CHAP. I.]

WAS THE TESTIMONY LEGITIMATE?

41

version of the political questions of his day, and his direct testimony and most direct information on the points in controversy between himself and his life-long and those who were to be his posthumous accusers?

The next proper inquiry, it would seem, is, did Mr. Jefferson, in pursuing this object, bring forward legitimate testimony, and in a legitimate way? The reader is invited to take up the Ana, and closely scrutinize them line by line, to find a word that, under the rules already laid down (and which we are persuaded carried with them the assent of every candid mind), it was not strictly legitimate to present. We confess, we cannot find one such word.

We will notice one or two collateral charges which have been brought against the Ana. One is that Mr. Jefferson repeatedly transcended the fair rights of a witness, by avowedly repeating merely hearsay stories, second, third, or fourth handed. This may weigh against their credibility. If so, no one is misled. When he states anything on other authority than his own, he not only mentions that fact, but also the number and names of the witnesses through whom his information has been derived. If this is not fair, what portion of history is fair? How much history even purports to be written on the direct personal knowledge of the author?

It has been said that portions of the Ana are irrelevant to any of the useful purposes of history, and that, consequently, where such portions reflect on individuals, they imply malice. The strong specimen case always brought forward is, that Jefferson has recorded that General Washington, on a few occasions, exhibited anger, and that on one or two he used an oath. A human Washington is not to the taste of the myth-makers! The difference between them and Jefferson was, that the latter thought Washington was good enough as he was, and in need of no patching or mending! Jefferson's reasons for stating facts of so little historic or other general importance (unless in the eye of those whose knowledge and taste are exemplified in their desire to conform the character of a great warrior and statesman, who lived in stormy times, to that of some meek hermit living on bread and water diet), become apparent if we turn to the occasions when the facts took place. We discover at once that his object was to show how strong and deep were

42

WAS THE TESTIMONY LEGITIMATE ?

[CHAP. I. General Washington's opinions and feelings on certain topics of public interest. The intensity of his feelings was as much a part of the facts as that he had feelings on the subject. Do we allow the witness, who is required to describe before legal tribunals the particular conduct of a party in explanation of his intent, to suppress, at his option, any circumstance, any word, or any look or motion, which tends to throw light on that intent? Does honest history make or tolerate such suppressions?

The Ana may contain irrelevant entries. This being purely a question of judgment, or taste, the world cannot be expected to be agreed on it. We should quite willingly, however, enter upon a comparison between those claimed to be most irrelevant or unnecessary, and statements which could be readily selected from perhaps any of that list of celebrated writers of a kindred class of productions which has been given in this chapter. It will be found that Mr. Jefferson, so far from being an instance of a wanderer from his ostensible and legitimate topic to wantonly assail, is a remarkable instance of the contrary. His forbearance in introducing irrelevant and injurious personal matter is specially conspicuous. Every entry which has been complained of for its severity or bitterness bears on some public question--was designed to throw light on the conduct or motives of men or parties, in reference to such questions. Some very innocent persons may imagine that this abstinence from personalities was occasioned by a want of materials! Those who are at all familiar with the histories of several of the individuals handled most severely in the Ana, and against whom not the most covert hint in respect to private character is thrown out in that production, are very well aware that those individuals were stained with notorious, and in one or two celebrated instances, self-confessed offences of the deepest dye against propriety and even morality.

What solicited this forbearance on the part of Jefferson? Was it that a blacker and steadier stream of purely personal calumny was discharged on himself than was ever discharged on the head of any other statesman, from the foundation of the government down to the present day? Was it because good and even devout hands, while pouring the oil of canonization on open and self-proclaimed violators of the laws of God and man, narrated odious and circumstantial personal calumnies about

CHAP. I.]

JEFFERSON AND HIS ASSAILANTS.

43

him, on testimony which should have been laughed at or spurned by magnanimous foes?

And we shall have abundant occasion to see that his political attacks were mild compared with those made on himself; and no more acrid in their tone than those which were common at that day among our most distinguished men. We do not know of one solitary instance of an American statesman of that period, whose papers have to any considerable extent been published, who did not indulge, at times, in severe and highly offensive language and imputations against his opponents. It was the fashion of the day, and extended from the bar-room and "the stump" even to the pulpit. The same bitter and unsparing tone was then common in England and in the debates of its Parliament. The first parliamentary speakers, men of the rank of Pitt, and Fox, and Burke, habitually indulged in language which, we take it, would not now be tolerated in a deliberative body in Honolulu.

There have been reasons, easy enough to specify, but which we do not feel here called upon to specify, why the current of persono-controversial literature has been made to set strongly against Jefferson. We are presented with the, at first view, singular anomaly, that while a vast majority of the American people revere his name as they revere no other name but Washington's, he has not had one personal defender to every fifty personal assailants. Like most of the other great Republican leaders of the first era of the Republic, he left no sons, and thus none have succeeded him deeply interested in his mere personal defence, and at the same time near enough to the contests of his day to be anointed with their bitter chrism, who are willing to swell pamphlets to books to roll back the tide of personal vituperation on his assailants. Nor will we. But the faithful biographer is at liberty to shun no really serious issue, which goes to the character of his subject.' The world has a right to admire the loyalty which has defended other graves from profanation, nor should it too nicely watch for every word which might seem to transcend the strict boundaries of defence. But there is a lonely grave on the declivities of Monticello which is equally en

1 That is, an issue of that kind made by reputable antagonists, and supported by sufficient proof to properly carry a degree of moral conviction against his subject, unless such proof is specifically rebutted, or shown to be untrustworthy by facts already suffieiently established.

44

COMPARATIVE USE OF PERSONALITIES.

[CHAP. I.

titled to protection from insult, if truth and justice will afford that protection!

Mr. Jefferson was human in all his feelings, and he erred like other men. Assailed and maligned in public and private life as no other American statesman was ever assailed and maligned, he sometimes turned upon his bitter persecutors. In exposing what he believed to be their motives, he was compelled to speak harshly. In the instances of individuals, we believe, he sometimes misjudged. Where he did so, let the reparation be extorted to the last atom. But be it remembered that if in that life-long contest, whether covering the retreat from the lost field, whether rallying his broken squadrons, whether bearing down in the front of the battle and fighting foot to foot and hand to hand with that host of champions who ever simultaneously singled him out for attack, or whether parrying the assassin's stab made at him unarmed in his tent after the battle, he never struck a blow which he has not deliberately left his name and fame responsible for; he never, even by an innuendo, carried the war into the sacred privacy of domestic life; he never, towards the enemies of his cause, approached, either in kind or degree, the imputations and denunciations cast upon him by his opponents of every grade, from the highest to the lowest, and which can now be exhibited in their accredited writings.'

1 We speak of his opponents as a body. Hamilton, Sedgwick, and a number of others -even John Adams once or twice-indulged in offensive "personalities" towards him in writings now published and acknowledged; and we remember no case in which Jefferson retaliated in kind, in the strict meaning of the word. That is to say, while he severely impugned their conduct and even motives as politicians and as public men-while he sometimes (though rarely) criticised in decent and becoming terms individual peculiaritieswe nowhere find him towards respectable opponents indulging in those offensive personal imputations which among gentleinen are regarded as necessarily and intentionally insulting. He does not speak of them, for example, sweepingly, as "mean men," as "falsehearted men," as "hypocrites," as "liars," or make any equivalent selections from that vocabulary so diligently culled from by his assailants. Yet we have in our minds a few cases where he politically attacked men who did not, so far as we know (they mostly having little or no contemporaneous writings preserved), return the compliment. We therefore have applied the remark in the text to his opponents as a body.

There are no so ample and accessible examples of precisely what we mean as are furnished by the published Works of Jefferson and Hamilton-and it is for his severity towards the latter, that Jefferson has been frequently arraigned! If there is a solitary remark in all of his Writings in respect to Hamilton which Mr. Pitt or Mr. Fox would have felt bound to resent as a personal insult, if spoken of themselves in the British House of Commons, it is not now in our memory. Jefferson did him ample justice as a private gentleman, in his Ana, in words we have already quoted. On the other hand, Hamilton's Writings (many of them published contemporaneously) literally reek with personally offensive imputations against Jefferson. We, of course, are not unaware of the twaddle a class of men can utter over the distinction we have attempted to take. It is one, however, which is perfectly understood, and habitually kept in view among all men of respectable cultivation.

CHAPTER II.

1792.

New Diplomatic Arrangements-Grounds of the Opposition to Morris's AppointmentExplanations between the President and Secretary of State-The President apprised of permanent Divisions in his Cabinet-Apprised of Jefferson's intended RetirementJefferson's Draft of Instructions to our Ministers in Spain-Cabinet Consultation on the Apportionment Bill-Circumstances of the Veto-Madison consulted-Proposed Extradition Treaty with Spain-Instructions to Mr. Morris-Negotiations between Jefferson and the English Minister-Jefferson delivers Hammond his Specifications of the English Breaches of the Treaty of Peace-Hamilton's alleged Interference in the Negotiations-Hammond's Answer to Jefferson's Specifications-Jefferson's Rejoinder-His Official Partialities between France and England examined-His Letter urging Washington to accept a Reëlection-Washington's Answer-Paul Jones's appointment to Office, and Death-His Relations with Jefferson-Political Letters-Further Division between Parties-Hamilton's anonymous Attacks on Jefferson-Founders of the National Gazette-Jefferson visits Home-Family Correspondence-Washington's Letter to Jefferson on Dissensions in the Cabinet-His Letter to Hamilton-Jefferson's ReplyHamilton's Reply-Comparison of the Tone of the Letters-Professions and practice of the two compared-Jefferson's Interview with the President at Mount VernonPresident urges his continuance in Office-Hamilton's charge that such continuance was indelicate-Their respective "Opposition" to the President Examined-Jefferson's Notice in Correspondence of Hamilton's Attacks on him-Washington's Letter to Jefferson-Washington's Idea of Parties-President's Proclamation to Resisters of Excise Law-Marshall's Statements-Jefferson complains of English Impressments— Complains to Spain of Governor Carondelet-Cabinet Meeting on Viar and Jaudenes' Complaints-Hamilton Counsels an English Alliance-The President rejects the Pro

position.

SOME new and important diplomatic arrangements between the United States and other powers took place not far from the beginning of 1792. Great Britain finally sent a Minister, Mr. Hammond, to our Government, and Major Thomas Pinckney, of South Carolina, went as our Minister to that court. The French Minister, the Count de Moustier, was recalled by his Government, and his place filled, as anticipated, by M. de Ternant. Governeur Morris was nominated, in exchange, and after a