This contest in Congress produced, almost immediately, strong feelings
of dissatisfaction between some of the friends of Mr. Jefferson and
Colonel Burr. Jealousies and distrust had previously existed. Mr.
Jefferson was anxious that Mr. Madison should be his successor in
office. The Clinton and Livingston families were prepared to unite in
a crusade against Colonel Burr; the chieftains of each section hoping
to fill the station from which he was to be expelled. General Hamilton
was in favour of the election of Mr. Jefferson, as opposed to Colonel
Burr. The result afforded him a triumph, and be was prepared, when
opportunity should present, to prostrate his late successful opponent.
Such was the state of parties, and such the feelings of leading and
distinguished partisans, when Colonel Burr entered upon the
vice-presidency, on the fourth of March, 1801. He was hemmed in on
every side by political adversaries, ready for the onset so soon as it
should be deemed expedient to make it. Every movement, every
expression at the convivial board or in the social circle, and every
action, was carefully watched and noted for future use, if, by the
exercise of ingenuity and misrepresentation, such expression or action
could be so tortured as to operate injuriously to him. These several
sections, each acting within its own sphere, impelled by conflicting
motives, were untiring in their efforts to accomplish the great
object--the ruin of the vice-president. They combined wealth, talents,
and government patronage.
The following short extracts from letters, written as early as 1794
and 1795, will show what were the wishes of Mr. Jefferson (so far as
any reliance can be placed on professions) in relation to Mr. Madison.
THOMAS JEFFERSON TO JAMES MADISON.
"Monticello, December 28, 1794.
"DEAR SIR,
"I do not see in the minds of those with whom I converse a greater
affliction than the fear of your retirement; [1] but this must not be,
_unless to a more splendid and more efficacious post_. [2]
There I should rejoice to see you; I hope I may say, I shall rejoice
to see you. I have long had much in my mind to say to you on that
subject; but double delicacies have kept me silent. I ought, perhaps,
to say, _while I would not give up my own retirement for the empire of
the universe_, how I can justify wishing one, whose happiness I have
so much at heart as yours, to take the front of the battle which is
fighting for my security."
THOMAS JEFFERSON TO JAMES MADISON.
"Monticello, April 27, 1795.
"DEAR SIR,
"In mine, to which yours of March the twenty-third was an answer, I
expressed my hope of the only change of position I ever wished to see
you make, and I expressed it with entire sincerity, because there is
not another person in the United States who, being placed at the helm
of our affairs, my mind would be so completely at rest for the fortune
of our political bark. The wish, too, was pure, and unmixed with any
thing respecting myself personally. * * * * * *
"If these general considerations were sufficient to ground a firm
resolution never to permit myself to think of the office (president),
or be thought of for it, the special ones which have supervened on my
retirement still more insuperably bar the door to it. My health is
entirely broken down within the last eight months; _my age requires
that I should place my affairs_ in a clear state; these are sound, if
taken care of, but capable of considerable dangers if longer
neglected; and, above all things, the delights I feel in the society
of my family, and in the agricultural pursuits in which I am so
eagerly engaged. _The little spice of ambition which I had in my
younger days has long since evaporated, and I set still less store by
a posthumous than present name_."
It is a remarkable fact, that, previous to the balloting in Congress,
all parties and sections of parties concurred in the opinion that the
election would finally be determined, as it was, by New-York,
New-Jersey, and Maryland. These _three_ states would render the
election of Colonel Burr certain; _two_ of them could elect Mr.
Jefferson. The vote, of New-York was to be decided by _Theodorus
Bailey_, of Dutchess county, and _Edward Livingston_, of the city of
New-York; the vote of New-Jersey by Mr. _Linn_, and the vote of
Maryland by Mr. _Dent_ or Mr. _Baer_.
In the Commercial Advertiser of the thirteenth of February, 1801, a
paper opposed to the election of Colonel Burr, there is published an
extract of a letter from a member of Congress, dated Washington,
February 10, which states that, upon the second ballot, it is expected
that New-York, New-Jersey, and Maryland will vote for Mr. Burr.
On the sixth of February, 1801, a leading and influential republican
member of Congress writes to his correspondent a letter, from which
the following is extracted:--
"I have not time to answer your letter as fully as I could wish, as it
would have been my desire to communicate to you not only facts, _but
some of the reasons which have induced us to adopt the steps we have
heretofore taken_. But, at all events, it is important that you should
have an immediate knowledge of the present situation of affairs.
"It is reduced to moral certainty, so far as any reliance can be
placed on the solemn determinations of men, that either Mr. Jefferson
will be chosen, or that there will be no choice made. The republican
majorities of eight states (including _Linn_ [3] of New-Jersey, and
the New-York representation, [4] the republican half of Maryland,
including Mr. Dent, [5] and Lyon of Vermont, are _pledged_ to
persevere in voting for Mr. Jefferson to the end, be the consequence
what it will."
Colonel Burr, soon after his election, gave his enemies an opportunity
to cavil. It would be impossible to enter into all the details
connected with this subject; but the principal charges which were made
against the vice-president, and assigned as reasons for opposing his
renomination, will be briefly presented. The replies to or
explanations of them, by the parties implicated, will also be given.
Late in November, 1801, when Mr. Burr was on his way to Washington to
take his seat in Senate as vice-president, he was addressed by certain
citizens of Baltimore, on which occasion he remarked, "Time will not
allow me to return you a written answer, but I must be permitted to
state my disapprobation of the mode of expressing public sentiment by
addresses." This gave offence to some, and, by the artful and
designing, was misrepresented. Mr. Burr, during the years 1798 and
1799, had beheld, with mortification and disgust, the adulatory, if
not sycophantic addresses presented to President Adams. This reproof,
therefore, of his friends, evinced his natural independence of
character as well as the purest republican notions.
In the month of January, 1802, a bill to repeal what was termed by the
republicans the federal midnight judiciary act, was pending before the
Senate. On the 27th of January, a motion was made to refer the bill to
a committee for the purpose of amendment. On this motion the votes
were, _ayes_, 14; _noes_, 14. The vice-president, Colonel Burr, was in
the chair. He said--"I am for the affirmative, because I never can
resist the reference of a measure where the Senate is so nicely
balanced, and when the object is to effect amendment that may
accommodate it to the opinions of a large majority, and particularly
when I can believe that gentlemen are sincere in wishing a reference
for this purpose. Should it, however, at any time appear that delay
only is intended, my conduct will be different."
This decision afforded the enemies of Colonel Burr an opportunity to
break ground more openly against him. He was now charged with aiding
the federal party in their efforts to embarrass the administration,
and with the design of defeating the wishes of the American people. As
yet, the charge of intriguing and negotiating with the federalists to
obtain the presidency in opposition to Mr. Jefferson had not been
made. The allies had not yet sufficiently poisoned the public mind
against the vice-president, nor had they subsidized the requisite
number of presses for carrying on the work of destruction. While the
grand assault was meditating, and these _feints_ were carrying on
against the vice-president, he was constantly receiving approbatory
letters from intelligent and well-informed citizens, many of whom
cowered beneath the storm when, in the height of its fury, it burst
upon the victim. From among a number the following are selected:--
FROM A. J. DALLAS.
Philadelphia, 3d February, 1802.[6]
DEAR SIR,
On the judiciary question, I wrote my sentiments to Mr. Wilson
Nicholas early in the session. I am sorry our friends have taken so
peremptory a position, as the very circumstance of having taken it
will render it difficult to move them. I cannot concur with them in
the policy or expediency of the measure. The business of the court
will not allow me to give my reasons in detail, but you shall have my
brief.
1. There never was a case in which a party could be more justified in
expressing their resentment, on account of the manner of passing the
act; the manner of organizing the courts; the nature of the opposition
to the repeal, denying its constitutionality, and menacing a civil
war.
2. The repeal would be constitutional, from a review of the
principles, and terms of the constitution itself; of the peculiar
situation of the country ; its growing population ; its extending
prospects; its increasing wants, pursuits, and refinements, &c.; of
the analogy to the Judiciary Institution of England, where independent
of the legislature is not within the policy or provision of the
statutes relative to the commissions of the judges; of the analogy to
the Judiciary Institutions of the sister states, which have all been
subject to legislative interference occasionally. In Pennsylvania
particularly, the constitution declares that the judges shall hold
their commissions during good behaviour; yet it expressly authorizes
the legislature to abolish the Court of Common Pleas, &c.; and of the
precedents in the existing act of Congress, which is an exercise of
the power _sub modo_.
3. But notwithstanding the indignation I feel, in common with our
friends, at the manner of passing the Circuit Court act; and
notwithstanding my perfect conviction that Congress has the power of
repealing the act, I think the repeal would be impolitic and
inexpedient. If it would be impolitic acting on party principles, it
would be inexpedient of course; but I mean, also, that it would be
inexpedient on account of the use that Pennsylvania (and I presume the
same as to other states) has derived from the institution:
1st. _It is impolitic_.
The republicans are not agreed on the constitutionality of the repeal.
The people at large have imbibed strong prejudices on the subject of
judicial independence. The repeal would be ascribed to party
animosity; and if future amendments should be made, it would be
considered as a personal proceeding, merely to remove the present
judges: the hazard of loss in public opinion is greater than the hope
of gain. There is a mass of the community that will not be fermented
by the leaven of party passions. By persons of this description, the
motive and effect will be strictly analyzed and purified. The mere
resuscitation of the old system will either expose the administration
of justice to inconceivable embarrassments, or demonstrate the motive
to be abstractedly a party one, by calling for an immediate reform.
The clamour of the federalists will at least have a reasonable
foundation.
2. _It is inexpedient_.
The mere repeal will reinstate a system which every man of common
sense and candour must deprecate. It will entirely destroy
institutions susceptible of being modelled into a form economical as
well as useful. It will deprive some states of tribunals which have
been found highly advantageous, to the despatch of business. I allude
particularly to Pennsylvania. In this state justice, as far as
respects our state courts, is in a state of dissolution, from the
excess of business and the parsimony of the legislature.
With this view of the subject you will perceive that I think--_First_,
There ought not to be a total repeal. _Second_, There ought to be
amendments.
If, however, a repeal should take place, I am clearly of opinion that
it would be unjustifiable to make any provision for the ex-judges. On
this point and on the introduction of amendments I will, if you desire
it, amplify by a future post.
The zealous republicans are exciting some intemperance here, in
opposition to a memorial from our bar, which, you will perceive, is
confined to the operation of the law in this state as a matter of
fact, and not to any controversy of a constitutional or political
nature.
I shall be anxious to hear from you as often as you can spare a
moment, and particularly while the judiciary bill is pending.
Yours, with great regard,
A. J. DALLAS.
FROM NATHANIEL NILES.
February 17, 1802.
DEAR SIR,
Permit me to thank you most sincerely for the vote you gave in favour
of Mr. Dayton's motion to refer the judiciary bill to a select
committee; not because I am by any means satisfied it is not best that
bill should pass, but because I earnestly desire that republicanism
should on every occasion display the spirit of conciliation, as far as
can be done without the destruction of principle. I am every day more
and more satisfied that the cause is more endangered by the want of
such displays than by every thing besides. The fate of parties in and
about Congress will ultimately be determined by the great body of the
well informed in the middle walks of life. It is happy, in some
respects, that these are generally so far from the scene of action as
to be tolerably free from the blinding influence of those passions
which the scene itself is calculated to excite. They wish for every
thing that tends to convince the great public that republicanism,
instead of being hostile, is friendly to moderation and harmony. Shall
we not do well to mark with great care and precision the sunken rocks
and shoals on which self-denominated federalism has dashed itself to
pieces? Among these I would enumerate their too eager and violent
pursuit of their object. Had they been patient and accommodating, the
eyes of the public would have been still hoodwinked, until habit,
gradually acquired, would have rendered an expensive monarchy the most
agreeable government. But, thank Heaven, they, by overacting, exposed
their own feelings and designs. Will not the same pertinacity and
precipitation endanger the better--the opposite cause? It is a
prevalent idea among us middling people, that a good government must
be a moderate one; and we are exceedingly apt to judge of the spirit
of the government from the spirit of our rulers. Every thing
non-conciliating bears in its very front strong symptoms of a
tyrannical spirit.
I am, sir, the more gratified by your moderation because (though I am
ashamed to avow it) I have heard you was too impetuous. Pardon my
mistake; and suffer me to entreat you to encourage a steady pursuit of
republican measures in that way which will convince the bystanders
that the actors are uniformly and irresistibly urged to pursue them by
cool conviction, resulting from a candid, extensive, and philanthropic
survey of the great object. Passion and caprice very illy become so
awfully sublime an object as that for which well-informed republicans
contend.
With sentiments of respect, your obedient servant,
NATHANIEL NILES.
FROM A. J. DALLAS.
Philadelphia, 3d April, 1802.
DEAR SIR,
The judiciary storm has passed away for the present. I perceive,
however, that an effort is making to improve the old system without
increasing the number of judges; and we are once more unanimous at the
bar of Philadelphia in rejoicing that Paterson, and not Chase,
presides in our circuit. I had begun an outline of courts and
jurisdictions agreeably to your wish; but I lost the hope of its being
adopted when finished, so I abandoned the labour. Perhaps it may be
worth while to renew the scheme, with a view to a future session.
There are some rumours of jealousy and dissatisfaction prevailing
among the republican leaders, in the executive as well as the
legislative departments of the federal as well as of our state
government. It will be disgraceful, indeed, if the rumours axe true.
Very sincerely yours,
A. J. DALLAS.
Such were the sentiments and views of many of the most pure and
intelligent of the republican party in relation to a repeal of the
judiciary act of 1800. The preceding letters express the opinions
entertained by thousands who were opposed to federal men and federal
measures, but who wanted time for reflection; and yet, when Colonel
Burr voted to recommit the repealing bill for the purpose of
ascertaining whether it could not be rendered more satisfactory, the
conspirators cried aloud, _Crucify him--crucify him_.
The plot now began to thicken. During the year 1801, a Scotchman by
the name of Wood was employed to write "_A History of John Adams's
Administration_." Ward & Barlas, booksellers in New-York, were the
proprietors of the copyright, and printed 1250 copies. William Duane,
editor of the Aurora, furnished the author a portion of his materials,
and became the agent to negotiate with a London bookseller for the
publication of an edition in England. In the summer or autumn of 1801
Colonel Burr was informed of the progress of the work, and procured a
copy before it was ready for publication. On examining it, he came to
the conclusion that it was calculated to do the republican party more
injury than good. It abounded with misrepresentations, errors, and
libels. Mr. Burr, through a friend, agreed to pay a stipulated sum for
the suppression of the work, under the most solemn assurance that no
copy or copies would be permitted to go into the hands of any third
person, but that the whole edition should be delivered to the agent
who was to pay the money. Before the time of payment arrived, it was
ascertained that a copy or copies had been parted with, and would not
be returned. The contract was, therefore, never carried into effect.
Pending this negotiation, Mr. Duane, through Wood or Ward & Barlas,
was made acquainted with the arrangements which were in progress.
Cheetham, the editor of the American Citizen, was also informed of
what was doing. This was considered a most favourable opportunity for
assailing the vice-president, and charging him with the design of
suppressing the History of John Adams's Administration for the purpose
of keeping the people in ignorance of the wrong doings of the federal
party. Although the assailants had a full view of the whole ground,
yet the attack was commenced by innuendoes, indicating ignorance of
the true state of facts. The charge operated most injuriously upon the
republican character of Colonel Burr. The injury was irreparable, and
the attacks continued with unexampled malignity.
This brief statement, it is hoped, will be found sufficiently explicit
to be intelligible. And now for the conduct of Mr. Duane on the
occasion. His object, and the object of his employers, was
accomplished; but whether a short development of the whole case will
or will not add to his fame, the reader must determine.
On or about the 27th of February, 1802, the editor of the Aurora, in
his paper, states that a curious fact has lately been brought to light
in New-York; that Wood had completed his engagement with Ward & Barlas
to furnish a history of John Adams's Administration, and that 1250
copies were printed, but suppressed at the desire of some person. Mr.
Duane then animadverts with harshness, and expresses a wish to get a
clew to the names of the person or persons who suppressed the work.
On the 31st of May, 1802, the Aurora states that the American Citizen
and the Evening Post have commenced a warfare, of which Mr. Burr is
the object; that the principal matter of charge is the suppression of
Wood's History of John Adams's Administration; and then adds--"We are
fully possessed of one side of the subject, and have perused the
suppressed book attentively."
On the 12th of July, 1802, the Aurora says--"So far as it relates to
Mr. Burr, my opinions have been uniform and reiterated to his
particular friends, that if the motives for the suppression of the
book were not _satisfactorily explained to the public_, his standing
with the republican interest was gone."
During the period between February and July, 1802, the Aurora
reprinted the slanders of Cheetham against Mr. Burr in relation to the
suppressed book, and continued, from time to time, his own attacks
upon the vice-president. While thus _publicly_ giving currency to
these calumnies, would it be believed (if asserted) that Mr. Duane was
_privately_ writing Colonel Burr, and approving of his conduct in
suppressing the work? One of his letters on this subject is deemed
sufficient to a right understanding of the case. It will now be given
without comment. * * * * *
FROM WILLIAM DUANE.
Thursday, April 15, 1802.
DEAR SIR,
I think it fortunate that the pamphlet of Mr. Wood has not yet been
published, and that it would be much more so if it were not ever to
see the light. It has disappointed my expectations of finding in it at
least some useful reflections and reasonings, however little novelty
there might be in the facts. But, even in the narration of facts, I
find numerous errors, and not a few misrepresentations of things
notorious to every man who has attended with understanding to the
course of public affairs. There is in it a _something_, too, of a
character very different from what was represented to me; the adoption
of the story of Hamilton [7] and Lafayette, if it is not the effect of
an indifference to accuracy, or a coldness in pursuit of truth, is
something much worse, and at least is suspicious: there is more of the
same kind of matter, and less attention to the influence and views of
such characters, than the subject required. I consider it, upon the
whole, as a hasty, crude, and inconsistent production, calculated
rather to produce evil than the least good--as it would be attributed
to the republicans, with all its faults and inconsistencies, and a
credit assumed from it as a party confession of merit, in a particular
character, which is not founded, at least in the way stated in the
pamphlet. Were some parts of it omitted, and false statements
rectified, it might not do any harm; and perhaps it might be found
advisable to adopt some plan of that kind, making a careful _record of
the omissions_ to insert any future _misrepresentations_, and a like
record of such _additions_ or _alterations_. This might be very easily
done by printing the pages anew which contain the exceptionable parts,
and, if necessary, substituting reflections or anecdotes, founded in
fact, in their places. This might be done at a small expense. The
thing, thus corrected, published; and, if any effort should be made to
misrepresent, credit would be derived even by the defence, and the
exposure of the motives for suppressing the misstatements.
This I have thought proper to write you, and I hope will, in its
object and motives, find with you an excuse for doing so.
I am, with respect, your obedient servant,
WILLIAM DUANE.
Footnotes:
1. Mr. Madison was then a member of Congress.
2. President of the United States.
3. Appointed by Mr. Jefferson supervisor of internal revenue for the
state of New-Jersey.
4. Edward Livingston and Theodorus Bailey; the former appointed United
States district attorney for the district of New-York; the latter
subsequently appointed postmaster of the city of New-York, and removed
from the country, a distance of nearly one hundred miles, to take
charge of the office. Cheetham, editor of the _American Citizen,_ some
time after Mr. Livingston's appointment, in referring to him,
says--"Should Mr. Burr's _confidential friend ever become dangerous,
we will show what he has been and what he is_."
5. Appointed United States marshal for the Potomac district of
Maryland.
6. This letter is dated _seven_ days after Mr. Burr's casting vote in
the Senate.
7. The story here referred to is thus related by Wood in his history:
"In the year 1780, he (Hamilton) was promoted to the rank of colonel,
and at the siege of Yorktown commanded the attack on one of the
redoubts, the capture of which decided the fate of Lord Cornwallis and
his army. The conduct of Mr. Hamilton on this occasion was truly
honourable, and, in the history of his life, ought to weigh against
several of those scars that have since stained his character. Previous
to the attack, the Marquis de Lafayette proposed to General Washington
to put to death all the British troops that should be found in the
redoubts, as a retaliation for several acts of barbarity committed by
the royal army. The steady and nervous mind of Washington, which was
ever known to yield to the virtuous prejudice of compassion, gave his
assent to the bloody order. But Mr. Hamilton (the tenderness of whose
feelings has led him into error), after the redoubts were subdued,
took the conquered under his protection, and proved to his enemies
that Americans know how to fight, but not to murder." [General
Hamilton, in a letter referring to this same story, says--"Positively
and unequivocally, I declare that no such or similar order, or any
intimation or hint resembling it, was ever by me received or
understood to have been given."