# data[].attributes.headline
Gianna Capaldo - Nutrition in Colonial America

# data[].attributes.subject
Gianna Capaldo - Nutrition in Colonial America

# data[].attributes.body
Dr. William Buchan created this source. He was a physician in 1784.

The intended audience is ordinary people, and the purpose of it was so that medical and health knowledge was more accessible to the general public.

This was created in 1784.

I can learn what was recommended by doctors to eat in order to be healthy, and the nutritional value of these recommended foods.

Did his medical recommendations accurately reflect typical diets at this time?

Health, national character and the English diet in 1700 - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369848611001191?ref=pdf_download&fr=RR-2&rr=9919290cfdf8de0e

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Can You Chip In? We're celebrating our 1 trillionth archived web page. If you find our library useful, learn how you can help us fundraise!

Can You Chip In? We're celebrating our 1 trillionth archived web page. If you find our library useful, learn how you can help us fundraise!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Domestic medicine, or, A treatise on the prevention and cure of diseases by regimen and simple medicines : with an appendix, containing a dispensatory for the use of private practitioners : to which are added observations on the diet of the common people, recommending a method of living less expensive, and more conducive to health, than the present (17th edition) : Buchan, William,1729-1805. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Can You Chip In? We're celebrating our 1 trillionth archived web page. If you find our library useful, learn how you can help us fundraise! Can You Chip In? We're celebrating our 1 trillionth archived web page. If you find our library useful, learn how you can help us fundraise!

# data[].attributes.body
This source was created by the Fifth Congress of the United States, at the second session.

It was created for the people of the United States as a law to prevent any impediment on the operation of any laws in the United States.

It was created on November 13, 1798

Explains the reasoning behind the passing of the act.

What were the responses from those not involved in its passing and creation?

I will consult correspondence between prominent people during the time to understand the opinions and responses to the passing of the act.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Transcript
Note: The Alien and Sedition Acts consist of the following acts:

An Act supplementary to and to amend the act, intituled, "An Act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the act therefore passed on that subject" of June 18, 1798, "Naturalization Act of 1798"

An Act concerning aliens of June 25, 1798, "Alien Act"

An Act respecting alien enemies of July 6, 1798, "Alien Enemies Act"

An Act in addition to the act, entitled "An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States" of July 14 1798, "Sedition Act"

The documents transcribed here are: The Alien Act, The Alien Enemies Act, and The Sedition Act.
FIFTH CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:
At the Second Session,
Begun and held at the city of Philadelphia, in the state of Pennsylvania, on Monday, the thirteenth of November, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven.
An Act Concerning Aliens.
SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States at any time during the continuance of this act, to order all such aliens as he shall judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States, or shall have reasonable grounds to suspect are concerned in any treasonable or secret machinations against the government thereof, to depart out of the territory of the United States, within such time as shall be expressed in such order, which order shall be served on such alien by delivering him a copy thereof, or leaving the same at his usual abode, and returned to the office of the Secretary of State, by the marshal or other person to whom the same shall be directed. And in case any alien, so ordered to depart, shall be found at large within the United States after the time limited in such order for his departure, and not having obtained a license from the President to reside therein, or having obtained such license shall not have conformed thereto, every such alien shall, on conviction thereof, be imprisoned for a term not exceeding three years, and shall never after be admitted to become a citizen of the United States. Provided always, and be it further enacted, that if any alien so ordered to depart shall prove to the satisfaction of the President, by evidence to be taken before such person or persons as the President shall direct, who are for that purpose hereby authorized to administer oaths, that no injury or danger to the United States will arise from suffering such alien to reside therein, the President may grant a license to such alien to remain within the United States for such time as he shall judge proper, and at such place as he may designate. And the President may also require of such alien to enter into a bond to the United States, in such penal sum as he may direct, with one or more sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of the per- son authorized by the President to take the same, conditioned for the good behavior of such alien during his residence in the United States, and not violating his license, which license the President may revoke, whenever he shall think proper.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, whenever he may deem it necessary (for the public safety, to order to be removed out of the territory thereof, any alien who mayor shall be in prison in pursuance of this act; and to cause to be arrested and sent out of the United States such of those aliens as shall have been ordered to depart therefrom and shall not have obtained a license as aforesaid, in all cases where, in the opinion of the President, the public safety requires a speedy removal. And if any alien so removed or sent out of the United States by the President shall voluntarily return thereto, unless by permission of the President of the United States, such alien on conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned so long as, in the opinion of the President, the public safety may require.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That every master or commander of any ship or vessel which shall come into any port of the United States after the first day of July next, shall immediately on his arrival make report in writing to the collector or other chief officer of the customs of such port, of all aliens, if any, on board his vessel, specifying their names, age, the place of nativity, the country from which they shall have come, the nation to which they belong and owe allegiance, their occupation and a description of their persons, as far as he shall be informed thereof, and on failure, every such master and commander shall forfeit and pay three hundred dollars, for the payment whereof on default of such master or commander, such vessel shall also be holden, and may by such collector or other officer of the customs be detained. And it shall be the duty of such collector or other officer of the customs, forthwith to transmit to the office of the Department of State true copies of all such returns.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the circuit and district courts of the United States, shall respectively have cognizance of all crimes and offences against this act. And all marshals and other officers of the United States are required to execute all precepts and orders of the President of the United States issued in pursuance or by virtue of this act.

SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for any alien who may be ordered to be removed from the United States, by virtue of this act, to take with him such part of his goods, chattels, or other property, as he may find convenient; and all property left in the United States by any alien, who may be removed, as aforesaid, shall be, and re- main subject to his order and disposal, in the same manner as if this act had not been passed.

SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That this act shall continue and be in force for and during the term of two years from the passing thereof.

Jonathan Dayton, Speaker of the House of Representatives.
TH. Jefferson, Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate.

I Certify that this Act did originate in the Senate.
Attest, Sam. A. Otis, Secretary

APPROVED, June 25, 1798.
John Adams
President of the United States.
An Act Respecting Alien Enemies
SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government, and the President of the United States shall make public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being males of the age of fourteen years and upwards, who shall be within the United States, and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien enemies. And the President of the United States shall be, and he is hereby authorized, in any event, as aforesaid, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed, on the part of the United States, towards the aliens who shall become liable, as aforesaid; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject, and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those, who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, shall refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which shall be found necessary in the premises and for the public safety: Provided, that aliens resident within the United States, who shall become liable as enemies, in the manner aforesaid, and who shall not be chargeable with actual hostility, or other crime against the public safety, shall be allowed, for the recovery, disposal, and removal of their goods and effects, and for their departure, the full time which is, or shall be stipulated by any treaty, where any shall have been between the United States, and the hostile nation or government, of which they shall be natives, citizens, denizens or subjects: and where no such treaty shall have existed, the President of the United States may ascertain and declare such reasonable time as may be consistent with the public safety, and according to the dictates of humanity and national hospitality.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That after any proclamation shall be made as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the several courts of the United States, and of each state, having criminal jurisdiction, and of the several judges and justices of the courts of the United States, and they shall be, and are hereby respectively, authorized upon complaint, against any alien or alien enemies, as aforesaid, who shall be resident and at large within such jurisdiction or district, to the danger of the public peace or safety, and contrary to the tenor or intent of such proclamation, or other regulations which the President of the United States shall and may establish in the premises, to cause such alien or aliens to be duly apprehended and convened before such court, judge or justice; and after a full examination and hearing on such complaint. and sufficient cause therefor appearing, shall and may order such alien or aliens to be removed out of the territory of the United States, or to give sureties of their good behaviour, or to be otherwise restrained, conformably to the proclamation or regulations which shall and may be established as aforesaid, and may imprison, or otherwise secure such alien or aliens, until the order which shall and may be made, as aforesaid, shall be performed.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the marshal of the district in which any alien enemy shall be apprehended, who by the President of the United States, or by order of any court, judge or justice, as aforesaid, shall be required to depart, and to be removed, as aforesaid, to provide therefor, and to execute such order, by himself or his deputy, or other discreet person or persons to be employed by him, by causing a removal of such alien out of the territory of the United States; and for such removal the marshal shall have the warrant of the President of the United States, or of the court, judge or justice ordering the same, as the case may be.

APPROVED, July 6, 1798.

FIFTH CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:
at the Second Session,
Begun and held at the city of Philadelphia, in the state of Pennsylvania, on Monday, the thirteenth of November, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven.
An Act in Addition to the Act, Entitled "An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes Against the United States."
SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That if any persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States, which are or shall be directed by proper authority, or to impede the operation of any law of the United States, or to intimidate or prevent any person holding a place or office in or under the government of the United States, from undertaking, performing or executing his trust or duty, and if any person or persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise or attempt to procure any insurrection, riot, unlawful assembly, or combination, whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advice, or attempt shall have the proposed effect or not, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and on conviction, before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, and by imprisonment during a term not less than six months nor exceeding five years; and further, at the discretion of the court may be holden to find sureties for his good behaviour in such sum, and for such time, as the said court may direct.

SEC. 2. And be it farther enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted and declared, That if any person shall be prosecuted under this act, for the writing or publishing any libel aforesaid, it shall be lawful for the defendant, upon the trial of the cause, to give in evidence in his defence, the truth of the matter contained in publication charged as a libel. And the jury who shall try the cause, shall have a right to determine the law and the fact, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That this act shall continue and be in force until the third day of March, one thousand eight hundred and one, and no longer: Provided, that the expiration of the act shall not prevent or defeat a prosecution and punishment of any offence against the law, during the time it shall be in force.

Jonathan Dayton, Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Theodore Sedgwick, President of the Senate pro tempore.

I Certify that this Act did originate in the Senate.
Attest, Sam. A. Otis, Secretary

APPROVED, July 14, 1798
John Adams
President of the United States.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
EnlargeDownload Link Citation: An Act Concerning Aliens, July 6, 1798; Fifth Congress; Enrolled Acts and Resolutions; General Records of the United States Government; Record Group 11; National Archives.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ryan Ciolfi - The pretensions of Thomas Jefferson to the Presidency examined; and the charges against John Adams refuted. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Ryan Ciolfi - The pretensions of Thomas Jefferson to the Presidency examined; and the charges against John Adams refuted. 

# data[].attributes.body
Written by William Smith.

Created for the general public of the United States and electors of the President.

1796

Very informative about the time and view of Jefferson in the eyes of the federalists, and how this may have influenced the 1796 election.

How much is truthful and fact based and how much is made up slander to degrade his image?

Other pamphlets from the federalist party, unbiased sources and secondary sources to see a break down and how it's interpreted.

# data[].attributes.headline
Sabrina Lawless- How Lewis and Clark's relationships with Native American's contributed to their findings 

# data[].attributes.subject
Sabrina Lawless- How Lewis and Clark's relationships with Native American's contributed to their findings 

# data[].attributes.body
Unsure of the exact creator, would either be Lewis or Clark

This was created for Congress to help create a map of their expedition

It was written in 1806

What we can learn from the time it was created is the locations and names of all the Native American tribes that hadn't been learned about yet

The question my source leaves me with is the perspective of the Native Americans

I will look further into sources regarding the relationships between the two groups

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
The Missouri Historical Society is ... Missouri Historical Society and was founded in 1866.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
List of Native American tribes and locations, to aid in creation of a map of the route of Lewis and Clark, [1806]

# data[].attributes.headline
Darien Thombs - Political opinion on the Quasi-War

# data[].attributes.subject
Darien Thombs - Political opinion on the Quasi-War

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Founders Online: Thomas Boylston Adams to John Adams, 4 March 1798

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Thomas Boylston Adams to John Adams, 4 March 1798

# data[].attributes.headline
Michael Arabik: Two Acts of Parliament: One Passed in the Sixth Year of the Reign of King George the Second...

# data[].attributes.subject
Michael Arabik: Two Acts of Parliament: One Passed in the Sixth Year of the Reign of King George the Second...

# data[].attributes.body
British Parliament created the source.

It was made for the colonies and the King to notify the people of the new taxes being passed.

It was created in 1764.

You can learn why the acts were passed by parliament, and what they include.

The question I have about my source, is what effects did this have on the American peoples commerce and way of life.

I may consult history books about the use of sugar and all printed materials in the colonies and what happened with them after the acts passed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
MHS Collections Online: Two Acts of Parliament: One Passed in the Sixth Year of the Reign of King George the Second ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections Online: Two Acts of Parliament: One Passed in the Sixth Year of the Reign of King George the Second…

# data[].attributes.headline
Gracie Kolbenschlag- Thomas Jefferson and architecture in the United States 

# data[].attributes.subject
Gracie Kolbenschlag- Thomas Jefferson and architecture in the United States 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Monticello: Stone house (slave quarters), 1770 - Thomas Jefferson - Google Arts & Culture

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plan showing two different layouts and specifying which type was to be built for which slaves. Architectural drawing ID: N38 K16

# data[].attributes.headline
Caroline Fenstermacher - Duane, William. "More of Good Order and Regular Government," Aurora General Advertiser, May 16, 1799.

# data[].attributes.subject
Caroline Fenstermacher - Duane, William. "More of Good Order and Regular Government," Aurora General Advertiser, May 16, 1799.

# data[].attributes.body
This is an article written by William Duane, the editor of the Aurora General Advertiser. It is published in the same newspaper.

The Aurora was a prominent Democratic-Republican newspaper from Philadelphia. The audience likely would have been other Democratic Republicans, likely in the Philadelphia area.

The article is published in the May 16, 1799 edition of the Aurora.

This entire newspaper is an example of the highly-partisan newspapers of the period. The content of the article has an obvious Democratic-Republican slant, but it also provides an account of the violence that newspaper publishers faced during the era of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

I still want to know more about Duane's brief reference to another publisher that was assaulted in Reading, PA. I want to explore this article's connection to Fries Rebellion and the Rebellion's relationship to the Alien and Sedition Acts. Also, I would like to learn more about the place of the Aurora General Advertiser in early national period politics.

I would like to read more about Fries Rebellion and publishers' roles in the early national period. I think that I will be able to find this information in books, journal articles, as well as more contemporary newspaper articles.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Aurora General Advertiser - Google News Archive Search

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
No related articles found for this article.

# data[].attributes.headline
Abby Landi, Rivalry/duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr, 

# data[].attributes.subject
Abby Landi, Rivalry/duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr, 

# data[].attributes.body
1- This source was created by Aaron Burr.

2-This was a letter to Alexander Hamilton.

3-June 22, 1804

4-I can learn about previous disagreements or issues between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton that led to the duel in 1804.

5-None

6-Other letters between Burr and Hamilton, documents where they spoke about one another, documents highlighting conflicts between them, etc.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Founders Online: Aaron Burr to Alexander Hamilton, 22 June 1804

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Aaron Burr to Alexander Hamilton, 22 June 1804

# data[].attributes.headline
Megan Levesque - Women’s political activism during the revolution

# data[].attributes.subject
Megan Levesque - Women’s political activism during the revolution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I wish you would ever write me a Letter half as long as I write you; and tell me if you may where your Fleet are gone? What sort of Defence Virginia can make against our common Enemy? Whether it is so situated as to make an able Defence? Are not the Gentery Lords and the common people vassals, are they not like the uncivilized Natives Brittain represents us to be? I hope their Riffel Men who have shewen themselves very savage and even Blood thirsty; are not a specimen of the Generality of the people.

I am willing to allow the Colony great merrit for having produced a Washington but they have been shamefully duped by a Dunmore.

I have sometimes been ready to think that the passion for Liberty cannot be Eaquelly Strong in the Breasts of those who have been accustomed to deprive their fellow Creatures of theirs. Of this I am certain that it is not founded upon that generous and christian principal of doing to others as we would that others should do unto us.

Do not you want to see Boston; I am fearfull of the small pox, or I should have been in before this time. I got Mr. Crane to go to our House and see what state it was in. I find it has been occupied by one of the Doctors of a Regiment, very dirty, but no other damage has been done to it. The few things which were left in it are all gone. Cranch 1 has the key which he never deliverd up. I have wrote to him for it and am determined to get it cleand as soon as possible and shut it up. I look upon it a new acquisition of property, a property which one month ago I did not value at a single Shilling, and could with pleasure have seen it in flames.

The Town in General is left in a better state than we expected, more oweing to a percipitate flight than any Regard to the inhabitants, tho some individuals discoverd a sense of honour and justice and have left the rent of the Houses in which they were, for the owners and the furniture unhurt, or if damaged sufficent to make it good.

Others have committed abominable Ravages. The Mansion House of your President 2 is safe and the furniture unhurt whilst both the House and Furniture of the Solisiter General 3 have fallen a prey to their own merciless party. Surely the very Fiends feel a Reverential awe for Virtue and patriotism, whilst they Detest the paricide and traitor.

I feel very differently at the approach of spring to what I did a month ago. We knew not then whether we could plant or sow with safety, whether when we had toild we could reap the fruits of our own industery, whether we could rest in our own Cottages, or whether we should not be driven from the sea coasts to seek shelter in the wilderness, but now we feel as if we might sit under our own vine and eat the good of the land.

I feel a gaieti de Coar 4 to which before I was a stranger. I think the Sun looks brighter, the Birds sing more melodiously, and Nature puts on a more chearfull countanance. We feel a temporary peace, and the poor fugitives are returning to their deserted habitations.

Tho we felicitate ourselves, we sympathize with those who are trembling least the Lot of Boston should be theirs. But they cannot be in similar circumstances unless pusilanimity and cowardise should take possession of them. They have time and warning given them to see the Evil and shun it.-I long to hear that you have declared an independancy-and by the way in the new Code of Laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make I desire you would Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favourable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could. If perticuliar care and attention is not paid to the Laidies we are determined to foment a Rebelion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation.

That your Sex are Naturally Tyrannical is a Truth so thoroughly established as to admit of no dispute, but such of you as wish to be happy willingly give up the harsh title of Master for the more tender and endearing one of Friend. Why then, not put it out of the power of the vicious and the Lawless to use us with cruelty and indignity with impunity. Men of Sense in all Ages abhor those customs which treat us only as the vassals of your Sex. Regard us then as Beings placed by providence under your protection and in immitation of the Supreem Being make use of that power only for our happiness.

Not having an opportunity of sending this I shall add a few lines more; tho not with a heart so gay. I have been attending the sick chamber of our Neighbour Trot whose affliction I most sensibly feel but cannot discribe, striped of two lovely children in one week. Gorge the Eldest died on wedensday and Billy the youngest on fryday, with the Canker fever, a terible disorder so much like the thr[o]at distemper, that it differs but little from it. Betsy Cranch has been very bad, but upon the recovery. Becky Peck they do not expect will live out the day. Many grown person[s] are now sick with it, in this [street?] 5. It rages much in other Towns. The Mumps too are very frequent. Isaac is now confined with it. Our own little flock are yet well. My Heart trembles with anxiety for them. God preserve them.

I want to hear much oftener from you than I do. March 8 was the last date of any that I have yet had.-You inquire of whether I am making Salt peter. I have not yet attempted it, but after Soap making believe I shall make the experiment. I find as much as I can do to manufacture cloathing for my family which would else be Naked. I know of but one person in this part of the Town who has made any, that is Mr. Tertias Bass as he is calld who has got very near an hundred weight which has been found to be very good. I have heard of some others in the other parishes. Mr. Reed of Weymouth has been applied to, to go to Andover to the mills which are now at work, and has gone. I have lately seen a small Manuscrip de[s]cribing the proportions for the various sorts of powder, fit for cannon, small arms and pistols. If it would be of any Service your way I will get it transcribed and send it to you.-Every one of your Friend[s] send their Regards, and all the little ones. Your Brothers youngest child lies bad with convulsion fitts. 5 Adieu. I need not say how much I am Your ever faithfull Friend.

RC (Adams Papers); addressed in an unidentified hand: "To The Honble. John Adams Esqr: In Philadelphia"; franked: "Free"; endorsed: "March 31. April 5. answd Ap. 14th."

1. This is probably a slip of the pen for "Crane," AA's agent in Boston mentioned above. (At least two Crane "housewrights" active in Boston at this time are recorded in the Thwing Catalogue, MHi.) AA normally refers to her brother-in-law Richard Cranch as "Mr. Cranch."

4. AA 's spelling of this word is very uncertain.

5. Susanna, daughter of Peter Boylston Adams. She had been born the previous July and died later in the present month.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Founders Online: Abigail Adams to John Adams, 31 March 1776

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I wish you would ever write me a Letter half as long as I write you; and tell me if you may where your Fleet are gone? What sort of Defence Virginia can make against our common Enemy? Whether it is so situated as to make an able Defence?

# data[].attributes.headline
Wunneonatsu Cason - How Thomas Jefferson contributed to the development of Indian boarding schools - 

# data[].attributes.subject
Wunneonatsu Cason - How Thomas Jefferson contributed to the development of Indian boarding schools - 

# data[].attributes.headline
Sofina McAllister- The Influence of Gilbert Stuart's Paintings on Colonial America

# data[].attributes.subject
Sofina McAllister- The Influence of Gilbert Stuart's Paintings on Colonial America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Information on this painting can be found in the Gallery publication American Paintings of the Eighteenth Century , pages 265-266, 268-270, and 273-275, which is available as a free PDF https://www.nga.gov/content/dam/ngaweb/research/apublications/pdfs/american-paintings-18th-century.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
Olivia Bianco: how lewis and clark's journals can highlight changes in wildlife

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This page is testing whether or not you are a human visitor to prevent unwanted bot traffic. It will refresh momentarily with the content you requested.

# data[].attributes.headline
Healthcare of Slaves Primary Source (Jefferson’s account with Doctor Edward Gantt for services provided “To Ursula” on March 22, 1802) https://www.whitehousehistory.org/slavery-in-the-thomas-jefferson-white-house? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Healthcare of Slaves Primary Source (Jefferson’s account with Doctor Edward Gantt for services provided “To Ursula” on March 22, 1802) https://www.whitehousehistory.org/slavery-in-the-thomas-jefferson-white-house? 

# data[].attributes.body
1. Who created the source?

Doctor Edward Gantt

2. Who was it created for? or, who is the intended audience?

It was created for Thomas Jefferson

3. When was it created?

March 22, 1802

4. What can you learn from your source about the time it was created?

It gives insight about the treatment and healthcare provided to a couple of Jefferson's slaves.

5. What questions do you still have about your source?

How often were services like this one created

6. What sources might you consult to learn more?

I might look into Doctor Edward Gantt and his opinion on slavery and medicine

# data[].attributes.headline
Becca Dawson - The Social/Civilian Impact of the Battles of Lexington and Concord 

# data[].attributes.subject
Becca Dawson - The Social/Civilian Impact of the Battles of Lexington and Concord 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An American woman remembered her experience during the Battles of Lexington and Concord.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ella Suchecki: John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 24 August 1815

# data[].attributes.subject
Ella Suchecki: John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 24 August 1815

# data[].attributes.body
Letter sent to Thomas Jefferson from John Adams discussing the origins of the American Revolution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If I am neither deceived by the little Information I have, or by my Wishes for its truth, I Should Say that France is the most Protestant Country of Europe at this time, though I cannot think it the most reformed.In consequence of these Reveries I have imagined that Camus and the Institute, meant, by the revival and continuance of the Acta Sanctorum, to destroy the Pope and the Catholic Church and Hierarchy, de fonde en comble , or in the language of Frederick, Voltaire, D'Alembert &c "ecraser le miserable," "crush the Wretch." This great Work must contain the most complete History of the corruptions of Christianity, that has ever appeared; Priestleys not excepted. And his History of ancient opinions not excepted.

As to the history of the Revolution, my Ideas may be peculiar, perhaps Singular. What do We mean by the Revolution? The War? That was no part of the Revolution. It was only an Effect and Consequence of it. The Revolution was in the Minds of the People, and this was effected, from 1760 to 1775, 1 in the course of fifteen Years before a drop of blood was drawn at Lexington. The Records of thirteen Legislatures, the Pamphlets, 2 Newspapers in all the Colonies ought be consulted, during that Period, to ascertain the Steps by which the public opinion was enlightened and informed concerning the Authority of Parliament over the Colonies. The Congress of 1774, resembled in Some respects, tho' I hope not in many, the Counsell of Nice in Ecclesiastical History. It assembled the Priests from the East and the West the North and the South, who compared Notes, engaged in discussions and debates and formed Results, by one Vote and by two Votes, which went out to the World as unanimous.

Mr Madisons Notes of the Convention of 1787 or 1788 are consistent with his indefatigable Character. I Shall never See them: but I hope Posterity will.

That our correspondence has been observed is no Wonder; for your hand is more universally known than your face. No Printer has asked me for copies: but it is no Surprize that you have been requested. These Gentry will print whatever will Sell: and our Correspondence is thought Such an Oddity by both Parties, that the Printers imagine an Edition would Soon go off and yeild them a Profit. There has however been no tampering with your Letters to me. They have all arrived in good order.

Poor Bonaparte! Poor Devil! What has and what will become of him? Going the Way of King Theodore, Alexander Cæsar, Charles 12th Cromwell, 3 Wat Tyler and Jack Cade; i.e. to a bad End. And What will become of Wellington? Envied, hated despized by all the Barons, Earls, Viscounts Marquis's as an Upstart a Parvenue elevated Over their heads. For these People have no Idea of any Merit, but Birth. Wellington must pass the rest of his days buffetted ridiculed, Scorned and insulted by Factions as Marlborough and his Dutchess did. Military Glory dazzles the Eyes of Mankind, and for a time eclipses all Wisdom all Virtue, all Laws humane 4 and divine; and after this it would be Bathos to descend 5 to Services merely civil or political.

Napoleon has imposed Kings Upon Spain Holland Sweden 6 Westphalia Saxony Naples &c. The combined Emperors and Kings are about to retaliate upon France, by imposing a King upon her. These are all abominable Examples, detestable Precedents. When will the Rights of Mankind the Liberties and Independence of Nations be respected? When the Perfectibility of the human Mind Shall arrive at Perfection. When the Progress of Manillius 's Shall have not only

Eripuit Cælo fulmen, Jovisque fulgores,

but made Mankind rational Creatures

It remains to be Seen whether The Allies were honest in their Declaration that they were at War only with Napoleon.

Can the French ever be cordially reconciled to the Bourbons again? If not, who can they find for a head? The Infant or one of the Generals? Innumerable difficulties will embarrass either Project.

RC ( DLC); addressed in an unidentified hand: "His Excellency Thomas Jefferson Esqre Monticello. Virginia"; franked; postmarked Quincy, 25 Aug.; endorsed by TJ as received 3 Oct. 1815 and so recorded in SJL. FC ( Lb in MHi: Adams Papers).

de fonde en comble : "from top to bottom." The ancient Roman author Marcus Manilius ( manillius) wrote Astronomica, a poem on astrology in which , or reason, joins with God to explain life on earth. eripuit cælo fulmen, jovisque fulgores ("he stole the thunderbolts from heaven and the meteors of Jove") is derived from this poem (Astronomica, 1.104, 2.80-6, in Manilius, Astronomica with an English Translation, trans. George P. Goold, Loeb Classical Library [1977], 12-3, 88-9). For the 13 Mar. 1815 declaration issued at the Congress of Vienna, see note to TJ to Thomas Leiper, 12 June 1815. The infant was Napoleon's namesake son, Napoleon François Joseph Charles Bonaparte.

Acta Sanctorum (J. de Bolland and others) search

Adams, John; and correspondence with TJ search

Adams, John; and J. Priestley's writings search

Adams, John; and offer to publish correspondence with TJ search

Adams, John; letters from search

Adams, John; on Acta Sanctorum (J. de Bolland and others) search

Adams, John; on aristocracy search

Adams, John; on France search

Adams, John; on historians of the American Revolution search

Adams, John; on human progress search

Adams, John; on M. Manilius search

Adams, John; on military glory search

Adams, John; on Napoleon search

Adams, John; on religion search

Adams, John; on Revolutionary generation search

Alembert, Jean Le Rond d'; and religion search

Alexander ("the Great"), king of Macedon search

American Revolution; J. Adams on search

American Revolution; materials for study of search

An History of Early Opinions Concerning Jesus Christ (J. Priestley) search

Astronomica (M. Manilius) search

Bolland, Jean de; Acta Sanctorum search

Cade, John (Jack) (English rebel); compared to Napoleon search

Caesar, Julius; mentioned search

Camus, Armand Gaston; Rapport a L'Institut National, Classe de Littérature et Beaux Arts, D'un voyage fait à la fin de l'an X search

Catholicism; Acta Sanctorum (J. de Bolland and others) search

Charles XII, king of Sweden search

Constitution, U.S.; 1787Constitutional Convention search

Continental Congress, U.S.; compared to the Council of Nicaea search

Cromwell, Oliver; mentioned search

France; Bourbon dynasty restored search

France; religion in search

Frederick II ("the Great"), king of Prussia; mentioned search

Institut de France; and Acta Sanctorum (J. de Bolland and others) search

Jefferson, Thomas; Correspondence; offer to publish correspondence with J. Adams search

Madison, James (1751-1836); notes on the Constitutional Convention search

Manilius, Marcus; Astronomica search

Manilius, Marcus; J. Adams on search

Marlborough, John Churchill, Duke of search

Marlborough, Sarah Jennings Churchill, Duchess of search

military; glory of command search

Napoleon François Joseph Charles Bonaparte, king of Rome (son of Napoleon I; later styled Napoleon II); and line of succession search

Napoleon I, emperor of France; and Congress of Vienna search

Napoleon I, emperor of France; J. Adams on search

newspapers; and the American Revolution search

Nicaea; ecumenical council at search

Priestley, Joseph; An History of Early Opinions Concerning Jesus Christ search

Priestley, Joseph; J. Adams on search

Rapport a L'Institut National, Classe de Littérature et Beaux Arts, D'un voyage fait à la fin de l'an X (A. G. Camus) search

religion; and Bollandists search

religion; Catholicism search

religion; J. Adams on search

religion; works on search

Theodore I Lascaris, emperor of Nicaea search

Tyler, Walter (Wat) (leader of English peasant revolt); compared to Napoleon search

Vienna, Congress of; negotiations at search

Voltaire (François Marie Arouet); and religious skepticism search

Wellington, Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of (formerly Viscount); compared to Duke of Marlborough search

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Founders Online: John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 24 August 1815

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 24 August 1815

# data[].attributes.headline
Luke Ward- How Jefferson's discovery of Hamilton's affair with Maria Reynolds led to his own relationship with Sally Hemings to be discovered

# data[].attributes.subject
Luke Ward- How Jefferson's discovery of Hamilton's affair with Maria Reynolds led to his own relationship with Sally Hemings to be discovered

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The spirit of jacobinism, if not entirely a new spirit, has at least been cloathed with a more gigantic body and armed with more powerful weapons than it ever before possessed. It is perhaps not too much to say, that it threatens more extensive and complicated mischiefs to the world than have hitherto flowed from the three great scourges of mankind, War, Pestilence and Famine. To what point it will ultimately lead society, it is impossible for human foresight to pronounce; but there is just ground to apprehend that its progress may be marked with calamities of which the dreadful incidents of the French revolution afford a very faint image. Incessantly busied in undermining all the props of public security and private happiness, it seems to threaten the political and moral world with a complete overthrow.

A principal engine, by which this spirit endeavours to accomplish its purposes is that of calumny. It is essential to its success that the influence of men of upright principles, disposed and able to resist its enterprises, shall be at all events destroyed. Not content with traducing their best efforts for the public good, with misrepresenting their purest motives, with inferring criminality from actions innocent or laudable, the most direct falshoods are invented and propagated, with undaunted effrontery and unrelenting perseverance. Lies often detected and refuted are still revived and repeated, in the hope that the refutation may have been forgotten or that the frequency and boldness of accusation may supply the place of truth and proof. The most profligate men are encouraged, probably bribed, certainly with patronage if not with money, to become informers and accusers. And when tales, which their characters alone ought to discredit, are refuted by evidence and facts which oblige the patrons of them to abandon their support, they still continue in corroding whispers to wear away the reputations which they could not directly subvert. If, luckily for the conspirators against honest fame, any little foible or folly can be traced out in one, whom they desire to persecute, it becomes at once in their hands a two-edged sword, by which to wound the public character and stab the private felicity of the person. With such men, nothing is sacred. Even the peace of an unoffending and amiable wife is a welcome repast to their insatiate fury against the husband.

In the gratification of this baleful spirit, we not only hear the jacobin news-papers continually ring with odious insinuations and charges against many of our most virtuous citizens; but, not satisfied with this, a measure new in this country has been lately adopted to give greater efficacy to the system of defamation-periodical pamphlets issue from the same presses, full freighted with misrepresentation and falshood, artfully calculated to hold up the opponents of the Faction to the jealousy and distrust of the present generation and if possible, to transmit their names with dishonor to posterity. Even the great and multiplied services, the tried and rarely equalled virtues of a Washington, can secure no exemption.

How then can I, with pretensions every way inferior expect to escape? And if truly this be, as every appearance indicates, a conspiracy of vice against virtue, ought I not rather to be flattered, that I have been so long and so peculiarly an object of persecution? Ought I to regret, if there be any thing about me, so formidable to the Faction as to have made me worthy to be distinguished by the plentytude of its rancour and venom?

It is certain that I have had a pretty copious experience of its malignity. For the honor of human nature, it is to be hoped that the examples are not numerous of men so greatly calumniated and persecuted, as I have been, with so little cause.

I dare appeal to my immediate fellow citizens of whatever political party for the truth of the assertion, that no man ever carried into public life a more unblemished pecuniary reputation, than that with which I undertook the office of Secretary of the Treasury; a character marked by an indifference to the acquisition of property rather than an avidity for it.

With such a character, however natural it was to expect criticism and opposition, as to the political principles which I might manifest or be supposed to entertain, as to the wisdom or expediency of the plans, which I might propose, or as to the skill, care or diligence with which the business of my department might be executed, it was not natural to expect nor did I expect that my fidelity or integrity in a pecuniary sense would ever be called in question.

But on his head a mortifying disappointment has been experienced. Without the slightest foundation, I have been repeatedly held up to the suspicions of the world as a man directed in his administration by the most sordid views; who did not scruple to sacrifice the public to his private interest, his duty and honor to the sinister accumulation of wealth.

Merely because I retained an opinion once common to me and the most influencial of those who opposed me, That the public debt ought to be provided for on the basis of the contract upon which it was created, I have been wickedly accused with wantonly increasing the public burthen many millions, in order to promote a stockjobbing interest of myself and friends.

Merely because a member of the House of Representatives entertained a different idea from me, as to the legal effect of appropriation laws, and did not understand accounts, I was exposed to the imputation of having committed a deliberate and criminal violation of the laws and to the suspicion of being a defaulter for millions; so as to have been driven to the painful necessity of calling for a formal and solemn inquiry.

The inquiry took place. It was conducted by a committee of fifteen members of the House of Representatives-a majority of them either my decided political enemies or inclined against me, some of them the most active and intelligent of my opponents, without a single man, who being known to be friendly to me, possessed also such knowledge and experience of public affairs as would enable him to counteract injurious intrigues. Mr. Giles of Virginia who had commenced the attack was of the committee. 10

The officers and books of the treasury were examined. The transactions between the several banks and the treasury were scrutinized. Even my private accounts with those institutions were laid open to the committee; and every possible facility given to the inquiry. The result was a complete demonstration that the suspicions which had been entertained were groundless.

Those which had taken the fastest hold were, that the public monies had been made subservient to loans, discounts and accommodations to myself and friends. The committee in reference to this point reported thus: "It appears from the affidavits of the Cashier and several officers of the bank of the United States and several of the directors, the Cashier, and other officers of the bank of NewYork, that the Secretary of the Treasury never has either directly or indirectly, for himself or any other person, procured any discount or credit from either of the said banks upon the basis of any public monies which at any time have been deposited therein under his direction: And the committee are satisfied, that no monies of the United States, whether before or after they have passed to the credit of the Treasurer have ever been directly or indirectly used for or applied to any purposes but those of the government, except so far as all monies deposited in a bank are concerned in the general operations thereof." 11

The report, which I have always understood was unanimous, contains in other respects, with considerable detail the materials of a complete exculpation. My enemies, finding no handle for their malice, abandoned the pursuit.

Yet unwilling to leave any ambiguity upon the point, when I determined to resign my office, I gave early previous notice of it to the House of Representatives, for the declared purpose of affording an opportunity for legislative crimination, if any ground for it had been discovered. 12 Not the least step towards it was taken. From which I have a right to infer the universal conviction of the House, that no cause existed, and to consider the result as a complete vindication.

On another occasion, a worthless man of the name of Fraunces found encouragement to bring forward to the House of Representatives a formal charge against me of unfaithful conduct in office. 13 A Committee of the House was appointed to inquire, consisting in this case also, partly of some of my most intelligent and active enemies. The issue was an unanimous exculpation of me as will appear by the following extract from the Journals of the House of Representatives of the 19th of February 1794.

"The House resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee, to whom was referred the memorial of Andrew G. Fraunces: whereupon,

"Resolved, That the reasons assigned by the secretary of the treasury, for refusing payment of the warrants referred to in the memorial, are fully sufficient to justify his conduct; and that in the whole course of this transaction, the secretary and other officers of the treasury, have acted a meritorious part towards the public."

"Resolved, That the charge exhibited in the memorial, against the secretary of the treasury, relative to the purchase of the pension of Baron de Glaubeck is wholly illiberal and groundless*." 14

Was it not to have been expected that these repeated demonstrations of the injustice of the accusations hazarded against me would have abashed the enterprise of my calumniators? However natural such an expectation may seem, it would betray an ignorance of the true character of the Jacobin system. It is a maxim deeply ingrafted in that dark system, that no character, however upright, is a match for constantly reiterated attacks, however false. It is well understood by its disciples, that every calumny makes some proselites and even retains some; since justification seldom circulates as rapidly and as widely as slander. The number of those who from doubt proceed to suspicion and thence to belief of imputed guilt is continually augmenting; and the public mind fatigued at length with resistance to the calumnies which eternally assail it, is apt in the end to sit down with the opinion that a person so often accused cannot be entirely innocent.

Relying upon this weakness of human nature, the Jacobin Scandal-Club though often defeated constantly return to the charge. Old calumnies are served up a-fresh and every pretext is seized to add to the catalogue. The person whom they seek to blacken, by dint of repeated strokes of their brush, becomes a demon in their own eyes, though he might be pure and bright as an angel but for the daubing of those wizard painters.

Of all the vile attempts which have been made to injure my character that which has been lately revived in No. V and VI, of the history of the United States for 1796 is the most vile. 15 This it will be impossible for any intelligent, I will not say candid, man to doubt, when he shall have accompanied me through the examination.

I owe perhaps to my friends an apology for condescending to give a public explanation. A just pride with reluctance stoops to a formal vindication against so despicable a contrivance and is inclined rather to oppose to it the uniform evidence of an upright character. This would be my conduct on the present occasion, did not the tale seem to derive a sanction from the names of three men 16 of some weight and consequence in the society: a circumstance, which I trust will excuse me for paying attention to a slander that without this prop, would defeat itself by intrinsic circumstances of absurdity and malice.

The charge against me is a connection with one James Reynolds for purposes of improper pecuniary speculation. My real crime is an amorous connection with his wife, for a considerable time with his privity and connivance, if not originally brought on by a combination between the husband and wife with the design to extort money from me.

This confession is not made without a blush. I cannot be the apologist of any vice because the ardour of passion may have made it mine. I can never cease to condemn myself for the pang, which it may inflict in a bosom eminently intitled to all my gratitude, fidelity and love. But that bosom will approve, that even at so great an expence, I should effectually wipe away a more serious stain from a name, which it cherishes with no less elevation than tenderness. The public too will I trust excuse the confession. The necessity of it to my defence against a more heinous charge could alone have extorted from me so painful an indecorum.

Before I proceed to an exhibition of the positive proof which repels the charge, I shall analize the documents from which it is deduced, and I am mistaken if with discerning and candid minds more would be necessary. But I desire to obviate the suspicions of the most suspicious.

The first reflection which occurs on a perusal of the documents is that it is morally impossible I should have been foolish as well as depraved enough to employ so vile an instrument as Reynolds for such insignificant ends, as are indicated by different parts of the story itself. My enemies to be sure have kindly pourtrayed me as another Chartres 17 on the score of moral principle. But they have been ever bountiful in ascribing to me talents. It has suited their purpose to exaggerate such as I may possess, and to attribute to them an influence to which they are not intitled. But the present accusation imputes to me as much folly as wickedness. All the documents shew, and it is otherwise matter of notoriety, that Reynolds was an obscure, unimportant and profligate man. Nothing could be more weak, because nothing could be more unsafe than to make use of such an instrument; to use him too without any intermediate agent more worthy of confidence who might keep me out of sight, to write him numerous letters recording the objects of the improper connection (for this is pretended and that the letters were afterwards burnt at my request) to unbosom myself to him with a prodigality of confidence, by very unnecessarily telling him, as he alleges, of a connection in speculation between myself and Mr. Duer. 18 It is very extraordinary, if the head of the money department of a country, being unprincipled enough to sacrifice his trust and his integrity, could not have contrived objects of profit sufficiently large to have engaged the co-operation of men of far greater importance than Reynolds, and with whom there could have been due safety, and should have been driven to the necessity of unkennelling such a reptile to be the instrument of his cupidity.

But, moreover, the scale of the concern with Reynolds, such as it is presented, is contemptibly narrow for a rapacious speculating secretary of the treasury. Clingman, Reynolds and his wife were manifestly in very close confidence with each other. It seems there was a free communication of secrets. Yet in clubbing their different items of information as to the supplies of money which Reynolds received from me, what do they amount to? Clingman states, that Mrs. Reynolds told him, that at a certain time her husband had received from me upwards of eleven hundred dollars. 19 A note is produced which shews that at one time fifty dollars were sent to him, 20 and another note is produced, by which and the information of Reynolds himself through Clingman, it appears that at another time 300 dollars were asked 21 and refused. Another sum of 200 dollars is spoken of by Clingman as having been furnished to Reynolds at some other time. 22 What a scale of speculation is this for the head of a public treasury, for one who in the very publication that brings forward the charge is represented as having procured to be funded at forty millions a debt which ought to have been discharged at ten or fifteen millions for the criminal purpose of enriching himself and his friends? He must have been a clumsy knave, if he did not secure enough of this excess of twenty five or thirty millions, to have taken away all inducement to risk his character in such bad hands and in so huckstering a way-or to have enabled him, if he did employ such an agent, to do it with more means and to better purpose. It is curious, that this rapacious secretary should at one time have furnished his speculating agent with the paltry sum of fifty dollars, at another, have refused him the inconsiderable sum of 300 dollars, declaring upon his honor that it was not in his power to furnish it. This declaration was true or not; if the last the refusal ill comports with the idea of a speculating connection-if the first, it is very singular that the head of the treasury engaged without scruple in schemes of profit should have been destitute of so small a sum. But if we suppose this officer to be living upon an inadequate salary, without any collateral pursuits of gain, the appearances then are simple and intelligible enough, applying to them the true key.

It appears that Reynolds and Clingman were detected by the then comptroller of the treasury, 23 in the odious crime of suborning a witness to commit perjury, for the purpose of obtaining letters of administration on the estate of a person who was living in order to receive a small sum of money due to him from the treasury. 24 It is certainly extraordinary that the confidential agent of the head of that department should have been in circumstances to induce a resort to so miserable an expedient. It is odd, if there was a speculating connection, that it was not more profitable both to the secretary and to his agent than are indicated by the circumstances disclosed.

It is also a remarkable and very instructive fact, that notwithstanding the great confidence and intimacy, which subsisted between Clingman, Reynolds and his wife, and which continued till after the period of the liberation of the two former from the prosecution against them, neither of them has ever specified the objects of the pretended connection in speculation between Reynolds and me. The pretext that the letters which contained the evidence were destroyed is no answer. They could not have been forgotten and might have been disclosed from memory. The total omission of this could only have proceeded from the consideration that detail might have led to detection. The destruction of letters besides is a fiction, which is refuted not only by the general improbability, that I should put myself upon paper with so despicable a person on a subject which might expose me to infamy, but by the evidence of extreme caution on my part in this particular, resulting from the laconic and disguised form of the notes which are produced. They prove incontestibly that there was an unwillingness to trust Reynolds with my hand writing. The true reason was, that I apprehended he might make use of it to impress upon others the belief of some pecuniary connection with me, and besides implicating my character might render it the engine of a false credit, or turn it to some other sinister use. Hence the disguise; for my conduct in admitting at once and without hesitation that the notes were from me proves that it was never my intention by the expedient of disguising my hand to shelter myself from any serious inquiry.

The accusation against me was never heard of 'till Clingman and Reynolds were under prosecution by the treasury for an infamous crime. It will be seen by the document No. 1 (a) that during the endeavours of Clingman to obtain relief, through the interposition of Mr. Mughlenberg, he made to the latter the communication of my pretended criminality. It will be further seen by document No. 2 [(a)] that Reynolds had while in prison conveyed to the ears of Messrs. Monroe and Venable that he could give intelligence of my being concerned in speculation, and that he also supposed that he was kept in prison by a design on my part to oppress him and drive him away. And by his letter to Clingman of the 13 of December, after he was released from prison, it also appears that he was actuated by a spirit of revenge against me; for he declares that he will have satisfaction from me at all events; adding, as addressed to Clingman, "And you only I trust." 25

Three important inferences flow from these circumstances-one that the accusation against me was an auxiliary to the efforts of Clingman and Reynolds to get released from a disgraceful prosecution-another that there was a vindicative spirit against me at least on the part of Reynolds-the third, that he confided in Clingman as a coadjutor in the plan of vengeance. These circumstances, according to every estimate of the credit due to accusers, ought to destroy their testimony. To what credit are persons intitled, who in telling a story are governed by the double motive of escaping from disgrace and punishment and of gratifying revenge? As to Mrs. Reynolds, if she was not an accomplice, as it is too probable she was, her situation would naturally subject her to the will of her husband. But enough besides will appear in the sequel to shew that her testimony merits no attention.

The letter which has been just cited deserves a more particular attention. As it was produced by Clingman, there is a chasm of three lines, which lines are manifestly essential to explain the sense. It may be inferred from the context, that these deficient lines would unfold the cause of the resentment which is expressed. 'Twas from them that might have been learnt the true nature of the transaction. The expunging of them is a violent presumption that they would have contradicted the purpose for which the letter was produced. A witness offering such a mutilated piece descredits himself. The mutilation is alone satisfactory proof of contrivance and imposition. The manner of accounting for it is frivolous.

The words of the letter are strong-satisfaction is to be had at all events, per fas et nefas, and Clingman is the chosen confidential agent of the laudable plan of vengeance. It must be confessed he was not wanting in his part.

Reynolds, as will be seen by No. II (a) alleges that a merchant came to him and offered as a volunteer to be his bail, who he suspected had been instigated to it by me, and after being decoyed to the place the merchant wished to carry him to, he refused being his bail, unless he would deposit a sum of money to some considerable amount which he could not do and was in consequence committed to prison. Clingman (No. IV a) tells the same story in substance though with some difference in form leaving to be implied what Reynolds expresses and naming Henry Seckel as the merchant. The deposition of this respectable citizen (No. XXIII) gives the lie to both, and shews that he was in fact the agent of Clingman, from motives of good will to him, as his former book-keeper, that he never had any communication with me concerning either of them till after they were both in custody, that when he came as a messenger to me from one of them, I not only declined interposing in their behalf, but informed Mr. Seckel that they had been guilty of a crime and advised him to have nothing to do with them.

This single fact goes far to invalidate the whole story. It shews p[l]ainly the disregard of truth and the malice by which the parties were actuated. Other important inferences are to be drawn from the transaction. Had I been conscious that I had any thing to fear from Reynolds of the nature which has been pretended, should I have warned Mr. Seckel against having any thing to do with them? Should I not rather have encouraged him to have come to their assistance? Should I not have been eager to promote their liberation? But this is not the only instance, in which I acted a contrary part. Clingman testifies in No. V. that I would not permit Fraunces a clerk in my office to become their bail, but signified to him that if he did it, he must quit the department. 26

Clingman states in No. IV. (a) that my note in answer to Reynolds' application for a loan towards a subscription to the Lancaster Turnpike was in his possession from about the time it was written (June 1792.) This circumstance, apparently trivial, is very explanatory. To what end had Clingman the custody of this note all that time if it was not part of a project to lay the foundation for some false accusation?

It appears from No. V. 27 that Fraunces had said, or was stated to have said, something to my prejudice. If my memory serves me aright, it was that he had been my agent in some speculations. When Fraunces was interrogated concerning it, he absolutely denied that he had said any thing of the kind. The charge which this same Fraunces afterwards preferred against me to the House of Representatives, and the fate of it, have been already mentioned. It is illustrative of the nature of the combination which was formed against me.

There are other features in the documents which are relied upon to constitute the charge against me, that are of a nature to corroborate the inference to be drawn from the particulars which have been noticed. But there is no need to be over minute. I am much mistaken if the view which has been taken of the subject is not sufficient, without any thing further, to establish my innocence with every discerning and fair mind.

I proceed in the next place to offer a frank and plain solution of the enigma, by giving a history of the origin and progress of my connection with Mrs. Reynolds, of its discovery, real and pretended by the husband, and of the disagreeable embarrassments to which it exposed me. This history will be supported by the letters of Mr. and Mrs. Reynolds, which leave no room for doubt of the principal facts, and at the same time explain with precision the objects of the little notes from me which have been published, shewing clearly that such of them as have related to money had no reference to any concern in speculation. As the situation which will be disclosed, will fully explain every ambiguous appearance, and meet satisfactorily the written documents, nothing more can be requisite to my justification. For frail indeed will be the tenure by which the most blameless man will hold his reputation, if the assertions of three of the most abandoned characters in the community, two of them stigmatized by the discrediting crime which has been mentioned, are sufficient to blast it. The business of accusation would soon become in such a case, a regular trade, and men's reputations would be bought and sold like any marketable commodity.

Some time in the summer of the year 1791 a woman called at my house in the city of Philadelphia 28 and asked to speak with me in private. I attended her into a room apart from the family. With a seeming air of affliction she informed that she was a daughter of a Mr. Lewis, sister to a Mr. G. Livingston of the State of New-York, and wife to a Mr. Reynolds whose father was in the Commissary Department during the war with Great Britain, that her husband, who for a long time had treated her very cruelly, had lately left her, to live with another woman, and in so destitute a condition, that though desirous of returning to her friends she had not the means-that knowing I was a citizen of New-York, she had taken the liberty to apply to my humanity for assistance.

I replied, that her situation was a very interesting one-that I was disposed to afford her assistance to convey her to her friends, but this at the moment not being convenient to me (which was the fact) I must request the place of her residence, to which I should bring or send a small supply of money. She told me the street and the number of the house where she lodged. In the evening I put a bank-bill in my pocket and went to the house. 29 I inquired for Mrs. Reynolds and was shewn up stairs, at the head of which she met me and conducted me into a bed room. I took the bill out of my pocket and gave it to her. Some conversation ensued from which it was quickly apparent that other than pecuniary consolation would be acceptable.

After this, I had frequent meetings with her, most of them at my own house; Mrs. Hamilton with her children being absent on a visit to her father. 30 In the course of a short time, she mentioned to me that her husband had solicited a reconciliation, and affected to consult me about it. I advised to it, and was soon after informed by her that it had taken place. She told me besides that her husband had been engaged in speculation, and she believed could give information respecting the conduct of some persons in the department which would be useful. I sent for Reynolds who came to me accordingly.

In the course of our interview, he confessed that he had obtained a list of claims from a person in my department which he had made use of in his speculations. I invited him, by the expectation of my friendship and good offices, to disclose the person. After some affectation of scruple, he pretended to yield, and ascribed the infidelity to Mr. Duer from whom he said he had obtained the list in New-York, while he (Duer) was in the department.

As Mr. Duer had resigned his office some time before the seat of government was removed to Philadelphia; this discovery, if it had been true, was not very important-yet it was the interest of my passions to appear to set value upon it, and to continue the expectation of friendship and good offices. Mr. Reynolds told me he was going to Virginia, and on his return would point out something in which I could serve him. I do not know but he said something about employment in a public office.

On his return he asked employment as a clerk in the treasury department. The knowledge I had acquired of him was decisive against such a request. I parried it by telling him, what was true, that there was no vacancy in my immediate office, and that the appointment of clerks in the other branches of the department was left to the chiefs of the respective branches. Reynolds alleged, as Clingman relates No. IV (a) as a topic of complaint against me that I had promised him employment and had disappointed him. The situation with the wife would naturally incline me to conciliate this man. It is possible I may have used vague expressions which raised expectation; but the more I learned of the person, the more inadmissible his employment in a public office became. Some material reflections will occur here to a discerning mind. Could I have preferred my private gratification to the public interest, should I not have found the employment he desired for a man, whom it was so convenient to me, on my own statement, to lay under obligations. Had I had any such connection with him, as he has since pretended, is it likely that he would have wanted other employment? Or is it likely that wanting it, I should have hazarded his resentment by a persevering refusal? This little circumstance shews at once the delicacy of my conduct, in its public relations, and the impossibility of my having had the connection pretended with Reynolds.

The intercourse with Mrs. Reynolds, in the mean time, continued; and, though various reflections, (in which a further knowledge of Reynolds' character and the suspicion of some concert between the husband and wife bore a part) induced me to wish a cessation of it; yet her conduct, made it extremely difficult to disentangle myself. All the appearances of violent attachment, and of agonizing distress at the idea of a relinquishment, were played off with a most imposing art. This, though it did not make me entirely the dupe of the plot, yet kept me in a state of irresolution. My sensibility, perhaps my vanity, admitted the possibility of a real fondness; and led me to adopt the plan of a gradual discontinuance rather than of a sudden interruption, as least calculated to give pain, if a real partiality existed.

Mrs. Reynolds, on the other hand, employed every effort to keep up my attention and visits. Her pen was freely employed, and her letters were filled with those tender and pathetic effusions which would have been natural to a woman truly fond and neglected.

One day, I received a letter from her, which is in the appendix (No. I. b) intimating a discovery by her husband. It was matter of doubt with me whether there had been really a discovery by accident, or whether the time for the catastrophe of the plot was arrived.

The same day, being the 15th of December 1791, I received from Mr. Reynolds the letter (No. II. b) by which he informs me of the detection of his wife in the act of writing a letter to me, and that he had obtained from her a discovery of her connection with me, suggesting that it was the consequence of an undue advantage taken of her distress.

In answer to this I sent him a note, or message desiring him to call upon me at my office, which I think he did the same day. 31

He in substance repeated the topics contained in his letter, and concluded as he had done there, that he was resolved to have satisfaction.

I replied that he knew best what evidence he had of the alleged connection between me and his wife, that I neither admitted nor denied it-that if he knew of any injury I had done him, intitling him to satisfaction, it lay with him to name it.

He travelled over the same ground as before, and again concluded with the same vague claim of satisfaction, but without specifying the kind, which would content him. It was easy to understand that he wanted money, and to prevent an explosion, I resolved to gratify him. But willing to manage his delicacy, if he had any, I reminded him that I had at our first interview made him a promise of service, that I was disposed to do it as far as might be proper, and in my power, and requested him to consider in what manner I could do it, and to write to me. He withdrew with a promise of compliance.

Two days after, the 17th of December, he wrote me the letter (No. III. b). The evident drift of this letter is to exaggerate the injury done by me, to make a display of sensibility and to magnify the atonement, which was to be required. It however comes to no conclusion, but proposes a meeting at the George Tavern, or at some other place more agreeable to me, which I should name.

On receipt of this letter, I called upon Reynolds, and assuming a decisive tone, told him, that I was tired of his indecision, and insisted upon his declaring to me explicitly what it was he aimed at. He again promised to explain by letter.

On the 19th, I received the promised letter (No. IV. b) the essence of which is that he was willing to take a thousand dollars as the plaister of his wounded honor.

I determined to give it to him, and did so in two payments, as per receipts (No. V and VI) dated the 22d of December and 3d of January. It is a little remarkable, that an avaricious speculating secretary of the treasury should have been so straitened for money as to be obliged to satisfy an engagement of this sort by two different payments!

On the 17th of January, I received the letter No. V. 32 by which Reynolds invites me to renew my visits to his wife. He had before requested that I would see her no more. The motive to this step appears in the conclusion of the letter, "I rely upon your befriending me, if there should any thing offer that should be to my advantage, as you express a wish to befriend me." Is the pre-existence of a speculating connection reconcileable with this mode of expression?

If I recollect rightly, I did not immediately accept the invitation, nor 'till after I had received several very importunate letters from Mrs. Reynolds-See her letters No. VIII, (b) IX, X.

On the 24th of March following, I received a letter from Reynolds, No. XI, and on the same day one from his wife, No. XII. These letters will further illustrate the obliging co-operation of the husband with his wife to aliment and keep alive my connection with her.

The letters from Reynolds, No. XIII to XVI, are an additional comment upon the same plan. It was a persevering scheme to spare no pains to levy contributions upon my passions on the one hand, and upon my apprehensions of discovery on the other. It is probably to No. XIV that my note, in these words, was an answer; "To-morrow what is requested will be done. 'Twill hardly be possible to-day." 33 The letter presses for the loan which is asked for to-day. A scarcity of cash, which was not very uncommon, is believed to have modelled the reply.

The letter No. XVII is a master-piece. The husband there forbids my future visits to his wife, chiefly because I was careful to avoid publicity. It was probably necessary to the project of some deeper treason against me that I should be seen at the house. Hence was it contrived, with all the caution on my part to avoid it, that Clingman should occasionally see me.

The interdiction was every way welcome, and was I believe, strictly observed. On the second of June following, I received the letter No. XVIII, from Mrs. Reynolds, which proves that it was not her plan yet to let me off. It was probably the prelude to the letter from Reynolds, No. XIX, soliciting a loan of 300 dollars towards a subscription to the Lancaster Turnpike. Clingman's statement, No. IV [(a)], admits, on the information of Reynolds, that to this letter the following note from me was an answer-"It is utterly out of my power I assure you 'pon my honour to comply with your request. Your note is returned." The letter itself demonstrates, that here was no concern in speculation on my part-that the money is asked as a favour and as a loan, to be reimbursed simply and without profit in less than a fortnight. My answer shews that even the loan was refused.

The letter No. XX, from Reynolds, explains the object of my note in these words, "Inclosed are 50 dollars, they could not be sent sooner," 34 proving that this sum also was begged for in a very apologetic stile as a mere loan.

The letters of the 24th and 30th of August, No. XXI and XXII, furnish the key to the affair of the 200 dollars mentioned by Clingman in No. IV, shewing that this sum likewise was asked by way of loan, towards furnishing a small boarding-house which Reynolds and his wife were or pretended to be about to set up.

These letters collectively, furnish a complete elucidation of the nature of my transactions with Reynolds. They resolve them into an amorous connection with his wife, detected, or pretended to be detected by the husband, imposing on me the necessity of a pecuniary composition with him, and leaving me afterwards under a duress for fear of disclosure, which was the instrument of levying upon me from time to time forced loans. They apply directly to this state of things, the notes which Reynolds was so careful to preserve, and which had been employed to excite suspicion.

Four, and the principal of these notes have been not only generally, but particularly explained-I shall briefly notice the remaining two.

"My dear Sir, I expected to have heard the day after I had the pleasure of seeing you." This fragment, if truly part of a letter to Reynolds, denotes nothing more than a disposition to be civil to a man, whom, as I said before, it was the interest of my passions to conciliate. But I verily believe it was not part of a letter to him, because I do not believe that I ever addressed him in such a stile. It may very well have been part of a letter to some other person, procured by means of which I am ignorant, or it may have been the beginning of an intended letter, torn off, thrown into the chimney in my office, which was a common practice, and there or after it had been swept out picked up by Reynolds or some coadjutor of his. There appears to have been more than one clerk in the department some how connected with him.

The endeavour shewn by the letter No. XVII, to induce me to render my visits to Mrs. Reynolds more public, and the great care with which my little notes were preserved, justify the belief that at a period, before it was attempted, the idea of implicating me in some accusation, with a view to the advantage of the accusers, was entertained. Hence the motive to pick up and preserve any fragment which might favour the idea of friendly or confidential correspondence.

2dly. "The person Mr. Reynolds inquired for on Friday waited for him all the evening at his house from a little after seven. Mr. R. may see him at any time to-day or to-morrow between the hours of two and three."

Mrs. Reynolds more than once communicated to me, that Reynolds would occasionally relapse into discontent to his situation-would treat her very ill-hint at the assassination of me-and more openly threaten, by way of revenge, to inform Mrs. Hamilton-all this naturally gave some uneasiness. I could not be absolutely certain whether it was artifice or reality. In the workings of human inconsistency, it was very possible, that the same man might be corrupt enough to compound for his wife's chastity and yet have sensibility enough to be restless in the situation and to hate the cause of it.

Reflections like these induced me for some time to use palliatives with the ill humours which were announced to me. Reynolds had called upon me in one of these discontented moods real or pretended. I was unwilling to provoke him by the appearance of neglect-and having failed to be at home at the hour he had been permitted to call, I wrote her the above note to obviate an ill impression.

The foregoing narrative and the remarks accompanying it have prepared the way for a perusal of the letters themselves. The more attention is used in this, the more entire will be the satisfaction which they will afford.

It has been seen that an explanation on the subject was had cotemporarily that is in December 1792, with three members of Congress-F. A. Muhlenberg, J. Monroe, and A. Venable. It is proper that the circumstances of this transaction should be accurately understood.

The manner in which Mr. Muhlenberg became engaged in the affair is fully set forth in the document (No. I. a). It is not equally clear how the two other gentlemen came to embark in it. The phraseology, in reference to this point in the close of (No. I. [(a)]) and beginning of (No. II. [(a)]) is rather equivocal. The gentlemen, if they please, can explain it.

But on the morning of the 15th of December 1792, the above mentioned gentlemen presented themselves at my office. Mr. Muhlenberg was then speaker. He introduced the subject by observing to me, that they had discovered a very improper connection between me and a Mr. Reynolds: extremely hurt by this mode of introduction, I arrested the progress of the discourse by giving way to very strong expressions of indignation. The gentlemen explained, telling me in substance that I had misapprehended them-that they did not intend to take the fact for established-that their meaning was to apprise me that unsought by them, information had been given them of an improper pecuniary connection between Mr. Reynolds and myself; that they had thought it their duty to pursue it and had become possessed of some documents of a suspicious complexion-that they had contemplated the laying the matter before the President, but before they did this, they thought it right to apprise me of the affair and to afford an opportunity of explanation; declaring at the same time that their agency in the matter was influenced solely by a sense of public duty and by no motive of personal ill will. If my memory be correct, the notes from me in a disguised hand were now shewn to me which without a moment's hesitation I acknowledged to be mine.

I replied, that the affair was now put upon a different footing-that I always stood ready to meet fair inquiry with frank communication-that it happened, in the present instance, to be in my power by written documents to remove all doubt as to the real nature of the business, and fully to convince, that nothing of the kind imputed to me did in fact exist. The same evening at my house was by mutual consent appointed for an explanation.

I immediately after saw Mr. Wolcott, and for the first time informed him of the affair and of the interview just had; and delivering into his hands for perusal the documents of which I was possessed, I engaged him to be present at the intended explanation in the evening.

In the evening the proposed meeting took place, and Mr. Wolcott according to my request attended. The information, which had been received to that time, from Clingman, Reynolds and his wife was communicated to me and the notes were I think again exhibited.

I stated in explanation, the circumstances of my affair with Mrs. Reynolds and the consequences of it and in confirmation produced the documents (No. I. b, to XXII.) One or more of the gentlemen (Mr. Wolcott's certificate No. XXIV, mentions one, Mr. Venable, but I think the same may be said of Mr. Muhlenberg) was struck with so much conviction, before I had gotten through the communication that they delicately urged me to discontinue it as unnecessary. I insisted upon going through the whole and did so. The result was a full and unequivocal acknowlegement on the part of the three gentlemen of perfect satisfaction with the explanation and expressions of regret at the trouble and embarrassment which had been occasioned to me. Mr. Muhlenberg and Mr. Venable, in particular manifested a degree of sensibility on the occasion. Mr. Monroe was more cold but intirely explicit.

One of the gentlemen, I think, expressed a hope that I also was satisfied with their conduct in conducting the inquiry. I answered, that they knew I had been hurt at the opening of the affair-that this excepted, I was satisfied with their conduct and considered myself as having been treated with candor or with fairness and liberality, I do not now pretend to recollect the exact terms. I took the next morning a memorandum of the substance of what was said to me, which will be seen by a copy of it transmitted in a letter to each of the gentlemen No. XXV.

I deny absolutely, as alleged by the editor of the publication in question, that I intreated a suspension of the communication to the President, or that from the beginning to the end of the inquiry, I asked any favour or indulgence whatever, and that I discovered any symptom different from that of a proud consciousness of innocence. 35

Some days after the explanation I wrote to the three gentlemen the letter No. XXVI already published. That letter evinces the light in which I considered myself as standing in their view.

I received from Mr. Muhlenberg and Mr. Monroe in answer the letters No. XXVII and XXVIII.

Thus the affair remained 'till the pamphlets No. V and VI of the history of the U. States for 1796 appeared; with the exception of some dark whispers which were communicated to me by a friend in Virginia, and to which I replied by a statement of what had passed. 36

When I saw No. V though it was evidence of a base infidelity somewhere, yet firmly believing that nothing more than a want of due care was chargeable upon either of the three gentlemen who had made the inquiry, I immediately wrote to each of them a letter of which No. XXV is a copy 37 in full confidence that their answer would put the whole business at rest. I ventured to believe, from the appearances on their part at closing our former interview on the subject, that their answers would have been both cordial and explicit.

I acknowledge that I was astonished when I came to read in the pamphlet No. VI the conclusion of the document No. V, containing the equivocal phrase "We left him under an impression our suspicions were removed," 38 which seemed to imply that this had been a mere piece of management, and that the impression given me had not been reciprocal. The appearance of duplicity incensed me; but resolving to proceed with caution and moderation, I thought the first proper step was to inquire of the gentlemen whether the paper was genuine. A letter was written for this purpose the copy of which I have mislaid. 39

I afterwards received from Messrs. Muhlenberg and Venable the letters No. XXIX, XXX, and XXXI. 40

Receiving no answer from Mr. Monroe, and hearing of his arrival at New-York I called upon him. 41 The issue of the interview was that an answer was to be given by him, in conjunction with Mr. Muhlenberg and Mr. Venable on his return to Philadelphia, he thinking that as the agency had been joint it was most proper the answer should be joint, and informing me that Mr. Venable had told him he would wait his return.

I came to Philadelphia accordingly to bring the affair to a close; but on my arrival I found Mr. Venable had left the city for Virginia.

Mr. Monroe reached Philadelphia according to his appointment. And the morning following wrote me the note No. XXXII. While this note was on its way to my lodgings I was on my way to his. I had a conversation with him from which we separated with a repetition of the assurance in the note. In the course of the interviews with Mr. Monroe, the equivoque in document No. V, (a) and the paper of January 2d, 1793, under his signature were noticed. 42

I received the day following the letter No. XXXIII, to which I returned the answer No. XXXIV,-accompanied with the letter No. XXXV. which was succeeded by the letters No. XXXVI-XXXVII-XXXVIII-XXXIX-XL. In due time the sequel of the correspondence will appear.

Though extremely disagreeable to me, for very obvious reasons, I at length determined in order that no cloud whatever might be left on the affair, to publish the documents which had been communicated to Messrs. Monroe, Muhlenberg and Venable, 43 all which will be seen in the appendix from No. I, (b) to No. XXII, inclusively.

The information from Clingman of the 2d January 1793, to which the signature of Mr. Monroe is annexed, seems to require an observation or two in addition to what is contained in my letter to him No. XXXIX.

Clingman first suggests that he had been apprized of my vindication through Mr. Wolcott a day or two after it had been communicated. It did not occur to me to inquire of Mr. Wolcott on this point, and he being now absent from Philadelphia, 44 I cannot do it at this moment. Though I can have no doubt of the friendly intention of Mr. Wolcott, if the suggestion of Clingman in this particular be taken as true; yet from the condition of secrecy which was annexed to my communication, there is the strongest reason to conclude it is not true. If not true, there is besides but one of two solutions, either that he obtained the information from one of the three gentlemen who made the inquiry, which would have been a very dishonourable act in the party, or that he conjectured what my defence was from what he before knew it truly could be. For there is the highest probability, that through Reynolds and his wife, and as an accomplice, he was privy to the whole affair. This last method of accounting for his knowledge would be conclusive on the sincerity and genuineness of the defence.

But the turn which Clingman gives to the matter must necessarily fall to the ground. It is, that Mrs. Reynolds denied her amorous connection with me, and represented the suggestion of it as a mere contrivance between her husband and myself to cover me, alleging that there had been a fabrication of letters and receipts to countenance it. The plain answer is, that Mrs. Reynolds' own letters contradict absolutely this artful explanation of hers; if indeed she ever made it, of which Clingman's assertion is no evidence whatever. These letters are proved by the affidavit No. XLI, though it will easily be conceived that the proof of them was rendered no easy matter by a lapse of near five years. They shew explicitly the connection with her, the discovery of it by her husband and the pains she took to prolong it when I evidently wished to get rid of it. This cuts up, by the root, the pretence of a contrivance between the husband and myself to fabricate the evidences of it.

The variety of shapes which this woman could assume was endless. In a conversation between her and a gentleman whom I am not at liberty publicly to name, 45 she made a voluntary confession of her belief and even knowledge, that I was innocent of all that had been laid to my charge by Reynolds or any other person of her acquaintance, spoke of me in exalted terms of esteem and respect, declared in the most solemn manner her extreme unhappiness lest I should suppose her accessary to the trouble which had been given me on that account, and expressed her fear that the resentment of Mr. Reynolds on a particular score, might have urged him to improper lengths of revenge-appearing at the same time extremely agitated and unhappy. With the gentleman who gives this information, I have never been in any relation personal or political that could be supposed to bias him. His name would evince that he is an impartial witness. And though I am not permitted to make a public use of it, I am permitted to refer any gentleman to the perusal of his letter in the hands of William Bingham, Esquire; who is also so obliging as to permit me to deposit with him for similar inspection all the original papers which are contained in the appendix to this narrative. The letter from the gentleman above alluded to has been already shewn to Mr. Monroe.

Let me now, in the last place, recur to some comments, in which the hireling editors of the pamphlets No. V and VI has thought fit to indulge himself.

The first of them is that the soft language of one of my notes addressed to a man in the habit of threatening me with disgrace, is incompatible with the idea of innocence. 46 The threats alluded to must be those of being able to hang the Secretary of the Treasury. How does it appear that Reynolds was in such a habit? No otherwise than by the declaration of Reynolds and Clingman. If the assertions of these men are to condemn me, there is an end of the question. There is no need, by elaborate deductions from parts of their assertions, to endeavour to establish what their assertions collectively affirm in express terms. If they are worthy of credit I am guilty; if they are not, all wire-drawn inferences from parts of their story are mere artifice and nonsense. But no man, not as debauched as themselves, will believe them, independent of the positive disproof of their story in the written documents.

As to the affair of threats (except those in Reynolds letters respecting the connection with his wife, which it will be perceived were very gentle for the occasion) not the least idea of the sort ever reached me 'till after the imprisonment of Reynolds. Mr. Wolcott's certificate 47 shews my conduct in that case-notwithstanding the powerful motives I may be presumed to have had to desire the liberation of Reynolds, on account of my situation with his wife, I cautioned Mr. Wolcott not to facilitate his liberation, till the affair of the threat was satisfactorily cleared up. The solemn denial of it in Reynold's letter No. XLII was considered by Mr. Wolcott as sufficient. This is a further proof, that though in respect to my situation with his wife, I was somewhat in Reynolds's power. I was not disposed to make any improper concession to the apprehension of his resentment.

As the threats intimated in his letters, the nature of the cause will shew that the soft tone of my note was not only compatible with them, but a natural consequence of them.

But it is observed that the dread of the disclosure of an amorous connection was not a sufficient cause for my humility, and that I had nothing to lose as to my reputation for chastity concerning which the world had fixed a previous opinion.

I shall not enter into the question what was the previous opinion entertained of me in this particular-nor how well founded, if it was indeed such as it is represented to have been. It is sufficient to say that there is a wide difference between vague rumours and suspicions and the evidence of a positive fact-no man not indelicately unprincipled, with the state of manners in this country, would be willing to have a conjugal infidelity fixed upon him with positive certainty. He would know that it would justly injure him with a considerable and respectable portion of the society-and especially no man, tender of the happiness of an excellent wife could without extreme pain look forward to the affliction which she might endure from the disclosure, especially a public disclosure, of the fact. Those best acquainted with the interior of my domestic life will best appreciate the force of such a consideration upon me.

The truth was, that in both relations and especially the last, I dreaded extremely a disclosure-and was willing to make large sacrifices to avoid it. It is true, that from the acquiescence of Reynolds, I had strong ties upon his secrecy, but how could I rely upon any tie upon so base a character. How could I know, but that from moment to moment he might, at the expence of his own disgrace, become the mercenary of a party, with whom to blast my character in any way is a favorite object!

Strong inferences are attempted to be drawn from the release of Clingman and Reynolds with the consent of the Treasury, from the want of communicativeness of Reynolds while in prison-from the subsequent disappearance of Reynolds and his wife, and from their not having been produced by me in order to be confronted at the time of the explanation.

As to the first, it was emphatically the transaction of Mr. Wolcott the then Comptroller of the Treasury, and was bottomed upon a very adequate motive-and one as appears from the document No. I, (a) early contemplated in this light by that officer. It was certainly of more consequence to the public to detect and expel from the bosom of the Treasury Department an unfaithful Clerk to prevent future and extensive mischief, than to disgrace and punish two worthless individuals. Besides that a powerful influence foreign to me was exerted to procure indulgence to them-that of Mr. Muhlenberg and Col. Burr 48-that of Col. Wadsworth, 49 which though insidiously placed to my account was to the best of my recollection utterly unknown to me at the time, and according to the confession of Mrs. Reynolds herself, was put in motion by her entreaty. Candid men will derive strong evidence of my innocence and delicacy, from the reflection, that under circumstances so peculiar, the culprits were compelled to give a real and substantial equivalent for the relief which they obtained from a department, over which I presided.

The backwardness of Reynolds to enter into detail, while in jail, was an argument of nothing but that conscious of his inability to communicate any particulars which could be supported, he found it more convenient to deal in generals, and to keep up appearances by giving promises for the future.

As to the disappearance of the parties after the liberation, how am I answerable for it? Is it not presumable, that the instance discovered at the Treasury was not the only offence of the kind of which they were guilty? After one detection, is it not very probable that Reynolds fled to avoid detection in other cases? But exclusive of this, it is known and might easily be proved, that Reynolds was considerably in debt! What more natural for him than to fly from his creditors after having been once exposed by confinement for such a crime? Moreover, atrocious as his conduct had been towards me, was it not natural for him to fear that my resentment might be excited at the discovery of it, and that it might have been deemed a sufficient reason for retracting the indulgence, which was shewn by withdrawing the prosecution and for recommending it?

One or all of these considerations will explain the disappearance of Reynolds without imputing it to me as a method of getting rid of a dangerous witness.

That disappearance rendered it impracticable, if it had been desired to bring him forward to be confronted. As to Clingman it was not pretended that he knew any thing of what was charged upon me, otherwise than by the notes which he produced, and the information of Reynolds and his wife. As to Mrs. Reynolds, she in fact appears by Clingman's last story to have remained, and to have been accessible through him, by the gentlemen who had undertaken the inquiry. If they supposed it necessary to the elucidation of the affair, why did not they bring her forward? There can be no doubt of the sufficiency of Clingman's influence, for this purpose, when it is understood that Mrs. Reynolds and he afterwards lived together as man and wife. 50 But to what purpose the confronting? What would it have availed the elucidation of truth, if Reynolds and his wife had impudently made allegations which I denied. Relative character and the written documents must still determine These could decide without it, and they were relied upon. But could it be expected, that I should so debase myself as to think it necessary to my vindication to be confronted with a person such as Reynolds? Could I have borne to suffer my veracity to be exposed to the humiliating competition?

For what?-why, it is said, to tear up the last twig of jealousy-but when I knew that I possessed written documents which were decisive, how could I foresee that any twig of jealousy would remain? When the proofs I did produce to the gentlemen were admitted by them to be completely satisfactory, and by some of them to be more than sufficient, how could I dream of the expediency of producing more-how could I imagine that every twig of jealousy was not plucked up?

If after the recent confessions of the gentlemen themselves, it could be useful to fortify the proof of the full conviction, my explanation had wrought, I might appeal to the total silence concerning this charge, when at a subsequent period, in the year 1793, there was such an active legislative persecution of me. 51 It might not even perhaps be difficult to establish, that it came under the eye of Mr. Giles, 52 and that he discarded it as the plain case of a private amour unconnected with any thing that was the proper subject of a public attack.

Thus has my desire to destroy this slander, completely, led me to a more copious and particular examination of it, than I am sure was necessary. The bare perusal of the letters from Reynolds and his wife is sufficient to convince my greatest enemy that there is nothing worse in the affair than an irregular and indelicate amour. For this, I bow to the just censure which it merits. I have paid pretty severely for the folly and can never recollect it without disgust and self condemnation. It might seem affectation to say more.

To unfold more clearly the malicious intent, by which the present revival of the affair must have been influenced-I shall annex an affidavit of Mr. Webster 53 tending to confirm my declaration of the utter falsehood of the assertion, that a menace of publishing the papers which have been published had arrested the progress of an attempt to hold me up as a candidate for the office of President. Does this editor imagine that he will escape the just odium which awaits him by the miserable subterfuge of saying that he had the information from a respectable citizen of New-York? Till he names the author the inevitable inference must be that he has fabricated the tale.

Alexander Hamilton.

Philadelphia, July, 1797.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Founders Online: Printed Version of the "Reynolds Pamphlet", 1797

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The spirit of jacobinism, if not entirely a new spirit, has at least been cloathed with a more gigantic body and armed with more powerful weapons than it ever before possessed. It is perhaps not too much to say, that it threatens more extensive and complicated mischiefs to the world than have hitherto flowed from the three great scourges of mankind, War, Pestilence and Famine.

# data[].attributes.headline
Arianna Collet, Jefferson's Views on Religion in the New Republic

# data[].attributes.subject
Arianna Collet, Jefferson's Views on Religion in the New Republic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that 1 Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; 2 that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, 3 who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone; 4 that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, 4 is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness; and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary 5 rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than 6 our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends also 7 to corrupt the principles of that very 8 religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; 9 that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous falacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.

We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact 10 that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

And though we well know that this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act 11 irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.

, p. 58-9. No MS copy of this famous Bill has been found. Text of Act as adopted in 1785 is in xii, 84-6. The engrossed MS copy of the Act, on parchment, is in Vi (photostat in TJ Editorial Files); the text in Hening agrees with this authoritative text and also with the text of the official printing in the session laws of Oct. 1785 (Acts passed at a General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Richmond: Dunlap and Hayes [1786], p. 26-7). For various contemporary printed texts, see note below. Since the printed text of 1779 is reproduced in facsimile in this volume, the text of the has been followed here so that the slight variations in punctuation and spelling can be noted. The texts of both the 1779 broadside and the 1784 are obviously different from the MS as TJ would normally have written it, the former employing such spellings as "honours," "labour," &c., and the latter being punctuated in an erratic manner. These variations may be attributed to copyists' or printers' errors. These two texts are the closest we can get to TJ's original, but there is little to choose between them: the most that can be said is that the 1779 broadside is the earliest known text. Those parts of the Bill that were deleted by amendment are printed in italic type; it is important to note that this device is employed only as a graphic means of showing at a glance the changes made by the General Assembly and that the text as printed in , p. 58-9, is entirely in roman type and should, for ordinary purposes, be so quoted.

For a good summary and background of TJ's attitude toward the established Church, dissenting groups, and the relationship of church and state, see Malone, Jefferson, i, 274-80. This Bill, which TJ ranked with the Declaration of Independence, might indeed be considered as a necessary consequence of it: as the Declaration of Independence asserted the natural right of a people to choose any form of government conducive to their safety and happiness, so the Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom asserted the natural right of a person to choose his beliefs and opinions free of compulsion. In this sense the famous preamble to TJ's Bill provided philosophical justification, as of natural right, not merely for the ideas of religious toleration and separation of state and church but also for the right of the individual to complete intellectual liberty-"the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction." TJ later asserted that the effort to disestablish the Church of England in Virginia and to establish religious freedom brought on "the severest contests" in which he had ever been engaged (see Notes and Proceedings on Discontinuing the Establishment of the Church of England, 11 Oct. to 9 Dec. 1776). The effort had resulted in 1776 in a compromise: TJ and his colleagues had failed to obtain repeal of all laws interfering with religious worship and, instead of disestablishing the Church, had only succeeded in exempting dissenters from levies made in behalf of the establishment. From 1776 to 1779 the General Assembly was assailed with petitions for and against further reform. The particular issue was whether the maintenance of churches should be left to voluntary contributions or whether "a general assessment should not be established by law, on every one, to the support of the pastor of his choice" (Autobiography, i, 54). The Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, though TJ declared he had drawn it in 1777, was probably not brought forward in these years from 1776 to 1779 because the intense fight over the question of a general assessment made it difficult enough to hold the position that had been gained. However, on 4 June 1779, after TJ had been elected governor, the House ordered Harvie, Mason, and Baker to bring in a bill on this subject. TJ's Bill was presented by Harvie on 12 June, the next day it passed the second reading, and the third reading was postponed to 1 Aug., which killed it for that session (, May 1779, 1827 edn., p. 34, 36, 44, 46).

There is no reference in the Journals of the House of Delegates to the printing of TJ's Bill as introduced at the May 1779 session, but, though attributed to the year 1785 in the bibliographies of Sabin and others, it was printed in the summer of 1779 as a broadside under the title: "A BILL for establishing RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, printed for the consideration of the PEOPLE" (see facsimile reprint in this volume; see also Mazzei to TJ, 19 Mch. 1780). Whether this was done under the authority of the General Assembly or privately by TJ and other supporters of the Bill is not certain, but, though the General Assembly from time to time did print bills that were held over from one session to another so that they could be discussed by the people (e.g., see Bill for Giving the Members of the General Assembly an Adequate Allowance, 12 Dec. 1778), the available evidence seems to support the supposition that it was privately issued. For, if the General Assembly had authorized publication, there would seem to be no reason why such authorization should not have appeared in the Journals, as other similar authorizations did. Also, at the Oct. 1779 session there were several petitions for and against this particular Bill and two of them express doubt as to whether the publication was authorized by the General Assembly or not. A petition from Augusta county expressed approval of "the bill presented to the last Assembly, (and published, as they suppose, for the Consideration of the people) 'for establishing religious freedom'" and prayed that it be enacted into law. Another petition from dissenters in Lunenberg county asserted that they had seen "a bill which they suppose was published by order of the last Assembly, 'for establishing religious freedom'" (this petition, incidentally, supports TJ's assertion that some of the dissenting groups, having gained their point in 1776, went over to the opposition and supported the idea of a general assessment; for the petition of the Lunenberg dissenters approved the Bill and at the same time prayed for the enactment of a general assessment). Other petitions from Essex and Amherst concerned the Bill but did not refer to the fact or. the method of its being printed (, Oct. 1779, 1827 edn., p. 20, 27, 32, 37). It seems obvious that, if this Bill had been printed under public authority, that fact would have been known to the petitioners and their memorials to the General Assembly would not, therefore, have expressed doubt on the point. For if the broadside had been printed by public authorization, it would no doubt have been transmitted as such by the clerk of the House or by the executive department. When the printing of The Report of the Committee of Revisors was authorized by the General Assembly in 1784, the resolution specifically directed that the pamphlet "be distributed throughout the several counties by the Executive, in such manner as they shall judge most conducive to the end proposed." It is difficult to imagine what motive could have persuaded, or what means could have been employed by, the General Assembly to conceal its authorization of the printing of the broadside if, as on this and other occasions, its object was to have the Bill "printed for the consideration of the people."

The effort to have Bill No. 82 passed separately at the May and Oct. sessions in 1779 was not successful. But in Oct. 1785 this Bill was one of two in the second half of the revisal brought up for consideration and the only one of these adopted (the other was Bill No. 79). Madison reported to Monroe on the day the Bill passed the House: "The Bill proportioning crimes and punishments was the one at which we stuck after wading thro' the most difficult parts of it. A few subsequent bills however were excepted from the postponement. Among these was the Bill for establishing Religious freedom, which has got thro' the H. of Delegates without alteration, though not without warm opposition. Mr. Mercer and Mr. Corbin were the principal Combatants against it" (Madison to Monroe, 17 Dec. 1785, Writings, ed. Hunt, ii, 205). This was something of an understatement. The Bill was introduced by Madison 31 Oct. 1785, read twice, and referred to the committee of the whole. It was debated and amended by the committee on 15 Dec., and this amendment, which has not been identified, was approved by the House the next day. At the same time another amendment was proposed-that is, that the whole of TJ's preamble be struck out and the following substituted therefor: "Whereas, it is declared by the Bill of Rights, 'that religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and it is the mutual duty of all to practice christian forbearance, love and charity towards each other'" (, Oct. 1785, 1828 edn., p. 12-15, 93, 94, 95). When Madison reported on this Bill to TJ, 22 Jan. 1786, q.v., he mentioned the Senate's effort to accomplish the same amendment, but did not refer to that attempted earlier in the House. As an indication of the importance attached to this whole question, it is worth noting that the ayes and noes on this amendment were recorded in the Journals. The amendment failed by a vote of 38 to 66.

On 17 Dec. a motion was made to postpone the third reading of the engrossed Bill until the Oct. session 1786, but this was defeated. The Bill was thereupon read the third time, put to a vote, passed by a majority of 74 to 20, and transmitted to the Senate. The ayes and noes were ordered to be recorded. Those voting in favor of the Bill were: Joshua Fry, Wilson Cary Nicholas, Joseph Eggleston, Samuel Jordan Cabell, Zachariah Johnston, Michael Bowyer, John Trigg, Robert Clark, George Hancock, Archibald Stuart, William Anderson, Hickerson Barksdale, John Clarke (Campbell), Samuel Hawes, Anthony New, John Daniel, Henry Southall, French Strother, Henry Fry, William Gatewood, Meriwether Smith, Charles Simms, David Stuart, William Pickett, Thomas Helm, Christopher Greenup, James Garrard, George Thomson, Alexander White, Charles Thruston, Thomas Smith, George Clendennin, John Lucas, Jeremiah Pate, Ralph Humphreys, Isaac Vanmiter, George Jackson, Nathaniel Wilkinson, John Mayo, Jr., John Rentfro, William Norvell, John Roberts, William Dudley, Thomas Moore, Carter Braxton, Benjamin Temple, Francis Peyton, Christopher Robertson, Samuel Garland, Benjamin Logan, David Scott, William Pettijohn, Robert Sayres, Daniel Trigg, William Hartwell Macon, Griffin Stith, David Bradford, James Madison, Charles Porter, William Harrison, Benjamin Lankford, John Clarke (Prince Edward), Richard Bibb, Cuthbert Bullitt, Daniel Carroll Brent, Williamson Ball, Andrew Moore, John Hopkins, Gawin Hamilton, Isaac Zane, John Tayloe, John Whittaker Willis, Andrew Kincannon, and James Innes.

Those who voted against the Bill were: Thomas Claiborne, Miles King, Worlich Westwood, John Page, Garland Anderson, Elias Wills, William Thornton, Francis Corbin, Willis Riddick, Daniel Sandford, John Gordon, Edward Bland, Anthony Walke, George Lee Turberville, William Garrard, John Francis Mercer, Carter Bassett Harrison, Richard Cary, Jr., Wilson Cary, and Richard Lee.

The Senate amended the Bill and returned it to the House on 29 Dec.; this was precisely the same amendment that had been offered in the House two weeks earlier. This time the amendment failed of adoption by a vote of 35 to 56, a vote that, like the earlier one, reflected opposition to the preamble rather than to the Bill; for the vote in favor of the Bill on 17 Dec. included some (e.g., such a conservative as Carter Braxton) who voted in favor of the amendment on 29 Dec. There was, on the other hand, almost no shifting of position among those whose names are recorded as voting on the amendment on both 16 Dec. and 29 Dec.: Francis Peyton voted in favor of it on the former date and against it on the latter; Anthony New and John Prunty voted against it at first and then for it.

The Senate on 9 Jan. 1786 insisted on its amendment and requested a free conference on the subject of its amendment, to which the House agreed. The managers met on 12 Jan. 1786. The Senate's "objections [to the preamble]," wrote Madison, "were frivolous indeed. In order to remove them as they were understood by the Managers of the H. of D. the preamble was sent up again from the H. of D. [on 13 Jan.] with one or two verbal alterations. As an amendment to these the Senate sent down a few others, which as they did not affect the substance though they somewhat defaced the composition, it was thought better to agree to than to run further risks, especially as it was getting late in the Session and the House growing thin. The enacting clauses past without a single alteration, and I flatter myself have in this country extinguished for ever the ambitious hope of making laws for the human mind" ( Madison to TJ, 22 Jan. 1786; , Oct. 1785, 1828 edn., p. 12-15, 93, 94, 95, 96, 115, 117, 134, 135, 138, 139, 143-4, 148). The amendments offered by the Senate, and agreed to by the House on 16 Jan. 1786, are indicated in notes 1, 2, and 4; other amendments made either in the House or Senate are indicated in notes 7, 8, 9, and 11.

Madison and others thought these amendments rendered "the style less elegant, though the sense is not affected" ( xii, 84). But Malone (I, 279) is quite correct in saying that these amendments deleted "some of the more sweeping statements about the supremacy and illimitability of reason; and, as a result, the statute did not rest on quite so broad a base as the one its author had designed."

Ironically, due to TJ himself, it was the text neither of the Bill as originally submitted nor of the Act as finally adopted that was in his day and subsequently most generally accepted as "The Act for Establishing Religious Freedom." In 1776 TJ had revealed his desire to have the world, or at least some of his friends and political associates, know the text of the Declaration of Independence as he had drafted it, and he had sent out several copies that he had laboriously copied by hand. But his pristine text was not printed at all until more than a quarter of a century had elapsed and it never came close to achieving the popularity enjoyed by the text as adopted by Congress. But the Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom fared differently: its full text as drafted by TJ was put into type six years before its altered version was enacted into law. What was more important, TJ, being in France at the time his Bill was adopted, saw to it that the famous declaration was widely distributed. It was not mere pride of authorship but pride of country as well that led him to obtain publication in Europe: "it is honorable for us," he wrote Madison, "to have produced the first legislature who has had the courage to declare that the reason of man may be trusted with the formation of his own opinions" ( TJ to Madison, 16 Dec. 1786); in the same letter TJ reported that the Act "has been received with infinite approbation in Europe and propagated with enthusiasm"; that it had been translated into French and Italian, had been sent to most of the courts of Europe, had been inserted in the Encyclopédie méthodique, was appearing in most of the publications respecting America, such as those of Brissot, Clavière, and Mazzei; and that it had "been the best evidence of the falshood of those reports which stated us to be in anarchy." Though his motive in promoting publication in Europe was elevated, TJ nevertheless took unwarranted liberties with the authoritative text of this immortal statute, as the following facts clearly prove.

Facsimiles of what TJ in the epitaph that he later drew up referred to as "the Statute of Virginia for religious freedom" are to be found in TJ Editorial Files: (1) A BILL for establishing RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, I printed for the consideration of the PEOPLE. Williamsburg, 1779]. Broadside, Boston Public Library, Evans 19350, 7476, and Sabin 100041. (All three bibliographies, apparently assuming that the Bill was published under public authority in the fall of 1785 when the Bill was being debated, assign that date, the place as Richmond, and James Hayes, the public printer, as the printer. Since the Bill was undoubtedly printed in 1779, and was probably issued privately, this assignment should be changed as to place, printer and date, and probably as to publisher); (2) An ACT for establishing RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, I passed in the assembly of Virginia in the beginning / of the year 1786. [Paris, 1786]. Four-page pamphlet. Copy in PHi; another that TJ sent to van Hogendorp was found by Dr. Howard C. Rice, Jr., in the Van Hogendorp papers, Rijksarchief, The Hague, Sabin 100342. This text, which was sent to various persons by TJ as a separate pamphlet, was also bound in as an appendix to some copies of the first edition of Notes on Virginia. It was later included as an appendix to the 1787 Stockdale edition, the 1788 (first American) edition printed in Philadelphia by Prichard and Hall, and in subsequent editions of the Notes. The text of (5) below derives from one of these editions. (3) Acte de la République de VIRGINIE, / qui établit la liberté de Religion. [Paris, 1786]. Fourpage pamphlet, probably printed by Philippe-Denys Pierres (see ii, 237). Copy in NN; another found by Dr. Rice in Van Hogendorp papers, Rijksarchief, The Hague, Sabin 100342; (4) An ACT for establishing RELIGIOUS / FREE- / DOM, passed in the Assembly / of Virginia in the beginning of the year 1786 / [rule] / Acte de la République de VIRGINIE, / qui établit la liberté de Religion, passé / à l'assemblée de la Virginie au commen- / cement de l'année 1786. [Paris, 1786]. Eight-page pamphlet found by Dr. Rice, in the Bibliothèque de l'Institut de France, Paris, Sabin 100344; (5) REPUBLICAN NOTES / on / RELIGION; / AND, / an ACT ESTABLISHING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, passed in the ASSEMBLY of / VIRGINIA, in the YEAR 1786. / [rule] / BY THOMAS JEFFERSON, ESQUIRE, / president of the united states. / [rule] /[ornament] / DANBURY: /printed by THOMAS ROWE. / 1803. Twelvepage pamphlet containing extracts from Query xvii, Notes on Virginia and (p. 9-11) the text of "An ACT for establishing RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, / passed in the Assembly of Virginia, in the beginning / of the Year 1786," Sabin 35914. This text, as well as the title, obviously derives from that described under (2) above. These various contemporary versions are referred to in the notes below as Text (1), Text (2), &c.

A glance at Texts (2) to (5) above is sufficient to show that they are not derived from the broadside of 1779, or from the of 1784, or even from the printed session laws of 1785. They are, in the points noted below, at variance with both the Bill and the Act. All of the English texts described above, excluding Text (1) of course, agree. All of the French texts, which vary from the English texts in one important particular but possibly were derived from one of them, agree with each other. Clearly TJ had before him a copy of the Act as adopted when he prepared this English version of 1786; it is equally clear that he also had at hand a copy of the Bill when he produced this curious hybrid text whose stemma embraced those of both Bill and Act. The following variations are to be noted. First, English Texts (2), (4), (5) do not begin, as the Act does, with the phrase "Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free" but, as the amended Bill does, with the words "Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free." This incorporates part of the amendment indicated in note 1, below, but also restores part of the deleted initial phrase of the Bill. The French texts agree with the English in this variant reading. Second, the deletions made by amendments to the Bill as described in notes 2, 4, and 9 below are all followed in English and French Texts (2) to (5), since none of these texts contains any of the words or clauses deleted in these places or their equivalent. Third, English Texts (2), (4), (5) agree with the Bill rather than the Act as adopted by including the word "very" at the point indicated in note 8, below. Finally and curiously, French Texts (3) and (4) agree with the Bill rather than with the Act in the phraseology of the enacting clause (see note 10, below), reading: "Nous, l'Assemblée générale de Virginie, établissons pour loi‥‥" The English Texts (2), (4), and (5), however, read as follows: "Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly ‥‥" which is neither the text of the Bill nor that of the Act as adopted (the latter does not contain the word "therefore"). Ironically, TJ himself, by accepting in part the enacting clause agreed upon by the General Assembly and by retaining the opening words ("Well aware that") of his Bill, did grammatical and structural violence to his great declaration of intellectual and spiritual freedom. It is inexplicable that the English Texts (2), (4), and (5) should have had this fault, and that the French Texts (3) and (4) should not have. The long French preamble beginning "Convaincus que le Dieu tout puissant a créé libre l'esprit de l'homme" is made grammatically and structurally sound when the enacting clause following it reads: "Nous, l'Assemblée générale de Virginie, établissons pour loi‥‥" But the preamble of English Texts (2), (4), and (5) which begins "Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free ‥‥" is left dangling in mid-air, without a noun or pronoun to depend on, when its enacting clause, instead of following the Bill as TJ drew it with its stately "We the General Assembly do enact," reads "Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly."

TJ's hybrid English version of 1786, which is neither precisely that of the Bill nor that of the Act, unfortunately triumphed over the more elevated style of the former and over the legally more correct form of the latter. This version, with its unhappily dangling preamble, became established in America by the 1788 edition of the Notes on Virginia. The H. A. Washington edition of TJ's Writings unfortunately carried the hybrid text, and even the title given it in 1786-"An Act for establishing Religious Freedom, passed in the Assembly of Virginia in the beginning of the year 1786." The Commonwealth of Virginia could go on publishing the authoritative version (e.g., The Code of Virginia, Richmond, 1849, p. 358-60); and Ford (ii, 237-9) could print the Bill as it was in the 1784 ; but when the most widely used edition of TJ's papers () repeated the incorrect text used in the Washington edition, that form became so firmly established that the authoritative or the original versions could never hope to displace it. Even scholarly editors of modern texts, such as Adrienne Koch and William Peden (The Life and Writings of Thomas Jefferson, New York, 1944, p. 311-13), continue to repeat the unhappy hybridization of errors that TJ propagated in 1786.

3. In his Autobiography TJ wrote: "Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word 'Jesus Christ,' so that it should read, 'a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion' the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it's protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination" ( i, 62). There is no record in the Journals of this particular amendment.

5. Text (1) reads "temporal," which is clearly what TJ intended. The clerk's or printer's error which caused the to read "temporary" was repeated in the Act as adopted, thus giving legal sanction to an incorrect usage that TJ could not tolerate. Accordingly in 1786 he restored "temporal" to Text (2), a reading which was followed by the derivatives of that text. The various revisals and codifications of Virginia laws, however, have adhered to the legally correct but otherwise improper "temporary."

6. Text (1) reads: "any more than on our opinions in physicks or geometry." The error of the clerk or printer in omitting "on" in the was repeated in the Act as adopted. TJ in 1786 restored the preposition to Text (2), but at the same time the word "any" at the beginning of the clause quoted was omitted, a reading followed by the derivatives of that text. It is quite possible that this omission of the word "any" may have been made by the printer of Text (2) for no better reason than that of justifying his lines. While TJ's alterations in the text of the Act were, with this one possible exception, obviously intentional, other contemporaneous texts departed from the wording of the Act with engaging innocence either of a regard for accuracy or of respect for exact legal phraseology. The Act as printed, for example, in the Virginia Gazette, or American Advertiser (Richmond: James Hayes) for 22 Feb. 1786 dropped a conjunction, altered spellings, and substituted new words, such as "preacher" for "teacher," "suspicion" for "supposition," "minister" for "ministry," "habit" for "bait," "have" for "hath," and "physic" for "physics." This particular printing is possibly the one that was sent to TJ, though the Act may also have appeared in the Virginia Gazette and Independent Chronicle (Richmond: Dixon & Holt) and the Virginia Gazette & Weekly Advertiser (Richmond: Thomas Nicholson) and may have been sent to TJ from one of these sources. Certainly the text that was printed by Isaiah Thomas as "from the Virginia Gazette" in Madison's A Memorial and Remonstrance (Worcester, 1786) would seem to be derived from another text than that presented in James Hayes' Virginia Gazette; for Thomas' text repeats only three of its many vagaries-"preacher," "minister," and "physic." The text that appeared in Hayes' newspaper bore the attestation of John Beckley, clerk of the House, and of H. Brooke, clerk of the Senate. It is quite probable, therefore, that the words "preacher," "minister," and "physic" (as well as the variation indicated in note 10, below) were clerks' errors, just as Beckley's supervision of the printing of the Report of the Committee of Revisors had perpetuated such errors as those pointed out in this and the preceding note.

It was Dr. Richard Price, distinguished zealot for the American cause, who surpassed clerks, printers, and even TJ himself in taking liberties with the wording of a Virginia statute. In 1786 Dr. Price distributed copies of the Act in a broadside circular as "an example of legislative wisdom and liberality never before known" (London, 1786; Sabin 100343). This printing was undoubtedly based on Text (2), though the copy of the first edition of Notes on Virginia that TJ inscribed and presented to Dr. Price (Paris: privately printed, 1785; this copy now in NjP) does not contain that text. Thus, taking TJ's hybrid version of the Act as his starting point, Dr. Price produced a more extensively altered text that no one, fortunately, seems to have followed. Whatever Dr. Price may have felt about the wisdom and liberality of the legislature that adopted the Act, he indubitably thought that he could improve upon the style of the law. He therefore freely struck out words and phrases, altered others, and provided many variant readings; some of these were indubitable improvements, such as his excision of the word "bait" in an otherwise exalted passage.

10. In employing this phraseology, TJ departed from the usual form for the enacting clause. "We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact" is certainly more suited to the elevated style of the Bill than "Be it enacted by the General Assembly"; but, despite Madison's statement that no alterations were made in the enacting clause, the latter is the form that was adopted. Whether this was by amendment in the House or in the Senate is not certain. As noted above, TJ caused Text (2) to read: "Be it therefore enacted ‥‥" This does not conform to the text of the Act as adopted, which omits "therefore"; but it does conform to the attested copy of the Act as printed in Hayes' Virginia Gazette for 22 Feb. 1786. This seems to confirm the suggestion advanced in note 6, above, that TJ made use of a newspaper text of the Act as he was engaged in preparing Text (2).

Permanent Link What's this?

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-02-02-0132-0004-0082

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Founders Online: 82. A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, 18 June 1779

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
82. A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, 18 June 1779

# data[].attributes.headline
Matt Garofalo - Jefferson's justification for the Louisiana Purchase

# data[].attributes.subject
Matt Garofalo - Jefferson's justification for the Louisiana Purchase

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Purchase of Louisiana. At length the business of New-Orleans has terminated favourably to this country. 2 Instead of being obliged to rely any longer on the force of treaties, for a place of deposit, 3 the jurisdiction of the territory is now transferred to our hands and in future the navigation of the Mississippi will be ours unmolested. This, it will be allowed is an important acquisition, not, indeed, as territory, but as being essential to the peace and prosperity of our Western country, and as opening a free and valuable market to our commercial states. This purchase has been made during the period of Mr. Jefferson's presidency, and, will, doubtless, give eclat to his administration. Every man, however, possessed of the least candour and reflection will readily acknowledge that the acquisition has been solely owing to a fortuitous concurrence of unforseen and unexpected circumstances, and not to any wise or vigorous measures on the part of the American government.

As soon as we experienced from Spain a direct infraction of an important article of our treaty, in withholding the deposit of New-Orleans, it afforded us justifiable cause of war, and authorised immediate hostilities. Sound policy unquestionably demanded of us to begin with a prompt, bold and vigorous resistance against the injustice: to seize the object at once; and having this vantage ground, should we have thought it advisable to terminate hostilities by a purchase, we might then have done it on almost our own terms. This course, however, was not adopted, and we were about to experience the fruits of our folly, when another nation has found it her interest to place the French Government in a situation substantially as favourable to our views and interests as those recommended by the federal party here, excepting indeed that we should probably have obtained the same object on better terms.

On the part of France the short interval of peace 4 had been wasted in repeated and fruitless efforts to subjugate St. Domingo; and those means which were originally destined to the colonization of Louisiana, had been gradually exhausted by the unexpected difficulties of this ill-starred enterprize. 5

To the deadly climate of St. Domingo, and to the courage and obstinate resistance made by its black inhabitants are we indebted for the obstacles which delayed the colonization of Louisiana, till the auspicious moment, when a rupture between England and France gave a new turn to the projects of the latter, and destroyed at once all her schemes as to this favourite object of her ambition.

It was made known to Bonaparte, that among the first objects of England would be the seizure of New-Orleans, 6 and that preparations were even then in a state of forwardness for that purpose. The First Consul could not doubt, that if an English fleet was sent thither, the place must fall without resistance; it was obvious, therefore, that it would be in every shape preferable that it should be placed in the possession of a neutral power; and when, besides, some millions of money, of which he was extremely in want, were offered him, to part with what he could no longer hold it affords a moral certainty, that it was to an accidental state of circumstances, and not to wise plans, that this cession, at this time, has been owing. We shall venture to add, that neither of the ministers through whose instrumentality it was effected, 7 will ever deny this, or even pretend that previous to the time when a rupture was believed to be inevitable, there was the smallest chance of inducing the First Consul, with his ambitious and aggrandizing views, to commute the territory for any sum of money in their power to offer. The real truth is, Bonaparte found himself absolutely compelled by situation, to relinquish his darling plan of colonising the banks of the Mississippi: and thus have the Government of the United States, by the unforseen operation of events, gained what the feebleness and pusillanimity of its miserable system of measures could never have acquired. Let us then, with all due humility, acknowledge this as another of those signal instances of the kind interpositions of an over-ruling Providence, which we more especially experienced during our revolutionary war, & by which we have more than once, been saved from the consequences of our errors and perverseness.

We are certainly not disposed to lessen the importance of this acquisition to the country, but it is proper that the public should be correctly informed of its real value and extent as well as of the terms on which it has been acquired. We perceive by the newspapers that various & very vague opinions are entertained; and we shall therefore, venture to state our ideas with some precision as to the territory; but until the instrument of cession itself is published, we do not think it prudent to say much as to the conditions on which it has been obtained. 8

Prior to the treaty of Paris 1763, 9 France claimed the country on both sides of the river under the name of Louisiana, and it was her encroachments on the rear of the British Colonies which gave rise to the war of 1755. 10 By the conclusion of the treaty of 1763, the limits of the colonies of Great Britain and France were clearly and permanently fixed; and it is from that and subsequent treaties that we are to ascertain what territory is really comprehended under the name of Louisiana. France ceded to Great-Britain all the country east and south-east of a line drawn along the middle of the Mississippi from its source to the Iberville, and from thence along that river and the Lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain to the sea; France retaining the country lying west of the river, besides the town and Island of New-Orleans on the east side. 11 This she soon after ceded to Spain 12 who acquiring also the Floridas by the treaty of 1783, 13 France was entirely shut out from the continent of North America. Spain, at the instance of Bonaparte, ceded to him Louisiana, including the Town and Island (as it is commonly called) of New-Orleans. 14 Bonaparte has now ceded the same tract of country, and this only, to the United States. 15 The whole of East and West-Florida, lying south of Georgia and of the Mississippi Territory, and extending to the Gulf of Mexico, still remains to Spain, who will continue, therefore, to occupy, as formerly, the country along the southern frontier of the United States, and the cast bank of the river, from the Iberville to the American line.

Those disposed to magnify its value will say, that this western region is important as keeping off a troublesome neighbour, and leaving us in the quiet possession of the Mississippi. Undoubtedly this has some force, but on the other hand it may be said, that the acquisition of New-Orleans is perfectly adequate to every purpose; for whoever is in possession of that, has the uncontrouled command of the river. Again, it may be said, and this probably is the most favourable point of view in which it can be placed, that although not valuable to the United States for settlement, it is so to Spain, and will become more so, and therefore at some distant period will form an object which we may barter with her for the Floridas, obviously of far greater value to us than all the immense, undefined region west of the river.

It has been usual for the American writers on this subject to include the Floridas in their ideas of Louisiana, as the French formerly did, and the acquisition has derived no inconsiderable portion of its value and importance with the public from this view of it. It may, however, be relied on, that no part of the Floridas, not a foot of land on the east of the Mississippi, excepting New-Orleans, falls within the present cession. As to the unbounded region west of the Mississippi, it is, with the exception of a very few settlements of Spaniards and Frenchmen bordering on the banks of the river, a wilderness through which wander numerous tribes of Indians. And when we consider the present extent of the United States, and that not one sixteenth part of its territory is yet under occupation, the advantage of the acquisition, as it relates to actual settlement, appears too distant and remote to strike the mind of a sober politician with much force. This, therefore, can only rest in speculation for many years, if not centuries to come, and consequently will not perhaps be allowed very great weight in the account by the majority of readers. But it may be added, that should our own citizens, more enterprizing than wise, become desirous of settling this country, and emigrate thither, it must not only be attended with all the injuries of a too widely dispersed population, but by adding to the great weight of the western part of our territory, must hasten the dismemberment of a large portion of our country, or a dissolution of the Government. On the whole, we think it may with candor be said, that whether the possession at this time of any territory west of the river Mississippi will be advantageous, is at best extremely problematical. For ourselves, we are very much inclined to the opinion, that after all, it is the Island of N. Orleans by which the command of a free navigation of the Mississippi is secured, that gives to this interesting cession, its greatest value, and will render it in every view of immense benefit to our country. By this cession we hereafter shall hold within our own grasp, what we have heretofore enjoyed only by the uncertain tenure of a treaty, 16 which might be broken at the pleasure of another, and (governed as we now are) with perfect impunity. Provided therefore we have not purchased it too dear, there is all the reason for exultation which the friends of the administration display, and which all Americans may be allowed to feel.

As to the pecuniary value of the bargain; we know not enough of the particulars to pronounce upon it. It is understood generally, that we are to assume debts of France to our own citizens not exceeding four millions of dollars; and that for the remainder, being a very large sum, 6 per cent stock to be created, and payment made in that. 17 But should it contain no conditions or stipulations on our part, no "tangling alliances" of all things to be dreaded, we shall be very much inclined to regard it in a favorable point of view though it should turn out to be what may be called a costly purchase. By the way a question here presents itself of some little moment: Mr. Jefferson in that part of his famous electioneering message, where he took so much pains to present a flattering state of the Treasury in so few words that every man could carry it in his noddle and repeat it at the poll, tells us, that "experience too so far authorises us to believe, if no extraordinary event supervenes, and the expences which will be actually incurred shall not be greater than was contemplated by Congress at their last session, that we shall not be disappointed in the expectations formed" that the debt would soon be paid, &c. &c. 18 But the first and only measure of the administration that has really been of any material service to the country (for they have hitherto gone on the strength of the provisions made by their predecessors) is really "an extraordinary event," and calls for more money than they have got. According to Mr. Gallatin's report, they had about 40.000 to spare for contingencies, 19 and now the first "extraordinary event" that "supervenes" calls upon them for several millions. What a poor starvling system of administering a government! But how is the money to be had? Not by taxing luxury and wealth and whiskey, but by increasing the taxes on the necessaries of life. Let this be remembered.

But we are exceeding our allowable limits. It may be satisfactory to our readers, that we should finish with a concise account of New-Orleans itself.

The Island of New-Orleans is in length about 150 miles; its breadth varies from 10 to 30 miles. Most of it is a marshy swamp, periodically inundated by the river. The town of New-Orleans, situated about 105 miles from the mouth of the river, contains near 1300 houses, and about 8000 inhabitants, chiefly Spanish and French. It is defended from the overflowings of the river, by an embankment, or leveé, which extends near 50 miles.

The rights of the present proprietors of real estate in New-Orleans and Louisiana, whether acquired by descent or by purchase, will, of course, remain undisturbed. 20 How they are to be governed is another question; whether as a colony, or to be formed into an integral part of the United States, is a subject which will claim consideration hereafter. The probable consequences of this cession, and the ultimate effect it is likely to produce on the political state of our country, will furnish abundant matter of speculation to the American statesman.

If reliance can be placed on the history given of the negociation of Louisiana in private letters, from persons of respectability residing at Paris, and who speak with confidence, the merit of it, after making due allowance for the great events which have borne it along with them, is due to our ambassador, Chancellor Livingston, and not to the Envoy Extraordinary. "The cession was voted in the Council of State on the 8th of April, and Mr. Munro did not even arrive till the 12th." 21 Judging from Mr. Munro's former communications to the French Government on this subject, 22 we really cannot but regard it as fortunate, that the thing was concluded before he reached St. Cloud.

New-York Evening Post, July 5, 1803.

1. For background to this document, see H to Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, December 29, 1802; "For the Evening Post," February 8, 1803.

This document was first attributed to H in "Hamilton on the Louisiana Purchase: A Newly Identified Editorial from the New-York Evening Post" (The William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., XII, No. 2 [April, 1955], 268-81]).

For H's earlier opinions concerning the strategic and economic importance of Louisiana, see H to George Washington, September 15, 1790; "Conversation with George Beckwith," September 25-30, October 15-20, 1790; H to James McHenry, January 27-February 11, 1798; H to Timothy Pickering, March 27, 1798.

2. News of the cession of Louisiana to the United States reached New York City on June 30, 1803 (New-York Evening Post, June 30, 1803), but the dispatches from Paris containing the treaty and the two conventions did not arrive in Washington until July 14 (Thomas Jefferson to Meriwether Lewis, July 15, 1803 [ ALS, letterpress copy, Thomas Jefferson Papers, Library of Congress]).

6. See François de Barbé-Marbois, Histoire de la Louisiane et de la Cession de Cette Colonie par la France aux États-Unis de l'Amérique Septenrionale ... (Paris: Imprimerie de Firmin Didot, 1829) 258-88. See also King to Robert R. Livingston and James Monroe, May 7, 1803 ( ALS, New-York Historical Society, New York City).

7. Robert R. Livingston and James Monroe.

8. On July 18, 1803, the National Intelligencer and Washington Advertiser printed a summary of the provisions of the treaty and the conventions. On October 24, 1803, three days after the Senate ratified the agreements (, 506-07), the texts of the documents were published in the NewYork Evening Post.

9. The Definitive Treaty of Peace between Great Britain, France, and Spain was signed in Paris on February 10, 1763 (The Parliamentary History of England, From the Earliest Period to the Year 1803 [London, 1806-1820], XV, 1291-1305).

10. The French and Indian War or the Seven Years War.

11. Article VII of the Treaty of Paris of 1763 (The Parliamentary History of England, XV, 1295-96).

12. France secretly ceded Louisiana to Spain in 1762 by the terms of the Treaty of Fontainebleau, but these terms were not made public in America until 1764.

13. Article V of the Definitive Treaty of Peace and Friendship between His Britannic Majesty and the King of Spain, signed at Versailles, September 3, 1783 (The Parliamentary History of England, XXIII, 1176).

16. The Treaty of Friendship, Limits, and Navigation between the United States and Spain, signed at San Lorenzo el Real on October 25, 1795 (, 318-38).

17. See Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention for the Payment of Sixty Million Francs ($11,250,000) by the United States, signed at Paris on April 30, 1803 (, 513-14), and Articles 1, 2, and 3 of the Convention for the Payment of Sums Due by France to Citizens of the United States, signed at Paris on April 30, 1803 (, 517-18).

18. See Thomas Jefferson's second annual message, which he sent to Congress on December 15, 1802 (, XII, 12-15).

19. See "State of Finances," which Albert Gallatin wrote on December 17, 1802, and submitted to Congress on December 20 (, Finance, II, 5-9).

20. See Article III of the Treaty of the Cession of Louisiana, signed at Paris April 30, 1803 (, 501).

21. H presumably obtained this information from an unsigned letter which was printed in the New-York Evening Post on July 1, 1803, and which also appeared in other newspapers during the first half of July ([Boston] New-England Palladium, July 1, 1803; [New York] American Citizen, July 7, 1803; National Intelligencer and Washington Advertiser, July 8, 1803). The letter, which was written from Paris on May 13, 1803, reads in part: "I inclose you a memorial, which Mr. Livingston, our minister here, presented to the French Government, which was really the primary cause of the cession of Louisiana to the United States. I beg you to have it translated and published, that the tribute due to the exertions of that able negotiator be rendered by every citizen, who is capable of appreciating the inestimable benefit he has obtained. The cession was voted in the Council of State the 8th of April. I was at St. Cloud that day. The 9th, propositions were made to Mr. Livingston to fix on a price. The 10th, the thing was talked over, and the principles agreed upon, when news of Mr. Munro's arrival at Havre got to town. The 12th, in the evening Mr. M. did arrive at Paris. The previous negociations of Mr. L. were communicated to him and every thing was closed and signed the 30th-even before Mr. Munro was presented at Court" (New-York Evening Post, July 1, 1803).

The memorial, entitled "A Memorial on this question-whether it be advantageous for France to take possession of Louisiana?," was printed in the New-York Evening Post, July 19, 20, 1803. See also , Foreign Relations, II, 520-24.

22. This is a reference to Monroe's mission to France from 1794 to 1796.

Permanent Link What's this?

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-26-02-0001-0101

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Founders Online: Purchase of Louisiana, [5 July 1803]

# data[].attributes.headline
Double click to post your name, your topic, and your source URL.

# data[].attributes.subject
Double click to post your name, your topic, and your source URL.

# data[].attributes.body
Then add a comment to your post answering each question.