Title: Virginia Resolutions, 21 December 1798
From: Madison, James
To:

Editorial Note
JM’s writing of the Virginia Resolutions should be seen in the light of a long series of actions JM undertook to stop the progress of what he considered to be the wrongful interpretation of the Constitution he had done so much to create and have adopted. In JM’s mind, the abuse of the “necessary and proper” clause in the Constitution had led to the expansion of federal government power well beyond the intended execution of the enumerated powers. The creation of the public debt and the Bank of the United States, the carriage tax, the Jay treaty, and finally the string of measures adopted by the Adams administration in the second session of the Fifth Congress all indicated a dramatic perversion of the original intentions of the framers of the Constitution. In addition, the consequence of being on the losing side of bruising political battles for nearly a decade had sensitized JM to the quandary of the minority in majoritarian politics. Ironically, JM’s concern had changed from how to give energy to the federal government to how to control its powers in order to safeguard the rights of both the states and individuals.
Although he had been less immediately concerned with these questions since his resignation from Congress and subsequent retirement to Montpelier in March 1797, JM, through his correspondence with Jefferson, John Dawson, and Henry Tazewell, was never far from the pulse of national politics. His own letters are replete with commentary on the follies of Federalism as reported by his friends, and he privately supported Jefferson’s efforts to combat the most glaring abuses by arousing public opinion in their home state through petitions to the Virginia General Assembly (see “Petition to Virginia House of Delegates” [on Cabell’s presentment], Aug. 1797, Ford, Writings of JeffersonPaul Leicester Ford, ed., The Writings of
          Thomas Jefferson (10 vols.; New York, 1892–99)., 7:158–64; and “To the General Assembly,” enclosure in Jefferson to JM, 26 Oct. 1798).
The Alien and Sedition Acts were, however, sufficient to prod JM into a higher level of political activity. His initial response to the draft alien bill prepared by the Senate in the second session of the Fifth Congress was that it was a “monster that must for ever disgrace its parents,” and he expressed disbelief that such a bill could ever have been proposed. He still trusted, however, that the Federalists’ enforcement of their heavy-handed policies would eventually provoke the public into opposing them openly. “These addresses to the feelings of the people from their enemies,” he wrote to Jefferson in May 1798 about the latest measures of the federal government, “may have more effect in opening their eyes, than all the arguments addressed to their understandings by their friends” (JM to Jefferson, 20 May 1798).
Just when JM became convinced that it was in the Republican interest to prepare a public argument denouncing Federalist policies is not known. Jefferson had been urging JM to take up his pen for some time, and it is more than likely that he did so again when he visited Montpelier on 3 July on his way home from Philadelphia. It is probable, though, that if the two agreed on a plan of action at this time, they also decided to maintain silence unless they were assured of an absolutely safe conduit for their letters. In any event, the absence of a written record suggests that a complete silence was kept for the remainder of the summer and early fall until JM visited Monticello in October. There, it would seem, Jefferson showed JM the nine resolutions he had drafted that were ultimately to be adopted by the state legislature of Kentucky. Jefferson promised to send a copy of the resolutions to Montpelier, which he did by a letter dated 17 November, insisting to JM that “we should distinctly affirm all the important principles they contain, so as to hold to that ground in future” (Jefferson to JM, 17 Nov. 1798).
Jefferson’s resolutions, which were considerably moderated in the process of adoption by the Kentucky legislature, were too strongly worded for JM. Jefferson passionately indicted the Adams administration’s measures in unequivocal language, pointing out the remedy for acts that infringed the Constitution: nullification of such laws by each state acting alone. And in the longest of his resolutions Jefferson avowed that acts like the Alien and Sedition Laws would “drive these states into revolution & blood.” There could be no mistaking his meaning, and JM, as it proved, was to be reluctant to follow his friend’s example in this respect (draft of Kentucky Resolutions enclosed in Jefferson to JM, 17 Nov. 1798).
In the latter half of November, JM prepared a shorter and more carefully crafted declaration of protest against the unconstitutionality of certain acts of the federal government as well as against certain tendencies to interpret the Constitution so as to enlarge its powers at the expense of the states. JM distilled Jefferson’s essential points into a cooler statement that began by unequivocally expressing support for the Constitution and the “Union of the States.” Moreover, in contrast to Jefferson’s challenge to the legitimacy of the administration, JM chose to align himself with the Union’s supporters by claiming that it was their common duty to protest “every infraction of those principles, which constitute the only basis of that union.” Along with Jefferson, JM viewed the Union as a compact between states, he regretted the enlargement of the powers of the federal government by a loose construction of the Constitution, and he deplored the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts as “palpable and alarming infractions of the constitution.” Here, though, JM departed from Jefferson’s opinion that such acts were “void & of no force.” While he insisted that the acts were “unconstitutional,” JM was purposely vague about the recourse left open to a state in protesting such acts. The states, he wrote, were “duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil,” and he hoped that the other states in conjunction with Virginia would take all “the necessary and proper measures” to combat them. By specifically attacking the administration upon the narrowest and most vulnerable ground of the Alien and Sedition Acts, and by leaving the widest possible range of action for the states to take, JM sought to reach sympathizers in every state, provide them with a platform from which to attack the measures of the government, and thus leave to them the problem of the form their responses should take (JM to Jefferson, 29 Dec. 1798).
After drafting the resolutions, JM gave them to Wilson Cary Nicholas, a close Republican associate from Albemarle County, for introduction into the Virginia General Assembly session that began on 3 December 1798. Nicholas, in the meantime, showed the paper to Jefferson, who wrote him on 29 November that the resolutions should be stiffened by stating that the Alien and Sedition Acts were not only unconstitutional but were “not law, but utterly null, void and of no force or effect.” Nicholas added the phrase, and it was in this form that the resolutions were introduced on 10 December by John Taylor of Caroline. And it was in this form too that the resolutions were first published and disseminated throughout the United States (Jefferson to Nicholas, 29 Nov. 1798, Ford, Writings of JeffersonPaul Leicester Ford, ed., The Writings of
          Thomas Jefferson (10 vols.; New York, 1892–99)., 7:312–13; Debates in the House of Delegates of Virginia upon Certain Resolutions before the House, upon the Important Subject of the Acts of Congress Passed at Their Last Session, Commonly Called the Alien and Sedition Laws [Richmond, 1798; EvansCharles Evans, ed., American Bibliography …
          1639 … 1820 (12 vols.; Chicago, 1903–34). 34935], pp. 148–50; broadside of Virginia Resolutions [ViHi]).
Since JM had been so careful to restrain the tone and language of his version of the “important principles” that Jefferson’s resolutions contained, it is not altogether surprising that in the course of the debate over their adoption in the House of Delegates, Jefferson’s phrase was cut from the document as passed. It is possible that JM, who was visiting in Hanover County in the vicinity of Richmond at the time, heard of the addition and demanded the change. Or he got word of the change from a participant in the Republican caucus that met before the session’s opening to discuss strategy for the smooth adoption of the resolutions. It is more likely, however, that in the course of the long debate on the resolutions, which took place from 13 to 21 December, John Taylor of Caroline cut the phrase in deference to what he might have understood as Jefferson’s original wish for a more moderate stance. In any event, JM’s version won out (Debates in the House of Delegates upon Certain Resolutions, pp. 24–158; JM to Monroe, 11 Dec. 1798; Richmond Whig, 4 July 1842; Jefferson to John Taylor, 26 Nov. 1798, Ford, Writings of JeffersonPaul Leicester Ford, ed., The Writings of
          Thomas Jefferson (10 vols.; New York, 1892–99)., 7:311).
The resolutions were adopted by the House of Delegates, as JM had written them, on 21 December by a vote of 100 to 63. The Senate followed suit after little debate on 24 December by a vote of 14 to 3. Copies were then sent to the governor of each state. In the interim Virginia Republicans had sent the resolutions as introduced to the nation’s capital where they were printed in the Philadelphia Aurora General Advertiser on 22 December. Notice of the passage of the resolutions was published in the same paper on 4 January 1799; and the resolutions as finally passed were printed in the Philadelphia Gazette of the United States four days later. The action of the Virginia General Assembly buoyed the morale of congressional Republicans like Albert Gallatin who were readying themselves for an attempt to overturn the Alien and Sedition Acts, but JM’s role as the draftsman of the General Assembly resolutions was neither generally known nor acknowledged at the time. The Virginia Resolutions, in fact, were often referred to as Taylor’s Resolutions until their legislative sponsor revealed JM as their true author in a dispute with Richmond editor Thomas Ritchie in 1809 (JHDVJournal of the House of Delegates of the
          Commonwealth of Virginia, Begun and Held at the Capitol, in the City of Richmond.
        Volumes in this series are designated by the month in which the session began., Dec. 1798 [EvansCharles Evans, ed., American Bibliography …
          1639 … 1820 (12 vols.; Chicago, 1903–34). 36642], pp. 31–33; Gallatin to Hannah N. Gallatin, 21 Dec. 1798, Papers of Gallatin [microfilm ed.], reel 4; Richmond Enquirer, 14 Mar. 1809).
Whatever political benefits JM had anticipated from casting his arguments in temperate and conciliatory language were lost by the coupling of his resolutions with those adopted in Kentucky. Seven states replied to the overtures of Virginia and Kentucky, and their reaction was uniformly unfavorable. JM’s protest against the Alien and Sedition Acts was thus drowned in the uproar over the threat to the Union presented by Jefferson’s espousal of the idea of state autonomy. The hostile replies of these states further muddied the issue, so much so that JM felt obliged to enter the next session of the Virginia General Assembly and there to write a detailed, point-by-point defense of his resolutions (“Answers of the Several State Legislatures,” Niles’ Weekly Register, 43 [1832–33]: supplement, pp. 2–5; The Report of 1800, 7 Jan. 1800, Editorial Note).
(Secondary sources used for this note: Koch and Ammon, “The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions,” WMQWilliam and Mary Quarterly., 3d ser., 5 [1948]: 145–76; Brant, MadisonIrving Brant, James Madison (6 vols.;
        Indianapolis and New York, 1941–61)., 3:459–64; Ketcham, James Madison, pp. 394–97; Malone, Jefferson and His TimeDumas Malone, Jefferson and His Time
        (6 vols.; Boston, 1948–81)., 3:399–409.)

In the House of Delegates

Friday Decr. 21st. 1798.
Resolved, that the General Assembly of Virginia doth unequivocally express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this state, against every aggression, either foreign or domestic, and that they will support the government of the United States in all measures, warranted by the former.
That this Assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the Union of the States, to maintain which, it pledges all its powers; and that for this end, it is their duty, to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles, which constitute the only basis of that union, because a faithful observance of them, can alone secure its existence, and the public happiness.
That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact; as no farther valid than they are authorised by the grants enumerated in that compact, and that in case of a deliberate, palpable and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties there-to have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the pro⟨gress⟩ of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.
That the General Assembly doth also express its deep regret that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that indications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases (which having been copied from the very limited grant of powers in the former articles of confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning and effect of the particular enumeration, which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases; and so as to consolidate the states by degrees into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States, into an absolute, or at best a mixed monarchy.
That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the constitution, in the two late cases of the “alien and sedition acts,” passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government; and which by uniting legislative and judicial powers, to those of executive, subverts the general principles of free government, as well as the particular organization and positive provisions of the federal constitution: and the other of which acts, exercises in like manner a power not delegated by the constitution, but on the contrary expressly and positively forbidden by one of the amendments thereto; a power which more than any other ought to produce universal alarm, because it is levelled against that right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, which has ever been justly deemed, the only effectual guardian of every other right.
That this State having by its convention which ratified the federal constitution, expressly declared, “that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States” and from its extreme anxiety to guard these rights from every possible attack of sophistry or ambition, having with other states recommended an amendment for that purpose, which amendment was in due time annexed to the Constitution, it would mark a reproachful inconsistency and criminal degeneracy, if an indifference were now shewn to the most palpable violation of one of the rights thus declared and secured, and to the establishment of a precedent which may be fatal to the other.
That the good people of this Commonwealth having ever felt and continuing to feel the most sincere affection for their bretheren of the other states, the truest anxiety for establishing and perpetuating the union of all, and the most scrupulous fidelity to that Constitution which is the pledge of mutual friendship, and the instrument of mutual happiness, the General Assembly doth solemnly appeal to the like dispositions of the other States, in confidence that they will concur with this Commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid are unconstitutional, and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for cooperating with this State in maintaining unimpaired the authorities, rights, and liberties, reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
That the Governor be desired to transmit a copy of the foregoing resolutions to the Executive authority of each of the other States, with a request, that the same may be communicated to the Legislature thereof.
And that a copy be furnished to each of the Senators and Representatives, representing this State in the Congress of the United States.

   Ms (Vi: House of Delegates, Bills). Copy in a clerk’s hand of the resolutions passed by the House of Delegates. Signed “John Stewart C. h. D.” and endorsed “1798 December the 24th / Agreed to by the Senate / H. Brooke CS.” Docketed “Resolution concerning certain Acts of the Congress of the United States passed at their last Session.”

   JM referred to the phrase “common defense and general welfare.” Article 8 of the Articles of Confederation states: “All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare … shall be defrayed out of a common treasury.” Article 1, section 8, of the U.S. Constitution borrowed the phrase: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” “The manner in which the terms became transplanted from the old into the new system of Government” and a gloss on their meaning are the subjects of JM’s letter to Andrew Stevenson, 27 Nov. 1830 (Madison, Writings [Hunt ed.]Gaillard Hunt, ed., The Writings of James
          Madison (9 vols.; New York, 1900–1910)., 9:411–24).

   The resolutions as introduced by John Taylor of Caroline on 10 Dec. 1798 included here the phrase: “and not law, but utterly null, void and of no force or effect” (broadside [ViHi]).


Title: From James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 29 December 1798
From: Madison, James
To: Jefferson, Thomas

Dear Sir
Decr. 29. 1798
I inclose a draught on Genl. Moylan out of which you will be pleased to pay yourself the price of the Nails £48–11.3. Va. Cy. to let Barnes have as much as will discharge the balance I owe him, & to let what may remain lie till I write you again.
The P.’s speech corresponds pretty much with the idea of it which was preconceived. It is the old song with no other variation of the tune than the spirit of the moment was thought to exact. It is evident also that he rises in his pitch as the Ecchoes of the S. & H. of R. embolden him, & particularly that he seizes with avidity that of the latter flattering his vigilance & firmness agst. illusory attempts on him, without noticing, as he was equally invited, the allusion to his pacific professions. The Senate as usual perform their part with alacrity in counteracting peace by dextrous provocations to the pride & irritability of the French Govt. It is pretty clear that their answer was cooked in the same shop, with the Speech. The finesse of the former calculated to impose on the public mind here, & the virulence of the latter still more calculated to draw from France the war, which can not be safely de[c]lared on this side, taste strongly of the genius of that subtle partizan of England who has contributed so much to the public misfortunes. It is not difficult to see how A. could be made a puppet thro’ the instrumentality of creatures around him, nor how the Senate could be managed by similar artifice. I have not seen the Result of the discussions at Richmond on the Alien & Sedition laws. It is to be feared their zeal may forget some considerations which ought to temper their proceedings. Have you ever considered thoroughly the distinction between the power of the State, & that of the Legislature, on questions relating to the federal pact. On the supposition that the former is clearly the ultimate Judge of infractions, it does not follow that the latter is the legitimate organ especially as a Convention was the organ by which the Compact was made. This was a reason of great weight for using general expressions that would leave to other States a choice of all the modes possible of concurring in the substance, and would shield the Genl. Assembly agst. the charge of Usurpation in the very act of protesting agst the usurpations of Congress. I have not forgot my promise of McGeehee’s prices, but cd. not conveniently copy them for the present mail. Always affly. Yrs.
Js. Madison Jr


Title: To James Madison from John Dawson, 2 January 1799
From: Dawson, John
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir!
Philadelphia. January 2d. 1799.
I have recievd your letter, & enclosures by Mr. Jefferson, to all of which I shall pay particular attention.
By the public papers you will observe the number of members who have been absent—this circumstance has prevented our attempting any thing of consequence—however many of them have lately come in, & we have reason to expect others in a few days, when we shall make an effort for the repeal of the alien & sedition laws, & for bringing forth Matthew Lyon—I think we shall have a majority for the first in our house—at present we are engaged on the old subject of bankrupt laws, which after much time, I expect we shall postpone.
The papers give to you the late accounts from Europe, which, if true, are bad enough. With much Esteem Your friend & Sert
J Dawson


Title: To James Madison from Thomas Jefferson, 3 January 1799
From: Jefferson, Thomas
To: Madison, James

Philadelphia Jan. 3. 99.
I have suffered the post hour to come so nearly on me that I must huddle over what I have more than appears in the public papers. I arrived here on Christmas day, not a single bill or other article of business having yet been brought into Senate. The P’s speech, so unlike himself in point of moderation, is supposed to have been written by the military conclave, & particularly Hamilton. When the Senate gratuitously hint Logan to him, you see him in his reply come out in his genuine colours. The debates on that subject & Logan’s declaration you will see in the papers. The republican spirit is supposed to be gaining ground in this state & Massachusets. The taxgatherer has already excited discontent. Gerry’s correspondence with Taleyrand, promised by the Presidt. at the opening of the session is still kept back. It is known to shew France in a very conciliatory attitude, and to contradict some executive assertions. Therefore it is supposed they will get their war measures well taken before they will produce this damper. Vans Murray writes them that the French government is sincere in their overtures for reconciliation & have agreed, if these fail, to admit the mediation offered by the Dutch govmt. In the mean time the raising the army is to go on, & it is said they propose to build twelve 74s. Insurance is now higher in all the commercial towns against British than French capture. The impresment of seamen from one of our armed vessels by a British man of war has occasioned mr. Pickering to bristle up it is said. But this cannot proceed to any effect. The capture by the French of the Retaliation (an armed vessel we had taken from them) will probably be played off to the best advantage. Lyon is re-elected. His majority is great. Reports vary from 600. to 900. Logan was elected into the Pensylva. legislature against F. A. Mulenburg by 1256. to 769. Livermore has been reelected in N. Hampshire by a majority of 1. in the lower & 2. in the upper house. Genl. Knox has become bankrupt for 400,000 D. & has resigned his military commission. He took in Genl. Lincoln for 150,000 D. which breaks him. Colo. Jackson also sunk with him. It seems generally admitted that several cases of the yellow fever still exist in the city, and the apprehension is that it will reappear early in the spring. You promised me a copy of McGee’s bill of prices. Be so good as to send it on to me here. Tell mrs. Madison her friend Made. d’Yrujo is as well as one can be so near to a formidable crisis. Present my friendly respects to her and accept yourself my sincere & affectionate salutations. Adieu.
I omitted to mention that a petition has been presented to the President signed by several thousand persons in Vermont, praying a remitment of Lyon’s fine. He asked the bearer of the petition if Lyon himself had petitioned, and being answered in the negative, said, ‘penitence must precede pardon.’


Title: To James Madison from Hubbard Taylor, 3 January 1799
From: Taylor, Hubbard
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir
3d. Jay 99
Majr Welch’s starting sooner than I expected I have only time to inclose you a letter from Colo. Geo. Nicholas, to Colo. C. M. Thrusten, in answer to one written to B. Thrusten, who was desired to shew it to Colo. Nicholas. It is universally approved of in this state. You no doubt have seen the Resolutions passed by our assembly, there were only 3 descenting to one, 2 to another & only one to the other 7. Never were people more united, in sentiments than they now are in this State, respecting the Measurs of the Genl. Govt. I flatter myself they will be prudent, firm & persevering, for the preservation of the Union, through the Medium of the Constitution, to which we mean to cling to, with principled fidelity.
I am anxious to hear the result of the deleberations on that subject in your assembly, it is ardently wished by the Citizens of this State, that, their Sent[i]ments may be concordant with ours, we still look up to Virginia as a parent.
Our assembly ended last of Decr. we have passed a Law to call a Convention, to meet in July next to amend, alter or readopt our Constitution. Many of the most deserning amongs[t] us, are under great apprehensitons, of too great a change being attempted.
The abolishion of slavery & the Senate, the Representation, by Counties, and I fear the distruction of the Compact, with Virginia will be all attempted with great violence, & it is intended also by that party to Gag the Judges so that they shall not have it in their power to declare a Law unconstitutional. I really dread the consequences, but hope the more steady part of the Community will prevail.
I have nothing of a private nature to mention only that the Tax’s of your & your fathers Lands are all settled. I have not time now to write to your Father, will do so shortly by my brother, who I expect will go in very shortly. My respects to Mrs. Madison yr. father and family and I am with great esteem Yr affe. Friend &C
H. Taylor


Title: To James Madison from John Moody, 7 January 1799
From: Moody, John
To: Madison, James

Dear sir
Richmond 7th. January 1798 [1799]
Although My Acquaintance with you is a Very Small [one] I have taken the liberty To Address you. In Porcupines Paper of 27h. & 28h Decmber is a piece under the Signature (of a True federalist Though a Virginian) Dated the 10h. of December Implicating a Number of My frends Incoludeing you and myself in a Very Scurillious Manner. As I am Not a Publick Speaker on Politicks and Persueing the Merchantile Bussness for the Support of myself and familly I feel Myself Very Much hurt that My Name Should be thus Exposed in this Publick Manner. I Should think it a Compliment was it the Production of Infamous Peter But as it appears of this Place is the Reason why I am Touched. Should you think it worth your Notice to Peruse the Peiece I would be Extreamely Gratifyed at Receiving a line from you If Convenient. I am a Republican by Nature Birth and family. I am Dear sir your Most Obt.
John Moody


Title: Note on the Virginia Resolutions, 10 January, and the Address of the General Assembly to the People of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 23 January 1799 (Editorial Note)
From:
To:

Editorial Note
Few editors and scholars would question that the drafting of the Virginia Resolutions was JM’s most important contribution to the proceedings of the 1798–99 session of the Virginia General Assembly. Earlier generations of editors have maintained, however, that JM was responsible not only for the resolutions of 21 December 1798 but also for three resolutions criticizing the foreign policy of the Adams administration that were approved by the General Assembly on 10 January 1799; and more importantly they have claimed that he wrote another attack on the Alien and Sedition Acts in the form of the “Address of the General Assembly to the People of the Commonwealth of Virginia” of 23 January 1799 as well. Both the compilers of the congressional edition and Gaillard Hunt included these last two documents in their canons of JM’s papers, and several of JM’s biographers, from John Quincy Adams to Irving Brant, have concurred with this attribution, at least to the extent of asserting that the “Address” of 23 January 1799 was the product of JM’s pen (Madison, Letters [Cong. ed.][William C. Rives and Philip R. Fendall, eds.], Letters and Other Writings of James Madison (published by order
        of Congress; 4 vols.; Philadelphia, 1865)., 4:508–14; Madison, Writings [Hunted.], 6:331–40; John Quincy Adams, An Eulogy on the Life and Character of James Madison, Fourth President of the United States; Delivered at the Request of the Mayor, Alderman, and Common Council of the City of Boston, September 27, 1836 [Boston, 1836], p. 57, later republished as The Lives of James Madison and James Monroe [Buffalo, 1850], see p. 70; Brant, MadisonIrving Brant, James Madison (6 vols.;
        Indianapolis and New York, 1941–61)., 3:464).
The present editors do not believe that JM composed these last two documents, and for that reason they have decided to exclude them from this edition of his papers. This decision was not taken lightly, nor without an awareness of its significance for the body of important scholarship that exists in relation to the contents of these two documents, particularly the “Address” of 23 January 1799. If JM did not write this last document, historians will have to reconsider some aspects of the lengthy and complicated debate about the development of thinking on the freedom of the press in the United States, especially with respect to the claim that JM changed his views markedly on this subject between January and December 1799. The author of the “Address” of 23 January 1799 denied that the federal government could institute prosecutions for seditious libel, but at the same time he explicitly left open the possibility of punishing “libellous writing or expression” in state courts by “juries summoned by an officer, who does not receive his appointment from the President.” The power of state courts over matters of seditious libel, however, was denied by JM barely twelve months later when he wrote his Report of 1800 on the Virginia Resolutions, a document that has become justly celebrated as one of the most important expositions of the meaning of the freedom of the press clause in the First Amendment (Madison, Letters [Cong. ed.][William C. Rives and Philip R. Fendall, eds.], Letters and Other Writings of James Madison (published by order
        of Congress; 4 vols.; Philadelphia, 1865)., 4:150; see Walter Berns, “Freedom of the Press and the Alien and Sedition Laws: A Reappraisal,” in 1970: The Supreme Court Review [Chicago, 1970], ed. Philip B. Kurland, pp. 129–30; Levy, Emergence of a Free Press, pp. 319–26; Jeffrey A. Smith, Printers and Press Freedom: The Ideology of Early American Journalism [New York, 1988], pp. 71–73).
It is, unfortunately, not possible to address and resolve all these significant issues in an edition of JM’s papers. As it is, little enough is known about JM’s activities at this time, and historians do not understand a great deal more about the proceedings in the Virginia General Assembly as it ratified these two documents of protest in January 1799. The shreds of information that are available, however, cannot be adduced to support the contention that JM was responsible for either of them. In this context, it should be stressed above all else that there exists no good contemporary evidence of any sort, direct or circumstantial, to substantiate the claim that JM had either composed the two documents in question or contributed in any way to their adoption by the General Assembly.
The precise origins of the three resolutions on foreign policy are obscure, but the identity of their legislative sponsor is not: it was Wilson Cary Nicholas. The resolutions were introduced in the House of Delegates on 17 December 1798, were approved by that body on 4 January 1799, and then received the assent of the Senate six days later. During the debate on their adoption in the House of Delegates on 4 January, George Keith Taylor proposed amendments to them in the form of a counterresolution in six parts that, in effect, would have endorsed the policies of the Adams administration while also condemning those of France. No accounts of the debate have been located, but Taylor’s amendments failed by a margin of twenty-nine votes. The House then proceeded to adopt the resolutions as originally introduced by Nicholas (JHDVJournal of the House of Delegates of the
          Commonwealth of Virginia, Begun and Held at the Capitol, in the City of Richmond.
        Volumes in this series are designated by the month in which the session began., Dec. 1798 [EvansCharles Evans, ed., American Bibliography …
          1639 … 1820 (12 vols.; Chicago, 1903–34). 36642], pp. 26, 58–59; Richmond Examiner, 18 Jan. 1799).
The story of the “Address” of 23 January is scarcely any better understood. What appears to be an early undated version survives in the papers of Wilson Cary Nicholas. This version is certainly not in the hand of either JM or Wilson Cary Nicholas, nor is it in the hand of John Taylor of Caroline or any other Virginia political leader whose handwriting might be positively identified by the editors. It is possible, however, that the document is in the hand of a copyist, and Wilson Cary Nicholas, whose handwriting could have been no more legible to his contemporaries than it is to us today, does seem to have used a copyist from time to time. Furthermore, draft notes in his papers suggest that Nicholas played a very considerable role at this time in shaping the Republican critique of the policies of the Adams administration, and he certainly gathered enough material to have composed the document that may be a first draft of the “Address” of 23 January 1799. However, at some time before the “Address” was introduced in the House of Delegates by John Taylor of Caroline on 15 January 1799, it was very substantially rewritten. A comparison of the two documents leaves no doubt that the first of them did have some influence on the contents of the second. Despite the extensive rewriting that occurred, several key sentences from the draft in the Nicholas Papers were incorporated into the text introduced in the House of Delegates on 15 January, and the overall organization and argument of the two pieces is fundamentally the same. The version of 15 January was then debated in the Committee of the Whole of the House of Delegates and duly reported back with some amendments on 22 January. The House adopted the amended version that same day, and the Senate added its assent to the final address on 23 January (“The address of the general assembly, to the people of the Commonwealth, of Virginia” [DLC: Wilson Cary Nicholas Papers]; JHDVJournal of the House of Delegates of the
          Commonwealth of Virginia, Begun and Held at the Capitol, in the City of Richmond.
        Volumes in this series are designated by the month in which the session began., Dec. 1798 [EvansCharles Evans, ed., American Bibliography …
          1639 … 1820 (12 vols.; Chicago, 1903–34). 36642], pp. 78–80, 88–90, 96; Richmond Examiner, 18 Jan. 1799).
Again, it should be stressed that no reliable contemporary evidence has come to light to link JM with either the draft of the “Address” in the Nicholas Papers or the two revised versions that were debated in the General Assembly. And considering the fact that JM had left the Richmond area to return to Montpelier sometime in the second week of December 1798, it would have been difficult, if not impossible, for him to have had any influence on the final shaping of the “Address” during the course of the legislative debates. As it was, JM was complaining by the end of December that he had not yet heard the results of the discussions at Richmond on the Alien and Sedition Laws, and it is unlikely that this remark meant anything more than the fact that he was waiting for news about the fate of those resolutions that had already been introduced in the House of Delegates by John Taylor of Caroline on 10 December 1798. It is, of course, by no means implausible to suggest that JM, Wilson Cary Nicholas, and John Taylor of Caroline had informally reached some sort of agreement that JM’s resolutions should be supplemented by a more strongly worded appeal to the public, that Wilson Cary Nicholas had initially taken on the assignment, and that John Taylor then took it over, perhaps because Nicholas may have had a heavy burden of committee work during the House session. This suggestion, however, is pure speculation, and the most that can be safely said is that Nicholas continued to maintain an interest in the fate of the “Address,” even after John Taylor had introduced it in the House of Delegates. There survives among his manuscripts a newspaper printing of the version of 15 January, which Nicholas evidently edited to incorporate the amendments that were made to this version when it was adopted by the House of Delegates one week later (JM to Monroe, 11 Dec. 1798; JM to Jefferson, 29 Dec. 1798; Richmond Examiner, 18 Jan. 1799, marked copy [DLC: Wilson Cary Nicholas Papers]).
In short, the fragments of surviving evidence about the “Address” link it more closely to other Virginia politicians than to JM. And JM himself later in life, while admitting to the authorship of the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, never claimed the “Address” as his own. As his letters to Edward Everett in August 1830 reveal, JM approved of the content of the “Address” insofar as it provided evidence that the Virginia protest of 1798 did not furnish a historical sanction for the doctrines of nullification which were being propounded by John Caldwell Calhoun and others after 1828. But JM seems to have been careful to say no more than this, and he may even have intended to distance himself from the document in other respects. In his additional comments to Everett about the “Address,” he merely described it as an expression of the views of the legislature “to their constituents” after the 1798–99 session, adding the qualification that “I was not a member in that year, though the penman of the Resolutions, as now supposed” (JM to Edward Everett, 20 and 28 Aug. 1830, Madison, Writings [Hunt ed.]Gaillard Hunt, ed., The Writings of James
          Madison (9 vols.; New York, 1900–1910)., 9:394–95 n., 401–2).
If JM, then, never took credit for composing the “Address,” the question necessarily arises as to how it, along with the Virginia Resolutions of 10 January 1799, ever came to be included in the second edition of his writings, published by the authority of Congress in 1865. This story, to the extent that it can now be reconstructed, forms an interesting episode in the annals of early American historical editing. The principal editor of the 1865 congressional edition of JM’s writings, William Cabell Rives, was not responsible for the decision to include the “Address” in this publication. This much is clear from the report Rives made to the Joint Committee of Congress on the Library of Congress in February 1860. That committee had entrusted Rives in 1856 with the task of editing the residue of JM’s papers, which had been purchased by the federal government from Dolley Madison in 1848. On completing his assignment, Rives delivered to the Joint Committee twenty-two parcels of material copied from these Madison manuscripts, and he seems to have envisaged that their publication would require four volumes. Rives also suggested to the Joint Committee that it augment the volumes by the inclusion of some other writings by JM which he recommended “both for their intrinsic excellence & the difficulty of access to them in the dispersed repositories in which alone they are now to be found.” His list included JM’s memorandums on his relations with Robert Smith and John Armstrong, the allegory “Jonathan Bull and Mary Bull,” the National Gazette essays of 1791–92, the letters of “Helvidius,” the Political Observations, the 1805 treatise on neutral rights, and the address of 1818 to the Albemarle Agricultural Society. Significant by its absence from this listing is any material relating to JM’s involvement in the Virginia protests of 1798 to 1800 (Rives to James A. Pearce, 11 Feb. 1860 [DLC: William Cabell Rives Papers, box 91]).
It is possible, of course, that Rives thought JM’s role in writing the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and the Report of 1800 was sufficiently well known to the generation of the 1850s to justify his decision to omit them from a new edition of JM’s papers. Another possibility, considering Rives’s involvement in the politics of the Constitutional Union party at the time he was preparing his texts for the press, is that the omission was a significant comment on the nature of the Madisonian historical legacy that the editor wished to bequeath to posterity. But whatever the explanation, at this point the Civil War intervened, and Rives subsequently lost any control or influence he might otherwise have continued to exercise over the final stages of publishing JM’s manuscripts. His place was taken by Philip R. Fendall, a Washington attorney and former secretary of the American Colonization Society, whom the Joint Committee had originally engaged sometime over the winter of 1859–60 to proofread and to compile the index for the congressional edition ([Philip R. Fendall], “Memo: Concg. Madison’s Letters &c.” [DLC: Rives Papers, box 102]).
Fendall did not find his assignment an easy one. The Librarian of Congress, John Silva Meehan, after a “slight examination” of Rives’s texts, concluded that JM’s writings were not yet “fully prepared for the press,” and with the absence of Rives himself in Virginia after 1861, Fendall suddenly found his duties greatly expanded beyond those that had been originally contemplated. Apart from having to remedy any defects in Rives’s work—a difficult matter, since Rives kept JM’s original manuscripts on his plantation during the Civil War—and having to cope as well with serious difficulties involving the original printer for the papers, Fendall had to labor hard to locate the texts required for the inclusion of the supplementary material recommended by Rives. And as he did so he felt sensibly, as he complained to Nicholas P. Trist, “the want of occasional access to some intelligent friend of Mr. Madison’s, familiar with our political history” (John S. Meehan to James A. Pearce, 6 July 1860 [DLC: Records of the Library of Congress, Librarian’s Letter-books]; [Fendall], “Memo: Concg. Madison’s Letters &c.,” entries for 10 Aug. and 14 Oct. 1861 [DLC: Rives Papers, box 102]; Fendall to Trist, 31 July 1862 [DLC: Nicholas P. Trist Papers]).
Another difficult problem was the discovery, apparently made by May 1862, that the material edited by Rives, even with the inclusion of the additional publications he had suggested, was insufficient to make four volumes of roughly equal length. As Fendall later recalled, “without more matter, the 4th. vol. would be much thinner than the rest,” and he accordingly recommended to the Joint Committee on 4 May 1862 that there should be some “additions” to an appendix in the final volume. Shortly thereafter, Fendall attended a meeting of the Joint Committee to make “explanations of the ‘suggestions’” for the additional material, and three days later the Joint Committee gave its approval to his selections. The list of Fendall’s suggested additions has not been found, but Fendall himself later informed Rives that they included “the Instructions prepared by Mr. Madison in 1780, to Dr. Franklin and Mr. Jay…; the address of Congress to the States in 1783…; the Virginia Resolutions & Report of 1798–99, so often the subject of exposition in the body of the collection, and in one instance of an elaborate defence against erroneous inferences which had been drawn from them; several letters to Mr. Clay from Colton’s books; valedictory of Virginia Legislature in 1817; Letter to Niles on the Misspi. question 1822; &c. &c.” In short, Fendall was responsible for compiling almost all of the second appendix, amounting to 128 pages of material, in the congressional edition of JM’s papers; and in this manner and at this time both the Virginia Resolutions of 10 January 1799 and the “Address” of 23 January 1799 entered the canon of JM’s writings ([Fendall], “Memo: Concg. Madison’s Letters &c.,” entry for 4 May 1862; John G. Stephenson to Fendall, 7 May 1862 [DLC: Records of the Library of Congress, Librarian’s Letterbooks]; [Fendall] to Rives, 27 Nov. 1865 [CtY]).
Why Fendall concluded JM had written these two documents may never be fully understood, but it is possible to offer some plausible conjectures. Although he had corresponded with JM on American Colonization Society business after 1833, it seems unlikely that Fendall could lay claim to any extensive knowledge of JM’s career, and, as has already been noted, he felt his understanding of the nation’s political history was inadequate for the requirements of his task. Since many of his difficulties in completing the publication of JM’s papers concerned access to reliable texts and accurate historical information, it is more than likely that Fendall’s editorial decision with respect to the inclusion of material relating to JM’s role in the Virginia protests of 1798–1800 was governed by the nature of the textual and historical evidence available to him. Here it might be surmised that Fendall, in selecting his texts for the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and the Report of 1800, either relied on or was influenced by the reprintings and the interpretations of this material made by various editors, publishers, and politicians during the 1830s.
One of the most active publishers at that time of JM’s writings from the late 1790s was Jonathan Elliot, who published in 1832 a substantial pamphlet containing the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, together with “Madison’s Report, Calhoun’s Address, Resolutions of the Several States in Relation to States Rights, With Other Documents in Support of the Jeffersonian Doctrines of ’98.” Among the “other documents” was the “Address” of 23 January 1799, described in this context by Elliot as the paper which “accompanied the foregoing [Virginia] Resolutions … as drawn by James Madison.” Admittedly, Elliot did not directly identify JM as the author of the “Address,” but his authority for linking it with JM’s resolutions in the manner that he did may have derived from a conversation he had in 1830 with Nicholas P. Trist, who told him, in response to a request “for information concerning the authorship of the Virginia documents,” that they were “doubtless” from the pen of JM. Elliot also included this same material as part of the series of historical commentaries that embellished the multiple editions of his Debates in the Several State Conventions, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. He was, though, by no means the only journalist or editor to reproduce the “Address” of January 1799 in a context that was, at least, suggestive of JM’s authorship, and given the widespread confusion and misunderstanding that existed in the 1830s about the exact nature of JM’s role in the Kentucky and Virginia protests of the late 1790s, it seems likely that many readers of this historical material simply took it for granted that JM had written all the major documents issuing from the Virginia General Assembly between 1798 and 1800 (The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and ’99 with Jefferson’s Original Draughts Thereof. Also Madison’s Report … [Washington, 1832], pp. 5–9; Trist to JM, 21 Sept. 1830 [ViHi: Nicholas P. Trist Papers]; Elliot, Debates [1836 ed.], 4:544–58; Niles’ Weekly Register, 43 [1832–33]: supplement, pp. 1–2).
One reader of this material who did draw from it the conclusion that JM was the author of the “Address” of 23 January 1799 was John Quincy Adams. In order to prepare a eulogy on JM shortly after his death in the summer of 1836, Adams obtained access to the letters and pamphlets JM had exchanged with Edward Everett during the 1820s and 1830s, many of which had dealt with both the Virginia and Kentucky protests of the 1790s and the related matter of the historical origins of nullification. Because Adams had no particular wish to depict JM, as opposed to Jefferson, as the father of nullification, he was evidently so impressed by JM’s citation of the “Address” in his correspondence with Everett as proof that neither he nor the Virginia General Assembly had intended to establish the doctrine of nullification in 1798 that he explicitly stated in his eulogy that JM had written the “address to the people” in support of his own Virginia Resolutions. And since Fendall indicated to Trist in 1862 that he had consulted Adams’s eulogy, among other authorities, in preparing his appendix to JM’s papers, it seems safe to suppose that he either came to the same conclusion as Adams about the authorship of the “Address” or was led by the authority of the eulogy itself to decide that the “Address” should be included in the congressional edition (Edward Everett to John Quincy Adams, 13, 17, and 19 Sept. 1836, Adams Papers [MHi microfilm ed.], reel 238; Adams to Everett, 10 Oct. 1836, ibid., reel 237; Adams, An Eulogy on the Life and Character of James Madison, p. 57; Fendall to Trist, 31 July 1862 [DLC: Nicholas P. Trist Papers]).
All this circumstantial evidence, combined with the absence of any other information to link JM directly to the Virginia Resolutions and the “Address” of January 1799, would appear to support the view that JM probably did not compose these two documents. That probability is further strengthened by a closer examination of the “Address” of 23 January 1799 in order to compare some of its stylistic features with what is already known about certain aspects of JM’s own writing style. For practical reasons it is not yet possible for the editors to undertake a full-scale stylometric analysis of all JM’s writings, nor would it be useful here for them to submit the relatively few sentences of the Virginia Resolutions of 10 January 1799 to any such analysis, but it is worth noting in this context that an elementary study of the “Address” of 23 January 1799 fails to yield results that are consistent with the evidence contained in the only available stylometric examination of JM’s written output.
In their classic study Inference and Disputed Authorship: The Federalist, Frederick Mosteller and David L. Wallace performed a number of calculations on word distributions in the writings of JM and Alexander Hamilton in order to see if any patterns emerged to differentiate the two writers and thus facilitate the effort to settle the authorship of the disputed Federalist papers. Their calculations included the use of function or filler words, such as by, from, upon, there, and must, all of which are employed by writers in ways that, presumably, are not greatly influenced by the context of the writing itself. Mosteller and Wallace found that it was indeed possible to distinguish between the styles of JM and Hamilton on the basis of their use of these function words, and to enlarge their sample of JM’s writings for their purposes, they also made calculations of JM’s use rate of such words in a sample of his works containing 113,600 words drawn from the quarter century of his life between 1780 and 1805. As an additional measure of control here, the editors also measured JM’s use rate of these function words in his Report of 1800 on the Virginia Resolutions—a document not analyzed by Mosteller and Wallace—in order to establish that JM’s use of these words had remained reasonably constant in his writings between 1787 and 1800. The resulting figures do not suggest, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that the style of the “Address” of 23 January 1799 is that of JM (see Table). For all these reasons therefore the editors have concluded that it is highly unlikely that JM wrote the “Address of the General Assembly to the People of the Commonwealth of Virginia.”
Madison’s Use Rate of Common Function Words per 1,000 Words

Number of Words, 1780–1805 113,600
Number of Words, 1799 “Address” 2,207
Number of Words, Report of 1800 20,678

Word
Rate
Rate
Rate

any
2.40
0.90
4.16

by
10.29
0
14.22

from
5.65
9.97
4.98

her
2.49
1.81
0

in
23.11
9.97
21.37

must
2.04
0
2.66

one
2.83
0.90
2.22

some
1.21
0
1.01

there
1.33
0.90
1.26

where
1.93
0.45
0.87

would
3.56
2.72
4.70

upon
0.18
2.72
0.04

Table compiled from data in Mosteller and Wallace, Inference and Disputed Authorship, pp. 19–21.


Title: To James Madison from John Dawson, 15 January 1799
From: Dawson, John
To: Madison, James

Dear Sir
Philadelphia January 15. 1799.
We have no mail on this morning, which prevents my hearing from Virginia.
The president has not yet made the promisd communication, nor can we account for it—attempts made to cast censure on Logan for his trip to Europe have recoild on the authors, whose conduct has been wonderfully imprudent & unwise—at present we are engagd on the old subject of a Bankrupt law, which after taking up much time, will I expect be rejected by a small majority—when this subject is done with we shall bring forward propositions for the repeal of the alien & sedition laws, tho we have still five members absent, & shall need every vote. Yrs. with much Esteem
J D


Title: To James Madison from Thomas Jefferson, 16 January 1799
From: Jefferson, Thomas
To: Madison, James

Philadelphia. Jan. 16. 99.
The forgery lately attempted to be plaid off by mr. H. on the house of representatives, of a pretended memorial presented by Logan to the French government, has been so palpably exposed as to have thrown ridicule on the whole of the clamours they endeavored to raise as to that transaction. Still however their majority will pass the bill. The real views in the importance they have given to Logan’s enterprise are mistaken by nobody. Mr. Gerry’s communications relative to his transactions after the departure of his collegues, tho’ he has now been returned 5. months, & they have been promised to the house 6. or 7. weeks, are still kept back. In the mean time the paper of this morning promises them from the Paris papers. It is said they leave not a possibility to doubt the sincerity & the anxiety of the French government to avoid the spectacle of a war with us. Notwithstanding this is well understood, the army, & a great addition to our navy are steadily intended. A loan of 5. millions is opened at 8. per cent interest! In a rough way we may state future expences thus annually, navy 5½ millions (exclusive of it’s outfit) army (14,000 men) 6½ millions, interest of national debt (I believe) about 4. millions, interest of the new loan 400,000. Which with the expences of government will make an aggregate of about 18,000,000. All our taxes this year have brought in about 10½ millions, to which the direct tax will add 2. millions, leaving a deficit of between 5 & 6. millions. Still no addition to the taxes will be ventured on at this session. It is pretty evident from the proceedings to get at the measure & number of windows in our houses that a tax on air & light is meditated, but I suppose not till the next session. The bankrupt bill was yesterday rejected by a majority of three. The determinations of the British commissioners under the treaty (who are 3. against 2. of ours) are so extravagant, that about 3. days ago ours protested & seceded. It was said yesterday they had come together again. The demands which will be allowed on the principles of the British majority will amount to from 15. to 20. millions of Dollars. It is not believed that our government will submit to it, & consequently that this must again become a subject of negociation. It is very evident the British are using that part of the treaty merely as a political engine. Notwithstanding the pretensions of the papers of the danger & destruction of Buonaparte, nothing of that is believed. It seems probable that he will establish himself in Egypt, and that that is, at present at least, his ultimate object. Ireland also is considered as more organised in her insurrection and stronger than she has been hitherto. As yet no tobacco has come to this market. At New York the new tobo. is at 13. D. Georgia has sent on a greater quantity than had been imagined, and so improved in quality as to take place of that of Maryland & the Carolines. It is at 11. D. while they are about 10. Immense sums of money now go to Virginia. Every stage is loaded. This is partly to pay for last year’s purchases, & partly for the new. In a society of members between whom & yourself is great mutual esteem & respect, a most anxious desire is expressed that you would publish your debates of the Convention. That these measures of the army, navy & direct tax will bring about a revulsion of public sentiment is thought certain, & that the constitution will then recieve a different explanation. Could those debates be ready to appear critically, their effect would be decisive. I beg of you to turn this subject in your mind. The arguments against it will be personal; those in favor of it moral; and something is required from you as a set-off against the sin of your retirement. Your favor of Dec. 29. came to hand Jan. 5. seal sound. I pray you always to examine the seals of mine to you, & the strength of the impression. The suspicions against the government on this subject are strong. I wrote you Jan. 5. Accept for yourself & mrs. Madison my affectionate salutations & Adieu.


Title: From James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 25 January 1799
From: Madison, James
To: Jefferson, Thomas

Dear Sir
Jany. 25. 1799
I have recd. your favor of the 3d. inst: but not till the day before yesterday. The same mail brought me two parcels of the Newspapers, one of which was due two mails & the other one mail sooner. The papers due at the time did not come. You see therefore the uncertain footing of the conveyance. I should be more willing to ascribe the delays to the season of the year, if there were not proofs that there has been no entire failure of the post, and that the complaint is applicable to letters as well as newspapers. All that I have recd. from Mr. Dawson have been several weeks on the passage. The two recd. along with yours were of the 2d. & 3d. instant. I have already intimated to you that Wednesday is the proper day for your letters to leave Philada. in order to avoid a halt by the way. I sent you some time ago the promised state of McGehee’s prices. Some of them he signified were put down without being clear that they were the customary ones. But in general he considered them as rather below the standard of your neighbourhood, than above it.
I have long been anxious to know the real complexion of Gerry’s report to the Executive. Several symtoms concur with your information, that it does not favor the position which our Govt. wishes to take. Among them is a letter from a person who says he had been shewn Gerry’s journal. If truth shall be found to have been suppressed or mistated in order to trick the public into a war or an army, it will be one of the most daring experiments that has been made on the apathy of the people. You do not say whether the narrow escape of Livermore proceeded from a Republican rival or the mere declension of his personal consequence. On the former supposition the State of N. Hampshire must be on the point of abandoning the party it has hitherto been among the foremost in supporting. I see by the vote of the Senate of N. C. on the subject of the Alien & Sedition laws, that great progress has been made in that State towards throwing its weight into the scale of the Administration. What is understood to be the true result of the late elections for Congress? I have never seen a full return of it either for Massts. or S. Carolina or Georgia. I have no late information as to the prospect in the doubtful districts of this State. The opinion still prevails that Marshal will be disappointed; but it is agreed that the maximum of effort will be used in his favor, and we know that in that case, the issue must be attended with some uncertainty. The proceedings at Richmond find their way to you immediately from thence, better than I can give them to you. Indeed I do not receive them myself, but slowly & through casual opportunities. Adieu with the sincerest affection
Js. Madison Jr
I have never yet learnt whether the death of Yard was a true or false report. What is the fact?


Title: To James Madison from Thomas Jefferson, 5 February 1799
From: Jefferson, Thomas
To: Madison, James

Feb. 5. 99.
I wrote you last on the 30th. Jan. since which yours of the 25th. is recieved. At the date of my letter I had only heard the bill for the eventual army read once. I concieved it additional to the Provisional army &c. I must correct the error. The bill for the Provisional army (about 10,000. men [)] expires this session without having been carried into execution. The eventual army (about 30,000) is a substitute. I say about 30,000 because some calculate the new establishment of a regiment we are now passing to a little over, & some a little under 1000. officers & privates. The whole land army contemplated is the existing army 5000. the additional army 9000. the eventual army 30000. and the volunteer army, the amount of which is not known. But besides that it is 44,000. men, and nobody pretends to say that there is from any quarter the least real danger of invasion. These may surely be set down at 500. dollars per annum a man, though they pretend that the existing army costs but 300. The reason of that is that there are not actually above 3000. of them, the 5000 being merely on paper. The bill for continuing the suspension of intercourse with France & her dependencies is still before the Senate, but will pass by a very great vote. An attack is made on what is called Toussaint’s clause, the object of which, as is charged by the one party and admitted by the other, is to facilitate the separation of the island from France. The clause will pass however by about 19. to 8. or perhaps 18. to 9. Rigaud at the head of the people of colour maintains his allegiance. But they are only 25,000 souls, against 500,000. the number of the blacks. The treaty made with them by Maitland is (if they are to be separated from France) the best thing for us. They must get their provisions from us. It will indeed be in English bottoms, so that we shall lose the carriage. But the English will probably forbid them the ocean, confine them to their island, & thus prevent their becoming an American Algiers. It must be admitted too that they may play them off on us when they please. Against this there is no remedy but timely measures on our part to clear ourselves by degrees of the matter on which that leven can work. The opposition to Livermore was not republican. I have however seen letters from New Hampshire from which it appears that the public sentiment there is no longer progressive in any direction, but that at present it is dead water. That during the whole of their late session not a word has been heard of Jacobinism, disorganization &c. no reproach of any kind cast on the republicans. That there has been a general complaint among the members that they could hear but one side of the question, and a great anxiety to obtain a paper or papers which would put them in possession of both sides. From Massachusets & R. I. I have no information. Connecticut remains rivetted in her political & religious bigotry. Baldwin is elected by the legislature of Georgia a Senator for 6. years in the room of Tatnal, whose want of firmness had produced the effect of a change of sides. We have had no report of Yard’s being dead. He is certainly living. A piece published in Bache’s paper on foreign influence, has had the greatest currency & effect. To an extraordinary first impression, they have been obliged to make a second, & of an extraordinary number. It is such things as these the public want. They say so from all quarters, and that they wish to hear reason instead of disgusting blackguardism. The public sentiment being now on the creen and many heavy circumstances about to fall into the republican scale, we are sensible that this summer is the season for systematic energies & sacrifices. The engine is the press. Every man must lay his purse & his pen under contribution. As to the former it is possible I may be obliged to assume something for you. As to the latter, let me pray & beseech you to set apart a certain portion of every post-day to write what may be proper for the public. Send it to me while here, & when I go away I will let you know to whom you may send so that your name shall be sacredly secret. You can render such incalculable services in this way as to lessen the effect of our loss of your presence here. I shall see you on the 5th. or 6th. of March. Affectionate salutations to mrs. Madison & yourself. Adieu.


Title: To James Madison from Walter Jones and Others, 7 February 1799
From: Jones, Walter
To: Madison, James

Sir.
Philadelphia Feby. 7th. 1799.
While the Sentiments we entertain of your Talents, your Experience & your Probity, have made your Absence from the public Councils, a Subject of our very serious regret, Our Confidence in the justness of your Motives Assures us, that you Stand Completely justified.

At the Same time the Growth & Conduct of the executive Party, since your retirement, have Continued more & more to render the Inaction of republican Principles & Talents deplorable & injurious.
Ou⟨r⟩ extreme Solicitude to give Energy to those virtues, in every possible direction, has urged us jointly to address you.
We hope that obstacles to your serving in the State legislature, may be less imperious, than those by which you were withdrawn from that of the Union—it is quite needless to point out to you, the powerful agency of wise and firm State Measures, in preserving the general Government within the just Limits of the Constitution, which from the nature of things, it must be ever struggling to transcend: but our present position enables us to discern, perhaps more clearly, the perseverance & Success of those Struggles.
Every new Acquisition of the Means of Expence, becomes a fund for recruiting from the body of the Society, new adherents to the executive Party—when they have once passed the boundary, they are lost forever to genuine, disinterested republicanism—they may be occasionally thrown back upon their former Associates, by disappointment & disgust, their factious passions may assume the guise of regenerated Principles, but they never can be fit Subjects of Confidence; their political Sanity is incurably tainted.
Under these impressions we should be wanting in the Social Duties we profess, if we declined to invite you with earnestness, to take part in the Councils of your State.
Pretensions founded as yours are, can Scarcely fail of Success—our utmost aid, if it shall be in any way applicable, and our ardent wishes will attend you in the Experiment. We are, Sir, with very friendly regard, yours

Walt: Jones
John Nicholas
Carter B Harrison
Jos: Eggleston
Abm B Venable
Rich’d Brent


Title: From James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 8 February 1799
From: Madison, James
To: Jefferson, Thomas

Dear Sir
Feby. 8. 1799
I did not receive your last favor of the 16th. Ulto. till the Mail after it was due, with the further delay of its coming by the way of Charlottesville. The last Mail brought me not a single Newspaper, tho’ it was before in arrears. That there is foul play with them I have no doubt. When it really happens that the entire mass cannot be conveyed, I suspect that the favorite papers are selected, and the others laid by; and that when there is no real difficulty the pretext makes room for the same partiality. The idea of publishing the Debates of the Convention ought to be well weighed before the expediency of it, in a public as well as personal view be decided on. Besides the intimate connection between them, the whole volume ought to be examined with an eye to the use of which every part is susceptible. In the Despotism at present exercised over the rules of construction, and the Counter reports of the proceedings that would perhaps be made out & mustered for the occasion, it is a problem what turn might be given to the impression on the public mind. But I shall be better able to form & explain my opinion by the time, which now approaches when I shall have the pleasure of seeing you. And you will find the advantage of looking into the Sheets attentively before you finally make up your own. I have had a glance at Gerry’s communications & P’s Report on it. It is impossible for any man of candor not to see in the former, an anxious desire on the part of France for accomodation, mixed with the feelings which Gerry satisfactorily explains. The latter displays a narrow understanding and a most malignant heart. Taken however in combination with preceding transactions it is a link that fits the chain. The P. could not do less in his Speech than allow France an option of peace, nor his Minister do more than to insult & exasperate her if possible into a refusal of it.
Inclosed is a letter to Barnes with two orders which I hope will suffice both for you & him. Should there be any deficit I can now make it up here on your return where possibly it may be more convenient for you to receive it. I inclose also a few more observations which are submitted to your discretion, under the usual reservation. They were sketched prior to the arrival of P.’s Report, to which they may appear to have reference; or they might have assumed still more of that aspect. The impression of your Seals have not been very distinct, but there has been no other suspicious circumstance attending them. I put into the letter to Barnes, the last of them that you may judge yourself of the appearance. If you find it not inconvenient in your Strolls to buy me a cheap diamond

   for Cutting Glass.

 & bring it with you, I shall be obliged to you to take that trouble. An indifferent one which I borrowed was lost, and I wish to replace it.


Title: To James Madison from Thomas Jefferson, 12 February 1799
From: Jefferson, Thomas
To: Madison, James

Feb. 12. 99
I wrote you last on the 5th. which acknoleged yours of Jan. 25. the last at hand. Yesterday the bill for 6. 74s. & 6. 18s. passed the H. of R. by 54. against 42. and the bill for a new organisation of the army (into regiments of about 1000.) passed the Senate. The bill continuing the suspension of intercourse with France and her dependencies has passed both houses. But the Senate struck out the clauses permitting the President to extend it to other powers. Toussaint’s clause however was retained. Even South Carolinians in the H. of R. voted for it. We may expect therefore black crews, & supercargoes & missionaries thence into the Southern states; and when that leven begins to work, I would gladly compound with a great part of our Northern country, if they would honestly stand neuter. If this combustion can be introduced among us under any veil whatever, we have to fear it. We shall this day pass the retaliation bill. It recites & is expressly founded on the French arret of Oct. 29. 98. communicated to us by the President. It came out from Sedgwick & Stockton in debate that they had had it from the Secy. of state that he had recieved a letter from mr. King informing him of the suspension of that arret. Yet tho’ they knew we were legislating on it, the P. has not communicated it; and the retaliators insist on passing the bill. It is now acknoleged on all hand, denied on none, & declared by the insurance companies that during the last 6. months the British depredns. have far exceeded the French. King has been appointed to enter into a treaty with Russia at London; & Phocion Smith was yesterday confirmed by the Senate as Envoy extray. & M. P. to Constantinople to make a like treaty with the Turks. To chuse the moment of a coalition between the Turks, Russians & English against France, to unite us by treaty with that body as openly as they dare to propose, cannot be misconstrued. I send you under a separate cover the French originals of Gerry’s communcns., one of G. N’s pamphlets, and the Treasury statements of exports & imports of the last year. Adieu affectionately
P. S. No letter you could write after your reciept of this would find me here.
P.M. The vessel called the Retaliation, formerly French property taken by us, armed & sent to cruise on them, retaken by them & carried into Guadaloupe, arrived here this morning with her own capt. crew &c. They say that new commrs. from France arrived at Guadaloupe, sent Victor Hughes home in irons, liberated this crew, said to the capt that they found him to be an officer of the US. bearing their commission, possessed of a vessel called the Retaliation then in their port; that they should not enquire into any preceding fact, but that he was free with his vessel & crew to depart: that as to differences with the US. commrs. were coming out from France to settle them; in the mean time no injury should be done to us or our citizens. This was known to every Senator when we met; the Retaliation bill came on, on it’s passage, and was passed with only 2. dissenting voices, 2 or 3. who would have dissented happening to be absent.


Title: To James Madison from Thomas Jefferson, 19 February 1799
From: Jefferson, Thomas
To: Madison, James

Feb. 19. 99.
I wrote you last on the 11th. Yesterday the bill for the eventual army of 30. regiments (30,000) & 75,000. volunteers passed the Senate. By an amendment, the P. was authorised to use the volunteers for every purpose for which he can use militia, so that the militia are rendered compleatly useless. The friends of the bill acknoleged that the volunteers are a militia, & agreed that they might properly be called the ‘Presidential militia.’ They are not to go out of their state without their own consent. Consequently all service out of the state is thrown on the constitutional militia, the Presidential militia being exempted from doing duty with them. Leblanc an agent from Desfourneaux of Guadaloupe came in the Retaliation. You will see in the papers Desfourneaux’ letter to the President which will correct some immaterial circumstances of the statement in my last. You will see the truth of the main fact that the vessel & crew were liberated without condition. Notwithstanding this, they have obliged Leblanc to recieve the French prisoners & to admit in the paper the terms ‘in exchange for prisoners taken from us,’ he denying at the same time that they considered them as prisoners, or had any idea of exchange. The object of his mission was not at all relative to that; but they chuse to keep up the idea of a cartel, to prevent the transaction from being used as evidence of the sincerity of the French govmt. towards a reconciliation. He came to assure us of a discontinuance of all irregularities in French privateers from Guadaloupe. He has been recieved very cavalierly. In the mean time a Consul general is named to St. Domingo: who may be considered as our minister to Toussaint. But the event of events was announced to the Senate yesterday. It is this. It seems that soon after Gerry’s departure overtures must have been made by Pichon, French charge d’affaires at the Hague, to Murray. They were so soon matured that on the 28th. of Sep. 98. Taleyrand writes to Pichon approving what had been done, & particularly of his having assured Murray that whatever Plenipotentiary the govmt. of the US. should send to France to end our differences would undoubtedly be recieved with the respect due to the representative of a free, independt. & powerful nation—declaring that the President’s instructions to his envoys, at Paris, if they contain the whole of the American government’s intentions, announce dispositions which have been always entertained by the Directory, & desiring him to communicate these expressions to Murray in order to convince him of the sincerity of the French government & to prevail on him to transmit them to his government. This is dated Sep. 28. & may have been recieved by Pichon Oct. 1. and near 5. months elapse before it is communicated. Yesterday the P. nominated to the Senate W. V. Murray M. P. to the French republic & adds that he shall be instructed not to go to France without direct & unequivocal assurances from the Fr. government that he shall be recieved in character, enjoy the due privileges and a minister of equal rank title & power be appointed to discuss & conclude our controversies by a new treaty. This had evidently been kept secret from the Feds of both houses, as appeared by their dismay. The Senate have passed over this day without taking it up. It is said they are gravelled & divided; some are for opposing, others do not know what to do. But in the mean time they have been permitted to go on with all the measures of war & patronage, & when the close of the session is at hand it is made known. However it silences all arguments against the sincerity of France, and renders desperate every further effort towards war. I inclose you a paper with more particulars. Be so good as to keep it till you see me & then return it, as it is the copy of one I sent to another person & is the only copy I have. Since I begun [sic] my letter I have recieved yours of Feby. 8. with it’s inclosures. That referred to my discretion is precious and shall be used accordingly. Affectionate salutations to mrs. M. & yourself & Adieu.
P. S. I have committed you & your friends for 100. D. I will justify it when I see you.

[Enclosure]
Extract of a letter from Taleyrand to Pichon, chargé d’affaires of France at the Hague, dated Paris Sep. 28. 98.
——[‘]I am thoroughly convinced that should explanations take place with confidence between the two cabinets, irritation would cease, a crowd of misunderstandings would disappear & the ties of friendship would be more strongly united as each party would discover the hand which sought to disunite them.

—According to these bases, (a reference to former correspondence) you were right to assert that whatever Plenipotentiary the government of the US. might send to France to put an end to the existing differences between the two countries wo⟨d.⟩ be undoubtedly recieved with the respect due to the representative of a free, independent & powerful nation.
I cannot persuade myself, citizen, that the American govmt. need any further declarations from us to induce them, in order to renew the negotiation, to adopt such measures as would be suggested to them by their desire to bring the differences to a peaceable end. If misunderstandings on both sides have prevented some explanations from reaching that end, it is presumeable that, those misunderstandings being done away, nothing henceforth will bring obstacles to the reciprocal dispositions. The President’s instructions to his envoys at Paris, which I have only known by the copy given you by mr. Murray and recieved by me July 9. announce, if they contain the whole of the American government’s intentions, dispositions which could only have added to those which the Directory have always entertained, & notwithstanding the posterior acts of that governmt., notwithstanding the irritating & almost hostile measures they have adopted, the Directory has manifested it’s perseverence in the sentiments deposited both in my correspondence with mr. Gerry and in my letter to you of the 11th. Fructidor, & which I have herein before repeated in the most explicit manner. Carry therefore, citizen, to mr. Murray those positive expressions, in order to convince him of our sincerity, & prevail upon him to transmit them to his government.’

Extract from the President’s message to Senate of Feb. 18. nominating W. Vans Murray M. P. of the US. to the French republic. ‘He will be instructed that he sh⟨d.⟩ not go to France without direct & unequivocal assurances from the French government signified by their minister of foreign relations that he shall be recieved in character, shall enjoy the privileges attached to his character by the Law of nations & that a minister of equal rank, title & power shall be appointed to treat with him, to discuss & conclude all controversies between the two republics by a treaty.’
Observe the date of Taleyrand’s letter, Sep. 28. Pichon would recieve it Oct. 1. A matter of such importance could not be near 5. months coming here. The P. then has probably been possessed of it before Congress me⟨t⟩ and has kept it back that the measures of war & influence might not be prevented.
Do not let this paper get into the press, or go out of your hand: but avail y⟨our⟩self of it’s substance as you please.


Title: Political Reflections, [23 February] 1799
From: Madison, James
To:

[23 February 1799]
There was never a time when it was more requisite for the public to be truly acquainted with foreign transactions than at the present; nor one at which this information was more difficult. With every thing that regards the French Republic, it is of peculiar importance that it should be accurately and fully understood, because that is the Foreign Power, with which our relations have become more interesting than with any other. It happens at the same time, that it is the very power, concerning whose affairs more than those of any other, it is difficult to gain the exact and authentic information which ought to regulate the opinion and direct the proceedings of the United States.
The French Revolution has produced such a ferment and agitation in the world, and has divided it, according to the different turns given to men’s minds by temper, by interest, and by political principles, into such violent parties, that nothing depending on opinion, nor much even on facts, is received without a strong tincture from the channel through which it passes.
To this general consideration must be added some powerful obstacles of a more particular nature.
The publications in France are said to be under such influence and restraints from the Government, that little confidence can be put in them beyond the official documents which they sometimes contain. The publications indeed of any sort, from that quarter, arrive now so sparingly in this country, that they scarcely serve the purpose of assisting truth by those comparisons with other doubtful accounts by which it is sometimes approached.
In the next place, the mass of information relating to France is brought to this Country chiefly from England and Germany, and is consequently adulterated with all the exaggerations & perversions which the most raging hostility can infuse.
To these foreign sources of uncertainty is to be added, in the third place, the opposite dispositions under which our own presses make their extracts and comments; whereby the imperfect lights received from abroad are still further refracted and obscured.
Nor is any remedy to be derived in the present case, from the correspondence of American citizens in Europe. For besides that the letters ascribed to them are often the most palpable forgeries, dictated by the extravagant zeal of party, it is not to be denied that such as are genuine breathe an obvious spirit of partiality that turns away the ⟨ea⟩r of every discerning enquirer after truth.

For these reasons it is most prudent and safe to indulge a considerable measure of doubt as to a variety of scenes passing in the old world, particularly in France; and to wait for full and satisfactory information, till it shall be furnished by the course of facts and events properly authenticated.
In the mean time, however, it may be useful to reflect on the nature of some of the allegations and reproaches under which a country has fallen, that of late was so interesting to us by the ties of friendship, and that is still so by the relation of her revolution to ours, and by her form of government; as well as by the nature of her markets, by her power, and by her political views, whether amicable or otherwise towards this country. These allegations, if well founded, afford lessons too instructive to be unheeded; and even if unfounded, present an occasion for reflections well adapted to the present posture of our affairs. Our attention will be limited to two articles much dwelt on in the charge against the French Republic.
The first is, that the government has entirely separated itself from the people, and erected itself into a Tyranny, actuated by its own ambitious views, in opposition to the sentiments and interests of the nation.
It is not proposed to examine in what degree this charge is strictly true. If on one hand there be symptoms which favor it, it is not improbable, that some mitigating pleas at least might be urged on the other. It may be recollected that similar imputations were constantly thrown on the congress during our own revolution, tho’ well known to be without foundation. Taking the fact however in the form in which it is stated, it certainly offers very serious admonitions to a people living under a representative government.
The French Republic, like ours, is founded on the principles of representation and responsibility. The members of its legislature are chosen by the people. They become at short periods amenable to their constituents, by the frequent return of elections. And as a further security, they are divided into two branches, as checks the one on the other. If it be true, as alledged, that under these circumstances, a tyrannical usurpation has already taken place in that government, is not here an example in point against the doctrine so ardently propagated by many, that in a republic the people ought to consider the whole of their political duty as discharged when they have chosen their representatives; that it is impossible in fact and ought never to be presumed, that men chosen by the people, and having a common interest with the people, can pursue an interest different from that of the people; and consequently that the people ought at all times to place an unlimited confidence in rulers so chosen, applauding the wisdom of public measures where they can see it and assuring themselves that it is equally the foundation of all others, where nothing but folly or mischief may appear on the face of them.
Nothing can be more contradictory than this reasoning, to the alledged usurpations of the French government, and yet, however curious it may be, many who proclaim these usurpations with most energy, are the same who with no less energy preach an unlimited confidence in representative government as incapable of them.
The inconsistency is not done away by pleading the extraordinary means employed by the French Government in their illegitimate pursuits, such as the expulsion and banishment of part of their own body, controuling the election of successors, &c. &c. The observation always recurs, that such means were in fact employed, in such pursuits, by elective and responsible agents; and consequently that such agents are not incapable of violating the trust committed to them.
It must not be permitted however, either to the friend of liberty in despair, or to its enemy in disguise, to turn this inference against the merit and competency of the Representative principle. The true lesson it teaches is, that in no case ought the eyes of the people to be shut on the conduct of those entrusted with power; nor their tongues tied from a just wholesome censure on it, any more than from merited commendations. If neither gratitude for the honor of the trust, nor responsibility for the use of it, be sufficient to curb the unruly passions of public functionaries, add new bits to the bridle rather than to take it off altogether. This is the precept of common sense illustrated and enforced by experience—uncontrouled power, ever has been, and ever will be administered by the passions more than by reason. The exceptions are too few to have the smallest weight with sober and sensible people. There is no possible state of things, therefore, where a remedy against the abuses of power ought to be sought for in a renewal of the checks on it.
The second charge against the French Republic is, that the Directory has gained an omnipotent ascendancy over the Legislature, and makes use of its authority to sanction and disguise all the projects of its own ambition and rapacity.
The prompt and uniform concurrence of the two Departments, said to prevail in all the public measures, is a strong indication either that both are governed by the voice of the nation, or that one is extremely compliant with the will of the other. The first supposition being rejected, the inference from appearances certainly is that the Executive rules the Legislature, rather than that the Legislature rules the Executive.
Taking this for the fact, what a subject does it present for the meditation of free nations.

The French Directory it will be recollected, is not only an elective and responsible body, but is elected by, and in a certain degree responsible to the legislative body; yet in the short period that has passed, since that government was established, we are told that the power, and influence of the Executive Department, have rendered it the absolute masters of its creators and constituents. This surely is another example that does not favor the fashionable doctrine of the present day, that elective and responsible rulers ought never to be deemed capable of abusing their trust, much less does it favor the still more fashionable doctrine, that executive influence in a representative government is a mere phantom created by the imaginations of the credulous, or the arts of the hypocritical friends of liberty; and that all true patriots will ever unite their efforts in strengthening the executive force, by stifling every jealousy of its hostile misapplication.
But in order to comprehend this subject fully, and to draw from it all the instruction which it offers, the question must be asked, under what circumstances, and by what means, this Executive omnipotence has been brought about?
The answer to this question, one of the most important that could invite the public attention, will be best given by a simple view of facts.
The French Republic has been, and still is, in a state of war and danger, and this state of war and danger, have given to the Executive an immense army to command, innumerable offices to bestow, a mighty mass of money to deal out, a control over the freedom of speech and of the press; together with all the use that can be made of foreign relations, and internal alarms, for leading the counsels of the legislature, for crying down the opponents of its measures, and for imposing silence, if not satisfaction on the people.
An army such as that of France, which does not bear a less proportion to the whole nation, than fifty thousand men would do to the people of the United States, must be formidable at home as well as abroad; whilst a revenue and laws, &c. corresponding with the proportion of twenty or thirty millions of dollars to the United States, to be distri⟨b⟩uted in emoluments to officers and dependants beyond number, of every kind, and of every grade, must add an influence, equal to the power of the military establishment itself.
What other resources would a Walpole or a Mazarine desire for drawing all the corruption and all the weakness in the society into their views, and for building up a giganti⟨c⟩ Executive on the ruins of every collate⟨ral⟩ department of power. Or if other reso⟨urces⟩ were desired, might they not be fo⟨und in⟩ an unbounded license to applaud, wi⟨thout⟩ the privilege of censuring their mo⟨vemen⟩ts; and in that fund of influence enjoyed, by the prerogative that superintends all foreign dangers and designs, and that can exhibit and vary the pictures of them, at its pleasure.
Under circumstances like these, the Directory are models of virtue, if ambition has not somewhat yielded to the means of gratifying it; the legislative body more pure, than is probable, if the avarice of many of its members has not overpowered their duty; and the people more firm and enlightened than ought to be expected, if they are not in some measure awed or duped into a tacit acquiescence under oppression.
The usurped sway ascribed to the Directory, with the causes which must have led to it, cannot then be too much pondered and contemplated by Americans who love their country, and are sensible of the blessings of its free constitution. They ought most generously to reflect on the evils of a state of war, not only as it destroys the lives of the people, wastes their treasure, and corrupts their morals; but on the other, evils which lurk under its dreadful tendency, to destroy the equilibrium of the departments of power, by throwing improper weights into the Executive scale, and to betray the people into the snares which ambition may lay for their liberties.
When a state of war becomes absolutely and clearly necessary, all good citizens will submit with alacrity to the calamities inseparable from it. But wars are so often the result of causes which prudence and a love of peace might obviate, that it is equally the duty and the characteristic of good citizens to keep a watchful, tho’ not censorious eye, over that branch of the government which derives the greatest accession of power and importance from the armies, offices, and expences, which compose the equipage of war. In spite of all the claims and examples of patriotism, which ought by no means to be undervalued, the testimony of all ages forces us to admit, that war is among the most dangerous of all enemies to liberty; and that the executive is the most favored by it, of all the branches of power. T⟨he⟩ charge brought against the French D⟨irec⟩tory adds a new fact to the evidence w⟨hich⟩ will be allowed by all to have very g⟨reat w⟩eight and to meet the particular a⟨ttenti⟩on of the United States.
It deserves to be well considered also, that actual war is not the only state which may supply the means of usurpation. The real or pretended apprehensions of it, are, sometimes of equal avail to the projects of ambition. Hence the propagation and management of alarms has grown into a kind of system. Its origin however is not of recent or even moderate date. The Roman Senate, and Athenian demagogues understood it as well as Mr. Pitt or any of the mimics of his policy. Nor ought it to be doubted, that the stratagem will readily occur to every government that can with impunity and without animadversion, indulge that “unlimited passion,” which the frankness of our President has declared to be an attribute of human nature.
An alarm is proclaimed—Troops are raised—Taxes are imposed—Officers military and civil are created. The danger is repelled or disappears. But in the army, remains a real force, in the taxes pecuniary measures, and in the offices a political influence, all at hand for the internal interprizes of ambition. But should no other pretext present itself, one may possibly be found in the jealousies, discontents, and murmurs excited by the very danger which threatens.
The whole field of political sciences rich as it is in momentous truths, contains none that are better established or that ought to be more deeply engraven on the American mind, than the two following:
First. That the fetters imposed on liberty at home have ever been forged out of the weapons provided for defence against real, pretended, or imaginary dangers from abroad.
Secondly, That there never was a people whose liberties long survived a standing army.
The case under consideration leads to another reflection highly interesting to the United States.
Although a protracted and complicated war, and the multiplied alarms from without and within, might account for a rapid growth of the Executive Branch in the French Government, it may have been not a little facilitated by the consolidation of France into one simple republic. In this particular the United States have an advantage that cannot be too much prized. Our state governments by dividing the power with the Federal Government, and forming so many bodies of observation on it, must always be a powerful barrier against dangerous encroachments; unless indeed their members, particularly their leading members, like those of the British House of Commons, or the Tribunes of ancient Rome, should sacrifice the character and duties incident to their political station, to superior allurements from another quarter, a danger not to be too much disregarded, but which it may be hoped, will be controuled by the vigilance of the people and the frequency of elections.
In the French Republic, all power being collected into one government, the people cannot act, by any intermediate, local authorities in checking its excesses; and the public affairs being of vast extent and complexity, a proportional latitude of direction in managing them, is almost of necessity transferred to the standing magistracy of the Executive; whilst the great source of influence in the distribution and superintendance of lucrative offices, is enlarged by the addition of those of every description, which on the federal plan, would make a part of the subordinate governments.

As a conclusion to our subject, it may be remarked, that there are three different uses to which the events of the French Revolution, and the conduct of the French Government are applied by three different classes of politicians. The endeavor of one class is so to caricature the scene as to cast an odium on all Republican government. That of another class is (a strange endeavor to be sure) to infer from the vices and usurpations charged on the French government, the propriety of a blind and unqualified reliance on the infallibility of our own: And that of the third, to trace and ascertain the true causes of the abuses in France, as so many rocks to be shunned by an administration that wishes to maintain the character of Republican Government in general, and the principles of its own in particular. The public will decide which of these classes are best entitled to the name of friends to their country.
A Citizen of the United States.