Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1833-06-21

In which the house OF Representatives stated that il
had been passed by them, to enable tho President
commence with effect, negotiation for tho pur.
chase OF the Spanish territories lying the Atlantic
and Gulf of Mexico and eastward of the river
'eNii,sisspp (rhs journal may be seen i'm The
Enquirer OF the 9Th April 1906. Vol III. No. los, and
no doubt, in The National Inteigeneer of the same
monthly
This brief recapulaton Of the history Of these memo.
rable Transactions will suffice remind the public Of the
period OF time at which Mr. Randolph detached himself
trom Mr. Jefferson, whose administration he had pre-
y supported with equal Zeal and ability of the pre-
else point OF difference that rstdyided them twas,
douotedy upon the relative merits OF the propositions
above men,ionedthe TO raise troops for the purpose
OF indicating our territorial claims against the pecnsons
OF spain by arms which recommended by the select
committee and zeaiously supported by Mr.. Randolph
the other to appropriate money for the purchase Fori
da, (Which would include the disputed territory propros
cd IN the House OF Representatives and ultimately adopt
ed, and certainly preferred by Mr. Jefferson though
never appeared that he recommended itthat Mr. Ran
dolph first separated himself from MIR. Jefferson; and
was during the debate in the from the Bird 10
the 10Th January, 1so6, that the schism to
te House OF Representatives; but the that the schis
had occurred and that the breach was serious and rrep,
rabe was not disclosed 10 the public large until the
on F gregg sreseu'ions for intercourse with
urea, Dtia,n which commenced in March 1906, when
Mr. hanophs two speeches Of the 5ih h OF that
hon revealed ms vehement and determined
to The measures OF the government.
fthough IL upon the subject of our dispu,e with
SPAN concerning the eastern boundary louisiana that
DR. kan"ophs opposition TO Mr. Jeiierons administra
,on cohinehced no man acquainted with history of
the tunes can doubt, that schsm between them must
unavolably have occurred, whenever the government
| u.
anu rance. There was an rreconcilable difference
heir opinions and views policy in their
700 III regard TO the whole subject After the rupture
Tue sor' truce commonly called the peace of Amens the
war between u. Britain and France was renewed with,
moro Jury Than ever, and involved all the great ma.
lion: OIL Europe. France held decided superiority or
Tue and' aud c. Britain the seas; and each avalrd
beseit oil her advantages in the manner she eed most
efficient for her purposes without the least regard 10 The
rsh OF heutras The vast power OF France welded bv
the ambition and the genius OF Bonapare in Mr. Ran.
h, op,on henaced Tho independence of all nations:
a' power therefore, was the great object of his ieal
ousy; and, regarding The maritime superiority of G. Bri.
tam as The only check upon the military power of France
he was most soicous that tile u States sheud ayod amy
contest with France. Mr. Jefferson on the other b,nd
was more jealous OF the maritime power Of G. Britain
ana indignant at her abuse of il grevous injury of
all neural' and especially of the u States: and though
ne was IN temper and in principle averse from war Vol
he lelt that the injuries inflicted by c. Britain we're an
immediate, certain, actual evil while the danger anpre
hcnded from the power OF France was remote ,rd con
Hason' and he regulated his course policy accordingly
Mr' hahdoiphs opinions on the subject were avowed at
least as early as the of 1904 as many persons
no" hving can bear witness. He little Inclined TO
surrender his opinions in Difference TO the Judgment of
Mr. Jefferson, Mr.. Jefferson was TO conf5t his no
cy 10 The views oil Mr. Randolph. The adnins,rs ou
necessary oil some action the subject of our TO-
reign relations (or the general sentiment of the nation
demanded y duug the OF Congress of lsOb-6. and
whatever had been the first of tina, kind
Tor consideration, that would have been the occasion on
which the radical difference opinion between Mr. Jec
terson and Mr. Randolph would have manifested itself
me question Is not which was tightbu only whether
Mr. Randolph was not honest 10 his opinions and neither
his course OF conduct regulated by dsnterested
views OF public policy not by personal disappointment or
Pique ne saked upon tho issue, all the popularity he
had acquired well knowing the value of The stakeEves
ana ue desperation OF the hazard There was enouph
ID .he opposition OF his opinions and views those of Mr.
ohesoi' 70 account Tor his opposition 10 the measures of
the administration, whou, hunting for causes of nersonal
resentment Norris there the least reason 10 believe that
mere was az prs any personal hostility on either side
Personal hostility indeed, enued; but il was the
sequence not the cause. OF Mr. Randolphs opposition
The general characters of tue two men were verv
reseomeis OF both were quickly excited by political on
Posiuon ana were too unmcasured and lasting-it
is not easy 10 say, which carried them TO qr-a,er
renes or which The less careful 10 disguise them
Inc warnes friends Of Mr.. Randolph will admit the jus.
ee oil The remark in respect him. and tat is equally
u' IN It's application 10 Mr. Jefferson, few will doubt o
have read his pOsthumous works
shortly after Mr. RAT io'2h', opposition to Mr. JEFF
eisohs administration became known TO the public
story got into crculaon which found lis way in
10 me newspapers, that Mr. Randolph had been solicit
ous TO DO appointed minister extraordinary 10 ENGLAND
(o TO France0 and that he or some member of Con-
gfess, had suggested such appointment 10 Mr. lief.
ler.On who turned deaf ear 10 The propasal. and NJ
hahioPhs opposition 10 MIR. Jefferson was imputed (o
couFse) 10 ms disappointment OF his ambition to be sent
envoy extraordinary to London. No date was ever as
signed Tor Mr. Randolps solicitation of the appointments
and MT Jeh"sons refusal of for 10 date could have
been gwen which would not been TO The
eo,heneement oil MIR Kaniophs opposition in Congress-
an" nave mus carried with il REPUTATION the cainy
No evidence OF tho facts sdduced false
" e kind are sure to be reiued by exposure the
grounds on which they alleged; and the violence and
'ip"suce oi party war; will affect 10 believe and
many VIII believe without evidence and without iuouirv--
which IL enough 10 serve The purpose.
The only foundation for the story was tI,s:-Jo m.
course oil The session Of 1866, while the opinion 2,
gaming ground which afterwards prev allied tia. an envoy
extraordinary ought 10 be TO Great Britain, 10 une
WIN MI. Monroe In the then pending nee citation Mr.
christopher Clark member OF the House of Represents.
Vesofn virginia, entertaining that opinion himself and
DeheVihg ha Mr. Randolph ought be rccone n,ed IN
The President as the 6ttest person for the mission
neSed his views TO several other members of Congress-
anh, hndng that they concurrcd with him. he eIeJ
10 Suggest 10 Mr. Jefferson, the prOpficyo the extrsodi
nary mission; but being promptly told that the admnisra
hoh saw no necessity or any such mission he dopt the
SUBJECT mere ana never resumed IT, Hencvcr mention.
ed MI Randoph's 10 MIR. Jefferson: nor had Mr.
Randolph been previously Consulted or informed of the
uesign Mr. Randolph was afterwards apprised by Mr.
Ik oil MS plan OF pursuing the negotiation with Eupand
ana atonce the that would be made
oil Tue ncHeht throw suspicion the motives his polit
ca eouuo'. ne doubted the purity OF Mr. Carks
intentions, or ms sincere good will towards himself hut
did not prevent him from feeling and EXPRESSING his
'eNaon with Mr. Clark, Tor what he called the absurd
ocousness oil his conducts and he expressed the .en,
neht 10 Mr. Clark at the time, and often scr,yards-oo
oe, nueed considering the motives which uuone s,ion-
tby actuated Mr. Clark in the Transaction Mr. CIa,k is
detd; ana II is not my design to throw blame npon him
nut only to slate facts known both from Mr. Clark and MIR
Randolph, in order TO yiudicate Mr. Randolph's fame. n
MIR Clark were now living, am cure he would nn,s
with me in the vindic alton.
The story was mentioned, along with another of the
10Th September, 1906, (Yo III No 80 ) Of which send
copy orrepubllcation (A And in the Enquirer Of the
ION october following (No 46) there appeared coo.
nuicaion under the signature Of Hampton stating the
rum OF The transaction; Of this communication also
fehd copy 70 be republshed (B II was written by Mr.
MI randolph only complained, that Mr. Clark did not
sign his name TO IT, ~