The Massachusetts spy, and Worcester County advertiser. [volume] ([Worcester, Mass.]) 1825-1831, 1829-02-18

memory could not deceive him, point up
on which he was the best of witnesses and
his testimony was the more decisive be-
cause given at a moment, as IT would seem,
of great excitement against me upon differ
ent views of public policy even then IN con-
fiict, and producing great eXcerbauon IN
his mind. The letter contained also mar
rative of a personal interview between him
self and me, in March, 1903, and stated
that had then given him information OF
facts, which induced him to consent to the
substitution of the nonintercourse for the
embargo; and also that had apprlsed HIM
of this reasonable negociatlon 10y the clti-
Zens of Massachusetts, to secede from the
Union during the war, and perhaps rejoln
after the peace. Now the substitution of
the nonintercourse for the embargo, took
place twelve months after this interview,
and at a succeeding session of Congress,
when was not even member of that
body. The negotiation for seeding from
the Union with view to rejoin it after
wards, if it ever existed, must have been
during the war. had no knowledge Of
such negotiation, or even Of such II design.
| could therefore have given no such infor-
nation.
But in giving an unqualified denial to this
statement of Mr.. Jefferson, and in showing
that upon the face of the letter itself it could
not be correct, it was due to him to show,
that the mlsstatement on his part WAS not
Intentional; that it arose from an infirmity
of memory, which the letter itself candjdly
acknowledged; that it blended together in
one distinct mass, the information which |
had given him in March, 1903. with the
purport of confidential letters, which | had
written to his and my friends in Congress
year after, and with events, projects, and
perhaps mere suspicious, natural enough as
consequences of the preceding times, but
which occurred, if at all, from three to six
years later, and of which he could not have
had information from me. The simple fact
of which I apprized Mr.. Jefferson was, that,
i'll the summer of 1907, about the time of
what was called the affair of the Leopard
and the Chesapeake, | had seen letter
from the governor of Nova Scotia to per-
son in Massachusetts, affirming that the
British government had certain information
Of plan l'y that of France, to conquer the
British possessions and effect revolution
in the United States, by means of war be-
tween them and Great Britain. As the
United States and Great Britain were in
I 1907 at peace, correspondence with the
! governor of Nova Scotia, held by any citi-
zen Of the United States, imported no viola
/ ton of law; nor could the correspondent
\ be responsible for any thing which the
! governor might write. But my differences
| from this fact were. that there existed be-
tween the British Government and the par
ty IN Massachusetts opposed to Mr.. Jeffer-
son, a channel of communication through
! the governor of Nova Scotia, which he was
exercising to intlame their hatred against
France and their jealousies against their
own government. The letter was not to
any leader Of the federal party but had
no doubt it had been shown to some of
them, as it had been to me, without iniunc-
ton OF secrecy; and, as | supposed, with
a view to convince NE that this conspiracy
between Napoleon and Mr.. Jefferson really
existed. How tlIat riIdunel of uurlmuIfcH-
ton might be further used, was matter of
conjecture; for the mission of Mr.. John
Henry was nine months after my interview
with Mr. Jefferson, and precisely at the
time when was writing to my friends in
I Congress the letters urging the substitution
of the nonihtercourse for the embargo. OF
Mr.. Henry's mission / knew nothing till it
was disclosed by himself in 1872
1t was in these letters of 1903 and 1909.
that mentioned the design of certain lead
ers of the federal party to effect a dissolu-
ton of the Union, and the establishment of
a Northern Confederacy. This design had
been formed, in the winter of 1904. im-
medlately after, and as a consequence ofthe
acquisition OF Louisiana. Its .iustlfying
causes to those who entertained it were.
mat the annexation of Louisiana to the
Union transcended the constitutional DOW
ers OF the government of the United States.
That 1T formed in fact a new confederacy
to which the States, united by the former
compact, were not bound to adhere. That
1t was oppressive to the interests and de-
structive to the influence of the Northern
section nfthe confederacy, whose RIGHT and
duty 1T therefore was to secehe from the
new body polite, and to constitute one of
their own. This plan was so far matured.
tnat the proposal had been made to an in
dlvldual to permit himself, at the proper
] time, to be placed at the head of the militia
/ ry movements, which, it was forseen would
he ecessary for carrying it into execution.
In all ibis there Was no over act of treason.
i I'D the abstract theory of our government
the obedience of the citizen is not due to an
unconstitutional law. He may lawfully re-
sIst Its execution. If a single Individual
undertakes this resistance, our constitutions
both OF the unifkd States and of each separ.
! ate fStnte, have provided e Judiciary power
Judges and Juries, to decide between the
individual and the Legislative act, which he
has resisted as unconstitutional. But lei
us suppose the case that legislative acts OF
one or more States of this Union, are past
conflicting with acts of Congress, and com.
manding the resistance of their citizens
against them and what else car be the re.
suit but war,--civil war? and is not that. Ne
taeto. a dissolution of the Union. so far as
the resisting Stnfas nrn nnnno..i -