small tools for woodworking and metalworking, for my own enjoyment.
3. A box, probably, of books.
3. A box of books, most likely.
4. I expect to bring with me a riding horse, saddle, &c.
4. I plan to bring along a riding horse, saddle, etc.
The mathematical instruments will probably be so light that I may bring them in my carriage, in which case, I presume they will pass with my baggage, under the authority of the passport for my person. If these orders can be made out in time, I would willingly be the bearer of them myself.
The math tools will likely be light enough that I can carry them in my carriage, which means they should go through as my luggage, covered by the passport for myself. If these instructions can be arranged quickly, I’d be happy to deliver them myself.
I have the honor to be, with sentiments of the most perfect esteem and respect, Sir, ,
I am honored to express my highest esteem and respect, Sir,
your most obedient servant,
yours sincerely,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CLXII.—TO JOHN JAY, March 12, 1786
TO JOHN JAY.
TO JOHN JAY.
London, March 12, 1786.
London, March 12, 1786.
Sir.
Dude.
The date of a letter from London will doubtless be as unexpected to you as it was unforeseen by myself, a few days ago. On the 27th of the last month, Colonel Smith arrived in Paris, with a letter from Mr. Adams, informing me that there was at this place a minister from Tripoli, having general powers to enter into treaties on behalf of his State, and with whom it was possible we might do something, under our commission to that power: and that he gave reason to believe, he could also make arrangements with us, for Tunis. He further added, that the minister of Portugal here had received ultimate instructions from his court, and that, probably, that treaty might be concluded in the space of three weeks, were we all on the spot together. He, therefore, pressed me to come over immediately. The first of these objects had some weight on my mind, because, as we had sent no person to Tripoli or Tunis, I thought if we could meet a minister from them on this ground, our arrangements would be settled much sooner, and at less expense. But what principally decided me, was, the desire of bringing matters to a conclusion with Portugal, before the term of our commissions should expire, or any new turn in the negotiations of France and England should abate their willingness to fix a connection with us. A third motive had also its weight. I hoped that my attendance here, and the necessity of shortening it, might be made use of to force a decisive answer from this court. I therefore concluded to comply with Mr. Adams’s request. I went immediately to Versailles, and apprized the Count de Vergennes, that circumstances of public duty called me hither for three or four weeks, arranged with him some matters, and set out with Colonel Smith for this place, where we arrived last night, which was as early as the excessive rigor of the weather admitted. I saw Mr. Adams immediately, and again to-day. He informs me, that the minister of Portugal was taken ill five or six days ago, has been very much so, but is now somewhat better. It would be very mortifying, indeed, should this accident, with the shortness of the term to which I limit my stay here, defeat what was the principal object of my journey, and that, without which, I should hardly have undertaken it. With respect to this country, I had no doubt but that every consideration had been urged by Mr. Adams, which was proper to be urged. Nothing remains undone in this way. But we shall avail ourselves of my journey here, as if made on purpose, just before the expiration of our commission, to form our report to Congress on the execution of that commission, which report, they may be given to know, cannot be formed without decisive information of the ultimate determination of their court. There is no doubt what that determination will be: but it will be useful to have it; as it may put an end to all further expectations on our side the water, and show that the time is come for doing whatever is to be done by us, for counteracting the unjust and greedy designs of this country. We shall have the honor, before I leave this place, to inform you of the result of the several matters which have brought me to it.
The date of a letter from London will likely be as surprising to you as it was to me just a few days ago. On the 27th of last month, Colonel Smith arrived in Paris with a letter from Mr. Adams, letting me know that there was a minister from Tripoli here, who had the authority to negotiate treaties on behalf of his state, and that we might be able to make some progress with him under our commission to that power. He also indicated that the minister could potentially arrange something with us for Tunis. Additionally, he mentioned that the minister of Portugal here had received final instructions from his government, and that we could possibly finalize that treaty within three weeks if we were all in the same place together. He pressed me to come over immediately. The first matter weighed on my mind, because since we hadn’t sent anyone to Tripoli or Tunis, I thought meeting with a minister from them in this context could help us settle our arrangements much sooner and at a lower cost. What mainly influenced my decision, though, was the desire to wrap things up with Portugal before our commissions expire, or before any developments in the negotiations between France and England reduce their willingness to establish a connection with us. A third reason also mattered. I hoped that my presence here, along with the need to shorten my stay, could be used to compel a decisive answer from this court. So, I decided to follow Mr. Adams's request. I headed straight to Versailles and informed Count de Vergennes that public duty required my presence here for three or four weeks, we discussed some matters, and then I left with Colonel Smith for this place, arriving last night as soon as the severe weather allowed. I saw Mr. Adams right away, and again today. He told me that the minister of Portugal fell ill five or six days ago, has been quite unwell, but is now getting a bit better. It would be really frustrating if this situation, along with the short time I have here, prevents us from achieving the main goal of my trip, which is why I basically undertook it in the first place. Regarding this country, I have no doubt that Mr. Adams has pushed for every relevant consideration. Nothing has been overlooked in this regard. But we’ll use my trip here, as if it were planned specifically right before our commission expires, to prepare our report for Congress on the execution of that commission. They should know that this report cannot be completed without clear information on the final decision of their court. There’s no question what that decision will be, but it will be useful to have it; it may end any further expectations on our side of the water and show that it’s time for us to take action against the unjust and greedy designs of this country. We’ll have the honor, before I leave this place, to update you on the outcomes of the various matters that brought me here.
A day or two before my departure from Paris, I received your letter of January———. The question therein proposed, How far France considers herself as bound to insist on the delivery of the posts, would infallibly produce another, How far we consider ourselves as guarantees of their American possessions, and bound to enter into any future war, in which these may be attacked? The words of the treaty of alliance seem to be without ambiguity on either head, yet, I should be afraid to commit Congress, by answering without authority. I will endeavor, on my return, to sound the opinion of the minister, if possible, without exposing myself to the other question. Should any thing forcible be meditated on these posts, it would possibly be thought prudent, previously to ask the good offices of France, to obtain their delivery. In this case, they would probably say, we must first execute the treaty, on our part, by repealing all acts which have contravened it. Now this measure, if there be any candor in the court of London, would suffice to obtain a delivery of the posts from them, without the mediation of any third power. However, if this mediation should be finally needed, I see no reason to doubt our obtaining it, and still less to question its omnipotent influence on the British court.
A day or two before I left Paris, I got your letter from January———. The question you raised about how much France feels obligated to insist on the handover of the posts leads to another question: how much we believe we are responsible for their American territories and obligated to participate in any future conflicts if they are attacked? The wording of the alliance treaty seems clear on both issues, but I would hesitate to commit Congress by responding without authorization. When I return, I will try to gauge the minister's opinion if I can do so without getting into that other question. If any forceful action is being considered regarding these posts, it might be wise to first seek France's help in obtaining their handover. In that situation, they would likely respond that we must first fulfill our part of the treaty by repealing all actions that have gone against it. If there’s any fairness left in the British court, this action should be enough to secure the posts from them without needing a third party’s involvement. However, if we do end up needing that mediation, I have no doubts we would get it, and even less doubt about its powerful effect on the British government.
I have the honor to be, with the highest respect and esteem, Sir, your most obedient
I am honored to be, with the utmost respect and appreciation, Sir, your most obedient
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
LETTER CLXIII.—TO COLONEL HUMPHREYS, March 14, 1786
TO COLONEL HUMPHREYS.
TO COLONEL HUMPHREYS.
London, March 14, 1786.
London, March 14, 1786.
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
I have been honoured with your letter, in which you mention to me your intention of returning to America in the April packet. It is with sincere concern that I meet this event, as it deprives me not only of your aid in the office in which we have been joined, but also of your society, which has been to me a source of the greatest satisfaction. I think myself bound to return you my thanks for it, and, at the same time, to bear testimony, that in the discharge of the office of Secretary of Legation to the several commissions, you have fulfilled all its duties with readiness, propriety, and fidelity. I sincerely wish, that on your return, our country may avail itself of your talents in the public service, and that you may be willing so to employ them. You carry with you my wishes for your prosperity, and a desire of being instrumental to it: and I hope, that in every situation in which we may be placed, you will freely command and count on my services. I will beg to be favored with your letters, whenever it is convenient. You have seen our want of intelligence here, and well know the nature of that which will be useful or agreeable. I fear I shall have little interesting to give you in return; but such news as my situation affords, you shall be sure to receive. I pray you to be the bearer of the enclosed letter to Mr. Jay, to accept my wishes for a favorable passage, a happy meeting with your friends, and for every future felicity which this life can afford, being with the greatest esteem, Dear Sir,
I’m grateful for your letter, where you mentioned your plan to return to America on the April ship. I honestly feel sad about this, as it not only takes away your help in our work together but also your company, which has brought me so much joy. I want to thank you for that, and I also want to acknowledge that in your role as Secretary of Legation for the various commissions, you have performed all your duties with readiness, professionalism, and loyalty. I truly hope that upon your return, our country can benefit from your skills in public service, and that you would be willing to do so. You have my best wishes for your success, and I hope to be a part of it. Please know that in any situation we find ourselves in, you can always count on my support. I’d appreciate your letters whenever it’s convenient for you. You’ve seen our lack of information here and understand what would be helpful or enjoyable. I’m afraid I won’t have much exciting news to share, but I’ll make sure to send you any updates from my situation. Please carry the enclosed letter to Mr. Jay, and accept my wishes for a safe journey, a joyful reunion with your friends, and all the happiness this life has to offer. With great respect, Dear Sir,
your sincere friend
your genuine friend
and most humble servant,
and your most humble servant,
Th: Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson.
APPENDIX.
[NOTE A.]—TO THE GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA.
Kaskaskias, Illinois, April 29,1779.
Kaskaskia, Illinois, April 29, 1779.
Dear Sir,
Dear [Name],
A few days ago, I received certain intelligence of William Morris, my express to you, being killed near the falls of Ohio, news truly disagreeable to me, as I fear many of my letters will fall into the hands of the enemy, at Detroit, although some of them, as I learn, were found in the woods torn in pieces. I do not doubt but before the receipt of this, you will have heard of my late success against Governor Hamilton, at post St. Vincenne. That gentleman, with a body of men, possessed himself of that post on the 15th of December last, repaired the fortifications for a repository, and in the spring, meant to attack this place, which he made no doubt of carrying; where he was to be joined by two hundred Indians from Michilimackinac, and five hundred Cherokees, Chickasaws, and other nations. With this body, he was to penetrate up the Ohio to Fort Pitt, sweeping Kentucky on his way, having light brass cannon for the purpose, joined on his march by all the Indians that could be got to him. He made no doubt, that he could force all West Augusta. This expedition was ordered by the commander in chief of Canada. Destruction seemed to hover over us from every quarter; detached parties of the enemy were in the neighborhood every day, but afraid to attack. I ordered Major Bowman to evacuate the fort at the Cohas, and join me immediately, which he did. Having not received a scrape of a pen from you, for near twelve months, I could see but little probability of keeping possession of the country, as my number of men was too small to stand a siege, and my situation too remote to call for assistance. I made all the preparations I possibly could for the attack, and was necessitated to set fire to some of the houses in town, to clear them out of the way. But in the height of the hurry, a Spanish merchant, who had been at St. Vincenne, arrived, and gave the following intelligence: that Mr. Hamilton had weakened himself, by sending his Indians against the frontiers, and to block up the Ohio; that he had not more than eighty men in garrison, three pieces of cannon, and some swivels mounted; and that he intended to attack this place, as soon as the winter opened, and made no doubt of clearing the western waters by the fall. My situation and circumstances induced me to fall on the resolution of attacking him, before he could collect his Indians again. I was sensible the resolution was as desperate as my situation, but I saw no other probability of securing the country. I immediately despatched a small galley, which I had fitted up, mounting two four-pounders and four swivels, with a company of men and necessary stores on board, with orders to force her way, if possible, and station herself a few miles below the enemy, suffer nothing to pass her, and wait for further orders. In the mean time, I marched across the country with one hundred and thirty men, being all I could raise, after leaving this place garrisoned by the militia. The inhabitants of the country behaved exceedingly well, numbers of young men turned out on the expedition, and every other one embodied to guard the different towns. I marched the 7th of February. Although so small a body, it took me sixteen days on the route. The inclemency of the season, high waters, &c. seemed to threaten the loss of the expedition. When within three leagues of the enemy, in a direct line, it took us five days to cross the drowned lands of the Wabash river, having to wade often upwards of two leagues, to our breast in water. Had not the weather been warm, we must have perished. But on the evening of the 23rd, we got on dry land, in sight of the enemy; and at seven o’clock, made the attack, before they knew any thing of us. The town immediately surrendered with joy, and assisted in the siege. There was a continual fire on both sides, for eighteen hours. I had no expectation of gaining the fort until the arrival of my artillery. The moon setting about one o’clock, I had an entrenchment thrown up within rifle-shot of their strongest battery, and poured such showers of well directed balls into their ports, that we silenced two pieces of cannon in fifteen minutes, without getting a man hurt.
A few days ago, I received some news about William Morris, which I need to share with you. He was killed near the falls of Ohio, and this news is truly upsetting for me, as I worry that many of my letters will end up in the hands of the enemy at Detroit. I’ve heard that some of them were found in the woods torn to pieces. I have no doubt that by the time you read this, you'll have heard about my recent success against Governor Hamilton at Fort St. Vincennes. That man, along with a group of soldiers, took over that post on December 15th last year. He reinforced the fortifications for storage and intended to attack our position in the spring, confident that he would succeed. He planned to be joined by two hundred Indians from Michilimackinac and five hundred Cherokees, Chickasaws, and others. With this force, he aimed to move up the Ohio River to Fort Pitt, sweeping through Kentucky on the way, equipped with light brass cannons, and gathering any Indians willing to join him. He was sure he could overpower all of West Augusta. This mission was ordered by the commander in chief of Canada. It felt like destruction was looming over us from all sides; enemy detachments were nearby every day but they were hesitant to attack. I instructed Major Bowman to abandon the fort at the Cohas and join me immediately, which he did. I hadn’t heard a word from you for almost a year, and I felt there was little chance of holding on to the territory since my forces were too few to withstand a siege, and my location was too isolated to call for help. I made as many preparations as I could for the attack and had to set fire to some houses in town to clear the area. But in the midst of the chaos, a Spanish merchant who had been at St. Vincennes arrived and provided the following information: Mr. Hamilton had weakened his position by sending his Indians to the frontiers and to block the Ohio; he had no more than eighty men in garrison, three cannons, and some swivels mounted; and he planned to attack us as soon as winter ended, confident he could clear the western waters by fall. Given my situation, I decided to attack him before he could regroup his Indians. I knew this decision was as risky as my circumstances, but I saw no other chance of securing the territory. I quickly sent out a small galley that I had equipped, mounted with two four-pounders and four swivels, along with a team of men and necessary supplies, instructing them to force their way through if they could and wait a few miles downstream from the enemy for further orders. In the meantime, I marched across the countryside with one hundred and thirty men, the total I could rally after leaving this place secured by the militia. The local inhabitants supported us very well; many young men volunteered for the mission, and every other person joined together to guard the different towns. I left on February 7th. Even though our forces were small, it took us sixteen days to reach the enemy. The harsh weather, high waters, and other challenges threatened to derail the expedition. When we were about three leagues from the enemy in a straight line, it took us five days to cross the flooded lands along the Wabash River, often wading through water up to our chests for more than two leagues. If the weather hadn’t been warm, we likely would have perished. But on the evening of the 23rd, we finally reached dry land in sight of the enemy, and at seven o’clock, we launched our attack before they were even aware of us. The town quickly surrendered with joy and helped during the siege. We exchanged fire for eighteen hours straight. I didn’t expect to take the fort until my artillery arrived. When the moon set around one o'clock, I ordered an entrenchment to be built within rifle-shot of their strongest battery and unleashed a relentless barrage of well-aimed shots into their ports, silencing two cannons in fifteen minutes without injuring a single man.
Governor Hamilton and myself had, on the following day, several conferences, but did not agree until the evening, when he agreed to surrender the garrison (seventy-nine in number) prisoners of war, with considerable stores. I got only one man wounded; not being able to lose many, I made them secure themselves well. Seven were badly wounded in the fort, through ports. In the height of this action, an Indian party that had been to war, and taken two prisoners, came in, not knowing of us. Hearing of them, I despatched a party to give them battle in the commons, and got nine of them, with the two prisoners, who proved to be Frenchmen. Hearing of a convoy of goods from Detroit, I sent a party of sixty men, in armed boats well mounted with swivels, to meet them, before they could receive any intelligence. They met the convoy forty leagues up the river, and made a prize of the whole, taking forty prisoners, and about ten thousand pounds’ worth of goods and provisions; also the mail from Canada to Governor Hamilton, containing, however, no news of importance. But what crowned the general joy, was the arrival of William Morris, my express to you, with your letters, which gave general satisfaction. The soldiery, being made sensible of the gratitude of their country for their services, were so much elated, that they would have attempted the reduction of Detroit, had I ordered them. Having more prisoners than I knew what to do with, I was obliged to discharge a greater part of them on parole. Mr. Hamilton, his principal officers, and a few soldiers, I have sent to Kentucky, under convoy of Captain Williams, in order to be conducted to you. After despatching Morris with letters to you, treating with the neighboring Indians, &c, I returned to this place, leaving a sufficient garrison at St. Vincenne.
Governor Hamilton and I had several meetings the next day, but we didn’t reach an agreement until the evening, when he agreed to surrender the garrison (which had seventy-nine men) as prisoners of war, along with a considerable amount of supplies. I only had one man wounded; since I couldn't afford to lose many, I made sure they were well protected. Seven others were badly wounded in the fort through the openings. During this action, a group of Indians who had been on a raid and captured two prisoners arrived, unaware of us. When I heard about them, I quickly sent a team to confront them in the open area, successfully capturing nine of them along with the two prisoners, who turned out to be Frenchmen. Hearing about a supply convoy coming from Detroit, I sent a team of sixty men in armed boats equipped with swivel guns to intercept them before they could get any news. They encountered the convoy forty leagues up the river and seized everything, taking forty prisoners and about ten thousand pounds' worth of goods and provisions; they also captured the mail from Canada to Governor Hamilton, which contained no important news. But what really filled everyone with joy was the arrival of William Morris, my messenger to you, with your letters, which were met with great satisfaction. The soldiers, realizing how grateful their country was for their service, were so enthusiastic that they would have attempted to take Detroit if I had ordered them to. With more prisoners than I knew what to do with, I had to release most of them on parole. I sent Mr. Hamilton, his main officers, and a few soldiers to Kentucky, escorted by Captain Williams, to be taken to you. After sending Morris with letters to you and negotiating with the local Indians, I returned to this location, leaving a strong garrison at St. Vincennes.
During my absence, Captain Robert George, who now commands the company formerly commanded by Captain Willing, had returned from New Orleans, which greatly added to our strength. It gave great satisfaction to the inhabitants, when acquainted with the protection which was given them, the alliance with France, &c. I am impatient for the arrival of Colonel Montgomery, but have heard nothing of him lately. By your instructions to me, I find you put no confidence in General M’Intosh’s taking Detroit, as you encourage me to attempt it, if possible. It has been twice in my power. Had I been able to raise only five hundred men when I first arrived in the country, or when I was at St. Vincenne, could I have secured my prisoners, and only have had three hundred good men, I should have attempted it, and since learn there could have been no doubt of success, as by some gentlemen, lately from that post, we are informed that the town and country kept three days in feasting and diversions on hearing of my success against Mr. Hamilton, and were so certain of my embracing the fair opportunity of possessing myself of that post, that the merchants and others provided many necessaries for us on our arrival; the garrison, consisting of only eighty men, not daring to stop their diversions. They are now completing a new fort, and I fear too strong for any force I shall ever be able to raise in this country. We are proud to hear Congress intends putting their forces on the frontiers, under your direction. A small army from Pittsburg, conducted with spirit, may easily take Detroit, and put an end to the Indian war. Those Indians who are active against us, are the Six Nations, part of the Shawnese, the Meamonies, and about half the Chesaweys, Ottawas, Jowaas, and Pottawatimas nations, bordering on the lakes. Those nations, who have treated with me, have behaved since very well, to wit, the Peankishaws, Kiccapoos, Orcaottenans of the Wabash river, the Kaskias, Perrians, Mechigamies, Foxes, Sacks, Opays, Illinois, and Poues, nations of the Mississippi and Illinois rivers. Part of the Chesaweys have also treated, and are peaceable. I continually keep agents among them, to watch their motions and keep them peaceably inclined. Many of the Cherokees, Chickasaws, and their confederates, are, I fear, ill disposed. It would be well if Colonel Montgomery should give them a dressing, as he comes down the Tennessee. There can be no peace expected from many nations, while the English are at Detroit. I strongly suspect they will turn their arms against the Illinois, as they will be encouraged. I shall always be on my guard, watching every opportunity to take the advantage of the enemy, and, if I am ever able to muster six or seven hundred men, I shall give them a shorter distance to come and fight me, than at this place.
During my absence, Captain Robert George, who now leads the company that was formerly led by Captain Willing, has returned from New Orleans, which has significantly increased our strength. The local people were very pleased to learn about the protection being offered to them and the alliance with France, etc. I'm anxious for Colonel Montgomery to arrive, but I haven't heard anything from him recently. From your instructions to me, it seems you're not confident in General M’Intosh's ability to take Detroit, as you encourage me to try it if possible. I've had two chances to do so. If I could have gathered just five hundred men when I first arrived in this area, or when I was at St. Vincennes, and if I could have secured my prisoners and had only three hundred reliable men, I would have attempted it. Since then, I've learned that there was no doubt of success; some gentlemen recently returned from that post informed us that the town and surrounding area celebrated for three days upon hearing of my success against Mr. Hamilton. They were so certain that I would take the favorable opportunity to seize that post that merchants and others prepared many supplies for us upon our arrival; the garrison, consisting of only eighty men, didn't dare interrupt their festivities. They are now finishing a new fort, which I fear will be too strong for any force I could ever raise in this area. We are proud to hear that Congress intends to place their forces on the frontiers under your direction. A small, spirited army from Pittsburgh could easily take Detroit and end the Indian war. The active Indians against us are the Six Nations, some of the Shawnees, the Miamis, and about half of the Chippewas, Ottawas, Iowas, and Pottawatomi nations, who border on the lakes. The nations that have made treaties with me have behaved well since, including the Piankeshaws, Kickapoos, Wea of the Wabash River, the Kaskaskias, Peorias, Metchigamas, Foxes, Sauk, Osage, Illinois, and Poues nations of the Mississippi and Illinois rivers. Some of the Chippewas have also made treaties and are peaceful. I constantly keep agents among them to monitor their movements and maintain their peaceful demeanor. Many of the Cherokees, Chickasaws, and their allies, however, seem to be hostile. It would be beneficial if Colonel Montgomery could discipline them as he travels down the Tennessee. There can be no expectation of peace from many nations as long as the English are at Detroit. I strongly suspect they will incite the Illinois against us as they will be encouraged. I will always remain vigilant, looking for every opportunity to gain the upper hand against the enemy, and if I can ever assemble six or seven hundred men, I’ll make it easier for them to come and fight me than at this location.
There is one circumstance very distressing, that of our money’s being discredited, to all intents and purposes, by the great number of traders who come here in my absence, each outbidding the other, giving prices unknown in this country by five hundred per cent., by which the people conceived it to be of no value, and both French and Spaniards refused to take a farthing of it. Provision is three times the price it was two months past, and to be got by no other means than my own bonds, goods, or force. Several merchants are now advancing considerable sums of their own property, rather than the service should suffer, by which I am sensible they must lose greatly, unless some method is taken to raise the credit of our coin, or a fund be sent to Orleans, for the payment of the expenses of this place, which should at once reduce the price of every species of provision; money being of little service to them, unless it would pass at the ports they trade at. I mentioned to you, my drawing some bills on Mr. Pollock in New Orleans, as I had no money with me. He would accept the bills, but had not money to pay them off, though the sums were trifling; so that we have little credit to expect from that quarter. I shall take every step I possibly can, for laying up a sufficient quantity of provisions, and hope you will immediately send me an express with your instructions. Public expenses in this country have hitherto been very low, and may still continue so, if a correspondence is fixed at New Orleans for payment of expenses in this country, or gold and silver sent. I am glad to hear of Colonel Todd’s appointment. I think government has taken the only step they could have done, to make this country flourish, and be of service to them. No other regulation would have suited the people. The last account I had of Colonel Rogers, was his being in New Orleans, with six of his men. The rest he left at the Spanish Ozack, above the Natches. I shall immediately send him some provisions, as I learn he is in great want. I doubt he will not be able to get his goods up the river except in Spanish bottoms. One regiment would be able to clear the Mississippi, and to do great damage to the British interest in Florida, and by properly conducting themselves might perhaps gain the affection of the people, so as to raise a sufficient force to give a shock to Pensacola. Our alliance with France has entirely devoted this people to our interest. I have sent several copies of the articles to Detroit, and do not doubt but they will produce the desired effect. Your instructions, I shall pay implicit regard to, and hope to conduct myself in such a manner as to do honor to my country.
There’s one really worrying situation: our money is basically worthless because of all the traders who come here while I’m not around, each trying to outbid the other and offering prices that are five hundred percent higher than what’s normal here. This made people believe it wasn’t worth anything, and both the French and Spaniards refuse to accept even a penny of it. The cost of food is three times what it was two months ago, and I can only get it using my own bonds, goods, or force. Several merchants are now risking their own money to prevent things from getting worse, and I know they’re going to take a big hit unless we find a way to restore confidence in our currency or send funds to New Orleans to cover expenses here, which would quickly lower the price of supplies; money doesn’t help unless it’s accepted at the trading ports. I mentioned to you that I would write some bills to Mr. Pollock in New Orleans since I didn’t have any cash with me. He would accept the bills but doesn’t have the funds to pay them off even though the amounts are small, so we can’t expect much credit from him. I’m going to do everything I can to stockpile enough supplies, and I hope you’ll send me an update with your instructions right away. Public spending here has been really low so far, and it could stay that way if we set up a way to pay for expenses in this area from New Orleans or send gold and silver. I’m glad to hear about Colonel Todd’s appointment; I think the government has made the right move to help this area thrive and benefit them. No other regulation would have worked for the people. The last I heard about Colonel Rogers was that he was in New Orleans with six of his men, while he left the rest at the Spanish Ozack above the Natches. I’ll send him some supplies right away since I hear he’s in urgent need. I doubt he’ll be able to get his goods up the river except in Spanish boats. A single regiment could clear the Mississippi and deal serious damage to British interests in Florida, and if they conduct themselves well, they might win the support of the locals, allowing them to gather enough forces to strike Pensacola. Our alliance with France has completely aligned this community with our interests. I’ve sent several copies of the articles to Detroit, and I’m confident they’ll have the intended effect. I’ll follow your instructions closely, and I hope to conduct myself in a way that honors my country.
I am, with the greatest respect,
I am, with the utmost respect,
your humble servant,
your devoted servant,
G. R. Clarke.
G. R. Clarke.
P. S. I understand there is a considerable quantity of cannon ball at Pittsburg. We are much in want of four and six pound ball. I hope you will immediately order some down.
P. S. I hear there’s a good amount of cannonballs in Pittsburgh. We really need some four and six-pound balls. I hope you'll place an order for some right away.
IN COUNCIL, June 18, 1779
The board proceeded to the consideration of the letters of Colonel Clarke, and other papers relating to Henry Hamilton, Esq. who has acted for some years past as Lieutenant Governor of the settlement at and about Detroit, and commandant of the British garrison there, under Sir Guy Carleton, as Governor in chief; Philip Dejean, justice of the peace for Detroit, and William Lamothe, captain of volunteers, prisoners of war, taken in the county of Illinois.
The board moved on to discuss the letters from Colonel Clarke and other documents concerning Henry Hamilton, who has served as the Lieutenant Governor of the Detroit settlement for the past few years and as the commander of the British garrison there, under Sir Guy Carleton, the Governor in chief; Philip Dejean, a justice of the peace for Detroit, and William Lamothe, a captain of volunteer prisoners of war captured in Illinois.
They find, that Governor Hamilton has executed the task of inciting the Indians to perpetrate their accustomed cruelties on the citizens of the United States, without distinction of age, sex, or condition, with an eagerness and avidity which evince, that the general nature of his charge harmonized with his particular disposition. They should have been satisfied, from the other testimony adduced, that these enormities were committed by savages acting under his commission, but the number of proclamations, which, at different times, were left in houses, the inhabitants of which were killed or carried away by the Indians, one of which proclamations is in possession of the board, under the hand and seal of Governor Hamilton, puts this fact beyond a doubt. At the time of his captivity, it appears, he had sent considerable bodies of Indians against the frontier settlements of these States, and had actually appointed a great council of Indians, to meet him at Tennessee, to concert the operations of this present campaign. They find that his treatment of our citizens and soldiers, taken and carried within the limits of his command, has been cruel and inhuman; that in the case of John Dodge, a citizen of these States, which has been particularly stated to this board, he loaded him with irons, threw him into a dungeon, without bedding, without straw, without fire, in the dead of winter and severe climate of Detroit; that, in that state, he wasted him with incessant expectations of death: that when the rigors of his situation had brought him so low, that death seemed likely to withdraw him from their power, he was taken out and somewhat attended to, until a little mended, and before he had recovered ability to walk, was again returned to his dungeon, in which a hole was cut, seven inches square only for the admission of air, and the same load of irons again put on him: that appearing, a second time, in imminent danger of being lost to them, he was again taken from his dungeon, in which he had lain from January till June, with the intermission of a few weeks only, before mentioned. That Governor Hamilton gave standing rewards for scalps, but offered none for prisoners, which induced the Indians, after making their captives carry their baggage into the neighborhood of the fort, there to put them to death, and carry in their scalps to the Governor, who welcomed their return and success by a discharge of cannon. That when a prisoner, brought alive, and destined to death by the Indians, the fire already kindled, and himself bound to the stake, was dexterously withdrawn, and secreted from them by the humanity of a fellow prisoner, a large reward was offered for the discovery of the victim, which having tempted a servant to betray his concealment, the present prisoner Dejean, being sent with a party of soldiers, surrounded the house, took and threw into jail the unhappy victim and his deliverer, where the former soon expired under the perpetual assurances of Dejean, that he was to be again restored into the hands of the savages, and the latter when enlarged, was bitterly reprimanded by Governor Hamilton.
They find that Governor Hamilton has carried out the task of encouraging the Indians to commit their usual atrocities against the citizens of the United States, regardless of age, gender, or status, with a level of enthusiasm that shows his overall mission matched his personal tendencies. They should have been convinced, based on other evidence provided, that these atrocities were committed by savages acting under his orders. However, the numerous proclamations left in homes, where the residents were either killed or taken away by the Indians, one of which is in the board's possession and signed by Governor Hamilton, confirm this fact beyond doubt. At the time he was captured, he had sent large groups of Indians against the frontier settlements in these states and had even organized a major council of Indians to meet him in Tennessee to plan the current campaign's operations. They find that his treatment of our citizens and soldiers taken within his territory has been cruel and inhumane; in the case of John Dodge, a citizen of these states, specifically brought to this board's attention, he chained him up, threw him into a dungeon without bedding, straw, or heat in the dead of winter in the harsh climate of Detroit; that, in that state, he tormented him with constant fears of death: that when the severity of his situation had brought him to the brink of death, he was taken out and given some care until he improved a bit, but before he had recovered enough to walk, he was returned to his dungeon, which had a small hole, only seven inches square, for air, and the same heavy chains were put back on him: that appearing at risk of dying again, he was once more taken from his dungeon, where he had been since January until June, with only a few weeks’ exception. Governor Hamilton offered standing rewards for scalps but none for prisoners, which led the Indians to force their captives to carry their belongings near the fort, where they would execute them and bring the scalps to the Governor, who celebrated their return and success with cannon fire. When a prisoner, destined for death at the hands of the Indians, was skillfully rescued and hidden by a fellow prisoner just before being burned alive, a large reward was offered for the capture of the victim. This tempted a servant to reveal the location of the victim, and Dejean, sent with a group of soldiers, surrounded the house, captured both the victim and his rescuer, and threw them into jail, where the former soon died under the constant threats from Dejean that he would be returned to the savages, and the latter, when released, was harshly reprimanded by Governor Hamilton.
It appears to them, that the prisoner Dejean was, on all occasions, the willing and cordial instrument of Governor Hamilton, acting both as judge and keeper of the jails, and instigating and urging him, by malicious insinuations and untruths, to increase, rather than relax his severities, heightening the cruelty of his orders by his manner of executing them, offering at one time a reward to one man to be hangman for another, threatening his life on refusal, and taking from his prisoners the little property their opportunities enabled them to acquire.
It seems to them that the prisoner Dejean was, at all times, a willing and friendly assistant to Governor Hamilton, acting both as judge and jailer, and actively encouraging him, through spiteful suggestions and lies, to intensify, rather than ease, his harshness, exacerbating the cruelty of his orders through his approach to carrying them out, at one point offering a reward to one person to serve as the hangman for another, threatening his life if he refused, and taking away from his prisoners the little property they were able to acquire.
It appears, that the prisoner Lamothe, was a captain of the volunteer scalping parties of Indians and whites, who went, from time to time, under general orders to spare neither men, women, nor children. From this detail of circumstances, which arose in a few cases only, coming accidentally to the knowledge of the board, they think themselves authorized by fair deduction, to presume what would be the horrid history of the sufferings of the many, who have expired under their miseries (which, therefore, will remain for ever untold), or who have escaped from them, and are yet too remote and too much dispersed, to bring together their well founded accusations against the prisoners.
It seems that the prisoner Lamothe was a leader of volunteer scalping groups made up of both Indians and whites, who occasionally operated under general orders to spare no one—men, women, or children. Based on this limited information, which the board learned about only a few cases, they feel justified in concluding what the dreadful history of suffering must be for the many who have died in their anguish (and whose stories will therefore remain forever untold), or who have escaped and are currently too distant and scattered to unite their valid accusations against the prisoners.
They have seen that the conduct of the British officers, civil and military, has in the whole course of this war, been savage, and unprecedented among civilized nations; that our officers taken by them, have been confined in crowded jails, loathsome dungeons, and prison-ships, loaded with irons, supplied often with no food, generally with too little for the sustenance of nature, and that little sometimes unsound and unwholesome, whereby such numbers have perished, that captivity and death have with them been almost synonymous; that they have been transported beyond seas, where their fate is out of the reach of our inquiry, have been compelled to take arms against their country, and, by a refinement in cruelty, to become murderers of their own brethren.
They have seen that the behavior of British officers, both civil and military, throughout this entire war has been brutal and unprecedented among civilized nations. Our officers who have been captured by them have been held in overcrowded jails, disgusting dungeons, and prison ships, shackled with iron, often given no food, usually just enough to barely stay alive, and that little often being spoiled and unhealthy. Because of this, so many have died that captivity and death have almost become the same thing for them. They have been taken overseas, where their fate is beyond our knowledge, forced to fight against their own country, and, in a twisted act of cruelty, made to kill their own fellow countrymen.
Their prisoners with us have, on the other hand, been treated with humanity and moderation; they have been fed, on all occasions, with wholesome and plentiful food, suffered to go at large within extensive tracts of country, treated with liberal hospitality, permitted to live in the families of our citizens, to labor for themselves, to acquire and enjoy profits, and finally to participate of the principal benefits of society, privileged from all burdens.
Their prisoners with us have been treated with kindness and fairness; they have always been given plenty of healthy food, allowed to roam freely across large areas, received generous hospitality, permitted to live with our citizens' families, able to work for themselves, earn and enjoy profits, and finally to share in the main benefits of society, exempt from all burdens.
Reviewing this contrast, which cannot be denied by our enemies themselves, in a single point, and which has now been kept up during four years of unremitting war, a term long enough to produce well-founded despair that our moderation may ever lead them to the practice of humanity; called on by that justice we owe to those who are fighting the battles of our country, to deal out, at length, miseries to their enemies, measure for measure, and to distress the feelings of mankind by exhibiting to them spectacles of severe retaliation, where we had long and vainly endeavored to introduce an emulation in kindness; happily possessed, by the fortune of war, of some of those very individuals who, having distinguished themselves personally in this line of cruel conduct, are fit subjects to begin on, with the work of retaliation; this board has resolved to advise the Governor, that the said Henry Hamilton, Philip Dejean and William Lamothe, prisoners of war, be put into irons, confined in the dungeon of the public jail, debarred the use of pen, ink, and paper, and excluded all converse, except with their keeper. And the Governor orders accordingly.
Reviewing this contrast, which even our enemies can’t deny, in a single point that has persisted for four years of constant war—long enough to justify despair that our moderation might ever inspire them to act humanely—we are called by the justice owed to those fighting for our country to finally inflict misery on their enemies, tit for tat, and to disturb the feelings of humanity by showing them harsh retaliation, where we had previously tried in vain to encourage kindness. Fortunate in war to have captured some of those individuals who have personally engaged in this cruel behavior, we find them suitable for starting this process of retaliation. This board has decided to recommend to the Governor that Henry Hamilton, Philip Dejean, and William Lamothe, prisoners of war, be put in chains, confined in the dungeon of the public jail, denied access to pen, ink, and paper, and prohibited from speaking to anyone except their guard. The Governor has ordered this to be carried out.
Arch. Blair, C. C.
Arch. Blair, C.C.
[NOTE B]—IN COUNCIL, September 29, 1779.
The board having been, at no time, unmindful of the circumstances attending the confinement of Lieutenant Governor Hamilton, Captain Lamothe, and Philip Dejean, which the personal cruelties of those men, as well as the general conduct of the enemy, had constrained them to advise: wishing, and willing to expect, that their sufferings may lead them to the practice of humanity, should any future turn of fortune, in their favor, submit to their discretion the fate of their fellow creatures; that it may prove an admonition to others, meditating like cruelties, not to rely for impunity in any circumstances of distance or present security; and that it may induce the enemy to reflect, what must be the painful consequences, should a continuation of the same conduct on their part impel us again to severities, while such multiplied subjects of retaliation are within our power: sensible that no impression can be made on the event of the war, by wreaking vengeance on miserable captives; that the great cause which has animated the two nations against each other, is not to be decided by unmanly cruelties on wretches, who have bowed their necks to the power of the victor, but by the exercise of honorable valor in the field: earnestly hoping that the enemy, viewing the subject in the same light, will be content to abide the event of that mode of decision, and spare us the pain of a second departure from kindness to our captives: confident that commiseration to our prisoners is the only possible motive, to which can be candidly ascribed, in the present actual circumstances of the war, the advice we are now about to give; the board does advise the Governor to send Lieutenant Governor Hamilton, Captain Lamothe, and Philip Dejean, to Hanover court house, there to remain at large, within certain reasonable limits, taking their parole in the usual manner. The Governor orders accordingly.
The board was always aware of the situation involving Lieutenant Governor Hamilton, Captain Lamothe, and Philip Dejean, which the cruelty of those men and the general behavior of the enemy prompted them to address. They hope that their suffering will encourage them to act with humanity if fortune turns in their favor and gives them control over the fate of others. They want this to serve as a warning to anyone considering similar cruelty, making it clear not to count on being safe just because of distance or current security. They also want the enemy to think about the painful consequences of continuing their actions, which could force us to take harsher measures, given that we have many ways to retaliate. They recognize that punishing miserable captives won't change the outcome of the war. The main conflict between the two nations cannot be resolved through unmanly cruelty against those who are at the mercy of the victor but through honorable bravery on the battlefield. They sincerely hope the enemy sees things this way and chooses to accept the outcome of a fair fight, sparing us from having to treat our captives with anything less than kindness again. Believing that showing compassion to our prisoners is the only motivation that can be genuinely attributed to our current recommendations in this war's situation, the board advises the Governor to send Lieutenant Governor Hamilton, Captain Lamothe, and Philip Dejean to Hanover court house, where they can stay at large within reasonable limits, taking their parole as is customary. The Governor orders this to be done.
Arch. Blair, C. C.
Arch. Blair, C. C.
Ordered, that Major John Hay be sent, also, under parole to the same place.
Ordered that Major John Hay be sent, also, under parole to the same place.
Arch. Blair, C. C.
Arch. Blair, C.C.
[NOTE C]—IN COUNCIL, October 8, 1779.
The Governor is advised to take proper and effectual measures for knowing, from time to time, the situation and treatment of our prisoners by the enemy, and to extend to theirs, with us a like treatment, in every circumstance; and, also, to order to a proper station, the prison-ship fitted up on recommendation from Congress from the reception and confinement of such prisoners of war, as shall be sent to it.
The Governor is advised to take appropriate and effective steps to regularly find out about the condition and treatment of our prisoners held by the enemy, and to give their prisoners the same treatment from us in every situation; and also, to assign the prison ship outfitted on Congress's recommendation for the reception and confinement of any war prisoners sent to it.
Arch. Blair, C. C.
Arch. Blair, C. C.
[NOTE D.]—FEMALE CONTRIBUTIONS, IN AID OF THE WAR, probably in 1780
[After letter XVII. in the MS. is inserted the following memorandum.]
Female Contributions, in aid of the War, probably in 1780.
Female Contributions, to support the War, probably in 1780.
Mrs. Sarah Gary, of Scotchtown, a watch-chain, cost £7 sterling.
Mrs. Sarah Gary, from Scotchtown, bought a watch chain that cost £7.
Mrs.——— Ambler, five gold rings.
Mrs. Ambler, five gold rings.
Mrs. Rebecca Ambler, three gold rings.
Mrs. Rebecca Ambler, three gold rings.
Mrs.————— Nicholas, a diamond drop.
Mrs. Nicholas, a diamond drop.
Mrs. Griffin, of Dover, ten half joes.
Mrs. Griffin from Dover, ten half dollars.
Mrs. Gilmer, five guineas.
Mrs. Gilmer, five pounds.
Mrs. Anne Ramsay (for Fairfax), one half joe, three guineas, three pistereens, one bit.
Mrs. Anne Ramsay (for Fairfax), one half dollar, three guineas, three pistereens, one coin.
Do. for do. paper money, bundle No. 1, twenty thousand dollars, No. 2, twenty-seven thousand dollars, No. 3, fifteen thousand dollars, No. 4, thirteen thousand five hundred and eighteen dollars and one third.
Do. for do. paper money, bundle No. 1, $20,000, No. 2, $27,000, No. 3, $15,000, No. 4, $13,518.33.
Mrs. Lewis (for Albemarle), £1559 8s. paper money,
Mrs. Lewis (for Albemarle), £1559.40 in paper money,
Mrs. Weldon, £39 18s. new, instead of £1600, old paper money,
Mrs. Weldon, £39.90 new, instead of £1600, old paper money,
Mrs. Blackburn (for Prince William), seven thousand five hundred and six dollars, paper money.
Mrs. Blackburn (for Prince William), $7,506 in cash.
Mrs. Randolph, the younger, of Chatsworth, eight hundred dollars.
Mrs. Randolph, the younger, of Chatsworth, $800.
Mrs. Fitzhugh and others, £558.
Mrs. Fitzhugh and others, £558.
[NOTE E.]—FROM LORD CORNWALLIS
Lord Cornwallis’s Letter to Lieutenant Colonel Nisbet Balfour, Commander at Ninety Six.
Lord Cornwallis’s Letter to Lieutenant Colonel Nisbet Balfour, Commander at Ninety Six.
I have the happiness to inform you, that on Wednesday the 16th instant, I totally defeated General Gates’s army. One thousand were killed and wounded, about eight hundred taken prisoners. We are in possession of eight pieces of brass cannon, all they had in the field, all their ammunition wagons, a great number of arms, and one hundred and thirty baggage wagons: in short, there never was a more complete victory. I have written to Lieutenant Colonel Turnbull, whom I sent to join Major Johnson on Little river, to push on after General Sumpter to the Wax-haws, whose detachment is the only collected force of rebels in all this country. Colonel Tarleton is in pursuit of Sumpter. Our loss is about three hundred killed and wounded, chiefly of the thirty-third regiment and volunteers, of Ireland. I have given orders that all the inhabitants of this province, who have subscribed and taken part in this revolt, should be punished with the greatest rigor; also, that those who will not turn out, may be imprisoned, and their whole property taken from them, and destroyed. I have also ordered that satisfaction should be made for their estates, to those who have been injured and oppressed by them. I have ordered, in the most positive manner, that every militia man who has borne arms with us and afterwards joined the enemy, shall be immediately hanged. I desire you will take the most rigorous measure to punish the rebels in the district in which you command, and that you will obey, in the strictest manner, the directions I have given in this letter, relative to the inhabitants of this country.
I’m happy to let you know that on Wednesday the 16th, I completely defeated General Gates’s army. One thousand were killed and wounded, and about eight hundred were taken prisoner. We have captured eight pieces of brass cannon, all their ammunition wagons, a large number of weapons, and one hundred and thirty baggage wagons. In short, this is one of the most complete victories ever. I’ve written to Lieutenant Colonel Turnbull, whom I sent to join Major Johnson on Little River, to chase after General Sumpter to the Waxhaws, as his group is the only organized force of rebels in this area. Colonel Tarleton is pursuing Sumpter. Our losses are about three hundred killed and wounded, mostly from the thirty-third regiment and Irish volunteers. I’ve ordered that all residents of this province who have supported and participated in this uprising should be punished severely; those who refuse to participate may be imprisoned, and their entire property seized and destroyed. I’ve also ordered that compensation be provided for the estates of those who have been harmed and oppressed by them. I’ve made it very clear that any militia member who has fought with us and then joined the enemy will be hanged immediately. I ask that you take the strictest measures to punish the rebels in your district and that you follow my instructions in this letter regarding the people of this area.
Cornwallis.
Cornwallis.
August, 1780.
August 1780.
[NOTE F.]—TO LORD CORNWALLIS
TO LORD CORNWALLIS.
To Lord Cornwallis.
Portsmouth, Virginia, November 4, 1780.
Portsmouth, VA, November 4, 1780.
My Lord,
My Lord,
I have been here near a week, establishing a post. I wrote to you to Charleston, and by another messenger, by land. I cannot hear, for a certainty, where you are: I wait your orders. The bearer is to be handsomely rewarded, if he brings me any note or mark from your Lordship.
I’ve been here for about a week, setting up a base. I wrote to you in Charleston, and also sent another message by land. I can’t know for sure where you are: I’m waiting for your directions. The person delivering this will be well rewarded if they bring me any note or sign from you.
A. L.
A. L.
Download ePUB
If you like this ebook, consider a donation!