CHAPTER V

BIOGRAPHER

Marshall has written libels on one side. (Jefferson.)

What seemed to him to pass for dignity, will, by his reader, be

pronounced dullness. (Edinburgh Review.)

That work was hurried into the world with too much

precipitation. It is one of the most desirable objects I have in

this life to publish a corrected edition. (Marshall.)

Although the collapse of the Chase impeachment made it certain that

Marshall would not be removed from office, and he was thus relieved from

one source of sharp anxiety, two other causes of worry served to make

this period of his life harried and laborious. His heavy indebtedness to

Denny Fairfax[592] continuously troubled him; and, worse still for his

peace of mind, he was experiencing the agonies of the literary composer

temperamentally unfitted for the task, wholly unskilled in the art, and

dealing with a subject sure to arouse the resentment of Jefferson and

all his followers. Marshall was writing the "Life of Washington."

In a sense it is fortunate for us that he did so, since his long and

tiresome letters to his publishers afford us an intimate view of the

great Chief Justice and reveal him as very human. But the biography

itself was to prove the least satisfactory of all the labors of

Marshall's life.

Not long after the death of Washington, his nephew, Bushrod Washington,

had induced Marshall to become the biographer of "the Father of his

Country." Washington's public and private papers were in the possession

of his nephew. Although it was advertised that these priceless original

materials were to be used in this work exclusively, many of Washington's

writings had already been used by other authors.

Marshall needed little urging to undertake this monumental labor.

Totally unfamiliar with the exhausting toil required of the historian,

he deemed it no great matter to write the achievements of his idolized

leader. Moreover, he was in pressing need of money with which to pay the

remaining $31,500[593] which his brother and he still owed on the

Fairfax purchase, as well as the smaller but yet annoying sum due their

brother-in-law, Rawleigh Colston, for his share of the estate which the

Marshall brothers had bought of him.[594] To discharge these

obligations, Marshall had nothing but his salary and the income from his

lands, which were wholly insufficient to meet the demands upon him. Some

of his plantations, in fact, were "productive only of expense &

vexation."[595]

Marshall and Bushrod Washington made extravagant estimates of the

prospective sales of the biography and of the money they would receive.

Everybody, they thought, would be eager to buy the true story of the

life of America's "hero and sage." Perhaps the multitude could not

afford volumes so expensive as those Marshall was to write, but there

would be tens of thousands of prosperous Federalists who could be

depended upon to purchase at a generous price a definitive biography of

George Washington.[596]

Nor was the color taken from these rosy expectations by the enthusiasm

of those who wished to publish the biography. When it became known that

the book was to be produced, many printers applied to Bushrod Washington

"to purchase the copyright,"[597] among them C. P. Wayne, a successful

publisher of Philadelphia, who made two propositions to bring out the

work. After a consultation with Marshall, Bushrod Washington wrote

Wayne: "Being ignorant of such matters ... we shall therefore decline

any negotiation upon the subject for the present."[598]

After nearly two years of negotiation, Marshall and his associate

decided that the biography would require four or five volumes, and

arrived at the modest opinion that there would be "30,000 subscribers in

America.... Less than a dollar a volume cannot be thought of," and this

price should yield to the author and his partner "$150,000, supposing

there to be five volumes. This ... would content us, whilst it would

leave a very large profit" to the publisher. But, since the number of

subscribers could not be foretold with exactness, Marshall and Bushrod

Washington decided to "consent to receive $100,000 for the copyright in

the United States"; and they sternly announced that, "less than this sum

we will not take."[599]

Wayne sought to reduce the optimism of Marshall and Washington by

informing them that "the greatest number of subscribers ever obtained

for any one publication in this country was ... 2000 and the highest sum

ever paid in for the copyright of any one work ... was 30,000 Dollars."

Wayne thinks that Marshall's work may sell better, but is sure that more

than ten thousand sets cannot be disposed of for many years. He gives

warning that, if the biography should contain anything objectionable to

the British Government, the sale of it would be prevented in England, as

was the case with David Ramsay's "History of the Revolution."[600]

Marshall and Washington also "rec^d propositions for the purchase of the

right to sell in G^{t.} Britain," and so informed Wayne, calling upon

him to "say so" if he wished to acquire British, as well as American

rights, "knowing the grounds upon which we calculate the value in the

United States."[601]

So we find Marshall counting on fifty thousand dollars[602] at the very

least from his adventure in the field of letters. His financial

reckoning was expansive; but his idea of the time within which he could

write so important a history was grotesque. At first he counted on

producing "4 or 5 volumes in octavos of from 4 to 500 pages each" in

less than one year, provided "the present order of the Courts be not

disturbed or very materially changed."[603]

It thus appears that Marshall expected the Federalist Judiciary Act of

1801 to stand; that he would not be called upon to ride the long,

tiresome, time-consuming Southern circuit; and that, with no great

number of cases to be disposed of by the Supreme Court, he would have

plenty of leisure to write several large volumes of history in a single

year.

But the Republican repeal of the act gave the disgusted Chief Justice

"duties to perform," as John Randolph expressed it. Marshall was

forthwith sent upon his circuit riding, and his fondly anticipated

relief from official labors vanished. Although he had engaged to write

the biography during the winter following Washington's death, not one

line of it had he penned at the time the contract for publication was

made in the autumn of 1802. He had, of course, done some reading of the

various histories of the period; but he had not even begun the

examination of Washington's papers, the subsequent study of which proved

so irksome to him.

After almost two years of bartering, a contract was made with Wayne to

print and sell the biography. This agreement, executed September 22,

1802, gave to the publisher the copyright in the United States and all

rights of the authors "in any part of North and South America and in the

West India Islands." The probable extent of the work was to be "four or

five volumes in Octavo, from four to five hundred pages" each; and it

was "supposed" that these would "be compleated in less than two

years"--Marshall's original estimate of time having now been doubled.

Wayne engaged to pay "one dollar for every volume of the aforesaid work

which may be subscribed for or which may be sold and paid for." It was

further covenanted that the publisher should "not demand" of the public

"a higher price than three dollars per volume in boards."[604] This

disappointed Marshall, who had insisted that the volumes must be sold

for four dollars each, a price which Wayne declared the people would not

pay.[605]

It would seem that for a long time Marshall tried to conceal the fact

that he was to be the author; and, when the first volume was about to be

issued, strenuously objected to the use of his name on the title-page.

However, Jefferson soon got wind of the project. The alert politician

took swift alarm and promptly suggested measures to counteract the

political poison with which he was sure Marshall's pen would infect

public opinion. He consulted Madison, and the two picked out the

brilliant and versatile Joel Barlow, then living in Paris, as the best

man to offset the evil labor in which Marshall was engaged.

"Mr. Madison and myself have cut out a piece of work for you," Jefferson

wrote Barlow, "which is to write the history of the United States, from

the close of the War downwards. We are rich ourselves in materials, and

can open all the public archives to you; but your residence here is

essential, because a great deal of the knowledge of things is not on

paper, but only within ourselves for verbal communication."

Then Jefferson states the reason for the "piece of work" which he and

Madison had "cut out" for Barlow: "John Marshall is writing the life of

Gen. Washington from his papers. It is intended to come out just in time

to influence the next presidential election." The imagination of the

party manager pictured Marshall's work as nothing but a political

pamphlet. "It is written therefore," Jefferson continues, "principally

with a view to electioneering purposes; but it will consequently be out

in time to aid you with information as well as to point out the

perversions of truth necessary to be rectified."[606]

Thus Marshall's book was condemned before a word of it had been written,

and many months before the contract with Wayne was signed--a

circumstance that was seriously to interfere with subscriptions to the

biography. Jefferson's abnormal sensitiveness to even moderate criticism

finally led him to the preparation of the most interesting and

untrustworthy of all his voluminous papers, as a reply to Marshall's

"Washington."[607]

News was sent to Republicans all over the country that Marshall's book

was to be an attack upon their party. Wayne tells Marshall and

Washington of the danger, but Washington testily assures the nervous

publisher that he need have no fear: "The democrats may say what they

please and I have expected they would say a great deal, but this is at

least not intended to be a party work nor will any candid man have cause

to make this charge."[608]

The contract signed, Wayne quickly put in motion the machinery to

procure subscribers. Of this mechanism, the most important part should

have been the postmasters, of whom Wayne expected to make profitable

use. There were twelve hundred of them, "each acquainted with all the

gentlemen of their respective neighborhoods ... and their neighbors

would subscribe at request, when they would not to a stranger.... All

letters to and from these men go free of postage," Wayne advised

Marshall, while assuring the anxious author that "every Post Master in

the United States holds a subscription paper."[609] But, thanks to

Jefferson, the postmasters were to prove poor salesmen of the product of

Marshall's pen.

Other solicitors, however, were also put to work: among them the

picturesque Mason Locke Weems, part Whitefield, part Villon, a

delightful mingling of evangelist and vagabond, lecturer and politician,

writer and musician.[610] Weems had himself written a "Life of

Washington" which had already sold extensively among the common

people.[611] He had long been a professional book agent with every

trick of the trade at his fingers' ends, and was perfectly acquainted

with the popular taste.

First, the parson-subscription agent hied himself to Baltimore.

"I average 12 sub^s pr day. _Thank God for that_," he wrote to

his employer. He is on fire with enthusiasm: "If the Work be done

handsomely, you will sell at least 20,000," he brightly prophesies.

Within a week Weems attacks the postmasters and insists that he be

allowed to secure sub-agents from among the gentry: "The Mass of Riches

and of Population in America lie in the Country. There is the wealthy

Yeomanry; and there the ready Thousands who w^{d.} instantly second you

were they but duly stimulated."[612]

Almost immediately Weems discovered a popular distrust of Marshall's

forthcoming volumes: "The People are very fearful that it will be

prostituted to party purposes," he informs Wayne. "_For Heaven's Sake,

drop now and then a cautionary Hint to John Marshall Esq._ Your all is

at stake with respect to this work. If it be done in a generally

acceptable manner you will make your fortune. Otherwise the work will

fall an Abortion from the press."[613]

Weems's apprehension grew. Wayne had written that the cities would yield

more subscribers than the country. "For a moment, admit it," argues

Weems: "Does it follow that the Country is a mere blank, a cypher not

worth your notice? Because there are 30,000 wealthy families in the City

and but 20,000 in the Country, must nothing be tried to enlist 5000, at

least of these 20,000??? If the _Fed^s sh^d be disappointed_, and the

Demo^s disgusted with Gen^{l.} Marshals performance, will it not be very

convenient to have 4 to 5000 good Rustic Blades to lighten your shelves

& to shovel in the Dol^$."[614]

The dean of book agents evidently was having a hard time, but his

resourcefulness kept pace with his discouragement: "Patriotic

Orations--Gazetter Puffs--Washingtonian Anecdotes, Sentimental, Moral

Military and Wonderful--All sh^d be Tried," he advises Wayne.[615]

Again, he notes the failure of the postmasters to sell Marshall's now

much-talked-of book. "In six months," he writes from Martinsburg,

Virginia, "the P. Master here got 1. In 1/2 day. _I thank God_, I've got

13 sub^s."[616]

The outlook for subscriptions was even worse in New England. Throughout

the whole land, there was, it seems, an amazing indifference to

Washington's services to the Nation. "I am sorry to inform you," Wayne

advised Marshall and his associate, "that the Prospect of an extensive

Subscription is gloomy in N. England, particularly they argue it is too

Expensive and wait for a cheaper Edition--'tis like Americans, Mr.

Wolcott and Mr. Pickering say they are loud in their professions, but

attempt to touch their purses and they shut them in a moment."[617]

Writing from Fredericksburg, Virginia, Weems at last mingles cheer with

warning: "Don't indulge a fear--let no sigh of thine arise. Give _Old

Washington fair play_ and all will be well. Let but the _Interior_ of

the Work be Liberal & the _Exterior Elegant_, and a Town House & a

Country House, a Coach and Sideboard and Massy Plate shall be thine."

Still, he declared, "I sicken when I think how much may be marr^d."[618]

A week later found the reverend solicitor at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, and

here the influence of politics on the success of Marshall's undertaking

again crops out: "The place had been represented to me," records Weems,

"as a Nest of Anti Washingtonian Hornets who w^d draw their Stings at

mention of his name--and the Fed [torn] Lawyers are all gone to

York--However, I dash^d in among them and _thank God_ have obtain^d

already 17 good names."[619]

By now even the slow-thinking Bushrod Washington had become suspicious

of Jefferson's postmasters: "The postmasters being (I believe)

Democrats.[620] Are you sure they will feel a disposition to advance the

work?"[621] Later he writes: "I would not give one honest soliciting

agent for 1250 quiescent postmasters."[622]

A year passed after the first subscriptions were made, and not even the

first volume had appeared. Indeed, no part of the manuscript had been

finished and sent to the publisher. Wayne was exasperated. "I am

extremely anxious on this subject," he complains to Bushrod Washington,

"as the Public evince dissatisfaction at the delay. Each hour I am

questioned either verbally or by letter relative to it & its

procrastination. The subscription seems to have received a check in

consequence of an opinion that it is uncertain when the work will go to

press. _Twelve thousand_ dollars is the Total Cash yet rece^d--not quite

4,000 subscribers."[623]

By November, 1803, many disgusted subscribers are demanding a refund of

the money, and Wayne wants the contract changed to the payment of a lump

sum. The "Public [are] exclaiming against the price of 3 Doll^s per

vol.," and his sanguine expectations have evaporated: "I did hope that I

should realize _half_ the number of subscribers you contemplated,

_thirty thousand_; ... but altho' _two active_, and twelve hundred other

agents have been employed 12 months, the list of names _does_ not amount

to _one seventh_ of the contemplated number."[624]

Wayne insists on purchasing the copyright "for a _moderate, specifick_

sum" so that he can save himself from loss and "that the Publick disgust

may be removed." He has heard, he says, and quite directly, that the

British rights have been sold "at two thousand doll^s!!!"--and this in

spite of the fact that, only the previous year, Marshall and Washington

"expected _Seventy_ Thousand."[625]

At last, more than three years after Marshall had decided to embark upon

the uncertain sea of authorship, he finished the first of the five

volumes. And such a mass of manuscript! "It will make _at least_ Eight

hundred pages!!!!" moaned the distraught publisher. At that rate,

considering the small number of subscribers and the greatly increased

cost of paper and labor,[626] Wayne would be ruined. No title-page had

been sent, and Marshall's son, who had brought the manuscript to

Philadelphia, "astonished" Wayne by telling him "that his father's name

was not to appear in the Title."[627]

When Marshall learned that the publisher demanded a title-page bearing

his name, he insisted that this was unnecessary and not required by the

copyright law. "I am unwilling," he hastened to write Wayne, "to be

named in the book or in the clerk's office as the author of it, if it be

avoidable." He cannot tell how many volumes there will be, or even

examine, before some time in May, 1804, Washington's papers relating to

the period of his two administrations. The first volume he wants

"denominated _an introduction_." It is too long, he admits, and

authorizes Wayne to split it, putting all after "the peace of 1763" into

the second volume.[628]

Marshall objects again to appearing as the author: "My repugnance to

permitting my name to appear in the title still continues, but it shall

yield to your right to make the best use you can of the copy." He does

not think that "the name of the author being given or withheld can

produce any difference in the number of subscribers"; but, since he does

not wish to leave Wayne "in the Opinion that a real injury has been

sustained," he would "submit scruples" to Wayne and Washington, "only

requesting that [his] name may not be given but on mature consideration

and conviction of its propriety." In any case, Marshall declares: "I

wish not my title in the judiciary of the United States to be annexed to

it."

He writes at great length about punctuation, paragraphing, capital

letters, and spelling, giving minute directions, but leaves much to

Wayne's judgment. As to spelling: "In any doubtful case I wou^d

decidedly prefer to follow Johnson."[629] Two other long letters about

details of printing the first volume followed. By the end of March,

1804, his second volume was ready.[630]

He now becomes worried about "the inaccuracies ... the many and great

defects in composition" of the first two volumes; but "the hurried

manner in which it is press^d forward renders this inevitable." He begs

Bushrod Washington to "censure and alter freely.... You mistake me very

much if you think I rank the corrections of a friend with the bitter

sarcasms of a foe, or that I shou^d feel either wounded or chagrined at

my inattentions being pointed out by another."[631]

Once more the troubled author writes his associate, this time about the

spelling of "Chesapeak" and "enterprise," the size of the second volume,

and as to "the prospects of subscribers."[632] Not until June, 1804, did

Marshall give the proof-sheets of the first volume even "a hasty

reading" because of "the pressure of ... official business."[633]

Totally forgotten was the agreed plan to publish maps in a separate

volume, although it was thus "stated in the prospectus."[634] He blandly

informs the exasperated publisher that he must wait a long time after

publishing the volumes describing the Revolution and those on the

Presidency of Washington before the manuscript of the last volume can

be sent to press--this when many subscribers were clamoring for the

return of the money they had paid, and the public was fast losing

interest in the book. Large events had meanwhile filled the heavens of

popular interest, and George Washington's heroic figure was already

becoming dim and indistinct.

The proof-sheets of the second volume were now in Marshall's hands; but

the toil of writing, "super-intending the copying," and various other

avocations "absolutely disabled" him, he insists, from giving them any

proper examination. He had no idea that he had been so careless in his

writing and is anxious to revise the work for a second edition. He

complains of his health and says he must spend the summer in the

mountains, where, of course, he "cannot take the papers with [him] to

prosecute the work." He will, however, read the pages of the first two

volumes while on his vacation.

The manuscript of the third he had finished and sent to Bushrod

Washington.[635] When Wayne saw the length of it, his Quaker blood was

heated to wrath. Did Marshall's prolixity know no limit? The first two

volumes had already cost the publisher far more than the estimate--would

not Washington persuade Marshall to be more concise?[636]

By midsummer of 1804 the first two volumes appeared. They were a dismal

performance. Nevertheless, one or two Federalist papers praised them,

and Marshall was as pleased as any youthful writer by a first

compliment. He thanks Wayne for sending the reviews and comments on one

of them: "The very handsome critique in the 'Political and Commercial

Register' was new to me." He modestly admits: "I cou^d only regret that

there was in it more of panuegyric than was merited. The editor ...

manifests himself to be master of a style of a very superior order and

to be, of course, a very correct judge of the composition of Others."

Marshall is somewhat mollified that his parentage of the biography has

been revealed: "Having, Heaven knows how reluctantly, consented against

my judgement to be known as the author of the work in question I cannot

be insensible to the opinions entertained of it. But, I am much more

solicitous to hear the strictures upon it"--than commendation of

it--because, he says, these would point out defects to be corrected. He

asks Wayne, therefore, to send to him at Front Royal, Virginia, "every

condemnatory criticism.... I shall not attempt to polish every sentence;

that wou^d require repeated readings & a long course of time; but I wish

to correct obvious imperfections & the animadversions of others wou^d

aid me very much in doing so."[637]

[Illustration: A PART OF MARSHALL'S LIST OF CORRECTIONS FOR HIS LIFE OF

WASHINGTON]

Within three weeks Marshall had read his first volume in the form in

which it had been delivered to subscribers, and was "mortified beyond

measure to find that it [had] been so carelessly written." He had not

supposed that so many "inelegancies ... cou^d have appeared in it," and

regrets that he must require Wayne to reset the matter "so

materially." He informs his publisher, nevertheless, that he is starting

on his vacation in the Alleghanies; and he promises that when he returns

he "will ... review the corrections" he has made in the first volume,

although he would "not have time to reperuse the whole volume."[638]

Not for long was the soul of the perturbed author to be soothed with

praise. He had asked for "strictures"; he soon got them. Wayne promptly

sent him a "Magazine[639] containing a piece condemnatory of the work."

Furthermore, the books were not going well; not a copy could the

publisher sell that had not been ordered before publication. "I have all

those on hand which I printed over the number of subscribers," Wayne

sourly informs the author.

In response to Marshall's request for time for revision, Wayne is now

willing that he shall take all he wishes, since "present prospects would

not induce [him] to republish," but he cautions Marshall to "let the

idea of a 2^d edit. revised and corrected remain a secret"; if the

public should get wind of such a purpose the stacks of volumes in

Wayne's printing house would never be sold. He must have the manuscript

of the "_fourth_ vol. by the last of September at furthest.... Can I

have it?--or must I dismiss my people."

At the same time he begs Marshall to control his redundancy: "The first

and second vols. have cost me (1500) fifteen hundred dollars more than

calculated!"[640]

It was small wonder that Marshall's first two bulky books, published in

the early summer of 1804, were not hailed with enthusiasm. In volume one

the name of Washington was mentioned on only two minor occasions

described toward the end.[641] The reader had to make his way through

more than one hundred thousand words without arriving even at the cradle

of the hero. The voyages of discovery, the settlements and explorations

of America, and the history of the Colonies until the Treaty of Paris in

1763, two years before the Stamp Act of 1765, were treated in dull and

heavy fashion.

The author defends his plan in the preface: No one connected narrative

tells the story of all the Colonies and "few would ... search through

the minute details"; yet this he held to be necessary to an

understanding of the great events of Washington's life. So Marshall had

gathered the accounts of the various authorities[642] in parts of the

country and in England, and from them made a continuous history. If

there were defects in the book it was due to "the impatience ... of

subscribers" which had so hastened him.

The volume is poorly done; parts are inaccurate.[643] To Bacon's

Rebellion are given only four pages.[644] The story of the Pilgrims is

fairly well told.[645] A page is devoted to Roger Williams and six

sympathetic lines tell of his principles of liberty and toleration.[646]

The Salem witchcraft madness is well treated.[647] The descriptions of

military movements constitute the least disappointing parts of the

volume. The beginnings of colonial opposition to British rule are

tiresomely set out; and thus at last, the reader arrives within twelve

years of Bunker Hill.

Marshall admits that every event of the Revolutionary War has been told

by others who had examined Washington's "immensely voluminous

correspondence," and that he had copied these authors, sometimes using

their very language. Still, he promises the reader "a particular account

of his [Washington's] own life."[648]

One page and three lines at the beginning of the second volume are all

that Marshall gives of the ancestry, birth, environment, upbringing,

education, and experiences of George Washington, up to the nineteenth

year of his age. On the second page the hero, fully uniformed and

accoutred, is plunged into the French and Indian Wars. Braddock's

defeat, already described in the first volume, is repeated and

elaborated.[649] Six lines, closing the first chapter, disposes of

Washington in marriage and describes the bride.[650]

About three pages are devoted to the Stamp Act speeches in the British

Parliament; while but one short paragraph is given to the immortal

resolutions of Patrick Henry and the passage of them by the Virginia

House of Burgesses. Not a word describes the "most bloody" debate over

them, and Henry's time-surviving speech is not even referred to.[651]

All mention of the fact that Washington was a fellow member with Henry

and voted for the resolutions is omitted. Henry's second epoch-making

speech at the outbreak of the Revolution is not so much as hinted at,

nor is any place found for the Virginia Resolutions for Arming and

Defense, which his unrivaled eloquence carried.

The name of the supreme orator of the Revolution is mentioned for the

second time in describing the uprising against Lord Dunmore,[652] and

then Marshall adds this footnote: "The same gentleman who had introduced

into the assembly of Virginia the original resolution against the stamp

act."[653]

Marshall's account of the development of the idea of independence is

scattered.[654] He gives with unnecessary completeness certain local

resolutions favoring it,[655] while to the great Declaration less than

two pages[656] are assigned. It is termed "this important paper"; and a

footnote disposes of the fact that "Mr. Jefferson, Mr. John Adams, Mr.

Franklin, Mr. Sherman, and Mr. R. R. Livingston, were appointed to

prepare this declaration; and the draft reported by the committee has

been generally attributed to Mr. Jefferson."[657] A report of the talk

between Washington and Colonel Paterson of the British Army, concerning

the title by which Washington insisted upon being addressed,[658] is

given one and one third times the space that is bestowed upon the

Declaration of Independence.

Marshall is satisfactory only when dealing with military operations. He

draws a faithful picture of the condition of the army;[659] quotes

Washington's remorseless condemnations of the militia,[660] short

enlistments, and the democratic spirit among men and officers.[661] When

writing upon such topics, Marshall is spirited; his pages are those of

the soldier that, by nature, he was.

The earliest objection to Marshall's first two volumes came from

American Tories, who complained of the use of the word "enemy" as

applied to the British military forces. Wayne reluctantly calls

Marshall's attention to this. Marshall replies: "You need make no

apology for mentioning to me the criticism of the word 'enemy.' I will

endeavor to avoid it where it can be avoided."[662]

Unoffended by such demands, Marshall was deeply chagrined by other and

entirely just criticisms. Why, he asks, had not some one pointed out to

him "some of those objections ... to the plan of the work" before he

wrote any part of it? He wishes "very sincerely" that this had been

done. He "should very readily have relinquished [his own] opinion ...

if [he] had perceiv^d that the public taste required a different

course." Thus, by implication, he blames Wayne or Bushrod Washington,

for his own error of judgment.

Marshall also reproaches himself, but in doing so he saddles on the

public most of the burden of his complaints: "I ought, indeed, to have

foreseen that the same impatience which precipitated the publication

wou^d require that the life and transactions of Mr. Washington should be

immediately entered upon." Even if he had stuck to his original plans,

still, he "ought to have departed from them so far as to have composed

the introductory volume at leizure after the principal work was

finished."

Marshall's "mortification" is, he says, also "increased on account of

the careless manner in which the work has been executed." For the first

time in his life he had been driven to sustained and arduous mental

labor, and he found, to his surprise, that he "had to learn that under

the pressure of constant application, the spring of the mind loses its

elasticity.... But regrets for the past are unavailing," he sighs.

"There will be great difficulty in retrieving the reputation of the

first volume.... I have therefore some doubts whether it may not be as

well to drop the first volume for the present--that is not to speak of a

republication of it."

He assures Wayne that he need have no fears that he will mention a

revised edition, and regrets that the third volume is also too long; his

pen has run away with him. He would shorten it if he had the copy once

more; but since that cannot be, perhaps Wayne might omit the last

chapter. Brooding over the "strictures" he had so confidently asked for,

he grows irritable. "Whatever might have been the execution, the work

wou^d have experienced unmerited censure. We must endeavor to rescue

what remains to be done from such [criticism] as is deserved. I wish you

to consult Mr. Washington."[663]

Another very long letter from Front Royal quickly follows. Marshall

again authorizes the publisher himself to cut the bulk of the third

volume, in the hope that it "will not be so defective.... It shall be my

care to render the 4th more fit for the public eye." He promises Wayne

that, in case of a second edition,[664] he will shorten his interminable

pages which shall also "receive very material corrections." But a

corrected and improved edition! "On this subject ... I remain silent....

Perhaps a free expression of my thoughts ... may add to the current

which seems to set against it." Let the public take the first printing

"before a second is spoken of."[665]

Washington drew on the publisher[666] and wrote Wayne that "the

disappointment will be very great if it is not paid." In December, 1804,

Wayne sent the first royalty. It amounted to five thousand

dollars.[667]

Our author needed money badly. "I do not wish to press you upon the

subject of further remittances but they will be highly acceptable,"

Washington tells Wayne, "particularly to Mr. Marshall, whose

arrangements I know are bottomed upon the expectation of the money he is

to receive from you."[668] In January, 1805, Wayne sent Washington

another thousand dollars--"which I have paid," says Washington, "to Mr.

Marshall as I shall also do of the next thousand you remit."[669] Thus

pressed, Wayne sends more money, and by January 1, 1805, Marshall and

Washington have received the total sum of eight thousand seven hundred

and sixty dollars.[670]

Toward the end of February, 1805, Marshall completed the manuscript of

the fourth volume. He was then in Washington, and sent two copies from

there to Philadelphia by Joseph Hopkinson, who had just finished his

notable work in the Chase impeachment trial. "They are both in a rough

state; too rough to be sent ... but it was impossible to have them

recopied," Marshall writes Wayne. He admits they are full of errors in

capitalization, punctuation, and spelling, but adds, "it has absolutely

been impossible to make corrections in these respects."[671] This he

"fears will produce considerable difficulty." Small wonder, with the

Chase trial absorbing his every thought and depressing him with heavy

anxiety.

Marshall's relief from the danger of impeachment is at once reflected

in his correspondence with Wayne. Two weeks after the acquittal of

Chase, he placidly informs his publisher that the fifth volume will not

be ready until the spring of 1806 at the earliest. It is "not yet

commenced," he says, "but I shall however set about it in a few days."

He explains that there will be little time to work on the biography.

"For the ensuing twelve months I shall scarcely have it in my power to

be five in Richmond."[672] Three months later he informs Wayne that it

will be "absolutely impossible" to complete the final volume by the time

mentioned. "I regret this very seriously but it is a calamity for which

there is no remedy."

The cause of this irremediable calamity was "a tour of the mountains"--a

journey to be made "for [his] own health and that of [his] family" from

which he "cannot return till October." He still "laments sincerely that

an introductory volume was written because [he] finds it almost

impossible to compress the civil administration into a single volume. In

doing it," he adds, "I shall be compelled to omit several interesting

transactions & to mutilate others."[673]

At last Marshall's eyes are fully opened to what should have been plain

to him from the first. Nobody wanted a tedious history of the discovery

and settlement of America and of colonial development, certainly not

from his pen. The subject had been dealt with by more competent authors.

But the terrible years following the war, the Constitutional period,

the Administrations of Washington and the first half of that of Adams,

the decisive part played by Washington throughout this critical time of

founding and constructing--all these were virgin fields. They

constituted, too, as vital an epoch in American history as the

Revolution itself. Marshall's own life had been an important part of it,

and he was not unequipped to give it adequate treatment.

Had Marshall written of these years, it is probable that the well-to-do

Federalists alone would have purchased the thirty thousand sets that

Marshall originally counted on to be sold. He would have made all the

money he had expected, done a real public service, and achieved a solid

literary fame. His "Life of Washington" might have been the great

social, economic, political, and Constitutional history of the

foundation processes of the Government of the American Nation. His

entire five volumes would not have been too many for such a work.

But all this matter relating to the formative years of the Nation must

now be crowded between two covers and offered to an indifferent, if not

hostile, public--a public already "disgusted," as the publisher truly

declared, by the unattractive rehash of what had already been better

told.

Wayne again presses for a change in the contract; he wants to buy

outright Marshall's and Washington's interests, and end the bankrupting

royalty he is paying them: "If you were willing to take 70000$ for 30000

Sub^s I thought it would not be deemed illiberal in offering twenty

thousand dollars for four thousand subscribers--this was two-sevenths of

the original sum for less than _one-seventh_ of the subscribers

contemplated." Wayne asks Marshall and Washington to "state the lowest

sum" they will take. Subscriptions have stopped, and in three years he

has sold only "_two copies_ ... to non-subscribers." But the harried

publisher sends two thousand dollars more of royalty.[674]

In the autumn of 1805, upon returning from his annual vacation, Marshall

is anxious to get to work, and he must have the _Aurora_ and _Freneau's

Gazette_ quickly. His "official duties recommence ... on the 22^d of

November from which time they continue 'till the middle of March."

Repeating his now favorite phrase, he says, "It is absolutely impossible

to get the residue of the work completed in the short time which remains

this fall." He has been sorely vexed and is a cruelly overworked man:

"The unavoidable delays which have been experienced, the immense

researches among volumes of manuscript, & chests of letters & gazettes

which I am compelled to make will impede my progress so much that it is

absolutely impossible" to finish the book at any early date.[675]

Want of money continually embarrasses Marshall: "What payments my good

Sir, will it be in your power to make us in the course of this & the

next month?" Bushrod Washington asks Wayne. "I am particularly anxious,"

he explains, "on account of Mr. M.... His principal dependence is upon

this fund."[676] Marshall now gets down to earnest and continuous labor

and by July, 1806, actually finishes the fifth and only important volume

of the biography.[677]

During all these years the indefatigable Weems continued his engaging

career as book agent, and, like the subscribers he had ensnared, became

first the victim of hope deferred and then of unrealized expectations.

The delay in the publication of Marshall's first volumes and the

disfavor with which the public received them when finally they appeared,

had, it seems, cooled the ardor of the horseback-and-saddlebag

distributor of literary treasures. At all events, he ceases to write his

employer about Marshall's "Life of Washington," but is eager for other

books.[678] Twice only, in an interval of two years, he mentions

Marshall's biography, but without spirit or enthusiasm.[679] In the

autumn of 1806, he querulously refers to Marshall and Washington: "I did

not call on _you_ [Wayne] for increase of Diurnal Salary. I spoke to

Judge W. I hope and expect that he and Gen. M.[680] will do me

something."

Marshall's third volume, which had now appeared, is an improvement on

the first two. In it he continues his narrative of the Revolutionary War

until 1779, and his statement of economic and financial conditions[681]

is excellent. The account of the battles of Brandywine and Germantown,

in both of which he had taken part,[682] is satisfactory,[683] and his

picture of the army in retreat is vivid.[684] He faithfully relates the

British sentiment among the people.[685] Curiously enough, he is not

comprehensive or stirring in his story of Valley Forge.[686] His

descriptions of Lafayette and Baron von Steuben are worthy.[687] Again

and again he attacks the militia,[688] and is merciless in his criticism

of the slip-shod, happy-go-lucky American military system. These

shortcomings were offset, he says, only by the conduct of the

enemy.[689] The treatment of American prisoners is set forth in somber

words,[690] and he gives almost a half-page of text[691] and two and a

half pages of appendix[692] to the murder of Miss McCrea.

The story of the battle of Monmouth in which Marshall took part is told

with spirit.[693] Nineteen pages[694] are devoted to the history of the

alliance with the French monarch, and no better résumé of that event, so

fruitful of historic results, ever has been given. The last chapter

describes the arrival of the British Commission of Conciliation, the

propositions made by them, the American answer, the British attempts to

bribe Congress,[695] followed by the Indian atrocities of which the

appalling massacres at Kingston and Wyoming were the worst.

The long years of writing, the neglect and crudity of his first efforts,

and the self-reproval he underwent, had their effect upon Marshall's

literary craftsmanship. This is noticeable in his fourth volume, which

is less defective than those that preceded it. His delight in verbiage,

so justly ridiculed by Callender in 1799,[696] is a little subdued, and

his sense of proportion is somewhat improved. He again criticizes the

American military system and traces its defects to local

regulations.[697] The unhappy results of the conflict of State and

Nation are well presented.[698]

The most energetic narrative in the volume is that of the treason of

Benedict Arnold. In telling this story, Marshall cannot curb the

expression of his intense feeling against this "traitor, a sordid

traitor, first the slave of his rage, then purchased with gold."

Marshall does not economize space in detailing this historic betrayal of

America,[699] imperative as the saving of every line had become.

He relates clearly the circumstances that caused the famous compact

between Denmark, Sweden, and Russia known as "The Armed Neutrality,"

formed in order to check Great Britain's power on the seas. This was the

first formidable assertion of the principle of equality among nations on

the ocean. Great Britain's declaration of war upon Holland, because that

country was about to join "The Armed Neutrality," and because Holland

appeared to be looking with favor upon a commercial treaty which the

United States wished to conclude with her, is told with dispassionate

lucidity.[700]

Marshall gives a compact and accurate analysis--by far the best work he

has done in the whole four volumes--of the party beginnings discernible

when the clouds of the Revolutionary War began to break. He had now

written more than half a million words, and this description was the

first part of his work that could be resented by the Republicans. The

political division was at bottom economic, says Marshall--those who

advocated honest payment of public debts were opposed by those who

favored repudiation; and the latter were also against military

establishments and abhorred the idea of any National Government.[701]

The fourth volume ends with the mutiny of part of the troops, the

suppression of it, Washington's farewell to his officers, and his

retirement when peace was concluded.

Marshall's final volume was ready for subscribers and the public in the

autumn of 1807, just one year before the Federalist campaign for the

election of Jefferson's successor--four years later than Jefferson had

anticipated.[702] It was the only political part of Marshall's volumes,

but it had not the smallest effect upon the voters in the Presidential

contest.

Neither human events nor Thomas Jefferson had waited upon the

convenience of John Marshall. The Federalist Party was being reduced to

a grumbling company of out-of-date gentlemen, leaders in a bygone day,

together with a scattered following who, from force of party habit,

plodded along after them, occasionally encouraged by some local

circumstance or fleeting event in which they imagined an "issue" might

be found. They had become anti-National, and, in their ardor for Great

Britain, had all but ceased to be American. They had repudiated

democracy and assumed an attitude of insolent superiority, mournful of

a glorious past, despairing of a worthy future.[703]

Marshall could not hope to revive the fast weakening Federalist

organization. The most that he could do was to state the principles upon

which opposing parties had been founded, and the determinative conflicts

that had marked the evolution of them and the development of the

American Nation. He could only set forth, in plain and simple terms,

those antagonistic ideas which had created party divisions; and although

the party to which one group of those ideas had given life was now

moribund, they were ideas, nevertheless, which would inevitably create

other parties in the future.

The author's task was, therefore, to deal not only with the years that

had gone; but, through his treatment of the past, with the years that

were to come. He must expound the philosophy of Nationalism as opposed

to that of Localism, and must enrich his exposition by the unwritten

history of the period between the achievement of American Independence

and the vindication of it in our conflict with France.

Marshall was infinitely careful that every statement in his last volume

should be accurate; and, to make sure of this, he wrote many letters to

those who had first-hand knowledge of the period. Among others he wrote

to John Adams, requesting permission to use his letters to Washington.

Adams readily agreed, although he says, "they were written under great

agitation of mind at a time when a cruel necessity compelled me to take

measures which I was very apprehensive would produce the evils which

have followed from them. If you have detailed the events of the last

years of General Washington's Life, you must have run the Gauntlet

between two infuriated factions, armed with scorpions.... It is a period

which must however be investigated, but I am very confident will never

be well understood."[704]

Because of his lack of a sense of proportion in planning his "Life of

Washington," and the voluminousness of the minor parts of it, Marshall

had to compress the vital remainder. Seldom has a serious author been

called upon to execute an undertaking more difficult. Marshall

accomplished the feat in creditable fashion. Moreover, his fairness,

restraint, and moderation, even in the treatment of subjects regarding

which his own feelings were most ardent, give to his pages not only the

atmosphere of justice, but also something of the artist's touch.

Washington's Nationalism is promptly and skillfully brought into the

foreground.[705] An excellent account of the Society of the Cincinnati

contains the first covert reflection on Jefferson.[706] But the state of

the country under the Articles of Confederation is passed over with

exasperating brevity--only a few lines are given to this basic

subject.[707]

The foundation of political parties is stated once more and far

better--"The one ... contemplated America as a nation," while "the other

attached itself to state authorities." The first of these was made up of

"men of enlarged and liberal minds ... who felt the full value of

national honour, and the full obligation of national faith; and who were

persuaded of the insecurity of both, if resting for their preservation

on the concurrence of thirteen distinct sovereignties"; and with these

far-seeing and upright persons were united the "officers of the army"

whose experience in war had weakened "local prejudices."[708]

Thus, by mentioning the excellence of the members of one party, and by

being silent upon the shortcomings of those of the other party, Marshall

imputes to the latter the reverse of those qualities which he praises--a

method practiced throughout the book, and one which offended Jefferson

and his followers more than a direct attack could have done.

He succinctly reviews the attempts at union,[709] and the disputes

between America and Great Britain over the Treaty of Peace;[710] he

quickly swings back to the evolution of political parties and, for the

third time, reiterates his analysis of debtor and Localist as against

creditor and Nationalist.

"The one [party] struggled ... for the exact observance of public and

private engagements"; to them "the faith of a nation, or of a private

man was deemed a sacred pledge." These men believed that "the distresses

of individuals" could be relieved only by work and faith, "not by a

relaxation of the laws, or by a sacrifice of the rights of others." They

thought that "the imprudent and idle could not be protected by the

legislature from the consequences of their indiscretion; but should be

restrained from involving themselves in difficulties, by the conviction

that a rigid compliance with contracts would be enforced." Men holding

these views "by a natural association of ideas" were "in favour of

enlarging the powers of the federal government, and of enabling it to

protect the dignity and character of the nation abroad, and its

interests at home."[711]

With these principles Marshall sharply contrasts those of the other

party: "Viewing with extreme tenderness the case of the debtor, their

efforts were unceasingly directed to his relief"; they were against "a

faithful compliance with contracts"--such a measure they thought "too

harsh to be insisted on ... and one which the people would not bear."

Therefore, they favored "relaxing ... justice," suspending the

collection of debts, remitting taxes. These men resisted every attempt

to transfer from their own hands into those of Congress all powers that

were, in reality, National. Those who held to such "lax notions of

honor," were, in many States, "a decided majority of the people," and

were very powerful throughout the country. Wherever they secured

control, paper money, delay of justice, suspended taxes "were the fruits

of their rule"; and where they were in the minority, they fought at

every election for the possession of the State Governments.

In this fashion Marshall again states those antipodal philosophies from

which sprang the first two American political parties. With something

like skill he emphasizes the conservative and National idea thus: "No

principle had been introduced [in the State Governments] which could

resist the wild projects of the moment, give the people an opportunity

to reflect, and allow the good sense of the nation time for exertion."

The result of "this instability in principles which ought if possible to

be rendered immutable, produced a long train of ills."[712] The twin

spirits of repudiation and Localism on one side, contending for the

mastery against the companion spirits of faith-keeping and Nationalism

on the other, were from the very first, says Marshall, the source of

public ill-being or well-being, as one or the other side prevailed.

Then follows a review of the unhappy economic situation which, as

Marshall leaves the reader to infer, was due exclusively to the

operation of the principles which he condemns by the mere statement of

them.[713] So comes the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 that was deemed

by many "an illegitimate meeting."[714]

Although Washington presided over, and was the most powerful influence

in, the Constitutional Convention, Marshall allots only one short

paragraph to that fact.[715] He enumerates the elements that prepared to

resist the Constitution; and brings out clearly the essential fact that

the proposed government of the Nation was, by those who opposed it,

considered to be "foreign." He condenses into less than two pages his

narrative of the conflict over ratification, and almost half of these

few lines is devoted to comment upon "The Federalist."

Marshall writes not one line or word of Washington's power and

activities at this critical moment. He merely observes, concerning

ratification, that "the intrinsic merits of the instrument would not

have secured" the adoption of the Constitution, and that even in some of

the States that accepted it "a majority of the people were in the

opposition."[716]

He tells of the pressure on Washington to accept the Presidency. To

these appeals and Washington's replies, he actually gives ten times more

space than he takes to describe the formation, submission, and

ratification of the Constitution itself.[717] After briefly telling of

Washington's election to the Presidency, Marshall employs twenty pages

in describing his journey to New York and his inauguration.

Then, with quick, bold strokes, he lays the final color on his picture

of the state of the country before the new government was established,

and darkens the tints of his portrayal of those who were opposing the

Constitution and were still its enemies. In swift contrast he paints the

beginnings of better times, produced by the establishment of the new

National Government: "The new course of thinking which had been inspired

by the adoption of a constitution that was understood to prohibit all

laws impairing the obligation of contracts, had in a great measure

restored that confidence which is essential to the internal prosperity

of nations."[718]

He sets out adequately the debates over the first laws passed by

Congress,[719] and is generous in his description of the characters and

careers of both Jefferson and Hamilton when they accepted places in

Washington's first Cabinet.[720] He joyfully quotes Washington's second

speech to Congress, in which he declares that "to be prepared for war is

one of the most effectual means of preserving peace"; and in which the

people are adjured "to discriminate the spirit of liberty from that of

licentiousness."[721]

An analysis of Hamilton's First Report on the Public Credit follows.

The measures flowing from it "originated the first regular and

systematic opposition to the principles on which the affairs of the

union were administered."[722] In condensing the momentous debate over

the establishment of the American financial system, Marshall gives an

excellent summary of the arguments on both sides of that controversy. He

states those of the Nationalists, however, more fully than the arguments

of those who opposed Hamilton's plan.[723]

While attributing to Hamilton's financial measures most of the credit

for improved conditions, Marshall frankly admits that other causes

contributed to the new-found prosperity: By "progressive industry, ...

the influence of the constitution on habits of thinking and acting," and

especially by "depriving the states of the power to impair the

obligation of contracts, or to make any thing but gold and silver a

tender in payment of debts, the conviction was impressed on that portion

of society which had looked to the government for relief from

embarrassment, that personal exertions alone could free them from

difficulties; and an increased degree of industry and economy was the

natural consequence."[724]

Perhaps the most colorful pages of Marshall's entire work are those in

which he describes the effect of the French Revolution on America, and

the popular hostility to Washington's Proclamation of Neutrality[725]

and to the treaty with Great Britain negotiated by John Jay.[726]

In his treatment of these subjects he reveals some of the sources of his

distrust of the people. The rupture between the United States and the

French Republic is summarized most inadequately. The greatest of

Washington's state papers, the immortal "Farewell Address,"[727] is

reproduced in full. The account of the X. Y. Z. mission is provokingly

incomplete; that of American preparations for war with France is less

disappointing. Washington's illness and death are described with

feeling, though in stilted language; and Marshall closes his literary

labors with the conventional analysis of Washington's character which

the world has since accepted.[728]

Marshall's fifth volume was received with delight by the disgruntled

Federalist leaders. A letter of Chancellor James Kent is typical of

their comments. "I have just finished ... the last Vol. of Washington's

Life and it is worth all the rest. It is an excellent History of the

Government and Parties in this country from Vol. 3 to the death of the

General."[729]

Although it had appeared too late to do them any harm at the election of

1804, the Republicans and Jefferson felt outraged by Marshall's history

of the foundation period of the Government. Jefferson said nothing for a

time, but the matter was seldom out of his thoughts. Barlow, it seems,

had been laggard in writing a history from the Republican point of view,

as Jefferson had urged him to do.

Three years had passed since the request had been made, and Barlow was

leaving for Paris upon his diplomatic mission. Jefferson writes his

congratulations, "yet ... not unmixed with regret. What is to become of

our past revolutionary history? Of the antidotes of truth to the

misrepresentations of Marshall?"[730]

Time did not lessen Jefferson's bitterness: "Marshall has written libels

on one side,"[731] he writes Adams, with whom a correspondence is

opening, the approach of old age having begun to restore good relations

between these former enemies. Jefferson's mind dwells on Marshall's work

with increasing anxiety: "On the subject of the history of the American

Revolution ... who can write it?" he asks. He speaks of Botta's

"History,"[732] criticizing its defects; but he concludes that "the work

is nevertheless a good one, more judicious, more chaste, more classical,

and more true than the party diatribe of Marshall. Its greatest fault is

in having taken too much from him."[733]

Marshall's "party diatribe" clung like a burr in Jefferson's mind and

increased his irritation with the passing of the years. Fourteen years

after Marshall's last volume appeared, Justice William Johnson of the

Supreme Court published an account of the period[734] covered by

Marshall's work, and it was severely criticized in the _North American

Review_. Jefferson cheers the despondent author and praises his

"inestimable" history: "Let me ... implore you, dear Sir, to finish

your history of parties.... We have been too careless of our future

reputation, while our tories will omit nothing to place us in the

wrong." For example, Marshall's "Washington," that "five-volumed

libel, ... represents us as struggling for office, and not at all to

prevent our government from being administered into a monarchy."[735]

In his long introduction to the "Anas," Jefferson explains that he would

not have thought many of his notes "worth preserving but for their

testimony against the only history of that period which pretends to have

been compiled from authentic and unpublished documents." Had Washington

himself written a narrative of his times from the materials he

possessed, it would, of course, have been truthful: "But the party

feeling of his biographer, to whom after his death the collection was

confided, has culled from it a composition as different from what Genl.

Washington would have offered, as was the candor of the two characters

during the period of the war.

"The partiality of this pen is displayed in lavishments of praise on

certain military characters, who had done nothing military, but who

afterwards, & before he wrote, had become heroes in party, altho' not

in war; and in his reserve on the merits of others, who rendered signal

services indeed, but did not earn his praise by apostatising in peace

from the republican principles for which they had fought in war."

Marshall's frigidity toward liberty "shews itself too," Jefferson

continues, "in the cold indifference with which a struggle for the most

animating of human objects is narrated. No act of heroism ever kindles

in the mind of this writer a single aspiration in favor of the holy

cause which inspired the bosom, & nerved the arm of the patriot warrior.

No gloom of events, no lowering of prospects ever excites a fear for the

issue of a contest which was to change the condition of man over the

civilized globe.

"The sufferings inflicted on endeavors to vindicate the rights of

humanity are related with all the frigid insensibility with which a monk

would have contemplated the victims of an _auto da fé_. Let no man

believe that Gen. Washington ever intended that his papers should be

used for the suicide of the cause, for which he had lived, and for which

there never was a moment in which he would not have died."

Marshall's "abuse of these materials," Jefferson charges, "is chiefly

however manifested in the history of the period immediately following

the establishment of the present constitution; and nearly with that my

memorandums [the "Anas"] begin. Were a reader of this period to form his

idea of it from this history alone, he would suppose the republican

party (who were in truth endeavoring to keep the government within the

line of the Constitution, and prevent it's being monarchised in

practice) were a mere set of grumblers, and disorganisers, satisfied

with no government, without fixed principles of any, and, like a British

parliamentary opposition, gaping after loaves and fishes, and ready to

change principles, as well as position, at any time, with their

adversaries."[736]

Jefferson denounces Hamilton and his followers as "monarchists,"

"corruptionists," and other favorite Jeffersonian epithets, and Marshall

is again assailed: "The horrors of the French revolution, then raging,

aided them mainly, and using that as a raw head and bloody bones they

were enabled by their stratagems of X. Y. Z. in which this historian was

a leading mountebank, their tales of tub-plots, Ocean massacres, bloody

buoys, and pulpit lyings, and slanderings, and maniacal ravings of their

Gardiners, their Osgoods and Parishes, to spread alarm into all but the

firmest breasts."[737]

Criticisms of Marshall's "Life of Washington" were not, however,

confined to Jefferson and the Republicans. Plumer thought the plan of

the work "preposterous."[738] The Reverend Samuel Cooper Thatcher of

Boston reviewed the biography through three numbers of the _Monthly

Anthology_.[739] "Every reader is surprized to find," writes Mr.

Thatcher, "the history of North America, instead of the life of an

individual.... He [Washington] is always presented ... in the pomp of

the military or civil costume, and never in the ease and undress of

private life." However, he considers Marshall's fifth volume excellent.

"We have not heard of a single denial of his fidelity.... In this

respect ... his work [is] _unique_ in the annals of political history."

Thatcher concludes that Marshall's just and balanced treatment of his

subject is not due to a care for his own reputation: "We are all so full

of agitation and effervescence on political topicks, that a man, who

keeps his temper, can hardly gain a hearing." Indeed, he complains of

Marshall's fairness: he writes as a spectator, instead of as "one, who

has himself descended into the arena ... and is yet red with the wounds

which he gave, and smarting with those which his enemies inflicted in

return"; but the reviewer charges that these volumes are full of

"barbarisms" and "grammatical impurities," "newspaper slang," and

"unmeaning verbiage."

The Reverend Timothy Flint thought that Marshall's work displayed more

intellect and labor than "eloquence and interest."[740] George Bancroft,

reviewing Sparks's "Washington," declared that "all that is contained in

Marshall is meagre and incomplete in comparison."[741] Even the British

critics were not so harsh as the _New York Evening Post_, which

pronounced the judgment that if the biography "bears any traces of its

author's uncommon powers of mind, it is in the depths of dulness which

he explored."[742]

The British critics were, of course, unsparing. The _Edinburgh Review_

called Marshall's work "unpardonably deficient in all that constitutes

the soul and charm of biography.... We look in vain, through these stiff

and countless pages, for any sketch or anecdote that might fix a

distinguishing feature of private character in the memory.... What

seemed to pass with him for dignity, will, by his reader, be pronounced

dullness and frigidity."[743] _Blackwood's Magazine_ asserted that

Marshall's "Life of Washington" was "a great, heavy book.... One gets

tired and sick of the very name of Washington before he gets half

through these ... prodigious ... octavos."[744]

Marshall was somewhat compensated for the criticisms of his work by an

event which soon followed the publication of his last volume. On August

29, 1809, he was elected a corresponding member of the Massachusetts

Historical Society. In a singularly graceful letter to John Eliot,

corresponding secretary of the Society at that time, Marshall expresses

his thanks and appreciation.[745]

As long as he lived, Marshall worried over his biography of Washington.

When anybody praised it, he was as appreciative as a child. In 1827,

Archibald D. Murphey eulogized Marshall's volumes in an oration, a copy

of which he sent to the Chief Justice, who thanks Murphey, and adds:

"That work was hurried into a world with too much precipitation, but I

have lately given it a careful examination and correction. Should

another edition appear, it will be less fatiguing, and more worthy of

the character which the biographer of Washington ought to sustain."[746]

Toilsomely he kept at his self-imposed task of revision. In 1816,

Bushrod Washington wrote Wayne to send Marshall "the last three volumes

in sheets (the two first he has) that he may devote this winter to their

correction."[747]

When, five years later, the Chief Justice learned that Wayne was

actually considering the risk of bringing out a new edition, Marshall's

delight was unbounded. "It is one of the most desirable objects I have

in this life to publish a corrected edition of that work. I would not on

any terms, could I prevent it, consent that one other set of the first

edition should be published."[748]

Finally, in 1832, the revised biography was published. Marshall clung to

the first volume, which was issued separately under the title "History

of the American Colonies." The remaining four volumes were, seemingly,

reduced to two; but they were so closely printed and in such

comparatively small type that the real condensation was far less than

it appeared to be. The work was greatly improved, however, and is to

this day the fullest and most trustworthy treatment of that period, from

the conservative point of view.[749]

Fortunately for Marshall, the work required of him on the Bench gave him

ample leisure to devote to his literary venture. During the years he

consumed in writing his "Life of Washington" he wrote fifty-six opinions

in cases decided in the Circuit Court at Richmond, and in twenty-seven

cases determined by the Supreme Court. Only four of them[750] are of

more than casual interest, and but three of them[751] are of any

historical consequence. All the others deal with commercial law,

practice, rules of evidence, and other familiar legal questions. In only

one case, that of Marbury _vs._ Madison, was he called upon to deliver

an opinion that affected the institutions and development of the

Nation.

FOOTNOTES:

[592] See vol. II, 210-12, of this work.

[593] See _infra_; also vol. II, 211, of this work.

[594] Marshall to James M. Marshall, April 1, 1804. MS.

[595] Marshall to Peters, Oct. 12, 1815, Peters MSS. Pa. Hist. Soc.

[596] Several persons were ambitious to write the life of Washington.

David Ramsay and Mason Locke Weems had already done so. Noah Webster was

especially keen to undertake the task, and it was unfortunate that he

was not chosen to do it.

[597] Washington to Wayne, April 11, 1800, Dreer MSS. Pa. Hist. Soc.

[598] _Ib._

[599] Bushrod Washington to Wayne, Dec. 11, 1801, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

[600] Wayne to Bushrod Washington, Dec. 10, 1801, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

[601] Bushrod Washington to Wayne, Dec. 11, 1801, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

[602] The division was to be equal between Marshall and Washington.

[603] Bushrod Washington to Wayne, Dec. 11, 1801, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

[604] "Articles of Agreement" between C. P. Wayne and Bushrod

Washington, Sept. 22, 1802. (Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._) Marshall's name

does not appear in the contract, Washington having attended to all

purely business details of the transaction.

[605] Wayne to Bushrod Washington, May 16, 1802, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

[606] Jefferson to Barlow, May 3, 1802, _Works_: Ford, IX, 372.

[607] The "Anas," _Works_: Ford, I, 163-430, see _infra_. The "Anas" was

Jefferson's posthumous defense. It was arranged for publication as early

as 1818, but was not given to the public until after his death. It first

appeared in the edition of Jefferson's works edited by his grandson,

Thomas Jefferson Randolph. "It is the most precious mélange of all sorts

of scandals you ever read." (Story to Fay, Feb. 5, 1830, Story, II, 33.)

[608] Bushrod Washington to Wayne, Nov. 19, 1802, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

[609] Wayne to Marshall, Feb. 17, 1803, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

[610] Weems is one of the most entertaining characters in American

history. He was born in Maryland, and was one of a family of nineteen

children. He was educated in London as a physician, but abandoned

medicine for the Church, and served for several years as rector of two

or three little Episcopal churches in Maryland and ministered

occasionally at Pohick Church, in Truro Parish (sometimes called Mount

Vernon Parish), Virginia. In this devout occupation he could not earn

enough to support his very large family. So he became a professional

book agent--the greatest, perhaps, of that useful fraternity.

On horseback he went wherever it seemed possible to sell a book, his

samples in his saddlebags. He was a natural orator, a born entertainer,

an expert violinist; and these gifts he turned to good account in his

book-selling activities.

If a political meeting was to be held near any place he happened upon,

Weems would hurry to it, make a speech, and advertise his wares. A

religious gathering was his joy; there he would preach and exhort--and

sell books. Did young people assemble for merrymaking, Weems was in his

element, and played the fiddle for the dancing. If he arrived at the

capital of a State when the Legislature was in session, he would

contrive to be invited to address the Solons--and procure their

subscriptions.

[611] Weems probably knew more of the real life of the country, from

Pennsylvania southward, than any other one man; and he thoroughly

understood American tastes and characteristics. To this is due the

unparalleled success of his _Life of Washington_. In addition to this

absurd but engaging book, Weems wrote the _Life of Gen. Francis Marion_

(1805); the _Life of Benjamin Franklin_ (1817); and the _Life of William

Penn_ (1819). He was also the author of several temperance pamphlets,

the most popular of which was the _Drunkard's Looking Glass_. Weems died

in 1825.

Weems's _Life of Washington_ still enjoys a good sale. It has been one

of the most widely purchased and read books in our history, and has

profoundly influenced the American conception of Washington. To it we

owe the grotesque and wholly imaginary stories of young Washington and

the cherry tree, the planting of lettuce by his father to prove to the

boy the designs of Providence, and other anecdotes that make that

intensely human founder of the American Nation an impossible and

intolerable prig.

The only biography of Weems is _Parson Weems_, by Lawrence C. Wroth, a

mere sketch, but trustworthy and entertaining.

[612] Weems to Wayne, Dec. 10, 1802, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

[613] Same to same, Dec. 14, 1802, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

[614] Weems to Wayne, Dec. 17, 1802, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

[615] Same to same, Dec. 22, 1802, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

[616] Same to same, April 2, 1803, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

[617] Wayne to Bushrod Washington, Jan. 23, 1803, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

[618] Weems to Wayne, April 8, 1803, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

[619] Same to same, April 18, 1803, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

[620] Bushrod Washington, like the other Federalists, would not call his

political opponents by their true party name, Republicans: he styled

them "democrats," the most opprobrious term the Federalists could then

think of, excepting only the word "Jacobins." (See vol. II, 439, of this

work.)

[621] Washington to Wayne, March 1, 1803, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

[622] Same to same. March 23, 1803, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

[623] Wayne to Washington, Oct. 23, 1803, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

An interesting sidelight on the commercial methods of the times is

displayed by a circular which Wayne sent to his agents calling for money

from subscribers to Marshall's _Life of Washington_: "The remittance may

be made through the Post Office, and should any danger be apprehended,

you can cut a Bank note in two parts and send each by separate mails."

(Wayne's Circular, Feb. 17, 1803, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._)

[624] This list was published in the first edition. It is a good

directory of the most prominent Federalists and of the leading

Republican politicians of the time. "T. Jefferson, P.U.S." and each

member of his Cabinet subscribed; Marshall himself was a subscriber for

his own book, and John C. Calhoun, a student at Yale College at the

time, was another. In the cities most of the lawyers took Marshall's

book.

[625] Wayne to Bushrod Washington, Nov. 3, 1803, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

It would seem from this letter that Marshall and Washington had reduced

their lump cash price from $100,000 to $70,000. In stating his expenses,

Wayne says that the painter "Gilbert Stuart demanded a handsome sum for

the privilege of Engraving from his Original" portrait of Washington.

[626] See letter last cited.

[627] Wayne to Bushrod Washington, Dec. 16, 1803, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

[628] Marshall to Wayne, Dec. 23, 1803, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

[629] Marshall to Wayne, Jan. 10, 1804, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

[630] Marshall to Bushrod Washington, March 25, 1804, Dreer MSS. _loc.

cit._

[631] Same to same, April, 1804, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

[632] Same to same, April 29, 1804, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

[633] Marshall to Wayne, June 1, 1804, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

[634] Same to same, June 6, 1804, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

[635] Marshall to Wayne, June 10, July 5, July 8, 1804, Dreer MSS. _loc.

cit._

[636] Wayne to Bushrod Washington, Aug. 20, 1804, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

[637] Marshall to Wayne, July 20, 1804, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

[638] Marshall to Wayne, Aug. 10, 1804, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

[639] _Literary Magazine and American Register of Philadelphia_, July,

1804. The reviewer makes many of the criticisms that appeared on the

completion of the biography. (See _infra_, 261-79.)

[640] Wayne to Marshall, Aug. 20, 1804, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

[641] The affair at Little Meadows and the defeat of Braddock.

(Marshall: _Life of George Washington_, 1st ed. I, 356-58, 368-71.)

[642] These were: Belknap, Belsham, Chalmers, Dodsley, Entick or

Entinck, Gordon, Hutchinson, Minot, Ramsay, Raynal, Robertson, Russell,

Smith, Stedman, Stith, Trumbull.

[643] For example, Marshall's description of Sir William Berkeley, who

was, the reader is informed, "distinguished ... by the mildness of his

temper, the gentleness of his manners and ... popular virtues."

(Marshall, 1st ed. I, 72.)

[644] _Ib._ 188-92; and see vol. I, 6, of this work.

[645] _Ib._ 1st ed. I, 86-89.

[646] _Ib._ 111-12.

[647] _Ib._; see Notes, 9-18.

[648] _Ib._ X.

[649] _Ib._ 1st ed. II, 14-20.

[650] _Ib._ 67.

[651] Marshall, 1st ed. II, 82-83; and see vol. I, 66, of this work.

[652] See vol. I, 74-79, of this work.

[653] Marshall, 1st ed. II, 193.

[654] _Ib._ 160-69.

[655] _Ib._ 374-75.

[656] _Ib._ 377-78.

[657] Marshall, 1st ed. II, 377.

[658] _Ib._ 386-89.

[659] _Ib._ 390-94.

[660] _Ib._ 417-18, 445-46; and see vol. I, 83-86, of this work.

[661] Marshall, 1st ed. II, 259-61.

[662] Marshall to Wayne, Aug. 10, 1804, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

[663] Marshall to Wayne from Front Royal, Virginia, Sept. 3, 1804, Dreer

MSS. _loc. cit._

[664] Marshall spent many years preparing this second edition of his

_Washington_, which appeared in 1832, three years before Marshall's

death. See _infra_, 272-73.

[665] Marshall to Wayne, Sept. 8, 1804, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

[666] The amount of this draft is not stated.

[667] This would seem to indicate that Wayne had been able to collect

payment on the first two volumes, from only two thousand five hundred

subscribers, since, by the contract, Marshall and Washington together

were to receive one dollar for each book sold.

[668] Washington to Wayne, Dec. 25, 1804, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

[669] Same to same, Jan. 15, 1805, Dreer MSS _loc. cit._

[670] Same to same, Dec. 30, 1804, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

[671] Marshall to Wayne, Feb. 27, 1805, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

[672] Marshall to Wayne, March 16, 1805, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

[673] Same to same, June 29, 1805, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

[674] Wayne to Washington, July 4, 1804, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

[675] Marshall to Wayne, Oct. 5, 1805, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

[676] Washington to Wayne, April 1, 1806, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._ It was

in this year that the final payments for the Fairfax estate were made

and the deed executed to John and James M. Marshall and their

brother-in-law Rawleigh Colston. See vol. II, footnote to 211, and vol.

IV, chap. III, of this work.

[677] Same to same, July 14, 1806, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

[678] Weems's orders for books are trustworthy first-hand information

concerning the literary tastes of the American people at that time, and

the extent of education among the wealthy. Writing from Savannah,

Georgia, August, 1806, he asks for "Rippons hymns, Watts D^{o.},

Newton's D^{o.}, Methodist D^{o.}, Davies Sermons, Massillons D^{o.},

Villiage D^{o.}, Whitfields D^{o.}, Fuller [the eminent Baptist divine,]

Works, viz. His Gospel its own evidence, Gospel Worthy of all

Acceptation, Pilgrim's progress, Baxter's S^{ts.} Rest, Call to the

Unconverted, Alarm, by Allein, Hervey's Works, Rushe's Medical Works;

All manner of School Books, Novels by the cart load, particularly

Charlotte Temple ... 2 or 300 of Charlotte Temple ... Tom Paines

Political Works, Johnson's Poets boun^d in green or in any handsome

garb, particularly Miltons Paradise lost, Tompsons Seasons, Young's N.

Thoughts wou'd do well." (Weems to Wayne, Aug. 1806, Dreer MSS. _loc.

cit._)

Another order calls for all the above and also for "Websters Spell^g

book, Universal D^{o.}, Fullers Backslider, Booths reign of Grace,

Looking Glass for the mind, Blossoms of Morality, Columbian Orator,

Enticks Dictionary, Murrays Grammar, Enfield's Speaker, Best Books on

Surveying, D^{o.} on Navigation, Misses Magazine, Vicar of Wakefield,

Robinson Crusoe, Divine Songs for Children, Pamela Small." In this

letter forty-four different titles are called for.

[679] Weems to Wayne, Jan. 28, 1804, and Aug. 25, 1806, Dreer MSS. _loc.

cit._

[680] Same to same, Sept. 20, 1806, Wayne MSS. _loc. cit._ This letter

is written from Augusta, Georgia. Among other books ordered in it, Weems

names twelve copies each of "Sallust, Corderius, Eutropius, Nepos,

Caesar's Commentaries, Virgil Delph., Horace Delphini, Cicero D^{o.}, Ovid

D^{o.}"; and nine copies each of "Greek Grammar, D^{o.} Testament, Lucian,

Xenophon."

[681] Marshall, III, 28-42.

[682] See vol. I, 93-98, 102, of this work.

[683] Marshall, III, chaps. III and IV.

[684] See vol. I, 98-101, of this work.

[685] Marshall, III, 43-48, 52.

[686] _Ib._ 319, 330, 341-50; and see vol. I, 110-32, of this work.

[687] Marshall, III, 345, 347-49.

[688] _Ib._ 50-53, 62.

[689] Marshall, III, 59. "No species of licentiousness was unpracticed.

The plunder and destruction of property was among the least offensive of

the injuries sustained." The result "could not fail to equal the most

sanguine hopes of the friends of the revolution. A sense of personal

wrongs produced a temper, which national considerations had been found

too weak to excite.... The great body of the people flew to arms."

[690] _Ib._ 20, 22, 24, 27, 386. See also vol. I, 115-16, of this work,

and authorities there cited.

[691] Marshall, III, 246-47.

[692] _Ib._ Notes, 4-6.

[693] _Ib._ chap. 8; and see vol. I, 134-38, of this work.

[694] Marshall, III, 366-85.

[695] _Ib._ 486-96.

[696] See vol. II, 405, of this work.

[697] Marshall, IV, 114-15.

[698] _Ib._ 188.

[699] _Ib._ 247-65; see vol. I, 143-44, of this work.

[700] Marshall, IV, 284-88.

[701] Marshall, IV, 530-31.

[702] See Jefferson's letter to Barlow, _supra_.

[703] See _supra_, chap. III, and _infra_, chap. VI; and see especially

vol. IV, chap. I, of this work.

[704] Adams to Marshall, July 17, 1806, MS.

This letter is most important. Adams pictures his situation when

President: "A first Magistrate of a great Republick with a General

officer under him, a Commander in Chief of the Army, who had ten

thousand times as much Influence Popularity and Power as himself, and

that Commander in Chief so much under the influence of his Second in

command [Hamilton], ... the most treacherous, malicious, insolent and

revengeful enemy of the first Magistrate is a Picture which may be very

delicate and dangerous to draw. But it must be drawn....

"There is one fact ... which it will be difficult for posterity to

believe, and that is that the measures taken by Senators, Members of the

House, some of the heads of departments, and some officers of the Army

to force me to appoint General Washington ... proceeded not from any

regard to him ... but merely from an intention to employ him as an

engine to elevate Hamilton to the head of affairs civil as well as

military."

[705] He was "accustomed to contemplate America as his country, and to

consider ... the interests of the whole." (Marshall, V, 10.)

[706] _Ib._ 24-30.

[707] _Ib._ 31-32.

[708] _Ib._ 33-34.

[709] _Ib._ 45-47.

[710] Marshall, V, 65.

[711] _Ib._ 85-86.

[712] Marshall, V, 85-87.

[713] _Ib._ 88-89.

[714] Marshall, V, 105. Marshall's account of the causes and objects of

Shays's Rebellion is given wholly from the ultra-conservative view of

that important event. (_Ib._ 123.)

[715] _Ib._ 128-29.

[716] _Ib._ 132.

[717] _Ib._ 133-50.

[718] Marshall, V, 178-79. Thus Marshall, writing in 1806, states one of

the central principles of the Constitution as he interpreted it from the

Bench years later in three of the most important of American judicial

opinions--Fletcher _vs._ Peck, Sturgis _vs._ Crowninshield, and the

Dartmouth College case. (See _infra_, chap. X; also vol. IV, chaps. IV

and V, of this work.)

[719] Marshall, V, 198-210.

[720] _Ib._ 210-13. At this point Marshall is conspicuously, almost

ostentatiously impartial, as between Jefferson and Hamilton. His

description of the great radical is in terms of praise, almost

laudation; the same is true of his analysis of Hamilton's work and

character. But he gives free play to his admiration of John Adams.

(_Ib._ 219-20.)

[721] _Ib._ 230-32.

[722] Marshall, V, 241.

[723] _Ib._ 243-58.

[724] _Ib._ 271.

[725] "That system to which the American government afterwards

inflexibly adhered, and to which much of the national prosperity is to

be ascribed." (_Ib._ 408.)

[726] See vol. II, chaps. I to IV, of this work.

[727] Marshall, V, 685-709.

[728] _Ib._ 773.

[729] James Kent to Moss Kent, July 14, 1807, Kent MSS. Lib. Cong.

[730] Jefferson to Barlow, April 16, 1811, _Works_: Ford, XI, 205.

[731] Jefferson to Adams, June 15, 1813, _ib._ 296.

[732] Botta: _History of the War of the Independence of the United

States of America_. This work, published in Italian in 1809, was not

translated into English until 1820; but in 1812-13 a French edition was

brought out, and that is probably the one Jefferson had read.

[733] Jefferson to Adams, Aug. 10, 1815, _Works_: Ford, XI, 485.

[734] Johnson: _Sketches of the Life and Correspondence of General

Nathanael Greene_. This biography was even a greater failure than

Marshall's _Washington_. During this period literary ventures by judges

seem to have been doomed.

[735] Jefferson to Johnson, March 4, 1823, _Works_: Ford, XII, 277-78.

[736] _Works_: Ford, I, 165-67.

[737] _Ib._ 181-82.

[738] Plumer, March 11, 1808, "Diary," Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.

[739] May, June, and August numbers, 1808, _Monthly Anthology and Boston

Review_, V, 259, 322, 434. It appears from the minutes of the Anthology

Society, publishers of this periodical, that they had a hard time in

finding a person willing to review Marshall's five volumes. Three

persons were asked to write the critique and declined. Finally, Mr.

Thatcher reluctantly agreed to do the work.

[740] Flint, in London _Athenæum_ for 1835, 803.

[741] _North American Review_, XLVI, 483.

[742] _New York Evening Post_, as quoted in Allibone: _Dictionary of

English Literature and British and American Authors_, II, 1227.

[743] _Edinburgh Review_, Oct. 1808, as quoted in Randall, II, footnote

to 40.

[744] _Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine_, XVII, 179.

[745] Marshall to Eliot, Sept. 20, 1809, MSS. of the Mass. Hist. Soc.

[746] Marshall to Murphey, Oct. 6, 1827, _Papers of Archibald D.

Murphey_: Hoyt, I, 365-66.

[747] Washington to Wayne, Nov. 26, 1816, Dreer MSS. _loc. cit._

[748] Marshall to Washington, Dec. 27, 1821, MS.

[749] So popular did this second edition become that, three years after

Marshall's death, a little volume, _The Life of Washington_, was

published for school-children. The publisher, James Crissy of

Philadelphia, states that this small volume is "printed from the

author's own manuscript," thus intimating that Marshall had prepared it.

(See Marshall, school ed.)

[750] Talbot _vs._ Seeman, United States _vs._ Schooner Peggy, Marbury

_vs._ Madison, and Little _vs._ Barreme.

[751] The first three in above note.