offered instantly to suspend hostilities by an armistice, if she would
suspend her impressments, and meet us in arrangements for securing our
citizens against them. She refused to do it, because impracticable by
any arrangement, as she pretends; but, in truth, because a body of sixty
to eighty thousand of the finest seamen in the world, which we possess,
is too great a resource for manning her exaggerated navy, to be
relinquished, as long as she can keep it open. Peace is in her hand,
whenever she will renounce the practice of aggression on the persons of
our citizens. If she thinks it worth eternal war, eternal war we
must have. She alleges that the sameness of language, of manners, of
appearance, renders it impossible to distinguish us from her subjects.
But because we speak English, and look like them, are we to be punished?
Are free and independent men to be submitted to their bondage?
England has misrepresented to all Europe this ground of the war. She
has called it a new pretension, set up since the repeal of her orders
of council. She knows there has never been a moment of suspension of our
reclamations against it, from General Washington’s time inclusive, to
the present day: and that it is distinctly stated in our declaration of
war, as one of its principal causes. She has pretended we have entered
into the war, to establish the principle of ‘free bottoms, free goods,’
or to protect her seamen against her own right over them. We contend for
neither of these. She pretends we are partial to France; that we have
observed a fraudulent and unfaithful neutrality between her and her
enemy. She knows this to be false, and that if there has been any
inequality in our proceedings towards the belligerents, it has been in
her favor. Her ministers are in possession of full proofs of this.
Our accepting at once, and sincerely, the mediation of the virtuous
Alexander, their greatest friend, and the most aggravated enemy of
Bonaparte, sufficiently proves whether we have partialities on the side
of her enemy. I sincerely pray that this mediation may produce a just
peace. It will prove that the immortal character, which has first
stopped by war the career of the destroyer of mankind, is the friend of
peace, of justice, of human happiness, and the patron of unoffending
and injured nations. He is too honest and impartial to countenance
propositions of peace derogatory to the freedom of the seas.
Shall I apologize to you, my dear Madam, for this long political letter?
But yours justifies the subject, and my feelings must plead for the
unreserved expression of them; and they have been the less reserved,
as being from a private citizen, retired from all connection with
the government of his country, and whose ideas, expressed without
communication with any one, are neither known, nor imputable to them.
The dangers of the sea are now so great, and the possibilities of
interception by sea and land such, that I shall subscribe no name to
this letter. You will know from whom it comes, by its reference to the
date of time and place of yours, as well as by its subject in answer to
that. This omission must not lessen in your view the assurances of my
great esteem, of my sincere sympathies for the share which you bear in
the afflictions of your country, and the deprivations to which a lawless
will has subjected you. In return, you enjoy the dignified satisfaction
of having met them, rather than be yoked, with the abject, to his car;
and that, in withdrawing from oppression, you have followed the virtuous
example of a father, whose name will ever be dear to your country and
to mankind. With my prayers that you may be restored to it, that you may
see it re-established in that temperate portion of liberty which does
not infer either anarchy or licentiousness, in that high degree of
prosperity which would be the consequence of such a government, in
that, in short, which the constitution of 1789 would have insured it, if
wisdom could have stayed at that point the fervid but imprudent zeal of
men, who did not know the character of their own countrymen, and that
you may long live in health and happiness under it, and leave to the
world a well educated and virtuous representative and descendant of
your honored father, is the ardent prayer of the sincere and respectful
friend who writes this letter.
LETTER CVIII.--TO JOHN ADAMS, May 27, 1813
TO JOHN ADAMS.
Monticello, May 27, 1813.
Another of our friends of seventy-six is gone, my Dear Sir, another of
the co-signers of the Independence of our country. And a better man than
Rush could not have left us, more benevolent, more learned, of finer
genius, or more honest. We too must go; and that ere long. I believe
we are under half a dozen at present; I mean the signers of the
Declaration. Yourself, Gerry, Carroll, and myself, are all I know to be
living. I am the only one south of the Potomac. Is Robert Treat Paine,
or Floyd living? It is long since I heard of them, and yet I do not
recollect to have heard of their deaths.
Moreton’s deduction of the origin of our Indians from the fugitive
Trojans, stated in your letter of January the 26th, and his manner
of accounting for the sprinkling of their Latin with Greeks is really
amusing. Adair makes them talk Hebrew. Reinold Foster derives them from
the soldiers sent by Kouli Khan to conquer Japan. Brerewood, from the
Tartars, as well as our bears, wolves, foxes, &c. which, he says, ‘must
of necessity fetch their beginning from Noah’s ark, which rested after
the deluge, in Asia, seeing they could not proceed by the course
of nature, as the imperfect sort of living creatures do, from
putrefaction.’ Bernard Romans is of opinion that God created an original
man and woman in this part of the globe. Doctor Barton thinks they are
not specifically different from the Persians; but, taking afterwards a
broader range, he thinks, ‘that in all the vast countries of America,
there is but one language, nay, that it may be proven, or rendered
highly probable, that all the languages of the earth bear some affinity
together.’ This reduces it to a question of definition, in which every
one is free to use his own: to wit, What constitutes identity, or
difference in two things, in the common acceptation of sameness? All
languages may be called the same, as being all made up of the same
primitive sounds, expressed by the letters of the different alphabets.
But, in this sense, all things on earth are the same, as consisting of
matter. This gives up the useful distribution into genera and species,
which we form, arbitrarily indeed, for the relief of our imperfect
memories. To aid the question, from whence our Indian tribes descended,
some have gone into their religion, their morals, their manners,
customs, habits, and physical forms. By such helps it may be learnedly
proved, that our trees and plants of every kind are descended from
those of Europe; because, like them, they have no locomotion, they
draw nourishment from the earth, they clothe themselves with leaves
in spring, of which they divest themselves in autumn for the sleep of
winter, he. Our animals too must be descended from those of Europe,
because our wolves eat lambs, our deer are gregarious, our ants hoard,
&c. But when, for convenience, we distribute languages, according to
common understanding, into classes originally different, as we choose
to consider them, as the Hebrew, the Greek, the Celtic, the Gothic; and
these again into genera, or families, as the Icelandic, German, Swedish,
Danish, English; and these last into species, or dialects, as English,
Scotch, Irish, we then ascribe other meanings to the terms, ‘same’ and
‘different.’ In some one of these senses, Barton, and Adair, and Foster,
and Brerewood, and Moreton, may be right, every one according to his
own definition of what constitutes ‘identity.’ Romans, indeed, takes a
higher stand, and supposes a separate creation. On the same unscriptural
ground, he had but to mount one step higher, to suppose no creation at
all, but that all things have existed without beginning in time, as
they now exist, and may for ever exist, producing and reproducing in a
circle, without end. This would very summarily dispose of Mr. Moreton’s
learning, and show that the question of Indian origin, like many others,
pushed to a certain height, must receive the same answer, ‘Ignoro.’ You
ask if the usage of hunting in circles has ever been known among any of
our tribes of Indians? It has been practised by them all; and is to this
day, by those still remote from the settlements of the whites. But their
numbers not enabling them, like Genghis Khan’s seven hundred thousand,
to form themselves into circles of one hundred miles diameter, they make
their circle by firing the leaves fallen on the ground, which gradually
forcing the animals to a centre, they there slaughter them with arrows,
darts, and other missiles. This is called fire-hunting, and has been
practised in this State within my time, by the white inhabitants. This
is the most probable cause of the origin and extension of the vast
prairies in the western country, where the grass having been of
extraordinary luxuriance, has made a conflagration sufficient to kill
even the old as well as the young timber.
I sincerely congratulate you on the successes of our little navy; which
must be more gratifying to you than to most men, as having been the
early and constant advocate of wooden walls. If I have differed with
you on this ground, it was not on the principle, but the time; supposing
that we cannot build or maintain a navy, which will not immediately fall
into the same gulph which has swallowed not only the minor navies, but
even those of the great second-rate powers of the sea. Whenever these
can be resuscitated, and brought so near to a balance with England that
we can turn the scale, then is my epoch for aiming at a navy. In
the mean time, one competent to keep the Barbary States in order is
necessary; these being the only smaller powers disposed to quarrel
with us. But I respect too much the weighty opinions of others to be
unyielding on this point, and acquiesce with the prayer, ‘_quod
felix faustumque sit_’; adding ever a sincere one for your health and
happiness.
Th: Jefferson.
LETTER CIX.--TO JOHN ADAMS, June 15, 1813
TO JOHN ADAMS.
Monticello, June 15, 1813.
Dear Sir,
I wrote you a letter on the 27th of May, which probably would reach you
about the 3rd instant, and on the 9th I received yours of the 29th of
May. Of Lindsay’s Memoirs I had never before heard, and scarcely indeed
of himself. It could not, therefore, but be unexpected, that two letters
of mine should have any thing to do with his life. The name of his
editor was new to me, and certainly presents itself for the first time
under unfavorable circumstances. Religion, I suppose, is the scope of
his book; and that a writer on that subject should usher himself to the
world in the very act of the grossest abuse of confidence, by publishing
private letters which passed between two friends, with no views to their
ever being made public, is an instance of inconsistency as well as of
infidelity, of which I would rather be the victim than the author.
By your kind quotation of the dates of my two letters, I have been
enabled to turn to them. They had completely vanished from my memory.
The last is on the subject of religion, and by its publication will
gratify the priesthood with new occasion of repeating their comminations
against me. They wish it to be believed, that he can have no religion
who advocates its freedom. This was not the doctrine of Priestley; and I
honored him for the example of liberality he set to his order. The
first letter is political. It recalls to our recollection the gloomy
transactions of the times, the doctrines they witnessed, and the
sensibilities they excited. It was a confidential communication of
reflections on these from one friend to another, deposited in his bosom,
and never meant to trouble the public mind. Whether the character of
the times is justly portrayed or not, posterity will decide. But on one
feature of them, they can never decide, the sensations excited in free
yet firm minds by the terrorism of the day. None can conceive who did
not witness them, and they were felt by one party only. This letter
exhibits their side of the medal. The federalists, no doubt, have
presented the other, in their private correspondences, as well as open
action. If these correspondences should ever be laid open to the public
eye, they will probably be found not models of comity towards their
adversaries. The readers of my letter should be cautioned not to confine
its view to this country alone. England and its alarmists were equally
under consideration. Still less must they consider it as looking
personally towards you. You happen, indeed, to be quoted, because you
happened to express more pithily than had been done by themselves, one
of the mottos of the party. This was in your answer to the address of
the young men of Philadelphia. [See Selection of Patriotic Addresses,
page 198.] One of the questions, you know, on which our parties took
different sides, was on the improvability of the human mind, in science,
in ethics, in government, &c. Those who advocated reformation of
institutions, _pari passu_ with the progress of science, maintained that
no definite limits could be assigned to that progress. The enemies of
reform, on the other hand, denied improvement, and advocated steady
adherence to the principles, practices, and institutions of our fathers,
which they represented as the consummation of wisdom, and acme of
excellence, beyond which the human mind could never advance. Although in
the passage of your answer alluded to, you expressly disclaim the wish
to influence the freedom of inquiry, you predict that that will produce
nothing more worthy of transmission to posterity than the principles,
institutions, and systems of education received from their ancestors.
I do not consider this as your deliberate opinion. You possess yourself
too much science, not to see how much is still ahead of you, unexplained
and unexplored. Your own consciousness must place you as far before
our ancestors, as in the rear of our posterity. I consider it as an
expression lent to the prejudices of your friends; and although I
happened to cite it from you, the whole letter shows I had them only
in view. In truth, my dear Sir, we were far from considering you as
the author of all the measures we blamed. They were placed under the
protection of your name, but we were satisfied they wanted much of your
approbation. We ascribed them to their real authors, the Pickerings, the
Wolcotts, the Tracys, the Sedgwicks, _et id genus omne_, with whom we
supposed you in a state of _duresse_. I well remember a conversation
with you in the morning of the day on which you nominated to the Senate
a substitute for Pickering, in which you expressed a just impatience
under ‘the legacy of Secretaries which General Washington had left you,’
and whom you seemed, therefore, to consider as under public protection.
Many other incidents showed how differently you would have acted with
less impassioned advisers; and subsequent events have proved that your
minds were not together. You would do me great injustice, therefore, by
taking to yourself what was intended for men who were then your secret,
as they are now your open enemies. Should you write on the subject, as
you propose, I am sure we shall see you place yourself farther from them
than from us.
As to myself, I shall take no part in any discussions. I leave others to
judge of what I have done, and to give me exactly that place which they
shall think I have occupied. Marshall has written libels on one side;
others, I suppose, will be written on the other side; and the world will
sift both, and separate the truth as well as they can. I should see with
reluctance the passions of that day rekindled in this, while so many of
the actors are living, and all are too near the scene not to participate
in sympathies with them. About facts you and I cannot differ; because
truth is our mutual guide. And if any opinions you may express should
be different from mine, I shall receive them with the liberality and
indulgence which I ask for my own, and still cherish with warmth the
sentiments of affectionate respect of which I can with so much truth
tender you the assurance.
Th: Jefferson.
LETTER CX.--TO JOHN W. EPPES, June 24, 1813
TO JOHN W. EPPES.
Monticello, June 24, 1813.
Dear Sir,
This letter will be on politics only. For although I do not often permit
myself to think on that subject, it sometimes obtrudes itself, and
suggests ideas which I am tempted to pursue. Some of these, relating to
the business of finance, I will hazard to you, as being at the head of
that committee, but intended for yourself individually, or such as you
trust, but certainly not for a mixed committee.
It is a wise rule, and should be fundamental in a government disposed
to cherish its credit, and at the same time to restrain the use of it
within the limits of its faculties, ‘never to borrow a dollar without
laying a tax in the same instant for paying the interest annually, and
the principal within a given term; and to consider that tax as pledged
to the creditors on the public faith.’ On such a pledge as this,
sacredly observed, a government may always command, on a reasonable
interest, all the lendable money of their citizens, while the
necessity of an equivalent tax is a salutary warning to them and
their constituents against oppressions, bankruptcy, and its inevitable
consequence, revolution. But the term of redemption must be moderate,
and, at any rate, within the limits of their rightful powers. But what
limits, it will be asked, does this prescribe to their powers? What is
to hinder them from creating a perpetual debt? The laws of nature, I
answer. The earth belongs to the living, not to the dead. The will and
the power of man expire with his life, by nature’s law. Some societies
give it an artificial continuance, for the encouragement of industry;
some refuse it, as our aboriginal neighbors, whom we call barbarians.
The generations of men may be considered as bodies or corporations.
Each generation has the usufruct of the earth during the period of its
continuance. When it ceases to exist, the usufruct passes on to the
succeeding generation, free and unincumbered, and so on, successively,
from one generation to another for ever. We may consider each generation
as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind
themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than
the inhabitants of another country. Or the case may be likened to the
ordinary one of a tenant for life, who may hypothecate the land for his
debts, during the continuance of his usufruct; but at his death, the
reversioner (who is also for life only) receives it exonerated from
all burthen. The period of a generation, or the term of its life, is
determined by the laws of mortality, which, varying a little only in
different climates, offer a general average, to be found by observation.
I turn, for instance, to Buffon’s tables, of twenty-three thousand nine
hundred and ninety-four deaths, and the ages at which they happened, and
I find that of the numbers of all ages living at one moment, half will
be dead in twenty-four years and eight months. Bat (leaving out minors,
who have not the power of self-government) of the adults (of twenty-one
years of age) living at one moment, a majority of whom act for the
society, one half will be dead in eighteen years and eight months. At
nineteen years then from the date of a contract, the majority of the
contractors are dead, and their contract with them. Let this general
theory be applied to a particular case. Suppose the annual births of
the State of New York to be twenty-three thousand nine hundred and
ninety-four: the whole number of its inhabitants, according to Buffon,
will be six hundred and seventeen thousand seven hundred and three, of
all ages. Of these there would constantly be two hundred and sixty-nine
thousand two hundred and eighty-six minors, and three hundred and
forty-eight thousand four hundred and seventeen adults, of which last,
one hundred and seventy-four thousand two hundred and nine will be a
majority. Suppose that majority, on the first day of the year 1794, had
borrowed a sum of money equal to the fee simple value of the State, and
to have consumed it in eating, drinking, and making merry in their day;
or, if you please, in quarrelling and fighting with their unoffending
neighbors. Within eighteen years and eight months, one half of the adult
citizens were dead. Till then, being the majority, they might rightfully
levy the interest of their debt annually on themselves and their
fellow-revellers, or fellow-champions. But at that period, say at this
moment, a new majority have come into place, in their own right, and
not under the rights, the conditions, or laws of their predecessors. Are
they bound to acknowledge the debt, to consider the preceding generation
as having had a right to eat up the whole soil of their country in
the course of a life, to alienate it from them (for it would be an
alienation to the creditors), and would they think themselves either
legally or morally bound to give up their country, and emigrate to
another for subsistence? Every one will say no: that the soil is the
gift of God to the living, as much as it had been to the deceased
generation; and that the laws of nature impose no obligation on them to
pay this debt. And although, like some other natural rights, this has
not yet entered into any declaration of rights, it is no less a law, and
ought to be acted on by honest governments. It is, at the same time,
a salutary curb on the spirit of war and indebtment, which, since the
modern theory of the perpetuation of debt, has drenched the earth with
blood, and crushed its inhabitants under burthens ever accumulating.
Had this principle been declared in the British bill of rights, England
would have been placed under the happy disability of waging eternal war,
and of contracting her thousand millions of public debt. In seeking,
then, for an ultimate term for the redemption of our debts, let us rally
to this principle, and provide for their payment within the term of
nineteen years, at the farthest. Our government has not, as yet, begun
to act on the rule, of loans and taxation going hand in hand. Had any
loan taken place in my time, I should have strongly urged a redeeming
tax. For the loan which has been made since the last session of
Congress, we should now set the example of appropriating some particular
tax, sufficient to pay the interest annually, and the principal within
a fixed term, less than nineteen years. And I hope yourself and your
committee will render the immortal service of introducing this practice.
Not that it is expected that Congress should formally declare such a
principle. They wisely enough avoid deciding on abstract questions. But
they may be induced to keep themselves within its limits.