a great deal of that information which I am anxious to receive. The
consolidation of our fellow-citizens in general is the great object we
ought to keep in view; and that being once obtained, while we
associate with us in affairs, to a certain degree, the federal sect
of republicans, we must strip of all the means of influence the Essex
junto, and their associate monocrats in every part of the Union. The
former differ from us only in the shades of power to be given to the
executive, being, with us, attached to republican government. The latter
wish to sap the republic by fraud, if they cannot destroy it by force,
and to erect an English monarchy in its place; some of them (as Mr.
Adams) thinking its corrupt parts should be cleansed away, others (as
Hamilton) thinking that would make it an impracticable machine. We are
proceeding gradually in the regeneration of offices, and introducing
republicans to some share in them. I do not know that it will be pushed
further than was settled before you went away, except as to Essex men.
I must ask you to make out a list of those in office in yours and the
neighboring States, and to furnish me with it. There is little of
this spirit south of the Hudson. I understand that Jackson is a very
determined one, though in private life amiable and honorable. But
amiable monarchists are not safe subjects of republican confidence.
What will be the effect of his removal? How should it be timed? Who his
successor? What place can General Lyman properly occupy? Our gradual
reformations seem to produce good effects every where except in
Connecticut. Their late session of legislature has been more intolerant
than all others. We must meet them with equal intolerance. When they
will give a share in the State offices, they shall be replaced in a
share of the General offices. Till then we must follow their example.
Mr. Goodrich’s removal has produced a bitter remonstrance, with much
personality against the two Bishops. I am sincerely sorry to see the
inflexibility of the federal spirit there, for I cannot believe they are
all monarchists.
I observe your tory papers make much of the Berceau. As that is one of
the subjects to be laid before Congress, it is material to commit to
writing, while fresh in memory, the important circumstances. You possess
more of these than any other person. I pray you, therefore, immediately
to state to me all the circumstances you recollect. I will aid you with
the following hints, which you can correct and incorporate. Pichon, I
think, arrived about the 12th of March. I do not remember when he first
proposed the question about the Insurgente and Berceau. On the 20th of
March, Mr. Stoddart wrote to his agent at Boston to put the Berceau
into handsome order to be restored, but whether he did that of his own
accord, or after previous consultation with you or myself, I do not
recollect. I set out for Monticello April the 1st. About that time
General Smith sent new directions to put her precisely into the state in
which she was before the capture. Do you recollect from what fund it
was contemplated to do this? I had trusted for this to Stoddart who was
familiar with all the funds, being myself entirely new in office at that
time. What will those repairs have cost? Did we not leave to Le Tombe to
make what allowance he thought proper to the officers, we only advancing
money on his undertaking repayment? I shall hope to receive from you as
full a statement as you can make. It may be useful to inquire into the
time and circumstances of her being dismantled. When you shall have
retraced the whole matter in your memory, would it not be well to make
a summary statement of the important circumstances for insertion in the
Chronicle in order to set the minds of the candid part of the public to
rights? Mr. Madison has had a slight bilious attack. I am advising
him to get off by the middle of this month. We who have stronger
constitutions shall stay to the end of it. But during August and
September, we also must take refuge in climates rendered safer by our
habits and confidence. The post will be so arranged as that letters will
go hence to Monticello, and the answer return here in a week. I hope I
shall continue to hear from you there.
Accept assurances of my affectionate esteem and high respect.
Th: Jefferson.
P. S. The French convention was laid before the Senate December the
16th. I think the Berceau arrived afterwards. If so, she was dismantled
when it was known she was to be restored. When did she arrive? By whose
orders was she dismantled? T.J.
LETTER CCLXXXVII.--TO GOVERNOR MONROE, July 11, 1801
TO GOVERNOR MONROE.
Washington, July 11, 1801.
Dear Sir,
As to the mode of correspondence between the general and particular
executives, I do not think myself a good judge. Not because my position
gives me any prejudice on the occasion; for if it be possible to
be certainly conscious of any thing, I am conscious of feeling no
difference between writing to the highest and lowest being on earth; but
because I have ever thought that forms should yield to whatever should
facilitate business. Comparing the two governments together, it is
observable that in all those cases where the independent or reserved
rights of the States are in question, the two executives, if they are
to act together, must be exactly co-ordinate; they are, in these cases,
each the supreme head of an independent government. In other cases, to
wit, those transferred by the constitution to the General Government,
the general executive is certainly pre-ordinate; e.g. in a question
respecting the militia, and others easily to be recollected. Were there,
therefore, to be a stiff adherence to etiquette, I should say that in
the former cases the correspondence should be between the two heads, and
that in the latter, the Governor must be subject to receive orders from
the war department as any other subordinate officer would. And were it
observed that either party set up unjustifiable pretensions, perhaps
the other might be right in opposing them by a tenaciousness of his
own rigorous rights. But I think the practice in General Washington’s
administration was most friendly to business, and was absolutely
equal; sometimes he wrote to the Governors, and sometimes the heads of
departments wrote. If a letter is to be on a general subject, I see
no reason why the President should not write; but if it is to go into
details, these being known only to the head of the department, it is
better he should write directly. Otherwise, the correspondence must
involve circuities. If this be practised promiscuously in both classes
of cases, each party setting examples of neglecting etiquette, both will
stand on equal ground, and convenience alone will dictate through whom
any particular communication is to be made. On the whole, I think a free
correspondence best, and shall never hesitate to write myself to the
Governors, in every federal case, where the occasion presents itself to
me particularly. Accept assurances of my sincere and constant affection
and respect.
Th: Jefferson,
LETTER CCLXXXVIII.--TO A COMMITTEE OF MERCHANTS, July 12, 1801
_To Elias Shipman and Others, a Committee of the Merchants of New
Haven_.
Washington, July 12, 1801.
Gentlemen,
I have received the remonstrance you were pleased to address to me,
on the appointment of Samuel Bishop to the office of Collector of New
Haven, lately vacated by the death of David Austin. The right of our
fellow-citizens to represent to the public functionaries their opinion
on proceedings interesting to them, is unquestionably a constitutional
right, often useful, sometimes necessary, and will always be
respectfully acknowledged by me.
Of the various executive duties, no one excites more anxious concern
than that of placing the interests of our fellow-citizens in the hands
of honest men, with understandings sufficient for their stations. No
duty, at the same time, is more difficult to fulfil. The knowledge of
characters possessed by a single individual is, of necessity, limited.
To seek out the best through the whole Union, we must resort to other
information, which from the best of men, acting disinterestedly and
with the purest motives, is sometimes incorrect. In the case of Samuel
Bishop, however, the subject of your remonstrance, time was taken,
information was sought, and such obtained as could leave no room for
doubt of his fitness. From private sources it was learned that his
understanding was sound, his integrity pure, his character unstained.
And the offices, confided to him within his own State, are public
evidences of the estimation in which he is held by the State in general,
and the city and township particularly in which he lives. He is said
to be the town clerk, a justice of the peace, mayor of the city of New
Haven, an office held at the will of the legislature, chief judge of the
court of common pleas for New Haven county, a court of high criminal and
civil jurisdiction, wherein most causes are decided without the right
of appeal or review, and sole judge of the court of probate, wherein he
singly decides all questions of wills, settlement of estates, testate
and intestate, appoints guardians, settles their accounts, and in fact
has under his jurisdiction and care all the property, real and personal,
of persons dying. The two last offices, in the annual gift of the
legislature, were given to him in May last. Is it possible that the man
to whom the legislature of Connecticut has so recently committed trusts
of such difficulty and magnitude, is ‘unfit to be the collector of the
district of New Haven,’ though acknowledged in the same writing, to
have obtained all this confidence ‘by a long life of usefulness?’ It is
objected, indeed, in the remonstrance, that he is seventy-seven years of
age; but at a much more advanced age, our Franklin was the ornament of
human nature. He may not be able to perform in person, all the details
of his office; but if he gives us the benefit of his understanding, his
integrity, his watchfulness, and takes care that all the details are
well performed by himself or his necessary assistants, all public
purposes will be answered. The remonstrance, indeed, does not allege
that the office has been illy conducted, but only apprehends that it
will be so. Should this happen in event, be assured I will do in it what
shall be just and necessary for the public service. In the mean time, he
should be tried without being prejudged.
The removal, as it is called, of Mr. Goodrich, forms another subject
of complaint. Declarations by myself in favor of political tolerance,
exhortations to harmony and affection in social intercourse, and
to respect for the equal rights of the minority, have, on certain
occasions, been quoted and misconstrued into assurances that the
tenure of offices was to be undisturbed. But could candor apply such a
construction? It is not indeed in the remonstrance that we find it;
but it leads to the explanations which that calls for. When it is
considered, that during the late administration, those who were not of
a particular sect of politics were excluded from all office; when, by a
steady pursuit of this measure, nearly the whole offices of the United
States were monopolized by that sect; when the public sentiment at
length declared itself, and burst open the doors of honor and confidence
to those whose opinions they more approved; was it to be imagined that
this monopoly of office was still to be continued in the hands of the
minority? Does it violate their equal rights, to assert some rights in
the majority also? Is it political intolerance to claim a proportionate
share in the direction of the public affairs? Can they not harmonize in
society unless they have every thing in their own hands? If the will
of the nation, manifested by their various elections, calls for an
administration of government according with the opinions of those
elected; if, for the fulfilment of that will, displacements are
necessary, with whom can they so justly begin as with persons appointed
in the last moments of an administration, not for its own aid, but to
begin a career at the same time with their successors, by whom they had
never been approved, and who could scarcely expect from them a cordial
co-operation? Mr Goodrich was one of these. Was it proper for him to
place himself in office, without knowing whether those whose agent he
was to be, would have confidence in his agency? Can the preference of
another as the successor to Mr. Austin, be candidly called a removal of
Mr. Goodrich? If a due participation of office is a matter of right,
how are vacancies to be obtained? Those by death are few; by resignation
none. Can any other mode than that of removal be proposed? This is a
painful office. But it is made my duty, and I meet it as such. I proceed
in the operation with deliberation and inquiry, that it may injure the
best men least, and effect the purposes of justice and public utility
with the least private distress; that it may be thrown, as much
as possible, on delinquency, on oppression, on intolerance, on
anti-revolutionary adherence to our enemies.
The remonstrance laments ‘that a change in the administration must
produce a change in the subordinate officers;’ in other words, that
it should be deemed necessary for all officers to think with their
principal? But on whom does this imputation bear? On those who have
excluded from office every shade of opinion which was not theirs? Or
on those who have been so excluded? I lament sincerely that unessential
differences of opinion should ever have been deemed sufficient to
interdict half the society from, the rights and the blessings of
self-government, to proscribe them as unworthy of every trust. It would
have been to me a circumstance of great relief, had I found a moderate
participation of office in the hands of the majority. I would gladly
have left to time and accident to raise them to their just share. But
their total exclusion calls for prompter corrections. I shall correct
the procedure: but that done, return with joy to that state of things,
when the only questions concerning a candidate shall be, Is he honest?
Is he capable? Is he faithful to the constitution?
I tender you the homage of my high respect.
Th: Jefferson.
LETTER CCLXXXIX.--TO LEVI LINCOLN, August 26, 1801
TO LEVI LINCOLN.
Monticello, August 26, 1801.
Dear Sir,
Your favor of July the 28th was received here on the 20th instant. The
superscription of my letter of July the 11th, by another hand, was to
prevent danger to it from the curious. Your statement respecting
the Berceau coincided with my own recollection, in the circumstances
recollected by me, and I concur with you in supposing it may not now
be necessary to give any explanations on the subject in the papers. The
purchase was made by our predecessors, and the repairs begun by them.
Had she been to continue ours, we were authorized to put and keep her in
good order out of the fund of the naval contingencies, and when in good
order, we obeyed a law of the land, the treaty, in giving her up. It
is true the treaty was not ratified; but when ratified it is validated
retrospectively. We took on ourselves this risk, but France had put more
into our hands on the same risk. I do not know whether the clamor, as
to the allowance to the French officers of their regular pay, has
been rectified by a statement that it was on the request of the French
Consul, and his promise to repay it. So that they cost the United
States, on this arrangement, nothing.
I am glad to learn from you that the answer to New Haven had a good
effect in Massachusetts on the republicans, and no ill effects on
the sincere federalists. I had foreseen, years ago, that the first
republican President who should come into office after all the places
in the government had become exclusively occupied by federalists, would
have a dreadful operation to perform. That the republicans would
consent to a continuation of every thing in federal hands, was not to be
expected, because neither just nor politic. On him then was to devolve
the office of an executioner, that of lopping off. I cannot say that it
has worked harder than I expected. You know the moderation of our views
in this business, and that we all concurred in them. We determined to
proceed with deliberation. This produced impatience in the republicans,
and a belief we meant to do nothing. Some occasion of public explanation
was eagerly desired, when the New Haven remonstrance offered us that
occasion. The answer was meant as an explanation to our friends. It
has had on them, everywhere, the most wholesome effect. Appearances of
schismatizing from us have been entirely done away. I own I expected
it would check the current, with which the republican federalists were
returning to their brethren, the republicans. I extremely lamented this
effect. For the moment which should convince me that a healing of
the nation into one, is impracticable, would be the last moment of my
wishing to remain where I am. (Of the monarchical federalists, I have no
expectations. They are incurables, to be taken care of in a mad-house
if necessary, and on motives of charity.) I am much pleased, therefore,
with your information that the republican federalists are still coming
in to the desired union. The eastern newspapers had given me a different
impression, because I supposed the printers knew the taste of their
customers, and cooked their dishes to their palates. The Palladium is
understood to be the clerical paper, and from the clergy I expect no
mercy. They crucified their Savior who preached that their kingdom was
not of this world, and all who practise on that precept must expect the
extreme of their wrath. The laws of the present day withhold their hands
from blood. But lies and slander still remain to them.
I am satisfied that the heaping of abuse on me personally, has been with
the design and the hope of provoking me to make a general sweep of all
federalists out of office. But as I have carried no passion into the
execution of this disagreeable duty, I shall suffer none to be excited.
The clamor which has been raised will not provoke me to remove one more,
nor deter me from removing one less, than if not a word had been said on
the subject. In Massachusetts you may be assured, great moderation will
be used. Indeed, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and
Delaware are the only States where any thing considerable is desired. In
the course of the summer all which is necessary will be done; and we may
hope that this cause of offence being at an end, the measures we shall
pursue and propose for the amelioration of the public affairs, will
be so confessedly salutary as to unite all men not monarchists in
principle.
We have considerable hopes of republican Senators from South Carolina,
Maryland, and Delaware, and some as to Vermont. In any event we are
secure of a majority in the Senate; and consequently that there will be
a concert of action between the legislature and executive. The removal
of excrescences from the judiciary, is the universal demand. We propose
to re-assemble at Washington on the last day of September. Accept
assurances of my affectionate esteem and high respect.
Th: Jefferson.
LETTER CCXC.--TO ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON, September 9, 1801
TO ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON.
Monticello, September 9, 1801.
Dear Sir,
You will receive, probably by this post, from the Secretary of State,
his final instructions for your mission to France. We have not thought
it necessary to say any thing in them on the great question of the
maritime law of nations, which at present agitates Europe, that is to
say, whether free ships shall make free goods; because we do not mean to
take any side in it during the war. But as I had before communicated to
you some loose thoughts on that subject, and have since considered it
with somewhat more attention, I have thought it might be useful that you
should possess my ideas in a more matured form than that in which they
were before given. Unforeseen circumstances may perhaps oblige you to
hazard an opinion on some occasion or other, on this subject, and it is
better that it should not be at variance with Ours. I write this
too, myself, that it may not be considered as official, but merely
my individual opinion, unadvised by those official counsellors whose
opinions I deem my safest guide, and should unquestionably take in form
were circumstances to call for a solemn decision of the question.
When Europe assumed the general form in which it is occupied by the
nations now composing it, and turned its attention to maritime commerce,
we find among its earliest practices, that of taking the goods of an
enemy from the ship of a friend; and that into this practice every
maritime State went sooner or later, as it appeared on the theatre of
the ocean. If, therefore, we are to consider the practice of nations as
the sole and sufficient evidence of the law of nature among nations, we
should unquestionably place this principle among those of the natural
laws. But its inconveniences, as they affected neutral nations peaceably
pursuing their commerce, and its tendency to embroil them with the
powers happening to be at war, and thus to extend the flames of war,
induced nations to introduce by special compacts, from time to time, a
more convenient rule; that ‘free ships should make free goods’: and
this latter principle has by every maritime nation of Europe been
established, to a greater or less degree, in its treaties with other
nations; insomuch, that all of them have, more or less frequently,
assented to it, as a rule of action in particular cases. Indeed, it is
now urged, and I think with great appearance of reason, that this is
the genuine principle dictated by national morality; and that the first
practice arose from accident, and the particular convenience of the
States [* Venice and Genoa] which first figured on the water, rather
than from well digested reflections on the relations of friend and
enemy, on the rights of territorial jurisdiction, and on the dictates of
moral law applied to these. Thus it had never been supposed lawful, in
the territory of a friend to seize the goods of an enemy. On an element
which nature has not subjected to the jurisdiction of any particular
nation, but has made common to all for the purposes to which it is
fitted, it would seem that the particular portion of it which happens
to be occupied by the vessel of any nation, in the course of its voyage,
is, for the moment, the exclusive property of that nation, and, with
the vessel, is exempt from intrusion by any other, and from its
jurisdiction, as much as if it were lying in the harbor of its
sovereign. In no country, we believe, is the rule otherwise, as to
the subjects of property common to all. Thus the place occupied by an
individual in a highway, a church, a theatre, or other public assembly,
cannot be intruded on, while its occupant holds it for the purposes of
its institution. The persons on board a vessel traversing the ocean,
carrying with them the laws of their nation, have among themselves a
jurisdiction, a police, not established by their individual will, but
by the authority of their nation, of whose territory their vessel still
seems to compose a part, so long as it does not enter the exclusive
territory of another. No nation ever pretended a right to govern by
their laws the ships of another nation navigating the ocean. By what law
then can it enter that ship while in peaceable and orderly use of the
common element? We recognise no natural precept for submission to such
a right; and perceive no distinction between the movable and immovable
jurisdiction of a friend, which would authorize the entering the one and
not the other, to seize the property of an enemy.
It may be objected that this proves too much, as it proves you cannot
enter the ship of a friend to search for contraband of war. But this is
not proving too much. We believe the practice of seizing what is called
contraband of war, is an abusive practice, not founded in natural right.
War between two nations cannot diminish the rights of the rest of
the world remaining at peace. The doctrine that the rights of nations
remaining quietly in the exercise of moral and social duties, are to
give way to the convenience of those who prefer plundering and murdering
one another, is a monstrous doctrine; and ought to yield to the more
rational law, that ‘the wrong which two nations endeavor to inflict on
each other, must not infringe on the rights or conveniences of those
remaining at peace.’ And what is contraband, by the law of nature?
Either every thing which may aid or comfort an enemy, or nothing. Either
all commerce which would accommodate him is unlawful, or none is.
The difference between articles of one or another description, is a
difference in degree only. No line between them can be drawn. Either
all intercourse must cease between neutrals and belligerents, or all be
permitted. Can the world hesitate to say which shall be the rule?
Shall two nations turning tigers, break up in one instant the peaceable
relations of the whole world? Reason and nature clearly pronounce that
the neutral is to go on in the enjoyment of all its rights, that its
commerce remains free, not subject to the jurisdiction of another,
nor consequently its vessels to search, or to inquiries whether their
contents are the property of an enemy, or are of those which have been
called contraband of war.