The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 6 (of 9)

TO BENJAMIN AUSTIN, ESQ

Monticello, February 9, 1816.

Sir,—Your favor of January 25th is just now received. I am in general extremely unwilling to be carried into the newspapers, no matter what the subject; the whole pack of the Essex kennel would open upon me. With respect, however, to so much of my letter of January 9th as relates to manufactures, I have less repugnance, because there is perhaps a degree of duty to avow a change of opinion called for by a change of circumstances, and especially on a point now become peculiarly interesting.

What relates to Bonaparte stands on different ground. You think it will silence the misrepresentations of my enemies as to my opinions of him. No, Sir; it will not silence them. They had no ground either in my words or actions for these misrepresentations before, and cannot have less afterwards; nor will they calumniate less. There is, however, a consideration respecting our own friends, which may merit attention. I have grieved to see even good republicans so infatuated as to this man, as to consider his downfall as calamitous to the cause of liberty. In their indignation against England which is just, they seem to consider all her enemies as our friends, when it is well known there was not a being on earth who bore us so deadly a hatred. In fact, he saw nothing in this world but himself, and looked on the people under him as his cattle, beasts for burthen and slaughter. Promises cost him nothing when they could serve his purpose. On his return from Elba, what did he not promise? But those who had credited them a little, soon saw their total insignificance, and, satisfied they could not fall under worse hands, refused every effort after the defeat of Waterloo. Their present sufferings will have a term; his iron despotism would have had none. France has now a family of fools at its head, from whom, whenever it can shake off its foreign riders, it will extort a free constitution, or dismount them and establish some other on the solid basis of national right. To whine after this exorcised demon is a disgrace to republicans, and must have arisen either from want of reflection, or the indulgence of passion against principle. If anything I have said could lead them to take correcter views, to rally to the polar principles of genuine republicanism, I could consent that that part of my letter also should go into a newspaper. This I leave to yourself and such candid friends as you may consult. There is one word in the letter, however, which decency towards the allied sovereigns requires should be softened. Instead of despots, call them rulers. The first paragraph, too, of seven or eight lines, must be wholly omitted. Trusting all the rest to your discretion, I salute you with great esteem and respect.

JOHN ADAMS TO THOMAS JEFFERSON

Quincy, March 2, 1816.

Dear Sir,—I cannot be serious! I am about to write you the most frivolous letter you ever read.

Would you go back to your cradle and live over again your seventy years? I believe you would return me a New England answer, by asking me another question. Would you live your eighty years over again?

I am prepared to give you an explicit answer, the question involves so many considerations of metaphysics and physics, of theology and ethics, of philosophy and history, of experience and romance, of tragedy, comedy and farce, that I would not give my opinion without writing a volume to justify it.

I have lately lived over again, in part, from 1753, when I was junior sophister at college, till 1769, when I was digging in the mines as a barrister at law, for silver and gold, in the town of Boston; and got as much of the shining dross for my labor as my utmost avarice at that time craved.

At the hazard of all the little vision that is left me, I have read the history of that period of sixteen years, in the volumes of the Baron de Grimm. In a late letter to you, I expressed a wish to see a history of quarrels and calamities of authors in France, like that of D'Israeli in England. I did not expect it so soon; but now I have it in a manner more masterly than I ever hoped to see it. It is not only a narration of the incessant great wars between the ecclesiastics and the philosophers, but of the little skirmishes and squabbles of Poets, Musicians, Sculptors, Painters, Architects, Tragedians, Comedians, Opera-Singers and Dancers, Chansons, Vaudevilles, Epigrams, Madrigals, Epitaphs, Anagrams, Sonnets, &c. No man is more sensible than I am of the service to science and letters, Humanity, Fraternity and Liberty, that would have been rendered by the Encyclopedists and Economists, by Voltaire, D'Alembert, Buffon, Diderot, Rousseau La Lande, Frederick and Catherine, if they had possessed common sense. But they were all totally destitute of it. They all seemed to think that all christendom was convinced as they were, that all religion was "visions Judaicques," and that their effulgent lights had illuminated all the world. They seemed to believe, that whole nations and continents had been changed in their principles, opinions, habits and feelings, by the sovereign grace of their Almighty philosophy, almost as suddenly as Catholics and Calvinists believe in instantaneous conversion. They had not considered the force of early education on the millions of minds who had never heard of their philosophy. And what was their philosophy? Atheism; pure, unadulterated Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, Frederick, De La Lande and Grimm, were indubitable Atheists. The universe was matter only, and eternal; spirit was a word without a meaning; liberty was a word without a meaning. There was no liberty in the Universe; liberty was a word void of sense. Every thought, word, passion, sentiment, feeling, all motion and action was necessary. All beings and attributes were of eternal necessity; conscience, morality, were all nothing but fate.

This was their creed, and this was to perfect human nature, and convert the earth into a paradise of pleasure.

Who, and what is this fate? He must be a sensible fellow. He must be a master of science. He must be a master of spherical Trigonometry and great circle sailing. He must calculate eclipses in his head by intuition. He must be master of the science of infinitesimal—"Le science des infinimens petits." He must involve and extract all the roots by intuition, and be familiar with all possible or imaginable sections of the cone. He must be a master of arts, mechanical and imitative. He must have more eloquence than Demosthenes, more wit than Swift or Voltaire, more humor than Butler or Trumbull, and what is more comfortable than all the rest, he must be good natured; for this is upon the whole a good world. There is ten times as much pleasure as pain in it.

Why then should we abhor the word God, and fall in love with the word Fate? We know there exists energy and intellect enough to produce such a world as this, which is a sublime and beautiful one, and a very benevolent one, notwithstanding all our snarling; and a happy one, if it is not made otherwise by our own fault. Ask a mite, in the centre of your mammoth cheese, what he thinks of the "το παν."

I should prefer the philosophy of Timæus, of Locris, before that of Grimm and Diderot, Frederick and D'Alembert. I should even prefer the Shasta of Hindostan, or the Chaldean, Egyptian, Indian, Greek, Christian, Mahometan, Tubonic, or Celtic Theology. Timæus and Picellus taught that three principles were eternal, God, Matter and Form. God was good, and had ideas. Matter was necessity. Fate dead—without ideas—without form, without feeling—perverse, untractable; capable, however, of being cut into forms, spheres, circles, triangles, squares, cubes, cones, &c. The ideas of the good God labored upon matter to bring it into form; but matter was fate, necessity, dulness, obstinacy—and would not always conform to the ideas of the good God who desired to make the best of all possible worlds; but Matter, Fate, Necessity, resisted, and would not let him complete his idea. Hence all the evil and disorder, pain, misery and imperfection of the Universe.

We all curse Robespierre and Bonaparte, but were they not both such restless, vain, extravagant animals as Diderot and Voltaire? Voltaire was the greatest literary character, and Bonaparte the greatest military character of the eighteenth century. There is all the difference between them. Both equally heroes and equally cowards.

When you ask my opinion of a University—it would have been easy to advise Mathematics, experimental Philosophy, Natural History, Chemistry and Astronomy, Geography and the Fine Arts; to the exclusion of Metaphysics and Theology. But knowing the eager impatience of the human mind to search into eternity and infinity, the first cause and last end of all things—I thought best to leave it its liberty to inquire till it is convinced, as I have been these fifty years, that there is but one Being in the Universe who comprehends it; and our last resource is resignation.

This Grimm must have been in Paris when you were there. Did you know him, or hear of him?

I have this moment received two volumes more, but these are from 1777 to 1782,—leaving the chain broken from 1769 to 1777. I hope hereafter to get the two intervening volumes. I am your old friend.

March 13, 1816.

A writer in the National Intelligencer of February 24th, who signs himself B., is endeavoring to shelter under the cloak of General Washington, the present enterprise of the Senate to wrest from the House of Representatives the power, given them by the constitution, of participating with the Senate in the establishment and continuance of laws on specified subjects. Their aim is, by associating an Indian chief, or foreign government, in form of a treaty, to possess themselves of the power of repealing laws become obnoxious to them, without the assent of the third branch, although that assent was necessary to make it a law. We are then to depend for the secure possession of our laws, not on our immediate representatives chosen by ourselves, and amenable to ourselves every other year, but on Senators chosen by the legislatures, amenable to them only, and that but at intervals of six years, which is nearly the common estimate for a term for life. But no act of that sainted worthy, no thought of General Washington, ever countenanced a change of our constitution so vital as would be the rendering insignificant the popular, and giving to the aristocratical branch of our government, the power of depriving us of our laws.

The case for which General Washington is quoted is that of his treaty with the Creeks, wherein was a stipulation that their supplies of goods should continue to be imported duty free. The writer of this article was then a member of the legislature, as he was of that which afterwards discussed the British treaty, and recollects the facts of the day, and the ideas which were afloat. The goods for the supplies of the Creeks were always imported into the Spanish ports of St. Augustine, Pensacola, Mobile, New Orleans, &c., (the United States not owning then one foot of coast on the gulf of Mexico, or south of St. Mary's,) and from these ports they were carried directly into the Creek country, without ever entering the jurisdiction of the United States. In that country their laws pretended to no more force than in Florida or Canada. No officer of their customs could go to levy duties in the Spanish or Creek countries, out of which these goods never came. General Washington's stipulation in that treaty therefore, was nothing more than that our laws should not levy duties where we have no right to levy them, that is, in foreign ports, or foreign countries. These transactions took place while the Creek deputation was in New York, in the month of July 1790, and in March preceding we had passed a law delineating specially the line between their country and ours. The only subject of curiosity is how so nugatory a stipulation should have been placed in a treaty? It was from the fears of Mr. Gillevray, who was the head of the deputation, who possessed from the Creeks themselves the exclusive right to supply them with goods, and to whom this monopoly was the principle source of income.

The same writer quotes from a note in Marshal's history, an opinion of Mr. Jefferson, given to General Washington on the same occasion of the Creek treaty. Two or three little lines only of that opinion are given us, which do indeed express the doctrine in broad and general terms. Yet we know how often a few words withdrawn from their place may seem to bear a general meaning, when their context would show that their meaning must have been limited to the subject with respect to which they were used. If we could see the whole opinion, it might probably appear that its foundation was the peculiar circumstances of the Creek nation. We may say too, on this opinion, as on that of a judge whose positions beyond the limits of the case before him are considered as obiter sayings, never to be relied on as authority.

In July '90, moreover, the government was but just getting under way. The duty law was not passed until the succeeding month of August. This question of the effect of a treaty was then of the first impression; and none of us, I suppose, will pretend that on our first reading of the constitution we saw at once all its intentions, all the bearings of every word of it, as fully and as correctly as we have since understood them, after they have become subjects of public investigation and discussion; and I well remember the fact that, although Mr. Jefferson had retired from office before Mr. Jay's mission, and the question on the British treaty, yet during its discussion we were well assured of his entire concurrence in opinion with Mr. Madison and others who maintained the rights of the House of Representatives, so that, if on a primâ facie view of the question, his opinion had been too general, on stricter investigation, and more mature consideration, his ultimate opinion was with those who thought that the subjects which were confided to the House of Representatives in conjunction with the President and Senate, were exceptions to the general treaty power given to the President and Senate alone; (according to the general rule that an instrument is to be so construed as to reconcile and give meaning and effect to all its parts;) that whenever a treaty stipulation interferes with a law of the three branches, the consent of the third branch is necessary to give it effect; and that there is to this but the single exception of the question of war and peace. There the constitution expressly requires the concurrence of the three branches to commit us to the state of war, but permits two of them, the President and Senate, to change it to that of peace, for reasons as obvious as they are wise. I think then I may affirm, in contradiction to B., that the present attempt of the Senate is not sanctioned by the opinion either of General Washington or of Mr. Jefferson.

I meant to confine myself to the case of the Creek treaty, and not to go into the general reasoning, for after the logical and demonstrative arguments of Mr. Wilde of Georgia, and others on the floor of Congress, if any man remains unconvinced I pretend not the powers of convincing him.

TO GOVERNOR NICHOLAS

Monticello, April 2, 1816.

Dear Sir,—Your favor of March 22d has been received. It finds me more laboriously and imperiously engaged than almost on any occasion of my life. It is not, therefore, in my power to take into immediate consideration all the subjects it proposes; they cover a broad surface, and will require some development. They respect,

I. Defence.

II. Education.

III. The map of the State.

This last will comprise,

1. An astronomical survey, to wit, Longitudes and Latitudes.

2. A geometrical survey of the external boundaries, the mountains and rivers.

3. A typographical survey of the counties.

4. A mineralogical survey.

Each of these heads require distinct consideration. I will take them up one at a time, and communicate my ideas as leisure will permit.

I. On the subject of Defence, I will state to you what has been heretofore contemplated and proposed. Some time before I retired from office, when the clouds between England and the United States thickened so as to threaten war at hand, and while we were fortifying various assailable points on our sea-board, the defence of the Chesapeake became, as it ought to have been, a subject of serious consideration, and the problem occurred, whether it could be defended at its mouth? its effectual defence in detail being obviously impossible. My idea was that we should find or prepare a station near its mouth for a very great force of vessels of annoyance of such a character as to assail, when the weather and position of an enemy suited, and keep or withdraw themselves into their station when adverse. These means of annoyance were to consist of gun-boats, row-boats, floating batteries, bomb-ketches, fire-ships, rafts, turtles, torpedoes, rockets, and whatever else could be desired to destroy a ship becalmed, to which could now be added Fulton scows. I thought it possible that a station might be made on the middle grounds, (which are always shallow, and have been known to be uncovered by water,) by a circumvallation of stones dropped loosely on one another, so as to take their own level, and raised sufficiently high to protect the vessels within them from the waves and boat attacks. It is by such a wall that the harbor of Cherbury has been made. The middle grounds have a firmer bottom, and lie two or three miles from the ship channel on either side, and so near the Cape as to be at hand for any enemy moored or becalmed within them. A survey of them was desired, and some officer of the navy received orders on the subject, who being opposed to our possessing anything below a frigate or line of battle ship, either visited or did not visit them, and verbally expressed his opinion of impracticability. I state these things from memory, and may err in small circumstances, but not in the general impression.

A second station offering itself was the mouth of Lynhaven river, which having but four or five feet water, the vessels would be to be adapted to that, or its entrance deepened; but there it would be requisite to have, first, a fort protecting the vessels within it, and strong enough to hold out until a competent force of militia could be collected for its relief. And, second, a canal uniting the tide waters of Lynhaven river and the eastern branch, three or four miles apart only of low level country. This would afford to the vessels a retreat for their own safety, and a communication with Norfolk and Albemarle Sound, so as to give succor to these places if attacked, or receive it from them for a special enterprise. It was believed that such a canal would then have cost about thirty thousand dollars.

This being a case of personal as well as public interest, I thought a private application not improper, and indeed preferable to a more general one, with an executive needing no stimulus to do what is right; and therefore, in May and June, 1813, I took the liberty of writing to them on this subject, the defence of Chesapeake; and to what is before stated I added some observations on the importance and pressure of the case. A view of the map of the United States shows that the Chesapeake receives either the whole or important waters of five of the most producing of the Atlantic States, to wit: North Carolina, (for the Dismal canal makes Albemarle Sound a water of the Chesapeake, and Norfolk its port of exportation,) Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania and New York. We know that the waters of the Chesapeake, from the Genesee to the Sawra towns and Albemarle Sound, comprehend two-fifths of the population of the Atlantic States, and furnish probably more than half their exported produce; that the loss of James river alone, in that year, was estimated at two hundred thousand barrels of flour, fed away to horses or sold at half-price, which was a levy of a million of dollars on a single one of these numerous waters, and that levy to be repeated every year during the war; that this important country can all be shut up by two or three ships of the enemy, lying at the mouth of the bay; that an injury so vast to us and so cheap to the enemy, must forever be resorted to by them, and maintained constantly through every war; that this was a hard trial of the spirit of the Middle States, a trial which, backed by impossible taxes, might produce a demand for peace on any terms; that when it was considered that the Union had already expended four millions of dollars for the defence of the single city of Norfolk, and the waters of a single river, the Hudson, (which we entirely approved, and now we might probably add four more since expended on the same spot,) we thought it very moderate for so great a portion of the country, the population, the wealth, and contributing industry and strength of the Atlantic States, to ask a few hundred thousand dollars, to save the harassment of their militia, conflagrations of their towns and houses, devastations of their farms, and annihilation of all the annual fruits of their labor. The idea of defending the bay at its mouth was approved, but the necessary works were deemed inexecutable during a war, and an answer more cogent was furnished by the fact that our treasury and credit were both exhausted. Since the war, I have learned (I cannot say how) that the Executive has taken up the subject and sent on an engineer to examine and report the localities, and that this engineer thought favorably of the middle grounds. But my recollection is too indistinct but to suggest inquiry to you. After having once taken the liberty of soliciting the Executive on this subject, I do not think it would be respectful for me to do it a second time, nor can it be necessary with persons who need only suggestions of what is right, and not importunities to do it. If the subject is brought before them, they can readily recall or recur to my letters, if worth it. But would it not be advisable in the first place, to have surveys made of the middle grounds and the grounds between the tidewaters of Lynhaven and the Eastern branch, that your representations may be made on known facts? These would be parts only of the surveys you are authorized to make, and might, for so good a reason, be anticipated and executed before the general work can be done.

Perhaps, however, the view is directed to a defence by frigates or ships of the line, stationed at York or elsewhere. Against this, in my opinion, both reason and experience declaim. Had we half a dozen seventy-fours stationed at York, the enemy would place a dozen at the capes. This great force called there would enable them to make large detachments against Norfolk when it suited them, to harass and devastate the bay coasts incessantly, and would oblige us to keep large armies of militia at York to defend the ships, and at Norfolk to defend that. The experience of New London proves how certain and destructive this blockade would be; for New London owed its blockade and the depredations on its coasts to the presence of a frigate sent there for its defence; and did the frigate at Norfolk bring us defence or assault?

II. Education.—The President and Directors of the literary fund are desired to digest and report a system of public education, comprehending the establishment of an university, additional colleges or academies, and schools. The resolution does not define the portions of science to be taught in each of these institutions, but the first and last admit no doubt. The university must be intended for all useful sciences, and the schools mean elementary ones, for the instruction of the people, answering to our present English schools; the middle-term colleges or academies may be more conjectural. But we must understand from it some middle-grade of education. Now, when we advert that the ancient classical languages are considered as the foundation preparatory for all the sciences; that we have always had schools scattered over the country for teaching these languages, which often were the ultimate term of education; that these languages are entered on at the age of nine or ten years, at which age parents would be unwilling to send their children from every part of the State to a central and distant university, and when we observe that the resolution supposes there are to be a plurality of them, we may well conclude that the Greek and Latin are the objects of these colleges. It is probable, also, that the legislature might have under their eye the bill for the more general diffusion of knowledge, printed in the revised code of 1779, which proposed these three grades of institution, to-wit: an university, district colleges, or grammar schools, and county or ward schools. I think, therefore, we may say that the object of these colleges is the classical languages, and that they are intended as the portico of entry to the university. As to their numbers, I know no better rule to be assumed than to place one within a day's ride of every man's door, in consideration of the infancy of the pledges he has at it. This would require one for every eight miles square.