Title: From James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 13 June 1793
From: Madison, James
To: Jefferson, Thomas

My dear SirOrange June 13. 93.
My last was of the 27 May. It inclosed among other things a letter to the French Ministre de l’Interieur, in answer to one inclosing a Decree of the Nat: Assemb. On the propriety of the answer I wished your freest judgment; and as the sending one at all may be rendered by events improper, I must request the favor of you not to forward the letter, if intelligence should confirm such to be the State of things that it would be totally mal-apropos there. Provided it be proper there, and consequently proper in itself, I shall not trouble myself about any comments which the publication attending all such things, may produce here. The letter preceding my last as well as the last, contained some other papers which I wish to know have been reced.
Your two last favors were of May 27. & June 2. The latter confirms the apostacy of Dumourier, but relieves us from the more alarming account of his being supported in it by the army. Still however much is to be dreaded from the general posture of things. Should they take a turn decidedly wrong, I fear little regard will be paid to the limited object avowed by the Austrian General in his first proclamation. In fact if the plan of Dumourier had succeeded, it is probable that under the clause of the Proclamation relating to an amendment of imperfections in the Constitution of 1791 the form of the national sanction would have been obtained, as in the Restoration of Charles II, to whatever establishment military despotism might please to dictate. The only hope of France, next to the success of her own efforts, seems to lie in the number of discordant views of her combined enemies.
I observe that the Newspapers continue to criticise the President’s proclamation; and I find that some of the criticisms excite the attention of dispassionate & judicious individuals here. I have heard it remarked by such with some surprise that the P. should have declared the U. S. to be neutral in the unqualified terms used, when we were so notoriously & unequivocally under eventual engagements to defend the American possessions of F. I have heard it remarked also that the impartiality enjoined on the people was as little reconciliable with their moral obligations, as the unconditional neutrality proclaimed by the Government is with the express articles of the Treaty. It has been asked also whether the Authority of the Executive extended by any part of the Constitution to a declaration of the Disposition of the U. S. on the subject of war & peace? I have been mortified that on these points I could offer no bona fide explanations that ought to be satisfactory. On the last point I must own my surprise that such a prerogative should have been exercised. Perhaps I may have not attended to some part of the Constitution with sufficient care, or may have misapprehended its meaning: But, as I have always supposed & still conceive, a proclamation on the subject could not properly go beyond a declaration of the fact that the U. S. were at war or peace, and an enjunction of a suitable conduct on the Citizens. The right to decide the question whether the duty & interest of the U. S. require war or peace under any given circumstances, and whether their disposition be towards the one or the other seems to be essentially & exclusively involved in the right vested in the Legislature, of declaring war in time of peace; and in the P. & S. of making peace in time of war. Did no such view of the subject present itself in the discussions of the Cabinet? I am extremely afraid that the P. may not be sufficiently aware of the snares that may be laid for his good intentions by men whose politics at bottom are very different from his own. An assumption of prerogatives not clearly found in the Constitution & having the appearance of being copied from a Monarchical model, will beget animadversion equally mortifying to him, & disadvantageous to the Government. Whilst animadversions of this sort can be plausibly ascribed to the spirit of party, the force of them may not be felt. But all his real friends will be anxious that his public conduct may bear the strictest scrutiny of future times as well as of the present day: and all such friends of the Constitution will be doubly pained at infractions of it under auspices that may consecrate the evil till it be incurable.

It will not be in my power to take the step with the Friend of our Friend, which you recommend. It is probable too that it would be either unnecessary or without effect. If the complexion of the former be such as is presumed, he will fairly state the truth & that alone is wanted. If, as I deem not impossible, his complexion be a little different from the general belief, there would be more harm than good in the attempt. The great danger of misconstruing the sentiment of Virginia with regard to Liberty & France is from the heretical tone of conversation in the Towns on the post-road. The voice of the Country is universally and warmly right. If the popular disposition could be collected & carried into effect, a most important use might be made of it in obtaining contributions of the necessaries called for by the danger of famine in France. Unfortunately the disaffection of the Towns which alone could give effect to a plan for the purpose, locks up the public gratitude & beneficence.
Our fine prospects in the wheat fields have been severely injured by the weather for some time past. A warm & moist spring had pushed the wheat into rather a luxuriant state. It had got safe into the head however, and with tolerable weather would have ripened into a most exuberant crop. Just as the grain was in a milky state, the weather became wetter than ever, and has continued raining or cloudy almost constantly since. This has brought on a little of the rust, and pretty universally in this quarter a decay of the ear called the Rot. Should the weather be ever so favorable henceforward, a considerable proportion will be lost: And if unfavorable, the loss may be almost entire. We are at this moment both excessively wet & hot. The forwardest wheat is turning fast & may be nearly safe. The generality is not sufficiently advanced to be out of danger of future or beyond the effect of past causes.
The (Kentucky) Coffee Trees in this Neighbourhood are all too young to bear for some years. I will do all I can to get the seed for Bartram from Kentucky as soon as possible. Adieu.


Title: To James Madison from Thomas Jefferson, 17 June 1793
From: Jefferson, Thomas
To: Madison, James

Letter not found. 17 June 1793. Mentioned in Jefferson to JM, 23 June: “My last was of the 17th. if I may reckon a single line any thing.” Acknowledged in JM to Jefferson, 29 June: “Your last was of the 17th. inst: & covered one paper of the 12th.”


Title: From James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 19 June 1793
From: Madison, James
To: Jefferson, Thomas

Dear SirOrange June 19. 1793.
The date of my last was the 17th. It acknowledged yours of the 9th. instant. Our harvest commenced today. It will turn out I think far beyond expectation. On one of two little farms I own, which I have just surveyed, the crop is not sensibly injured by either the rot or the rust, and will yield 30 or 40 perCt. more than would be a good crop in ordinary years. This farm is on the Mountain Soil. The other is on a vein of limestone and will be less productive, having suffered a little both from the rot & the rust. My father’s & brother’s crops will not be inferior to mine. From these samples, and those of the neighbourhood generally as far as I am informed, the alarm which has of late prevailed is greater than the calamity. I have not heard from the neighbourhood of Monticello, but can not doubt that its situation ensures it an equal fortune with the similar one here. The weather at present is extremely favorable for the harvest, being dry. It is the reverse however for the laborers, being excessively hot. The Thermometer at this moment (4 OC. P. M.) is up at 96°.
Every Gazette I see (excerpt [sic] that of the U. S.) exhibits a spirit of criticism on the anglified complexion charged on the Executive politics. I regret extremely the position into which the P. has been thrown. The unpopular cause of Anglomany is openly laying claim to him. His enemies masking themselves under the popular cause of France are playing off the most tremendous batteries on him. The proclamation was in truth a most unfortunate error. It wounds the National honor, by seeming to disregard the stipulated duties to France. It wounds the popular feelings by a seeming indifference to the cause of liberty. And it seems to violate the forms & spirit of the Constitution, by making the executive Magistrate the organ of the disposition the duty & the interest of the Nation in relation to war & peace, subjects appropriated to other departments of the Government. It is mortifying to the real friends of the P. that his fame & his influence should have been unnecessarily made to depend in any degree on political events in a foreign quarter of the Globe: and particularly so that he should have any thing to apprehend from the success of liberty in another country, since he owes his preeminence to the success of it in his own. If France triumphs the ill-fated proclamation will be a mill-stone, which would sink any other character, and will force a struggle even on his.
Your plan is much approved & will be adopted by my brother. I find I was misunderstood in my enquiry as to the proper width of the Portico: I did not mean the proportion it ought to bear to the side of the House to which it is attached: but the interval between the columns & the side of the House; or the distance which the Pediment ought to project. If there be any fixt rule on this subject, I will thank you to intimate it in your next. Yrs. always & affey.


Title: To James Madison from John Taylor, 20 June 1793
From: Taylor, John
To: Madison, James

Dear SirCaroline June 20. 1793
In coming from Philadelphia, alone, and meditative, after Congress had risen, the occurrences which had trodden on each others heels, in too rapid succession for much reflection during the session, began to pass muster in my mind, and to peice themselves together, so as to exhibit an unity of design. Connecting these with several important laws of the union, a variety of fantasies were engendered between them, some of which, like youthful dreams, made such an impression [on] me, that I have employed the few intervals of leisure which have occured, in writing them down. And they are now presented to you.
Several ideas and arguments, which I thought it adviseable to impress, are repeated. The impropriety of repetitions was not forgotten, but it was remembered that the performance was pro tempora—Oh tempora!
The plagiarisms are few, and chiefly from myself. There is neither title or dedication. When the work was finished, I felt myself ready to exclaim, as Quin did on seeing a person ridiculously attired—

“Angels & ministers of grace defend us!
Be thou a spirit of grace or goblin damned,
Bring with the[e] airs from heaven or blasts from hell,
Be thy intents wicked or charitable,
Thou comest in such a questionable shape,
That I will speak to thee. I’ll call thee—
By G—d I don’t know what to call thee.”

Some of my friends must therefore stand godfather to the brat, and baptize it, either with the holy ghost—or with fire.
And if Brutus could surmount a natural affection for his offspring of flesh and blood, so as calmly to behold the axe do its office, when the good of the commonwealth required it; doubt not but that my amor patriæ, can in humble imitation of his Example, attain apathy enough towards mine of ink and paper, to bear with great composure its contorsions in the flames.

Having no private object in view, and knowing how much better you can judge of the publick good—besides you are impartial—I pray you to arrest without reserve this mischief—if it be a mischief. In this event, the only reprieve I will ask for it, is, that you will return it to me, to undergo perpetual imprisonment, by way of refining upon its punishment.
And if it is reclaimable by correction—correct it.
Should you approve of the production, ought it to appear in a pamp[h]let or in the newspapers. The latter are meer ephemere, and tho’ containing merit, read & forgotten. The best political essays being often supposed to proceed from the printers in a course of trade. Besides the sphere of their circulation is circumscribed.
Or would it be proper to print it in phila., to be distributed either among the state assemblies at their fall meeting, or at the opening of the next Congress. In the latter case, to make a direct impression on the members of Congress; in the first, to subjoin the influence of their constituents.
The repeal of the bank law, and some emendations of the constitution, are the only fruits, to be expected from any such impression, and therefore it seems to me, that on the very meeting of the next Congress, a firm and bold attempt should be made to gather them.
Even a disapointment will not frustrate every use of such an attempt. It will operate as a check—gain time for new elections—and alarm the publick mind into a discussion of principles.
If the performance is adjudged worthy of being printed in a pamp[h]let, I submit it to you, whether it ought not to be done in the cheapest stile, for the sake of circulation, for it will hardly have merit enough to circulate itself.
But how is it to get printed? I would expend fifty dollars for my share, in that way, or more, if I ought.
I have not written to Mr: Jefferson, because a justification for wasting any portion of his time did not present itself. But if you have an opportunity, the production may be laid before him, and I hereby invest him with a power over it, coextensive with your own.
I would also wish Colo. Monroe to see it. And altho’ it has been out of my power to prevent its being known here, that I have been writing something, it is my wish that no one else should be told what that something is.
If you could have been a week here, and the work is capable of being turned to any use, how useful might it have been made? Indeed you may yet give it great value, if you please. It begins and ends with a blank sheet.
Mr: Pendleton approves of its doctrines, and recommends its publication.

Through Randolph, whom I have not seen, I learn that the President believes, that the Virga. interest as it is called, designs to attack him, and that it gives him great unneasiness. Of what individuals he supposes the interest to be compounded, I know not. However this idea, with the comments on his conduct in the papers—the addressing arts—and the cunning insinuation, that the republicans mean to intimidate him, correspond to inlist him in a party. I am not so conversant in cabinet affairs, as to form even a conjecture, touching his reclaimability from this error, or whether a well manufactured dedication to him, would operate towards that object?
I am convinced from the same source, that no impression unfavourable to the se——y of the treasury, was made last winter, on the president’s mind. R informed Mr: Pendleton, that the President thought him an honest man, and he brought & presented to him all Hamilton’s reports, bound up in one book.
Besides, in the case touching the suability of a state, page 20. the attorney concludes his argument with these very extraordinary, and unnecessary expressions. “The states need not fear an assault from bold ambition, or any approaches of covered stratagem.” I consider him as the best thermometer by which to measure the president’s opinions at present.
But to return to this same production. Let me ask, whether political rectitude will not suffer me to with: draw from the political world? If I can earn my wages, they are earned. My bolt is shot. If the publick good should be advanced by it, my discharge is demandable on the score of Service—if not, it will be due on the score of insufficiency. Cannot you think of some other as sharp set as I have been, to substitute in the place of one, gorged as I am, with publick service?
Besides, since I have been beating my brains for the good of the nation, two white hairs have appeared on the top of my head, and have caused me to think very gravely.
I give up the idea as to H. It would probably succeed, but it might do mischief.
A man who has “given pledges to fortune,” is confined within a magical circle, and can therefore promise nothing. Had my inclinations only governed my conduct, I should have accepted of your invitation without hesitation; but there are duties to be discharged.
And yet a trip to the mountains would probably help me, for I feel as if my malady last fall had regenerated me for the worse. Such a gratification of my wishes, would be a considerable consolation for a suspension of health. I am with great respect & esteem Yr: mo: obt: Sert.
John Taylor


Title: To James Madison from Thomas Jefferson, 23 June 1793
From: Jefferson, Thomas
To: Madison, James

Dear SirJune 23. 1793.
My last was of the 17th. if I may reckon a single line any thing. Yours of the 13th. came to hand yesterday. The proclmn. as first proposed was to have been a declaration of neutrality. It was opposed on these grounds 1. that a declaration of neutrality was a declaration there should be no war, to which the Executive was not competent. 2. that it would be better to hold back the declaration of neutrality, as a thing worth something to the powers at war, that they would bid for it, & we might reasonably ask as a price, the broadest privileges of neutral nations. The 1st. objection was so far respected as to avoid inserting the term neutrality, & the drawing the instrument was left to E. R. That there should be a proclamn. was passed unanimously with the approbation or the acquiescence of all parties. Indeed it was not expedient to oppose it altogether, lest it should prejudice what was the next question, the boldest & greatest that ever was hazarded, and which would have called for extremities, had it prevailed. Spain is unquestionably picking a quarrel with us. A series of letters from her commissioners here prove it. We are sending a courier to Madrid. The inevitableness of war with the Creeks, and the probability, I might say the certainty of it with Spain (for there is not one of us who doubts it,) will certainly occasion your convocation. At what time I cannot exactly say. But you should be prepared for this important change in the state of things. The President is got pretty well again. He sets off this day to Mount Vernon, & will be absent a fortnight. The death of his manager, hourly expected, of a consumption, is the call. He will consequently be absent on the 4th. of July. He travels in a Phaeton & pair. Doctr. Logan sends you the inclosed pamphlet. Adieu. Your’s affectionately.


Title: From James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 29 June 1793
From: Madison, James
To: Jefferson, Thomas

My dear SirJune 29. 93.
Your last was of the 17th. inst: & covered one paper of the 12th. The weather has been very unfavorable for saving our crops of wheat. It has been from the commencement of the harvest either rainy, cloudy, or hot & damp. I still hope however our crops will be respectable. I have not been able to learn how Albemarle has fared. I have no reason to apprehend that you have more to complain of than we have. The present appearance of the weather is rather favorable. A few days more will put the wheat out of its reach.
My last was of the 19th. I have since seen several of the Natl. Gazettes which continue to teem with animadversions on the Proclamn. My opinion of it was expressed in my last. I foresee that a communication of it will make a part of the Speech to the next Congs. & that it will bring on some embarrassments. Much will depend on events in Europe; and it is to be regretted that the popularity of the President, or the policy of our Government should ever be staked on such contingencies. I observe that our vessels are frequently & insolently seized & searched for French goods. Is not this complained of by our own people as a breach of the Modern law of nations; and whilst British goods are protected by the Neutrality of our bottoms, will not remonstrances come from France on the subject? The present conveyance to Fredg. being made known at this instant only, I am obliged to conclude in haste with assurances of the affection with which I remain Dear Sir Yrs. sincerely
J. M. Jr


Title: To James Madison from Thomas Jefferson, 29 June 1793
From: Jefferson, Thomas
To: Madison, James

June 29. 1793.
I wrote you on the 23d. and yesterday I received yours of the 17th. which was the more welcome as it acknoleged mine of the 9th. about the safety of which I was anxious. I now risk some other papers, the sequel of those conveyed in that. The result I know not. We are sending a courier to Madrid to make a last effort for the preservation of honorable peace. The affairs of France are recovering their solidity: and from the steadiness of the people on the defection of so popular & capital a commander as Dumourier, we have a proof that nothing can shake their republicanism. Hunger is to be excepted; but the silence of the late papers on that head & the near approach of harvest makes us hope they will weather that rock. I do not find that there has been serious insurrection but in Brittany, and there, the noblesse having been as numerous as the people, & indeed being almost the people, the counterrevolutionary spirit has been known always to have existed since the night in which titles were suppressed. The English are trying to stop the torrent of bankruptcies by an emission of 5. millions of Exchequer bills, to be loaned on the pawn-broking plan: consequently much inferior to the assignats of France. But that paper will sink to an immediate level with their other public paper, & consequently can only complete the ruin of those who take it from government at par, & on a pledge of pins, buckles &c of double value, which will not sell so as to pay storage in a country where there is no specie, and now we may say no paper of confidence. Every letter which comes expresses a firm belief that the whole paper system will now vanish into that nothing on which it is bottomed. For even the public faith is nothing, as the mass of paper bottomed on it is known to be beyond it’s possible redemption. I hope this will be a wholsome lesson to our future legislature. The war between France and England has brought forward the Republicans & Monocrats in every state so openly, that their relative numbers are perfectly visible. It appears that the latter are as nothing. H. is endeavoring to engage a house in town for the next year. He is in the country for the summer.
As I must ere long put my general plan of farming into the hands of my Elkton manager, I have lately endeavored to establish a proper succession of crops for a farm of red highland of about 500. acres of open land fit for culture. In all successions of crops, the feilds must be supposed equal, each feild to go through the same succession, and each year’s crop be the same. On these data, the laws of combination pronounce that the number of feilds & number of years constituting a compleat rotation, must be always equal. If you cultivate three equal feilds only, your rotation will be of 3. years, 5. feilds, 5 years &c. I propose 8. feilds of 60. acres each, & of course an 8. years rotation, in the following succession. 1st. year, wheat & fall fallow. 2d peas with Indn. corn thinly planted. 3d. wheat & fall fallow. 4th. potatoes with Indn. corn thinly planted. 5th. rye or barley & fall fallow. 6th. 7th. & 8th. red clover. The following diagram will shew the system better; the initials of every article only being written in each square or feild, to wit

  cl.
  for
  clover

  co.

  corn

  f.

  fallow

  pe.

  peas

  po.

  potatoes

  r.

  rye

  w.

  wheat.

1st year
2d
3d
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th

A
wf
pe co.
wf
po. co.
rf
cl.
cl.
cl.

B
pe. co.
wf.
po. co.
rf.
cl.
cl.
cl.
wf.

C
wf
po. co.
rf.
cl.
cl.
cl.
wf.
pe. co.

D
po. co.
rf.
cl.
cl.
cl.
wf.
pe. co.
wf.

E.
rf.
cl.
cl.
cl.
wf.
pe. co.
wf.
po. co.

F
cl.
cl.
cl.
wf.
pe. co.
wf.
po. co.
rf.

G
cl.
cl.
wf.
pe. co.
wf.
po. co.
rf.
cl.

H.
cl.
wf
pe. co.
wf
po. co.
rf.
cl.
cl.

  This gives
  2.
  feilds
  of wheat
  120.
  acres

  1.

  of rye or barly
  60

  1.

  of peas & corn
  60

  1.

  potatoes & corn
  60.

  1.
  of the
  1st. year’s clover
  60

  1.

  2d.        do
  60

  1.

  3d.        do.
   60

  480.

  Also
  2.
  eighths of your farm are
  cleansing
  }
  every year.

  3.
  eighths
  fallowing

   3.
  eighths
  resting

  8.

Bye articles as follow.
Oats & flax, a few acres only wanting. To be with the new sown clover.
Hemp, turneps, pumpkins, in the new clearings.
Artichokes in a perpetual feild.
Orchard grass in the hill sides too steep for the plough. Qu?
Lucerne, St. foin, cotton, in appropriate feilds.
Buckwheat to be ploughed into the washed lands.
When a 9th. feild shall be added by new clearings, add it to the rotation as a feild at absolute rest or spring fallowed.
So of a 10th. &c.
As you are now immersed in farming & among farming people, pray consider this plan for me, well, and give me your observations fully & freely as soon as you can. I mean to ask the same from the President, and also from my son in law. Cattle to be raised in proportion to the provision made for them. Also what number of labourers & horses will be necessary? Errors are so much more easy to avoid than to correct afterwards, that I am anxious to be well advised before I begin. Adieu, Yours affectionately.
P. S. June 30. Since writing the above yours of June 19. is received. A Portico may be from 5. to 10. diameters of the column deep, or projected from the building. If of more than 5. diameters there must be a column in the middle of each flank, since it must never be more than 5. diameters from center to center of column. The portico of the Maison quarrée is 3 intercolonnations deep. I never saw as much to a private house. The Commissioners (Irvine &c) yesterday delivered in their books & accounts, so that that business is closed. The result not yet known. In Fenno’s paper of yesterday you will see a peice signed pacificus in defence of the proclmn. You will readily know the pen. I know it the more readily because it is an amplification only of the topics urged in discussing the question when first proposed. The right of the Executive to declare that we are not bound to execute the guarantee was then advanced by him & denied by me. No other opinion expressed on it. In this paper he repeats it, & even considers the proclamation as such a declaration. But if any body intended it as such (except himself) they did not then say so. The passage beginning with the words ’the answer to this is &c[’] is precisely the answer he gave at the time to my objection that the Executive had no authority to issue a declaration of neutrality, nor to do more than declare the actual state of things to be that of peace. ‘For until the new government is acknoleged the treaties &c are of course suspended.’ This also is the sum of his arguments the same day on the great question which followed that of the Proclamn., to wit Whether the Executive might not, & ought not to declare the treaties suspended? The real—milk and water—views of the Proclamn. appeared to me to have been truly given in a piece published in the papers soon after, & which I knew to be E. R’s from it’s exact coincidence with what he had expressed. Upon the whole, my objections to the competence of the Executive to declare neutrality (that being understood to respect the future) were supposed to be got over by avoiding the use of that term. The declaration of the disposition of the US. can hardly be called illegal, tho’ it was certainly officious & improper. The truth of the fact lent it some cover. My objections to the impolicy of a premature declaration were answered by such arguments as timidity would readily suggest. I now think it extremely possible that Hammond might have been instructed to have asked it, & to offer the broadest neutral privileges, as the price, which was exactly the price I wanted that we should contend for. But is it not a miserable thing that the three heresies I have above quoted from this paper, should pass unnoticed & unanswered, as they certainly will? For none but mere bunglers & brawlers have for some time past taken the trouble to answer any thing. The Probationary odes (written by S. G. T. in Virga.) are saddled on poor Freneau, who is bloodily attacked about them.


Title: To James Madison from Thomas Jefferson, 7 July 1793
From: Jefferson, Thomas
To: Madison, James

Dear SirJuly 7. 1793.
I wrote you on the 30th. ult. and shall be uneasy till I have heard you have received it. I have no letter from you this week. You will perceive by the inclosed papers that they are to be discontinued in their present form & a daily paper published in their stead, if subscribers enough can be obtained. I fear they cannot, for nobody here scarcely has ever taken his paper. You will see in these Colo. H’s 2d. & 3d. pacificus. Nobody answers him, & his doctrine will therefore be taken for confessed. For god’s sake, my dear Sir, take up your pen, select the most striking heresies, and cut him to peices in the face of the public. There is nobody else who can & will enter the lists with him. Never in my opinion, was so calamitous an appointment made, as that of the present minister of F. here. Hotheaded, all imagination, no judgment, passionate, disrespectful & even indecent towards the P. in his written as well as verbal communications, talking of appeals from him to Congress, from them to the people, urging the most unreasonable & groundless propositions, & in the most dictatorial style &c. &c. &c. If ever it should be necessary to lay his communications before Congress or the public, they will excite universal indignation. He renders my position immensely difficult. He does me justice personally, and, giving him time to vent himself & then cool, I am on a footing to advise him freely, & he respects it. But he breaks out again on the very first occasion, so as to shew that he is incapable of correcting himself. To complete our misfortune we have no channel of our own through which we can correct the irritating representations he may make. Adieu. Yours affectionately.


Title: To James Madison from Thomas Jefferson, 14 July 1793
From: Jefferson, Thomas
To: Madison, James

July 14. 93.
I wrote you on the 7th. since which yours of the 29th. of June is received acknoledging mine to the 17th. of June. I am anxious to know as early as possible the safe delivery of my letters to you. I am not able to say any thing more about the convening of Congress at an earlier day than the regular one. I have lately suspected some disinclination to it. But the grounds are slight. I must see you & be with you some days before it meets. Whether here or at Monticello must depend on the time of it’s meeting. But we shall have warning enough to arrange the particulars. I am excessively afraid that an open rupture will take place between the Fr. min. & us. I think there has been something to blame on both sides, but much more on his. He is so evidently in the wrong that those are pressing for an appeal to the people, who never looked towards that tribunal before. They know too well that the whole game is played into their hands, & that there is right enough on both sides to marshal each nation with it’s own agents, and consequently against one another, & consequently also us with England. I have written a long letter to-day to Munroe, & must therefore be shorter with you. Adieu. Your’s affectionately.


Title: To James Madison from Thomas Jefferson, 21 July 1793
From: Jefferson, Thomas
To: Madison, James

July 21. 93.
I wrote you on the 14th. since which I have no letter from you. It appears that two considerable engagements took place between France & the combined armies on the 1st. & 8th. of May. In the former the French have had rather the worst of it, as may be concluded by their loss of cannon & loss of ground. In the latter they have had rather the best: as is proved by their remaining on the ground, & their throwing relief into Condé which had been the object of both battles. The French attacked in both. They have sent commissioners to England to sound for peace. Genl. Felix Wimpfen is one. There is a strong belief that the bankruptcies & demolition of manufactures through the three kingdoms, will induce the English to accede to peace. E. R. is returned. The affair of the loan has been kept suspended, & is now submitted to him. He brings very flattering information of the loyalty of the people of Virginia to the general government, & thinks the whole indisposition there is directed against the Secretary of the Treasury personally, not against his measures. On the whole he has quieted uneasiness here. I have never been able to get a sight of Billy till yesterday. He has promised to bring me the bill of your ploughs which shall be paid. Adieu. Your’s affectionately.


Title: From James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 30 July 1793
From: Madison, James
To: Jefferson, Thomas

Dear SirJuly 30. 1793
My last was of the 22d inst. I have since red. yours covering the paper now returned, that covering the report of the Commsrs of Accts between the U. S. & the particular States, and that of the 21st. inst. The intermediate one of the 14th. was left by mistake in a secure place by the person who was to bring it up from Fredg., and is not yet arrived. The delay has been inconvenient as it deprives me of part of the publication which I wish to see in all its parts before I formed a regular view of any. As I intimated in my last I have forced myself into the task of a reply. I can truly say I find it the most grating one I ever experienced; and the more so as I feel at every step I take the want of counsel on some points of delicacy as well as of information as to sundry matters of fact. I shall be still more sensible of the latter want when I get to the attack on French proceedings, & perhaps to the last topic proposed by the writer, if I ever do get to it. As yet I have but roughly and partially gone over the first; & being obliged to proceed in scraps of time, with a distaste to the subject, and a distressing lassitude from the excessive and continued heat of the season, I can not say when I shall finish even that. One thing that particularly vexes me is that I foreknow from the prolixity & pertinacity of the writer, that the business will not be terminated by a single fire, and of course that I must return to the charge in order to prevent a triumph without a victory.
Do you know what is the idea of France with regard to the defensive quality of the Guarantee; and of the criterion between offensive & defensive war which I find differently defined by different jurists; also what are the ideas of the P. on these points. I could lay my course with more advantage thro’ some other parts of the subject if I could also know how far he considers the Procln. as expressing a neutrality in the sense given to that term, or how far he approves the vindication of it on that ground.
I am sorry to find the journey to Virga. from which useful lessons were hoped, ending in a confirmation of errors. I can only account for it by supposing the public sentiment to have been collected from tainted sources wch. ought to have suggested to a cautious & unbiassed mind the danger of confiding in them. The body of the people are unquestionably attached to the Union, and friendly to the Constitution: but that they have no dissatisfaction at the measures & spirit of the Government, I consider as notoriously untrue. I am the more surprised at the misconception of our Friend as the two latest sources consulted, the two brothers I mean, are understood to be both of them, right[l]y disposed as well as correctly informed.
I have got my plows at last. They are fine ones & much admired. Repeat my thanks to Dr. Logan if you have an oppy. & think of it. The patent plow is worth your looking at if you should visit his farm. You will see your theory of a mouldboard more nearly realised than in any other instance, and with the advantage of having the iron wing, which in common bar shares or in great lies useless under the wood, turned up into the sweep of the Board & relieving it from the brunt of the friction. By fixing the Colter, which is detached, to the point of the share, it will I think be nearly compleat. I propose to have one so constructed. The detached form may answer best in old clean ground; but will not stand the shocks of our rough & rooty land, especially in the hands of our ploughmen.
Little wheat having been yet tried in bread I can not say how the quality will turn out. The more I see & hear of it, the more I fear it will be worse than was at first supposed. The Corn suffers now for want of rain, but appearances as to that article are on the whole very flattering. The worst effect of the dry weather, at present felt, is the extreme hardness of the earth which makes plowing, particularly in fallow land, but barely possible. So many heavy rains on ground wet for six months, succeeded by the present hot spell, has almost beat it & baked it into Brick.


Title: To James Madison from Thomas Jefferson, 3 August 1793
From: Jefferson, Thomas
To: Madison, James

Aug. 3. 93.
Yours of July 18. & 22. are received & have relieved my anxi[e]ties about mine of June 27. 30. & July 7. Those of July 14. 21. & 28. I hope soon to have acknoleged. We have decided unanimously to require the recall of Genet. He will sink the republican interest if they do not abandon him. Hamilton pressed eagerly an appeal to the people. It’s consequences you will readily seize, but I hope we shall prevent it tho the president is inclined to it. The loan is agreed to to the full extent on E. R.’s advice splitting off a few dollars to give himself the airs of independence.
I will send you the little peice written by him on the proclamation if I can find it. I will here note your several requisitions in your letter of July 22. 1. What concessions have been made on particular points behind the curtain. I think it is better you should not know them. 2. How far the president considers himself as committed with respect to some doctrines. He is certainly uneasy at those grasped at by Pacificus and as the author is universally known & I believe indeed denied not even by himself, it is foreseen that the vulnerable points, well struck, stab the party vitally. 3. Lights from the law of nations on the constructions of treaties. Vattel has been most generally the guide. Bynkershoeck often quoted, Wolf sometimes. 4. No call was made by any power previous to the proclamation. Genet has been fully heard on his most unfounded pretensions under the treaty. His ignorance of every thing written on the subject is astonishing. I think he has never read a book of any sort in that branch of science. The question whether the war between France & Gr. Br. is offensive or defensive has not been particularly discussed. Hamilton has insisted it was offensive by the former. I will send you the French collection of papers on that subject. A paper inclosed will lead you to inform yourself on questions which may come into discussion perhaps at the next session of Congress. They were prepared for the judges who however will not agree I believe to give opinions. I informed the president by letter three days ago that I should resign the last day of September. Consequently I shall see you the middle of October. Adieu.


Title: To James Madison from Thomas Jefferson, 11 August 1793
From: Jefferson, Thomas
To: Madison, James

Dear SirAug. 11. 1793.
I wrote you last on the 3d. inst. Your’s of July 30. came to hand yesterday. Besides the present which goes by post, I write you another today to go by mr. D. Randolph who sets out the day after tomorrow for Monticello, but whether by the direct route or viâ Richmond is not yet decided. I shall desire that letter to be sent to you by express from Monticello. I have not been able to lay my hands on the newspaper which gave a short but true view of the intention of the proclamation. However having occasion to state it in a paper which I am preparing, I have done it in the following terms, and I give you the very words from the paper, because just as I had finished so far, the president called on me, I read it to him, he said it presented fairly his view of the matter, he recalled to my mind that I had, at the time, opposed it’s being made a declaration of neutrality on the ground that the Executive was not the competent authority for that, & therefore that it was agreed the instrument should be drawn with great care. My statement is in these words. ‘On the declaration of war between France & England, the US. being at peace with both, their situation was so new & unexperienced by themselves that their citizens were not, in the first instant, sensible of the new duties resulting therefrom, & of the laws it would impose even on their dispositions towards the belligerent powers. Some of them imagined (and chiefly their transient sea-faring citizens) that they were free to indulge those dispositions, to take side with either party, & enrich themselves by depredations on the commerce of the other, & were meditating enterprizes of this nature, as was said. In this state of the public mind, and before it should take an erroneous direction difficult to be set right, & dangerous to themselves & their country, the President thought it expedient, by way of Proclamation, to remind our fellow citizens that we were in a state of peace with all the belligerent powers, that in that state it was our duty neither to aid nor injure any, to exhort & warn them against acts which might contravene this duty, & particularly those of positive hostility, for the punishment of which the laws would be appealed to, and to put them on their guard also as to the risks they would run if they should attempt to carry articles of contraband to any.’ —— ‘Very soon afterwards we learnt that he was undertaking to authorize the fitting & arming vessels in that port, enlisting men, foreigners & citizens, & giving them commissions to cruize and commit hostilities against nations at peace with us, that these vessels were taking & bringing prizes into our ports, that the Consuls of France were assuming to hold courts of Admiralty on them, to try, condemn & authorize their sale as legal prize, & all this before mr. —— had presented himself or his credentials to the President, before he was received by him, without his consent or consultation, & directly in contravention of the state of peace existing & declared to exist in the Pres’s proclmn., & which it was incumbent on him to preserve till the constitutional authority should otherwise declare. These proceedings became immediately, as was naturally to be expected, the subject of complaint by the representative here of that power against whom they would chiefly operate &c.’ This was the true sense of the proclamn. in the view of the draughtsman & of the two signers, but H. had other views. The instrument was badly drawn, and made the P. go out of his line to declare things which, tho’ true, it was not exactly his province to declare. The instrument was communicated to me after it was drawn, but I was busy, and only run an eye over it to see that it was not made a declaration of neutrality, & gave it back again, without, I believe, changing a tittle.
Pacificus has now changed his signature to ‘No Jacobin.’ Three papers under this signature have been publd. in Dunlap. I suppose they will get into Fenno. They are commentaries on the laws of nations, & on the different parts of our treaty with France. As yet they have presented no very important heresy. Congress will not meet till the legal day. It was referred to a meeting at my office to consider & advise on it. I was for calling them. Kn. against it. H said his judgment was against it, but he would join any two who should concur so as to make a majority either way. R was pointedly against it. We agreed to give our opinions separately, & tho’ the P. was in his own judgment for calling them, he acquiesced in the majority. I pass on to the other letter: so Adieu. Your’s affectionately.


Title: From James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, [12 August] 1793
From: Madison, James
To: Jefferson, Thomas

[12 August 1793]
The paper for J. F. could not otherwise get to him than with your aid. You must therefore take the trouble of having it handed into the post office whence the penny post will take it, unless you can do it at some shorter hand. I wish you to look over what is sd. critically, and if you think there be any thing of importance wrong, or that may do more harm than good, that you will either erase it, where that will not break the sense, or arrest the whole till I can make the correction. Delay I know is bad; but vulnerable parts that wd. be siezed for victories & triumphs would be worse. I beg you also to attend particularly to three passages slightly marked with a pencil, the first, the declaration of the principles & sentiments of the author—2d. beginning with “Writers such as Locke & Montesqeue &c[”]—to the pencil mark in the ¶. 3 the quotation from the Federalist. If you think the first had better be omitted it can come out without leavg. the least gap. So can the 2d. My doubts as to that proceed from the danger of turning the controversy too much into the wilderness of Books: I use Montesqeue also from memory, tho I believe witht. inaccuracy. The 3d. can also come out witht. affecting the piece, and I wish you to erase it if you think the most scrupulous delicacy, conjecturing the author, cd. disapprove it. One No. more or 2 short Nos. will close the first topic & supersede the last. They will be sent as soon as finished & copied. These wd. have been sent somewhat sooner, but for the delay caused by the last circumstance.


Title: To James Madison from Thomas Jefferson, 18 August 1793
From: Jefferson, Thomas
To: Madison, James

Dear SirAug. 18. 93.
My last was of the 11th. since which yours of the 5th. & 11th. are received. I am mortified at your not having your cypher. I now send the key of the numbers in mine of the 3d. This with my letter of the 11th. by post & another of the same date by Davy Randolph who will be at Monticello the last week of this month will put you in possession of the state of things to that date. The paper I now inclose will fill up chinks & needs not a word of explanation. To these I must add that orders are given to drive out of our ports the privateers which have been armed in them before the 5th. of June, by gentler means if it can be done, & if not, by the ultima ratio: and we are seising the prizes brought in since Aug. 7. to restore them to their owners. For those between June 5. & Aug. 7. we engage restitution or compensation. The inclosed paper will explain these distinctions of date, & justify the proceedings. I return you the little thing of Ld. Chath’s because, for particular reasons, were it now to appear it would be imputed to me, & because it will have more effect if publd. after the meeting of Congress. I rejoice at the resurrection of Franklin. There was a charming thing from the same pen (I conjecture) on the subject of instrumentality lately publd. by Freneau from the Virga. papers. The addresses in support of the proclmn. are becoming universal, and as universal a rising in support of the President against Genet. Observe that the inclosed paper has been only read in cabinet for the 1st. time as yet. On that reading H. objected to expressions implying a censure on other nations (‘the war of liberty on herself &c’). He thought expressions of frdship to France suited the occasion. But R. protested against every expression of friendship to that nation lest they should offend the other party, and intimated that he should move to eradicate them all. It will pretty effectually tear up the instrument if he succeeds. Nous verrons. Adieu.
P. S. You are free to shew the inclosed to Colo. Monroe. If the appeal which I have mentioned to you, should be pushed, I think that by way of compromise, I shall propose that instead of that, the whole correspondence be laid before Congress, merely as a matter of information. What would you think of this?


Title: To James Madison from James Monroe, ca. 19 August 1793
From: Monroe, James
To: Madison, James

Letter not found. Ca. 19 August 1793. Mentioned in JM to Jefferson, 20 Aug. 1793. Seeks consultation with JM before Monroe departs for a court session (of the state district court that convened at Staunton on 1 Sept.).


Title: Madison’s “Helvidius” Essays, 24 August–18 September 1793 (Editorial Note)
From:
To:

Editorial Note
A mixture of morality and political expediency was brewing on the American political scene during the summer of 1793. A full-strength potion known as the two-party system was about to emerge, giving form and content to the contests first fought in the ratification struggle of 1787–88. The catalytic agent was the French Revolution and its aftermath, for President Washington’s Neutrality Proclamation posed a dilemma to JM and his political colleagues who were sympathetic to French republicanism. To them, the 1778 alliance with France was still in force and obligated the United States to defend the French West Indies. They welcomed the abolition of the monarchy and felt little remorse at the execution of their erstwhile benefactor, Louis XVI. JM himself accepted honorary French citizenship from the revolutionary regime. American Republicans viewed neutrality as dishonorable: an abandonment of political principles and treaty obligations, dictated by the Federalists’ desire to maintain profitable trade with the belligerent European powers, particularly Great Britain. Yet they were bound by personal loyalty and political expediency to avoid a direct attack on Washington.
Domestic politics polarized as the new French minister to the United States, Edmond Charles Genet, indiscreetly mocked the president’s proclamation by passing out military commissions and letters of marque to American citizens. Hamilton entered the fray with his “Pacificus” essays, charging Republicans with subordinating American foreign policy to French interests. Washington’s proclamation had scrupulously avoided the term “neutrality,” but the treasury secretary defended the document by giving it a Federalist interpretation and arguing for a suspension of the French treaty. Jefferson was alarmed, not least because Hamilton—safely disguised under a pseudonym—was publicly airing confidential cabinet discussions.
American military and naval strength was no match for that of the European belligerents, and Republicans opposed a naval armament and a standing army. The president’s foreign policy, moreover, enjoyed wide political support. In these circumstances, the secretary of state accepted the necessity of a de facto neutrality. To Jefferson, however, the administration’s headlong announcement of neutrality threw away a trump card in negotiations with the British for the commercial treaty that the American government had so long desired: “I now think it extremely possible that Hammond [the British minister to the United States] might have been instructed to have asked it, & to offer the broadest possible neutral privileges, as the price, which was exactly the price I wanted that we should contend for.” Jefferson lamented that “none but mere bunglers & brawlers have for some time past taken the trouble to answer any thing.” Without an authoritative reply to Hamilton, Jefferson insisted, “his doctrine will therefore be taken for confessed. For god’s sake, my dear Sir, take up your pen, select the most striking heresies, and cut him to peices in the face of the public. There is nobody else who can & will enter the lists with him” (Jefferson to JM, 29 June 1793 [postscript of 30 June] and 7 July 1793).
Even as Jefferson was prevailing upon JM to defend the French alliance, he had come to recognize the necessity of dissociating Franco-American relations from Genet. The French minister had become a political liability. “Never in my opinion, was so calamitous an appointment made,” Jefferson wrote. “He will sink the republican interest if they do not abandon him” (Jefferson to JM, 7 July and 3 Aug. 1793 [partly in code]). Thus the challenge to JM was delicate and unenviable: affirm loyalty to Washington and avoid discussing the merits of neutrality, but question the constitutionality of declaring neutrality by executive proclamation; distance the Republicans from Genet, yet advocate American support for the French Revolution. He wrote with other disadvantages as well; while he could draw on his general knowledge of international law and his library at Montpelier, many source materials were unavailable in rural Virginia.
JM took up the task reluctantly: “I can truly say I find it the most grating one I ever experienced” (JM to Jefferson, 30 July 1793). He began work on the “Helvidius” essays by 22 July and completed them by 20 August. He was distracted by other literary duties; he consulted Monroe on drafting the Resolutions on Franco-American Relations of circa 27 August and editing John Taylor of Caroline’s Enquiry into the Principles and Tendency of Certain Public Measures. As a result of these limitations, JM was dissatisfied with his performance as “Helvidius.” He had his drafts copied by a friend or relative at Montpelier to preserve anonymity, then sent them to Jefferson in Philadelphia. He authorized his friend to do considerable editing, but the secretary of state was pleased with the work and made only minor changes. Jefferson arranged for their delivery to Federalist John Fenno’s Gazette of the United States. JM wanted his reply to appear in the same newspaper that had published “Pacificus.”
Though he was writing for the popular press, JM primarily aimed the “Helvidius” series to persuade an audience with an intellectual interest in politics, as he had done in The Federalist. “None but intelligent readers will enter into such a controversy,” he believed, “and to their minds it ought principally to be accomodated” (JM to Jefferson, 22 July 1793). For his pseudonym he chose the name of Helvidius Priscus, the first-century Roman leader who, as described by Tacitus, resisted the imperial regime. Because of the political constraints on his argument, JM focused on the issue of executive versus legislative control of foreign policy. In his treatment of war powers, he advocated legislative supremacy and strict construction of executive powers, doctrines which became hallmarks of Republican constitutional theory. To Federalists, JM seemed to have departed from the principles of strong central government that he had advocated only five years before. Yet he quoted “Publius” of 1788 to rebut “Pacificus” of 1793, implying that Hamilton himself had abandoned the constraints on executive power that had reassured readers of The Federalist. Thus the “Helvidius” essays revealed how much the issues and alignments of American politics had changed since the contest over the ratification of the Constitution. (For a recent discussion of the “Helvidius” essays in the context of political theory, see Richard Loss, introduction to Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, The Letters of Pacificus and Helvidius [1845; Delmar, N.Y., 1976 reprint], pp. ix–xv.)


Title: “Helvidius” Number 1, [24 August] 1793
From: Madison, James
To:

[24 August 1793]
Several pieces with the signature of Pacificus were lately published, which have been read with singular pleasure and applause, by the foreigners and degenerate citizens among us, who hate our republican government, and the French revolution; whilst the publication seems to have been too little regarded, or too much despised by the steady friends to both.
Had the doctrines inculcated by the writer, with the natural consequences from them, been nakedly presented to the public, this treatment might have been proper. Their true character would then have struck every eye, and been rejected by the feelings of every heart. But they offer themselves to the reader in the dress of an elaborate dissertation; they are mingled with a few truths that may serve them as a passport to credulity; and they are introduced with professions of anxiety for the preservation of peace, for the welfare of the government, and for the respect due to the present head of the executive, that may prove a snare to patriotism.
In these disguises they have appeared to claim the attention I propose to bestow on them; with a view to shew, from the publication itself, that under colour of vindicating an important public act, of a chief magistrate, who enjoys the confidence and love of his country, principles are advanced which strike at the vitals of its constitution, as well as at its honor and true interest.
As it is not improbable that attempts may be made to apply insinuations which are seldom spared when particular purposes are to be answered, to the author of the ensuing observations, it may not be improper to premise, that he is a friend to the constitution, that he wishes for the preservation of peace, and that the present chief magistrate has not a fellow-citizen, who is penetrated with deeper respect for his merits, or feels a purer solicitude for his glory.
This declaration is made with no view of courting a more favorable ear to what may be said than it deserves. The sole purpose of it is, to obviate imputations which might weaken the impressions of truth; and which are the more likely to be resorted to, in proportion as solid and fair arguments may be wanting.
The substance of the first piece, sifted from its inconsistencies and its vague expressions, may be thrown into the following propositions:
That the powers of declaring war and making treaties are, in their nature, executive powers:
That being particularly vested by the constitution in other departments, they are to be considered as exceptions out of the general grant to the executive department:
That being, as exceptions, to be construed strictly, the powers not strictly within them, remain with the executive:
That the executive consequently, as the organ of intercourse with foreign nations, and the interpreter and executor of treaties, and the law of nations, is authorised, to expound all articles of treaties, those involving questions of war and peace, as well as others; to judge of the obligations of the United States to make war or not, under any casus federis or eventual operation of the contract, relating to war; and, to pronounce the state of things resulting from the obligations of the United States, as understood by the executive:
That in particular the executive had authority to judge whether in the case of the mutual guaranty between the United States and France, the former were bound by it to engage in the war:
That the executive has, in pursuance of that authority, decided that the United States are not bound: And,
That its proclamation of the 22d of April last, is to be taken as the effect and expression of that decision.
The basis of the reasoning is, we perceive, the extraordinary doctrine, that the powers of making war and treaties, are in their nature executive; and therefore comprehended in the general grant of executive power, where not specially and strictly excepted out of the grant.
Let us examine this doctrine; and that we may avoid the possibility of mistating the writer, it shall be laid down in his own words: a precaution the more necessary, as scarce any thing else could outweigh the improbability, that so extravagant a tenet should be hazarded, at so early a day, in the face of the public.
His words are—“Two of these (exceptions and qualifications to the executive powers) have been already noticed—the participation of the Senate in the appointment of officers, and the making of treaties. A third remains to be mentioned—the right of the legislature to declare war, and grant letters of marque and reprisal.”
Again—“It deserves to be remarked, that as the participation of the Senate in the making treaties, and the power of the legislature to declare war, are exceptions out of the general executive power, vested in the President, they are to be construed strictly, and ought to be extended no farther than is essential to their execution.”
If there be any countenance to these positions, it must be found either 1st, in the writers, of authority, on public law; or 2d, in the quality and operation of the powers to make war and treaties; or 3d, in the constitution of the United States.
It would be of little use to enter far into the first source of information, not only because our own reason and our own constitution, are the best guides; but because a just analysis and discrimination of the powers of government, according to their executive, legislative and judiciary qualities are not to be expected in the works of the most received jurists, who wrote before a critical attention was paid to those objects, and with their eyes too much on monarchical governments, where all powers are confounded in the sovereignty of the prince. It will be found however, I believe, that all of them, particularly Wolfius, Burlamaqui and Vattel, speak of the powers to declare war, to conclude peace, and to form alliances, as among the highest acts of the sovereignty; of which the legislative power must at least be an integral and preeminent part.
Writers, such as Locke and Montesquieu, who have discussed more particularly the principles of liberty and the structure of government, lie under the same disadvantage, of having written before these subjects were illuminated by the events and discussions which distinguish a very recent period. Both of them too are evidently warped by a regard to the particular government of England, to which one of them owed allegiance;

   The chapter on prerogative, shews how much the reason of the philosopher was clouded by the royalism of the Englishman.

 and the other professed an admiration bordering on idolatry. Montesquieu, however, has rather distinguished himself by enforcing the reasons and the importance of avoiding a confusion of the several powers of government, than by enumerating and defining the powers which belong to each particular class. And Locke, notwithstanding the early date of his work on civil government, and the example of his own government before his eyes, admits that the particular powers in question, which, after some of the writers on public law he calls federative, are really distinct from the executive, though almost always united with it, and hardly to be separated into distinct hands. Had he not lived under a monarchy, in which these powers were united; or had he written by the lamp which truth now presents to lawgivers, the last observation would probably never have dropt from his pen. But let us quit a field of research which is more likely to perplex than to decide, and bring the question to other tests of which it will be more easy to judge.
2. If we consult for a moment, the nature and operation of the two powers to declare war and make treaties, it will be impossible not to see that they can never fall within a proper definition of executive powers. The natural province of the executive magistrate is to execute laws, as that of the legislature is to make laws. All his acts therefore, properly executive, must pre-suppose the existence of the laws to be executed. A treaty is not an execution of laws: it does not pre-suppose the existence of laws. It is, on the contrary, to have itself the force of a law, and to be carried into execution, like all other laws, by the executive magistrate. To say then that the power of making treaties which are confessedly laws, belongs naturally to the department which is to execute laws, is to say, that the executive department naturally includes a legislative power. In theory, this is an absurdity—in practice a tyranny.
The power to declare war is subject to similar reasoning. A declaration that there shall be war, is not an execution of laws: it does not suppose pre-existing laws to be executed: it is not in any respect, an act merely executive. It is, on the contrary, one of the most deliberative acts that can be performed; and when performed, has the effect of repealing all the laws operating in a state of peace, so far as they are inconsistent with a state of war: and of enacting as a rule for the executive, a new code adapted to the relation between the society and its foreign enemy. In like manner a conclusion of peace annuls all the laws peculiar to a state of war, and revives the general laws incident to a state of peace.
These remarks will be strengthened by adding that treaties, particularly treaties of peace, have sometimes the effect of changing not only the external laws of the society, but operate also on the internal code, which is purely municipal, and to which the legislative authority of the country is of itself competent and compleat.
From this view of the subject it must be evident, that although the executive may be a convenient organ of preliminary communications with foreign governments, on the subjects of treaty or war; and the proper agent for carrying into execution the final determinations of the competent authority; yet it can have no pretensions from the nature of the powers in question compared with the nature of the executive trust, to that essential agency which gives validity to such determinations.
It must be further evident that, if these powers be not in their nature purely legislative, they partake so much more of that, than of any other quality, that under a constitution leaving them to result to their most natural department, the legislature would be without a rival in its claim.
Another important inference to be noted is, that the powers of making war and treaty being substantially of a legislative, not an executive nature, the rule of interpreting exceptions strictly, must narrow instead of enlarging executive pretensions on those subjects.
3. It remains to be enquired whether there be any thing in the constitution itself which shews that the powers of making war and peace are considered as of an executive nature, and as comprehended within a general grant of executive power.
It will not be pretended that this appears from any direct position to be found in the instrument.
If it were deducible from any particular expressions it may be presumed that the publication would have saved us the trouble of the research.
Does the doctrine then result from the actual distribution of powers among the several branches of the government? Or from any fair analogy between the powers of war and treaty and the enumerated powers vested in the executive alone?
Let us examine.
In the general distribution of powers, we find that of declaring war expressly vested in the Congress, where every other legislative power is declared to be vested, and without any other qualification than what is common to every other legislative act. The constitutional idea of this power would seem then clearly to be, that it is of a legislative and not an executive nature.
This conclusion becomes irresistible, when it is recollected, that the constitution cannot be supposed to have placed either any power legislative in its nature, entirely among executive powers, or any power executive in its nature, entirely among legislative powers, without charging the constitution, with that kind of intermixture and consolidation of different powers, which would violate a fundamental principle in the organization of free governments. If it were not unnecessary to enlarge on this topic here, it could be shewn, that the constitution was originally vindicated, and has been constantly expounded, with a disavowal of any such intermixture.
The power of treaties is vested jointly in the President and in the Senate, which is a branch of the legislature. From this arrangement merely, there can be no inference that would necessarily exclude the power from the executive class: since the senate is joined with the President in another power, that of appointing to offices, which as far as relate to executive offices at least, is considered as of an executive nature. Yet on the other hand, there are sufficient indications that the power of treaties is regarded by the constitution as materially different from mere executive power, and as having more affinity to the legislative than to the executive character.
One circumstance indicating this, is the constitutional regulation under which the senate give their consent in the case of treaties. In all other cases the consent of the body is expressed by a majority of voices. In this particular case, a concurrence of two thirds at least is made necessary, as a substitute or compensation for the other branch of the legislature, which on certain occasions, could not be conveniently a party to the transaction.
But the conclusive circumstance is, that treaties when formed according to the constitutional mode, are confessedly to have the force and operation of laws, and are to be a rule for the courts in controversies between man and man, as much as any other laws. They are even emphatically declared by the constitution to be “the supreme law of the land.”
So far the argument from the constitution is precisely in opposition to the doctrine. As little will be gained in its favour from a comparison of the two powers, with those particularly vested in the President alone.
As there are but few it will be most satisfactory to review them one by one.
“The President shall be commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia when called into the actual service of the United States.”
There can be no relation worth examining between this power and the general power of making treaties. And instead of being analogous to the power of declaring war, it affords a striking illustration of the incompatibility of the two powers in the same hands. Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws.
“He may require the opinion in writing of the principal officers in each of the executive departments upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices; and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in case of impeachment.” These powers can have nothing to do with the subject.
“The President shall have power to fill up vacancies that may happen during the recess of the senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of the next session.” The same remark is applicable to this power, as also to that of “receiving ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls.” The particular use attempted to be made of this last power will be considered in another place.
“He shall take care that the laws shall be faithfully executed and shall commission all officers of the United States.” To see the laws faithfully executed constitutes the essence of the executive authority. But what relation has it to the power of making treaties and war, that is, of determining what the laws shall be with regard to other nations? No other certainly than what subsists between the powers of executing and enacting laws; no other consequently, than what forbids a coalition of the powers in the same department.
I pass over the few other specified functions assigned to the President, such as that of convening of the legislature, &c. &c. which cannot be drawn into the present question.
It may be proper however to take notice of the power of removal from office, which appears to have been adjudged to the President by the laws establishing the executive departments; and which the writer has endeavoured to press into his service. To justify any favourable inference from this case, it must be shewn, that the powers of war and treaties are of a kindred nature to the power of removal, or at least are equally within a grant of executive power. Nothing of this sort has been attempted, nor probably will be attempted. Nothing can in truth be clearer, than that no analogy, or shade of analogy, can be traced between a power in the supreme officer responsible for the faithful execution of the laws, to displace a subaltern officer employed in the execution of the laws; and a power to make treaties, and to declare war, such as these have been found to be in their nature, their operation, and their consequences.
Thus it appears that by whatever standard we try this doctrine, it must be condemned as no less vicious in theory than it would be dangerous in practice. It is countenanced neither by the writers on law; nor by the nature of the powers themselves; nor by any general arrangements or particular expressions, or plausible analogies, to be found in the constitution.
Whence then can the writer have borrowed it?
There is but one answer to this question.
The power of making treaties and the power of declaring war, are royal prerogatives in the British government, and are accordingly treated as Executive prerogatives by British commentators.
We shall be the more confirmed in the necessity of this solution of the problem, by looking back to the æra of the constitution, and satisfying ourselves that the writer could not have been misled by the doctrines maintained by our own commentators on our own government. That I may not ramble beyond prescribed limits, I shall content myself with an extract from a work which entered into a systematic explanation and defence of the constitution, and to which there has frequently been ascribed some influence in conciliating the public assent to the government in the form proposed. Three circumstances conspire in giving weight to this cotemporary exposition. It was made at a time when no application to persons or measures could bias: The opinion given was not transiently mentioned, but formally and critically elucidated: It related to a point in the constitution which must consequently have been viewed as of importance in the public mind. The passage relates to the power of making treaties; that of declaring war, being arranged with such obvious propriety among the legislative powers, as to be passed over without particular discussion.
“Tho’ several writers on the subject of government place that power (of making treaties) in the class of Executive authorities, yet this is evidently an arbitrary disposition. For if we attend carefully, to its operation, it will be found to partake more of the legislative than of the executive character, though it does not seem strictly to fall within the definition of either of them. The essence of the legislative authority, is to enact laws; or in other words, to prescribe rules for the regulation of the society. While the execution of the laws and the employment of the common strength, either for this purpose, or for the common defence, seem to comprize all the functions of the Executive magistrate. The power of making treaties is plainly neither the one nor the other. It relates neither to the execution of the subsisting laws, nor to the enaction of new ones, and still less to an exertion of the common strength. Its objects are contracts with foreign nations, which have the force of law, but derive it from the obligations of good faith. They are not rules prescribed by the sovereign to the subject, but agreements between sovereign and sovereign. The power in question seems therefore to form a distinct department, and to belong properly neither to the legislative nor to the executive. The qualities elsewhere detailed as indispensable in the management of foreign negotiations, point out the executive as the most fit agent in those transactions: whilst the vast importance of the trust, and the operation of treaties as Laws, plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a part of the legislative body in the office of making them.” Federalist vol. 2. p. 273.
It will not fail to be remarked on this commentary, that whatever doubts may be started as to the correctness of its reasoning against the legislative nature of the power to make treaties: it is clear, consistent and confident, in deciding that the power is plainly and evidently not an executive power.
Helvidius.


Title: To James Madison from Thomas Jefferson, 25 August 1793
From: Jefferson, Thomas
To: Madison, James

Aug. 25. 93.
You will percieve by the inclosed papers that Genet has thrown down the gauntlet to the President by the publication of his letter & my answer, and is himself forcing that appeal to the people, and risking that disgust, which I had so much wished should have been avoided. The indications from different parts of the continent are already sufficient to shew that the mass of the republican interest has no hesitation to disapprove of this intermeddling by a foreigner, and the more readily as his object was evidently, contrary to his professions, to force us into the war. I am not certain whether some of the more furious republicans may not schismatise with him.
The following arrangements are established.
Sep. 10. the Pr. sets out for Mt. Vernon, & will be here again the 30th. Oct. 5th. or a little sooner I set out to be absent 6. weeks, by agreement. Consequently I shall be here again about Nov. 17. to remain to Dec. 31. I break up my house the last of Septemb. Shall leave my carriage & horses in Virginia & return in the stage, not to have the embarrasment of ploughing them through the mud in January. I shall take private lodgings on my return. Billy who is just going on a nautical expedition to Charleston, called on me yesterday to desire I would send you the inclosed account which he said was necessary for you to debit those for whom the articles were. Adieu.


Title: From James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 27 August 1793
From: Madison, James
To: Jefferson, Thomas

Dear SirAug: 27. 1793
I wrote you a few lines by the last post from this place just to apprize you of my movement to it. I have since seen the Richmond & the Philada. papers containing, the latter the certificate of Jay & King & the publications relating to the subject of it, the former the proceedings at Richmond dictated no doubt by the Cabal at Philada. It is painful to observe the success of the management for putting Wythe at the head of them. I understand however that a considerable revolution has taken place in his political sentiments under the influence of some disgusts he has recd. from the State Legislature. By what has appeared I discover that a determination has been formed to drag before the public the indiscretions of Genèt; and turn them & the popularity of the P. to the purposes driven at. Some impression will be made here of course. A plan is evidently laid in Richd. to render it extensive. If an early & well digested effort for calling out the real sense of the people be not made, there is room to apprehend they may in many places be misled. This has employed the conversation of —— & myself. We shall endeavor at some means of repelling the danger; particularly by setting on foot expressions of the public mind in important Counties, and under the auspices of respectable names. I have written with this view to Caroline, and have suggested a proper train of ideas, and a wish that Mr. P. would patronise the measure. Such an example would have great effect. Even if it shd. not be followed it would be considered as an authentic specimen of the Country temper; and would put other places on their guard agst. the snares that may be laid for them. The want of opportunities, and our ignorance of trust worthy characters will circumscribe our efforts in this way to a very narrow compass. The rains for several days have delayed my trip to the Gentleman named in my last. Unless tomorrow shd. be a favorable day, I shall be obliged to decline it altogether. In two or three days I shall be in a situation to receive & answer your letters as usual. That by Mr. DR. has not yet reached me.


Title: From James Madison to Archibald Stuart, 1 September 1793
From: Madison, James
To: Stuart, Archibald

Dear SirSepr 1. 1793
Being well persuaded of your attachment to the public good, I make no apology for mentioning to you a few circumstances which I conceive to be deeply connected with it. It appears by accounts recd. by Col: Monroe & myself from Mr Jefferson, as well as by the face of the late Newspapers that a variance of a very serious nature has taken place between the federal Executive and Mr. Genet the French Minister. From whatever causes it may have particularly resulted, and whatever blame may belong to the latter, the event will give great pain to all the enlightened friends of those principles of liberty on which the American & French Revolutions are founded, & of that sound policy which ought to maintain the connection between the two countries. Unfortunately this character is not due to every description of persons among us. There are some who dislike republican Government. There are others who dislike the connection with France. And there are others misled by the influence of both. From those quarters attempts are already issuing to make the worst instead of the best of the event, to turn the public sensation with respect to Genet against the French Nation, to give the same turn to the public veneration for the President to produce by these means an animosity between America & France, as the hopeful source of a dissolution of their political & commercial union, of a consequent connection with G. B. and under her auspices, of a gradual approximation towards her Form of Government. In this state of things Is it not the duty of all good citizens to deliberate on the best steps that can be taken for defeating the mischief? And can there be any doubt that a true and authentic expression of the sense of the people will be the most effectual as well as the most proper antidote that can be applied? It is as little doubtful in my opinion what the sense of the people is. They are attached to the Constitution. They are attached to the President. They are attached to the French Nation and Revolution. They are attached to peace as long as it can be honorably preserved. They are averse to Monarchy. And to a political connection with that of Great Britain, and will readily protest against any known or supposed designs that may have this change in their situation for their object. Why then can not the sense of the people be collected on these points, by the agency of temperate & respectable men who have the opportunity of meeting them. This is the more requisite in the Country at large at present, as the voice of particular places distinguished by particular interests & opinion may otherwise, be mistaken for that of the nation, and every hope be thence cut off, of preserving the esteem & affection as yet existing between the French & the American people. A great deal might be said on this subject. To you a very little will suffice: and the less as you will learn from Col: Monroe all the particulars which may explain the ground of what I have taken the liberty of suggesting. I shall only therefore add my request that you will consider this letter as entirely Confidential, and as a proof of the esteem & regard with which I am Dear [Sir] Your sincere friend & Hble servt.
Js. Madison Jr


Title: From James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 2 September 1793
From: Madison, James
To: Jefferson, Thomas

Dear SirSepr. 2. 93
I write this by your servant on his way to George Town with a Horse. He applies to me for his best route. I advise the circuitous one by Fredg. in preference to the shorter one, in which he would probably lose more by mistakes than would be equal to the difference between the two in point of distance. I left Monroe’s yesterday. My stay was spun out by waiting for Mr. D. R. who did not arrive at Monto: till Friday evening. Your letter by him was duly recd. On getting home last night I found your subsequent one of the 18th. inst. I have not yet read the paper inclosed in it. I shall write you in the course of the day by another opportunity for the post which will afford me time to say what I could not say now without detaining the Servant.


Title: From James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 2 September 1793
From: Madison, James
To: Jefferson, Thomas

Dear SirSepr. 2d. 1793
I dropped you a few lines this morning by the servant going to George Town with your horse. I had not time, without detaining him to say more than that I had your two favors of the 11th. Ult: by Mr. D. R. and of the 18th. by post. The former was communicated to Monroe, as shall be the latter in case of opportunity. The conduct of Genèt as developed in these, and in his proceedings as exhibited in the newspapers, is as unaccountable as it is distressing. The effect is beginning to be strongly felt here in the surprize and disgust of those who are attached to the French cause, and viewed this minister as the instrument for cementing instead of alienating the two Republics. These sensations are powerfully reinforced by the general and habitual veneration for the President. The Anglican party is busy as you may suppose in making the worst of every thing, and in turning the public feelings against France, and thence, in favor of England. The only antidote for their poison, is to distinguish between the nation & its Agent, between principles and events; and to impress the well mea[n]ing with the fact that the enemies of France & of Liberty are at work to lead them from their honorable connection with these, into the arms and ultimately into the Government of G. B. If the genuine sense of the people could be collected on the several points comprehended in the occasion, the calamity would be greatly alleviated if not absolutely controuled. But this is scarcely possible. The Country is too much uninformed, and too inert to speak for itself; and the language of the towns which are generally directed by an adverse interest will insidiously inflame the evil. It is however of such infinite importance to our own Government as well as to that of France, that the real sentiments of the people here should be understood, that something ought to be attempted on that head. I inclose a copy of a train of ideas sketched on the first rumour of the war between the Ex. & Genet, and particularly suggested by the Richmond Resolutions, as a groundwork for those who might take the lead in county meetings. It was intended that they should be modified in every particular according to the state of information and the particular temper of the place. A copy has been sent to Caroline with a hope that Mr. P. might find it not improper to step forward. Another is gone to the District Court at Staunton in the hands of Monroe, who carried a letter from me on the subject to A. Stuart; and a third will be for consideration at the District Ct. at Charlottesville. If these examples should be set, there may be a chance of like proceedings elsewhere: and in themselves they will be respectable specimens of the principles and sensations of the Agricultural, which is the commanding part of the Society. I am not sanguine however that the effort will succeed. If it does not, the State Legislatures, and the federal also if possible, must be induced to take up the matter in its true point of view. Monroe & myself read with attention your despatch by D. R. and had much conversation on what passed between you & the P. It appd. to both of us that a real anxiety was marked to retain you in office, that over & above other motives, it was felt that your presence and implied sanction might be a necessary shield against certain criticisms from certain quarters; that the departure of the only counsellor possessing the confidence of the Republicans would be a signal for new & perhaps very disagreeable attacks; that in this point of view, the respectful & conciliatory language of the P. is worthy of particular attention; and that it affords a better hope than has existed of your being able to command attention, and to moderate the predominant tone. We agreed in opinion also that whilst this end is pursued, it would be wise to make as few concessions as possible that might embarrass the free pursuit of measures which may be dictated by Repubn. principles & required by the public good. In a word we think you ought to make the most of the value we perceive to be placed on your participation in the Ex: Counsels. I am extremely glad to find that you are to remain another quarter. The season will be more apropos in several respects; and it will prevent any co-operation which a successor might be disposed to make towards a final breach with France. I have little hope that you will have one whose policy will have the same healing tendency with yours. I foresee, I think, that it will be either King, if Johnson is put at the Treasy: or E. Rutlege, if Walcot should be put there. I am glad the President rightly infers my determination from antecedent circumstances, so as to free me from imputations in his mind connected with the present state of things. Monroe is particularly solicitous that you should take the view of your present position & opportunities above suggested. He sees so forcibly the difficulty of keeping the feelings of the people as to Genèt distinct from those due to his Constituents, that he can hardly prevail on himself absolutely, and openly, to abandon him. I concur with him that it ought to be done no further than is forced upon us, that in general silence is better than open denunciation and crimination; and that it is not unfair to admit the apologetic influence of the errors in our own Government which may have inflamed the passions which now discolor every object to his eye: such as the refusal in the outset of the Government to favor the commerce of F. more than that of G. B—the unfortunate appt. of G. M. to the former: the language of the proclamation—the attempts of Pacificus to explain away & dissolve the Treaty, the notoriety of the Author, and the appearance of its being an informal manifestation of the views of the Ex. &c.
I paid a short visit to Mr. W. N. as I proposed. He talks like a sound Republican, and sincere friend to the French cause in every respect. I collected from him that E. R. had admitted to him that he drew the Procln., that he had been attacked on it at Chatham by Mr. Jos: Jones, that he reprobated the comment of Pac—f—s—&c. W. N observed that H. had taken the Ex. in by gaining phrases of which he could make the use he has done. The circumstances which derogate from full confidence in W. N. are 1st. his being embarked in a variety of projects which call for money, and keep him in intercourse with the merchts. of Richd. 2d. his communication & intimacy with Marshal of whose disinterestedness as well as understanding he has the highest opinion. It is said, that Marshal who is at the head of the great purchase from Fairfax, has lately obtained pecuniary aids from the Bank or people connected with it. I think it certain that he must have felt, in the moment of the purchase an absolute dependence on the monied interest, which will explain him to every one that reflects, in the active character he is assuming. I have been obliged to write this in great haste, the bearer impatiently waiting the whole time.
I hope you have rcd. the five Nos. of Hel—v—d—s. I must resume the task I suppose, in relation to the Treaty—& Gratitude. I feel however so much awkwardness under the new posture of things, that I shall deliberate whether a considerable postponement at least may not be adviseable. I found also on my return a House full of particular friends who will stay some weeks and receive & return visits from which I can not decently exclude myself. If I sd. perceive it impossible or improper to continue the publication so as to avail myself the channel used to the press, I shall suspend it till I see & talk with you on the whole matter. Adieu.


Title: To James Madison from Thomas Jefferson, 8 September 1793
From: Jefferson, Thomas
To: Madison, James

Sep. 8. 93.
I have received and am charmed with No. V. I thought the introduction an useful lesson to others as I found it to myself, for I had really, by constantly hearing the sound, been led into a pretty free use of it myself. I struck out the passage you desired in the last page. I struck out also the words ‘and neutrality’ in the following passage ‘taking the proclamation in it’s proper sense as reminding all concerned that as the US. were at peace, the laws of peace and neutrality were still obligatory.’ Also a paragraph of 4. lines that a minister from France was hourly expected when the proclamation issued. There was one here at the time—the other did not arrive in 6. weeks. To have waited that time would have given full course to the evil.

I went through Franklin with enchantment; & what peculiarly pleased me was that there was not a sentence from which it could be conjectured whether it came from N. S. E. or West. At last a whole page of Virginia flashed on me. It was in the section on the state of parties, and was an apology for the continuance of slavery among us. However this circumstance may be justly palliated, it had nothing to do with the state of parties, with the bank, encumbered a good cause with a questionable argument; many readers who would have gone heart & hand with the author so far would have flown off in a tangent from that paragraph. I struck it out. Justify this if you please to those concerned, and if it cannot be done say so & it may still be reestablished. I mentioned to you in my last that a Fr. Consul at Boston had rescued a vessel out of the hands of a marshal by military force. Genet has at New York forbidden a marshal to arrest a vessel and given orders to the French squadron to protect her by force. Was there ever an instance before of a diplomatic man overawing & obstructing the course of the law in a country by an armed force? The yellow fever increases. The week before last about 3. a day died. This last week about 11. a day have died; consequently from known data about 33. a day are taken, and there are about 330. patients under it. They are much scattered through the town, and it is the opinion of the physicians that there is no possibility of stopping it. They agree it is a non-descript disease, and no two agree in any one part of their process of cure. The Presidt. goes off the day after tomorrow as he had always intended. Knox then takes flight. Hamilton is ill of the fever as is said. He had two physicians out at his house the night before last. His family think him in danger, & he puts himself so by his excessive alarm. He had been miserable several days before from a firm persuasion he should catch it. A man as timid as he is on the water, as timid on horseback, as timid in sickness, would be a phænomenon if the courage of which he has the reputation in military occasions were genuine. His friends, who have not seen him, suspect it is only an autumnal fever he has. I would really go away, because I think there is rational danger, but that I had before announced that I should not go till the beginning of October, & I do not like to exhibit the appearance of panic. Besides that I think there might serious ills proceed from there being not a single member of the administration in place. Poor Hutcheson dined with me on Friday was sennight, was taken that night on his return home, & died the day before yesterday. It is difficult to say whether the republican interest has suffered more by his death or Genet’s extravagance. I sometimes cannot help seriously believing the latter to be a Dumourier, endeavoring to draw us into the war against France as Dumourier while a minister, drew on her the war of the empire. The Indians have refused to meet our Commissioners unless they would make the Ohio a boundary by preliminary condn. Consequently they are on their return & we may suppose Wayne in movement. Since my last which was of the 1st. your’s of the 22d. Aug. & 2d. Sep. are received. Adieu.


Title: From James Madison to John Hatley Norton, 12 September 1793
From: Madison, James
To: Norton, John Hatley

Dear SirOrange Sepr. 12. 1793
I have recd. your favor of the 15th. June, as also a preceding one on the same subject: & have delayed acknowledging them till the return of Majr. Hite, an opportunity which you seem to have had in view. As far as I recollect no claims similar to your’s have yet been allowed by Congress, and some circumspection has been observed against establishing any principle that might lead to them. I can not therefore foresee much chance of success in an application for redress in your case; bu⟨t⟩ if you think proper to make the experiment, any service of mine in relation to it will be afforded with all the readiness & pleasure you have anticipated. A petition to Congress will be the proper mode of the application; and the evidence in support of the facts, ought to be collected in the usual form, & to be the best which the circumstances of the case will admit. If any of the officers belonging to the troops are alive, and can be applied to, their certificates would be proper & perhaps may be expected. I thank you for your very friendly invitation to take Winchester in my way to Philada. and should be happy in such an opportunity of calling on you; but I must sacrifice the inducements to that route, to the conveniences which give a preference to the shorter & more usual one. My father & the family beg you to accept a return of their best respects for those you have so kindly presented to them. With great esteem & regard I am Dear Sir Your Obedt. friend & Servt.
Js. Madison Jr


Title: To James Madison from Thomas Jefferson, 12 September 1793
From: Jefferson, Thomas
To: Madison, James

Sep. 12. 1793.
The fever spreads faster. Deaths are now about 30. a day. It is in every square of the city. All flying who can. Most of the offices are shut or shutting. The banks shut up this day. All my clerks have left me but one: so that I cannot go on with business. I shall therefore set out in 3. or 4. days & perhaps see you before you get this. H had truly the fever, and is on the recovery, & pronounced out of danger.