and McHenry, wrote a joint letter from Trenton to the President, then at
Braintree, dissuading him from the mission to France. Stoddard refused
to join it. Stoddard says the instructions are such, that if the
Directory have any disposition to reconciliation, a treaty will be made.
He observed to him also, that Ellsworth looks beyond this mission to
the Presidential chair. That with this view, he will endeavor to make
a treaty, and a good one. That Davie has the same vanity and views. All
this communicated by Stoddard to S. Smith.
January the 13th. Baer and Harrison G. Otis told J. Nicholas, that in
the caucus mentioned ante 10th, there wanted but five votes to produce a
declaration of war. Baer was against it.
January the 19th. W. C. Nicholas tells me, that in a conversation with
Dexter three or four days ago, he asked Dexter whether it would not be
practicable for the States to agree on some uniform mode of choosing
electors of President. Dexter said, ‘I suppose you would prefer an
election by districts.’ ‘Yes,’ said Nicholas, ‘I think it would be
best; but would nevertheless agree to any other consistent with the
constitution.’ Dexter said he did not know what might be the opinion of
his State, but his own was, that no mode of election would answer any
good purpose; that he should prefer one for life. ‘On that reasoning,’
said Nicholas, ‘you should prefer an hereditary one.’ ‘No,’ he said, ‘we
are not ripe for that yet. I suppose,’ added he, ‘this doctrine is not
very popular with you.’ ‘No,’ said Nicholas, ‘it would effectually damn
any man in my State.’ ‘So it would in mine,’ said Dexter; ‘but I am
under no inducement to belie my sentiment; I have nothing to ask from
any body; I had rather be at home than here, therefore I speak my
sentiments freely.’ Mr. Nicholas, a little before or after this, made
the same proposition of a uniform election to Rossr who replied that he
saw no good in any kind of election. ‘Perhaps,’ said he, ‘the present
one may last a while.’ On the whole, Mr. Nicholas thinks he perceives,
in that party, a willingness and a wish to let every thing go from bad
to worse, to amend nothing, in hopes it may bring on confusion, and open
a door to the kind of government they wish. In a conversation with Gunn,
who goes with them, but thinks in some degree with us, Gunn told him
that the very game which the minority of Pennsylvania is now playing
with McKean (see substitute of minority in lower House, and address
of Senate in upper), was meditated by the same party in the federal
government, in case of the election of a republican President; and that
the eastern States would in that case throw things into confusion,
and break the Union. That they have in a great degree got rid of their
paper, so as no longer to be creditors, and the moment they cease to
enjoy the plunder of the immense appropriations now exclusively theirs,
they would aim at some other order of things.
January the 24th. Mr. Smith, a merchant of Hamburg, gives me the
following information. The St. Andrew’s Club, of New York, (all
of Scotch tories,) gave a public dinner lately. Among other guests
Alexander Hamilton was one. After dinner, the first toast was ‘The
President of the United States.’ It was drunk without any particular
approbation. The next was, ‘George the Third.’ Hamilton started up on
his feet, and insisted on a bumper and three cheers. The whole company
accordingly rose and gave the cheers. One of them, though a federalist,
was so disgusted at the partiality shown by Hamilton to a foreign
sovereign over his own President, that he mentioned it to a Mr.
Schwart-house, an American merchant of New York, who mentioned it to
Smith.
Mr. Smith also tells me, that calling one evening on Mr. Evans, then
Speaker of the House of Representatives of Pennsylvania, and asking
the news, Evans said, Harper had just been there, and speaking of the
President’s setting out to Braintree, said, ‘he prayed to God that his
horses might run away with him, or some other accident happen to break
his neck before he reached Braintree.’ This was in indignation at his
having named Murray, &c. to negotiate with France. Evans approved of the
wish.
February the 1st. Doctor Rush tells me that he had it from Asa Green,
that when the clergy addressed General Washington on his departure
from the government, it was observed in their consultation, that he had
never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief
in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their
address, as to force him at length to declare publicly whether he was a
Christian or not. They did so. However, he observed, the old fox was
too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address
particularly except that, which he passed over without notice. Rush
observes, he never did say a word on the subject in any of his public
papers, except in his valedictory letter to the Governors of the States
when he resigned his commission in the army, wherein he speaks of ‘the
benign influence of the Christian religion.’
I know that Gouverneur Morris, who pretended to be in his secrets and
believed himself to be so, has often told me that General Washington
believed no more of that system than he himself did.
March, 1800. Heretical doctrines maintained in Senate, on the motion
against the Aurora. That there is in every legal body of men a right of
self-preservation, authorizing them to do whatever is necessary for that
purpose: by Tracy, Read, and Lawrence. That the common law authorizes
the proceeding proposed against the Aurora, and is in force here: by
Read. That the privileges of Congress are and ought to be indefinite: by
Read.
Tracy says, he would not say exactly that the common law of England in
all its extent is in force here; but common sense reason, and morality,
which are the foundations of the common law, are in force here, and
establish a common law. He held himself so nearly half way between the
common law of England and what every body else has called natural law,
and not common law, that he could hold to either the one or the other,
as he should find expedient.
Dexter maintained that the common law, as to crimes, is in force in the
United States.
Chipman says, that the principles of common right are common law.
March the 11th. Conversing with Mrs. Adams on the subject of the writers
in the newspapers, I took occasion to mention that I never in my life
had, directly or indirectly, written one sentence for a newspaper; which
is an absolute truth. She said that Mr. Adams, she believed, had pretty
well ceased to meddle in the newspapers, since he closed the pieces on
Davila. This is the first direct avowal of that work to be his, though
long and universally understood to be so.
March the 14th. Freneau, in Charleston, had the printing of the laws
in his paper. He printed a pamphlet of Pinckney’s letters on Robbins’s
case. Pickering has given the printing of the laws to the tory paper of
that place, though not of half the circulation. The printing amounted to
about one hundred dollars a year.
March the 24th. Mr. Perez Morton of Massachusetts tells me that
Thatcher, on his return from the war Congress, declared to him he had
been for a declaration of war against France, and many others also; but
that on counting noses they found they could not carry it, and therefore
did not attempt it.
March the 27th. Judge Breckenridge gives me the following information.
He and Mr. Ross were originally very intimate; indeed, he says, he found
him keeping a little Latin school, and advised and aided him in the
study of the law, and brought him forward. After Ross became a Senator,
and particularly at the time of the western insurrection, they still
were in concert. After the British treaty, Ross, on his return, informed
him there was a party in the United States who wanted to overturn the
government, who were in league with France; that France, by a secret
article of treaty with Spain, was to have Louisiana; and that Great
Britain was likely to be our best friend and dependence.
On this information, he, Breckenridge, was induced to become an advocate
for the British treaty. During this intimacy with Ross, he says, that
General Collot, in his journey to the western country, called on
him, and he frequently led Breckenridge into conversations on
their grievances under the government, and particularly the western
expedition; that he spoke to him of the advantages that country would
have in joining France when she should hold Louisiana; showed him a map
he had drawn of that part of the country; pointed out the passes in the
mountain, and the facility with which they might hold them against
the United States, and with which France could support them from New
Orleans. He says, that in these conversations, Collot let himself out
without common prudence. He says, Michaux (to whom I, at the request of
Genet, had given a letter of introduction to the Governor of Kentucky as
a botanist, which was his real profession,) called on him; that Michaux
had a commissary’s commission for the expedition, which Genet had
planned from that quarter against the Spaniards; that ----------,
the late Spanish commandant of St. Genevieve, with one Powers, an
Englishman, called on him. That from all these circumstances, together
with Ross’s stories, he did believe that there was a conspiracy to
deliver our country, or some part of it at least, to the French; that he
made notes of what passed between himself and Collot and the others, and
lent them to Mr. Ross, who gave them to the President, by whom they were
deposited in the office of the Board of War; that when he complained
to Ross of this breach of confidence, he endeavored to get off by
compliments on the utility and importance of his notes. They now cooled
towards each other; and his opposition to Ross’s election as Governor
has separated them in truth, though not entirely to appearance.
Doctor Rush tells me, that within a few days he has heard a member
of Congress lament our separation from Great Britain, and express his
sincere wishes that we were again dependent on her.
December the 25th, 1800. Colonel Hitchburn tells me what Colonel Monroe
had before told me of, as coming from Hitchburn. He was giving me the
characters of persons in Massachusetts. Speaking of Lowell, he said he
was, in the beginning of the Revolution, a timid whig, but as soon as he
found we were likely to prevail, he became a great office-hunter. And in
the very breath of speaking of Lowell, he stopped: says he, I will give
you a piece of information which I do not venture to speak of to others.
There was a Mr. Hale in Massachusetts, a reputable, worthy man, who
becoming a little embarrassed in his affairs, I aided him, which
made him very friendly to me. He went to Canada on some business. The
Governor there took great notice of him. On his return, he took occasion
to mention to me that he was authorized by the Governor of Canada
to give from three to five thousand guineas each to himself and some
others, to induce them not to do any thing to the injury of their
country, but to befriend a good connection between England and it.
Hitchburn said he would think of it, and asked Hale to come and dine
with him to-morrow. After dinner he drew Hale fully out. He told him he
had his doubts, but particularly, that he should not like to be alone in
such a business. On that, Hale named to him four others who were to
be engaged, two of whom, said Hitchburn, are now dead, and two living.
Hitchburn, when he had got all he wanted out of Hale, declined in a
friendly way. But he observed those, four men, from that moment, to
espouse the interests of England in every point and on every occasion.
Though he did not name the men to me, yet as the speaking of Lowell was
what brought into his Read to tell me this anecdote, I concluded he was
one. From other circumstances respecting Stephen Higginson, of whom he
spoke, I conjectured him to be the other living one.
December the 26th. In another conversation, I mentioned to Colonel
Hitchburn, that though he had not named names, I had strongly suspected
Higginson to be one of Hale’s men. He smiled and said, if I had strongly
suspected any man wrongfully from his information, he would undeceive
me: that there were no persons he thought more strongly to be suspected
himself, than Higginson and Lowell. I considered this as saying they
were the men. Higginson is employed in an important business about our
navy.
February the 12th, 1801. Edward Livingston tells me, that Bayard applied
to-day or last night to General Samuel Smith, and represented to him
the expediency of his coming over to the States who vote for Burr, that
there was nothing in the way of appointment which he might not command,
and particularly mentioned the Secretaryship of the Navy. Smith asked
him if he was authorized to make the offer. He said he was authorized.
Smith told this to Livingston, and to W. C. Nicholas, who confirms it
to me. Bayard in like manner tempted Livingston, not by offering
any particular office, but by representing to him his (Livingston’s)
intimacy and connection with Burr; that from him he had every thing to
expect, if he would come over to him. To Doctor Linn of New Jersey, they
have offered the government of New Jersey. See a paragraph in Martin’s
Baltimore paper of February the 10th, signed, ‘a looker on,’ staling an
intimacy of views between Harper and Burr.
February the 14th. General Armstrong tells me, that Gouverneur Morris,
in conversation with him to-day on the scene which is passing, expressed
himself thus. ‘How comes it,’ says he, ‘that Burr, who is four hundred
miles off (at Albany), has agents here at work with great activity,
while Mr. Jefferson, who is on the spot, does nothing?’ This explains
the ambiguous conduct of himself and his nephew, Lewis Morris, and that
they were holding themselves free for a price; i.e. some office, either
to the uncle or nephew.
February the 16th. See in the Wilmington Mirror of February the 14th,
Mr. Bayard’s elaborate argument to prove that the common law, as
modified by the laws of the respective States at the epoch of the
ratification of the constitution, attached to the courts of the United
States.
June the 23rd, 1801. Andrew Ellicot tells me, that in a conversation
last summer with Major William Jackson of Philadelphia, on the subject
of our intercourse with Spain, Jackson said we had managed our affairs
badly; that he himself was the author of the papers against the Spanish
minister signed Americanus; that his object was irritation; that he was
anxious, if it could have been brought, about, to have plunged us into a
war with Spain, that the people might have been occupied with that, and
not with the conduct of the administration, and other things they had no
business to meddle with.
December the 13th, 1803. The Reverend Mr. Coffin of New England, who
is now here soliciting donations for a college in Greene county, in
Tennessee, tells me that when he first determined to engage in this
enterprise, he wrote a paper recommendatory of the enterprise, which
he meant to get signed by clergymen, and a similar one for persons in
a civil character, at the head of which he wished Mr. Adams to put his
name, he being then President, and the application going only for his
name, and not for a donation. Mr. Adams, after reading the paper and
considering, said, ‘he saw no possibility of continuing the union of
the States; that their dissolution must necessarily take place; that he
therefore saw no propriety in recommending to New England men to promote
a literary institution in the south; that it was in fact giving strength
to those who were to be their enemies, and therefore, he would have
nothing to do with it.’
December the 31st. After dinner to-day, the pamphlet on the conduct of
Colonel Burr being the subject of conversation, Matthew Lyon noticed
the insinuations against the republicans at Washington, pending the
Presidential election, and expressed his wish that every thing was
spoken out which was known; that it would then appear on which side
there was a bidding for votes, and he declared that John Brown of Rhode
Island, urging him to vote for Colonel Burr, used these words. ‘What is
it you want, Colonel Lyon? Is it office, is it money? Only say what you
want, and you shall have it.’
January the 2nd, 1804. Colonel Hitchburn, of Massachusetts, reminding
me of a letter he had written me from Philadelphia, pending the
Presidential election, says he did not therein give the details. That he
was in company at Philadelphia with Colonel Burr and ------ that in the
course of the conversation on the election, Colonel Burr said, ‘We must
have a President, and a constitutional one, in some way.’ ‘How is it to
be done,’ says Hitchburn; ‘Mr. Jefferson’s friends will not quit him,
and his enemies are not strong enough to carry another.’ ‘Why,’ says
Burr, ‘our friends must join the federalists, and give the President.’
‘The next morning at breakfast, Colonel Burr repeated nearly the same,
saying, ‘We cannot be without a President, our friends must join the
federal vote.’ ‘But,’ says Hitchburn, ‘we shall then be without a
Vice-President; who is to be our Vice-President?’ Colonel Burr answered,
‘Mr. Jefferson.’
January the 26th. Colonel Burr, the Vice-President, calls on me in the
evening, having previously asked an opportunity of conversing with me.
He began by recapitulating summarily, that he had come to New York a
stranger, some years ago; that he found the country in possession of two
rich families (the Livingstons and Clintons); that his pursuits were not
political, and he meddled not. When the crisis, however, of 1800 came
on, they found their influence worn out, and solicited his aid with the
people. He lent it without any views of promotion. That his being named
as a candidate for Vice-President was unexpected by him. He acceded to
it with a view to promote my fame and advancement, and from a desire to
be with me, whose company and conversation had always been fascinating
to him. That, since, those great families had become hostile to him,
and had excited the calumnies which I had seen published. That in this
Hamilton had joined, and had even written some of the pieces against
him. That his attachment to me had been sincere, and was still
unchanged, although many little stories had been carried to him, and
he supposed to me also, which he despised; but that attachments must be
reciprocal, or cease to exist, and therefore he asked if any change
had taken place in mine towards him; that he had chosen to have this
conversation with myself directly, and not through any intermediate
agent. He reminded me of a letter written to him about the time of
counting the votes (say February, 1801), mentioning that his election
had left a chasm in my arrangements; that I had lost him from my list
in the administration, &c. He observed, he believed it would be for
the interest of the republican cause for him to retire; that a
disadvantageous schism would otherwise take place; but that were he to
retire, it would be said he shrunk from the public sentence, which he
never would do; that his enemies were using my name to destroy him,
and something was necessary from me to prevent and deprive them of that
weapon, some mark of favor from me which would declare to the world that
he retired with my confidence.