FOOTNOTES:
[1] "The navy of Britain is our shield." (Pickering: Open Letter [Feb. 16, 1808] to Governor James Sullivan, 8; infra, 5, 9-10, 25-26, 45-46.)
[2] Diary and Letters of Gouverneur Morris: Morris, ii, 548.
[3] Jefferson to D'Ivernois, Feb. 6, 1795, Works of Thomas Jefferson: Ford, viii, 165.
[4] Jefferson to Short, Jan. 3, 1793, ib. vii, 203; same to Mason, Feb. 4, 1791, ib. vi, 185.
[5] See vol. ii, 354, of this work.
[6] Ib. 133-39.
[7] The Fairfax transaction.
[8] The phrase used by the Federalists to designate the opponents of democracy.
[9] See vol. ii, 24-27, 92-96, 106-07, 126-28, of this work.
[10] Ames to Dwight, Oct. 31, 1803, Works of Fisher Ames: Ames, i, 330; and see Ames to Gore, Nov. 16, 1803, ib. 332; also Ames to Quincy, Feb. 12, 1806, ib. 360.
[11] Rutledge to Otis, July 29, 1806, Morison: Life and Letters of Harrison Gray Otis, i, 282.
[12] The student should examine the letters of Federalists collected in Henry Adams's New-England Federalism; those in the Life and Correspondence of Rufus King; in Lodge's Life and Letters of George Cabot; in the Works of Fisher Ames and in Morison's Otis.
[13] See Adams: History of the United States, iv, 29.
[14] Once in a long while an impartial view was expressed: "I think myself sometimes in an Hospital of Lunaticks, when I hear some of our Politicians eulogizing Bonaparte because he humbles the English; & others worshipping the latter, under an Idea that they will shelter us, & take us under the Shadow of their Wings. They would join, rather, to deal us away like Cattle." (Peters to Pickering, Feb. 4, 1807, Pickering MSS. Mass. Hist. Soc.)
[15] See Harrowby's Circular, Aug. 9, 1804, American State Papers, Foreign Relations, iii, 266.
[16] See Hawkesbury's Instructions, Aug. 17, 1805, ib.
[17] Fox to Monroe, April 8 and May 16, 1806, ib. 267.
[18] The Berlin Decree, Nov. 21, 1806, ib. 290-91.
[19] Orders in Council, Jan. 7 and Nov. 11, 1807, Am. State Papers, For. Rel. iii, 267-73; and see Channing: Jeffersonian System, 199.
[20] Dec. 17, 1807, Am. State Papers, For. Rel. iii, 290.
[21] Adams: U.S. v, 31.
[22] "England's naval power stood at a height never reached before or since by that of any other nation. On every sea her navies rode, not only triumphant, but with none to dispute their sway." (Roosevelt: Naval War of 1812, 22.)
[23] See Report, Secretary of State, July 6, 1812, Am. State Papers, For. Rel. iii, 583-85.
"These decrees and orders, taken together, want little of amounting to a declaration that every neutral vessel found on the high seas, whatsoever be her cargo, and whatsoever foreign port be that of her departure or destination, shall be deemed lawful prize." (Jefferson to Congress, Special Message, March 17, 1808, Works: Ford, xi, 20.)
"The only mode by which either of them [the European belligerents] could further annoy the other ... was by inflicting ... the torments of starvation. This the contending parties sought to accomplish by putting an end to all trade with the other nation." (Channing: Jeff. System, 169.)
[24] Theodore Roosevelt, who gave this matter very careful study, says that at least 20,000 American seamen were impressed. (Roosevelt, footnote to 42.)
"Hundreds of American citizens had been taken by force from under the American flag, some of whom were already lying beneath the waters off Cape Trafalgar." (Adams: U. S. iii, 202.)
See also Babcock: Rise of American Nationality, 76-77; and Jefferson to Crawford, Feb. 11, 1815, Works: Ford, XI, 451.
[25] See Channing: Jeff. System, 184-94. The principal works on the War of 1812 are, of course, by Henry Adams and by Alfred Mahan. But these are very extended. The excellent treatments of that period are the Jeffersonian System, by Edward Channing, and Rise of American Nationality, by Kendric Charles Babcock, and Life and Letters of Harrison Gray Otis, by Samuel Eliot Morison. The latter work contains many valuable letters hitherto unpublished.
[26] But see Jefferson to Madison, Aug. 27, 1805, Works: Ford, x, 172-73; same to Monroe, May 4, 1806, ib. 262-63; same to same, Oct. 26, 1806, ib. 296-97; same to Lincoln, June 25, 1806, ib. 272; also see Adams: U.S. iii, 75. While these letters speak of a temporary alliance with Great Britain, Jefferson makes it clear that they are merely diplomatic maneuvers, and that, if an arrangement was made, a heavy price must be paid for America's coöperation.
Jefferson's letters, in general, display rancorous hostility to Great Britain. See, for example, Jefferson to Paine, Sept. 6, 1807, Works: Ford, x, 493; same to Leib, June 23, 1808, ib. xi, 34-35; same to Meigs, Sept. 18, 1813, ib. 334-35; same to Monroe, Jan. 1, 1815, ib. 443.
[27] Jefferson to Dearborn, July 16, 1810, ib. 144.
[28] Annals, 9th Cong. 1st Sess. 1259-62; also see "An Act to Prohibit the Importation of Certain Goods, Wares, and Merchandise," chap. 29, 1806, Laws of the United States, iv, 36-38.
[29] See vol. iii, 475-76, of this work.
[30] Jefferson's Proclamation, July 2, 1807, Works: Ford, x, 434-47; and Messages and Papers of the Presidents: Richardson, i, 421-24.
[31] "This country has never been in such a state of excitement since the battle of Lexington." (Jefferson to Bowdoin, July 10, 1807, Works: Ford, x, 454; same to De Nemours, July 14, 1807, ib. 460.)
For Jefferson's interpretation of Great Britain's larger motive for perpetrating the Chesapeake crime, see Jefferson to Paine, Sept. 6, 1807, ib. 493.
[32] Adams: U.S. iv, 38.
[33] Lowell: Peace Without Dishonor—War Without Hope: by "A Yankee Farmer," 8. The author of this pamphlet was the son of one of the new Federal judges appointed by Adams under the Federalist Judiciary Act of 1801.
[34] See Peace Without Dishonor—War Without Hope, 39-40.
[35] Giles to Monroe, March 4, 1807; Anderson: William Branch Giles—A Study in the Politics of Virginia, 1790-1830, 108.
Thomas Ritchie, in the Richmond Enquirer, properly denounced the New England Federalist headquarters as a "hot-bed of treason." (Enquirer, Jan. 24 and April 4, 1809, as quoted by Ambler: Thomas Ritchie—A Study in Virginia Politics, 46.)
[36] Adams: U.S. iv, 41-44, 54.
[37] Jefferson to Leiper, Aug. 21, 1807, Works: Ford, x, 483-84.
Jefferson tenaciously clung to his prejudice against Great Britain: "The object of England, long obvious, is to claim the ocean as her domain.... We believe no more in Bonaparte's fighting merely for the liberty of the seas, than in Great Britain's fighting for the liberties of mankind." (Jefferson to Maury, April 25, 1812, ib. xi, 240-41.) He never failed to accentuate his love for France and his hatred for Napoleon.
[38] "During the present paroxysm of the insanity of Europe, we have thought it wisest to break off all intercourse with her." (Jefferson to Armstrong, May 2, 1808, ib. 30.)
[39] "Three alternatives alone are to be chosen from. 1. Embargo. 2. War. 3. Submission and tribute, &, wonderful to tell, the last will not want advocates." (Jefferson to Lincoln, Nov. 13, 1808, ib. 74.)
[40] See Act of December 22, 1807 (Annals, 10th Cong. 1st Sess. 2814-15); of January 9, 1808 (ib. 2815-17); of March 12, 1808 (ib. 2839-42); and of April 25, 1808 (ib. 2870-74); Treasury Circulars of May 6 and May 11, 1808 (Embargo Laws, 19-20, 21-22); and Jefferson's letter "to the Governours of Orleans, Georgia, South Carolina, Massachusetts and New Hampshire," May 6, 1808 (ib. 20-21).
Joseph Hopkinson sarcastically wrote: "Bless the Embargo—thrice bless the Presidents distribution Proclamation, by which his minions are to judge of the appetites of his subjects, how much food they may reasonably consume, and who shall supply them ... whether under the Proclamation and Embargo System, a child may be lawfully born without a clearing out at the Custom House." (Hopkinson to Pickering, May 25, 1808, Pickering MSS. Mass. Hist. Soc.)
[41] Professor Channing says that "the orders in council had been passed originally to give English ship-owners a chance to regain some of their lost business." (Channing: Jeff. System, 261.)
[42] Indeed, Napoleon, as soon as he learned of the American Embargo laws, ordered the seizure of all American ships entering French ports because their captains or owners had disobeyed these American statutes and, therefore, surely were aiding the enemy. (Armstrong to Secretary of State, April 23, postscript of April 25, 1808, Am. State Papers, For. Rel. iii, 291.)
[43] Morison: Otis, ii, 10-12; see also Channing: Jeff. System, 183.
[44] Annals, 10th Cong. 2d Sess. 22.
The intensity of the interest in the Embargo is illustrated by Giles's statement in his reply to Hillhouse that it "almost ... banish[ed] every other topic of conversation." (Ib. 94.)
[45] Four years earlier, Pickering had plotted the secession of New England and enlisted the support of the British Minister to accomplish it. (See vol. iii, chap. vii, of this work.) His wife was an Englishwoman, the daughter of an officer of the British Navy. (Pickering and Upham: Life of Timothy Pickering, i, 7; and see Pickering to his wife, Jan. 1, 1808, ib. iv, 121.) His nephew had been Consul-General at London under the Federalist Administrations and was at this time a merchant in that city. (Pickering to Rose, March 22, 1808, New-England Federalism: Adams, 370.) Pickering had been, and still was, carrying on with George Rose, recently British Minister to the United States, a correspondence all but treasonable. (Morison: Otis, ii, 6.)
[46] Annals, 10th Cong. 2d Sess. 175, 177-78.
[47] Annals, 10th Cong. 2d Sess. 193.
[48] Ib. 279-82.
[49] Marshall to Pickering, Dec. 19, 1808, Pickering MSS. Mass. Hist. Soc.
[50] See vol. ii, 509-14, of this work.
[51] Morison: Otis, ii, 3-4.
[52] "The tories of Boston openly threaten insurrection." (Jefferson to Dearborn, Aug. 9, 1808, Works: Ford, xi, 40.) And see Morison: Otis, ii, 6; Life and Correspondence of Rufus King: King, v, 88; also see Otis to Quincy, Dec. 15, 1808, Morison: Otis, ii, 115.
[53] Monroe to Taylor, Jan. 9, 1809, Branch Historical Papers, June, 1908, 298.
[54] Adams to Rush, July 25, 1808, Old Family Letters, 191-92.
[55] Annals, 10th Cong. 2d Sess. iii, 1798-1804.
[56] Morison: Otis, ii, 10. These resolutions denounced "'all those who shall assist in enforcing on others the arbitrary & unconstitutional provisions of this [Force Act]' ... as 'enemies to the Constitution of the United States and of this State, and hostile to the Liberties of the People.'" (Boston Town Records, 1796-1813, as quoted in ib.; and see McMaster: History of the People of the United States, iii, 328.)
[57] McMaster, iii, 329.
[58] McMaster, iii, 329-30; and see Morison: Otis, ii, 4.
The Federalist view was that the "Force Act" and other extreme portions of the Embargo laws were "so violently and palpably unconstitutional, as to render a reference to the judiciary absurd"; and that it was "the inherent right of the people to resist measures fundamentally inconsistent with the principles of just liberty and the Social compact." (Hare to Otis, Feb. 10, 1814, Morison: Otis, ii, 175.)
[59] McMaster, iii, 331-32.
[60] Morison: Otis, ii, 3, 8.
[61] Hanson to Pickering, Jan. 17, 1810, N.E. Federalism: Adams, 382.
[62] Humphrey Marshall to Pickering, March 17, 1809, Pickering MSS. Mass. Hist. Soc.
[63] See vol. iii, chap. x, of this work.
[64] 5 Cranch, 133.
[65] Ib. 117.
[66] 5 Cranch, 135.
[67] 5 Cranch, 136, 141. (Italics the author's.)
[68] The Legislature of Pennsylvania adopted a resolution, April 3, 1809, proposing an amendment to the National Constitution for the establishment of an "impartial tribunal" to decide upon controversies between States and the Nation. (State Documents on Federal Relations: Ames, 46-48.) In reply Virginia insisted that the Supreme Court, "selected from those ... who are most celebrated for virtue and legal learning," was the proper tribunal to decide such cases. (Ib. 49-50.) This Nationalist position Virginia reversed within a decade in protest against Marshall's Nationalist opinions. Virginia's Nationalist resolution of 1809 was read by Pinkney in his argument of Cohens vs. Virginia. (See infra, chap. vi.)
[69] See Madison to Snyder, April 13, 1809, Annals, 11th Cong. 2d Sess. 2269; also McMaster, v, 403-06.
[70] Annals, 10th Cong. 2d Sess. 1824-30.
[71] Erskine to Smith, April 18 and 19, 1809, Am. State Papers, For. Rel. iii, 296.
[72] Adams: U.S. v, 73-74; see also McMaster, iii, 337.
[73] Adams: U.S. v, 87-89, 112.
[74] Proclamation of Aug. 9, 1809, Am. State Papers, For. Rel. iii, 304.
[75] Tyler: Letters and Times of the Tylers, i, 229. For an expression by Napoleon on this subject, see Adams: U.S. v, 137.
[76] See vol. ii, 28-29, of this work.
[77] "The appointment of Jackson and the instructions given to him might well have justified a declaration of war against Great Britain the moment they were known." (Channing: Jeff. System, 237.)
[78] Circular, Nov. 13, 1809, Am. State Papers, For. Rel. iii, 323; Annals, 11th Cong. 2d Sess. 743.
[79] Canning to Pinkney, Sept. 23, 1808, Am. State Papers, For. Rel. iii, 230-31.
[80] Story to White, Jan. 17, 1809, Life and Letters of Joseph Story: Story, i, 193-94. There were two letters from Canning to Pinkney, both dated Sept. 23, 1808. Story probably refers to one printed in the Columbian Centinel, Boston, Jan. 11, 1809.
"It seems as if in New England the federalists were forgetful of all the motives for union & were ready to destroy the fabric which has been raised by the wisdom of our fathers. Have they altogether lost the memory of Washington's farewell address?... The riotous proceedings in some towns ... no doubt ... are occasioned by the instigation of men, who keep behind the curtain & yet govern the wires of the puppet shew." (Story to his brother, Jan. 3, 1809, Story MSS. Mass. Hist. Soc.)
"In New England, and even in New York, there appears a spirit hostile to the existence of our own government." (Plumer to Gilman, Jan. 24, 1809, Plumer: Life of William Plumer, 368.)
[81] Adams: U.S. v, 158.
[82] Annals, 11th Cong. 2d Sess. 481.
[83] Ib. 943. The resolution was passed over the strenuous resistance of the Federalists.
[84] Probably that of Madison, July 21, 1808, Annals, 10th Cong. 2d Sess. 1681.
[85] Marshall to Quincy, April 23, 1810, Quincy: Life of Josiah Quincy, 204.
[86] Tyler to Jefferson, May 12, 1810, Tyler: Tyler, i, 247; and see next chapter.
[87] Adams: U.S. v, 212-14; and see Morison: Otis, ii, 18-19.
[88] Turreau, then the French Minister at Washington, thus reported to his Government: "To-day not only is the separation of New England openly talked about, but the people of those five States wish for this separation, pronounce it, openly prepare it, will carry it out under British protection"; and he suggests that "perhaps the moment has come for forming a party in favor of France in the Central and Southern States, whenever those of the North, having given themselves a separate government under the support of Great Britain, may threaten the independence of the rest." (Turreau to Champagny, April 20, 1809, as quoted in Adams: U.S. v, 36.)
[89] For account of Jackson's reception in Boston and the effects of it, see Adams: U.S. 215-17, and Morison: Otis, 20-22.
[90] On the other hand, Jefferson, out of his bottomless prejudice against Great Britain, drew venomous abuse of the whole British nation: "What is to restore order and safety on the ocean?" he wrote; "the death of George III? Not at all. He is only stupid;... his ministers ... ephemeral. But his nation is permanent, and it is that which is the tyrant of the ocean. The principle that force is right, is become the principle of the nation itself. They would not permit an honest minister, were accident to bring such an one into power, to relax their system of lawless piracy." (Jefferson to Rodney, Feb. 10, 1810, Works: Ford, xi, 135-36.)
[91] Champagny, Duke de Cadore, to Armstrong, Aug. 5, 1810 (Am. State Papers, For. Rel. iii, 386-87), and Proclamation, Nov. 2, 1810 (ib. 392); and see Adams: U.S. v, 303-04.
[92] Adams: U.S. v, 346.
[93] Marshall to Pickering, Feb. 22, 1811, Pickering MSS. Mass. Hist. Soc.
[94] Annals, 11th Cong. 3d Sess. 525.
Daniel Webster was also emphatically opposed to the admission of new States: "Put in a solemn, decided, and spirited Protest against making new States out of new Territories. Affirm, in direct terms, that New Hampshire has never agreed to favor political connexions of such intimate nature, with any people, out of the limits of the U.S. as they existed at the time of the compact." (Webster to his brother, June 4, 1813, Letters of Daniel Webster: Van Tyne, 37.)
[95] Annals, 11th Cong. 3d Sess. 542.
[96] Ib. 1st and 2d Sess. 579-82.
[97] Annals, 12th Cong. 1st Sess. 601; also see Adams: U.S. v, 189-90.
[98] Adams: U.S. v, 316.
[99] Richardson, i, 499-505; Am. State Papers, For. Rel. iii, 567-70.
[100] Annals, 12th Cong. 1st Sess. 1637. The Federalists who voted for war were: Joseph Kent of Maryland, James Morgan of New Jersey, and William M. Richardson of Massachusetts.
Professor Channing thus states the American grievances: "Inciting the Indians to rebellion, impressing American seamen and making them serve on British war-ships, closing the ports of Europe to American commerce, these were the counts in the indictment against the people and government of Great Britain." (Channing: Jeff. System, 260.) See also ib. 268, and Jefferson's brilliant statement of the causes of the war, Jefferson to Logan, Oct. 3, 1813, Works: Ford, xi, 338-39.
"The United States," says Henry Adams, "had a superfluity of only too good causes for war with Great Britain." (Adams: Life of Albert Gallatin, 445.) Adams emphasizes this: "The United States had the right to make war on England with or without notice, either for her past spoliations, her actual blockades, her Orders in Council other than blockades, her Rule of 1756, her impressments, or her attack on the 'Chesapeake,' not yet redressed,—possibly also for other reasons less notorious." (Adams: U.S. v, 339.) And see Roosevelt, chaps, i and ii.
[101] Annals, 12th Cong. 1st Sess. 1675-82.
[102] Salem Gazette, July 7, 1812, as quoted in Morison: Otis, i, 298.
[103] Story to Williams, Aug. 24, 1812, Story, i, 229.
[104] Pickering to Pennington, July 12, 1812, N.E. Federalism: Adams, 389.
[105] Of course the National courts were attacked: "Attempts ... are made ... to break down the Judiciary of the United States through the newspapers, and mean and miserable insinuations are made to weaken the authority of its judgments." (Story to Williams, Aug. 3, 1813, Story, i, 247.) And again: "Conspirators, and traitors are enabled to carry on their purposes almost without check." (Same to same, May 27, 1813, ib. 244.) Story was lamenting that the National courts had no common-law jurisdiction. Some months earlier he had implored Nathaniel Williams, Representative in Congress from Story's district, to "induce Congress to give the Judicial Courts of the United States power to punish all crimes ... against the Government.... Do not suffer conspiracies to destroy the Union." (Same to same, Oct. 8, 1812, ib. 243.)
Jefferson thought the people were loyal: "When the questions of separation and rebellion shall be nakedly proposed ... the Gores and the Pickerings will find their levees crowded with silk stocking gentry, but no yeomanry." (Jefferson to Gerry, June 11, 1812, Works: Ford, xi, 257.)
[106] Stoddert to McHenry, July 15, 1812, Steiner: Life and Correspondence of James McHenry, 581-83.
[107] "To the Citizens of the United States," in the Spirit of Seventy-Six, July 17, 1812.
[108] Stoddert refers to this person as "Jo Davies." By some this has been thought to refer to Marshall's brother-in-law, "Jo" Daveiss of Kentucky. But the latter was killed in the Battle of Tippecanoe, November 7, 1811.
While the identity of Stoddert's agent cannot be established with certainty, he probably was one John Davis of Salisbury, England, as described in the text. "Jo" was then used for John as much as for Joseph; and Davis was frequently spelled "Davies." A John or "Jo" Davis or Davies, an Englishman, was a very busy person in America during the first decade of the nineteenth century. (See Loshe: Early American Novel, 74-77.) Naturally he would have been against the War of 1812, and he was just the sort of person that an impracticable man like Stoddert would have chosen for such a mission.
[109] Stoddert to McHenry, July 15, 1812, Steiner, 582.
[110] See King, v, 266.
[111] Adams: U.S. v, 375-78.
[112] Smith: An Address to the People of the United States, 42-43.
[113] Marshall to Smith, July 27, 1812, Dreer MSS. "American Lawyers," Pa. Hist. Soc.
[114] Am. State Papers, For. Rel. iii, 603; and see Charming: U.S. iv, 449.
[115] See vol. ii, 243-44, 245-47, of this work.
[116] Marshall to Smith, July 27, 1812, Dreer MSS. "American Lawyers," Pa. Hist. Soc.
A single quotation from the letters of Southern Federalists will show how accurately Marshall interpreted Federalist feeling during the War of 1812: "Heaven grant that ... our own Country may not be found ultimately, a solitary friend of this great Robber of Nations." (Tallmadge to McHenry, May 30, 1813, Steiner, 598.) The war had been in progress more than ten months when these words were written.
[117] Story to Williams, Oct. 8, 1812, Story, i, 243.
[118] Marshall to Monroe, June 25, 1812, Monroe MSS. Lib. Cong.
[119] Marshall, however, was a member of the "Vigilance Committee" of Richmond, and took an important part in its activities. (Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, vii, 230-31.)
[120] Report of the Commissioners appointed to view Certain Rivers within the Commonwealth of Virginia, 5.
[121] A practicable route for travel and transportation between Virginia and the regions across the mountains had been a favorite project of Washington. The Potomac and James River Company, of which Marshall when a young lawyer had become a stockholder (vol. i, 218, of this work), was organized partly in furtherance of this project. The idea had remained active in the minds of public men in Virginia and was, perhaps, the one subject upon which they substantially agreed.
[122] Much of the course selected by Marshall was adopted in the building of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway. In 1869, Collis P. Huntington made a trip of investigation over part of Marshall's route. (Nelson: Address—The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway, 15.)
[123] Report of the Commissioners appointed to view Certain Rivers within the Commonwealth of Virginia, 38-39.
[124] Niles: Weekly Register, ii, 418.
[125] Lowell: Mr. Madison's War: by "A New England Farmer."
A still better illustration of Federalist hostility to the war and the Government is found in a letter of Ezekiel Webster to his brother Daniel: "Let gamblers be made to contribute to the support of this war, which was declared by men of no better principles than themselves." (Ezekiel Webster to Daniel Webster, Oct. 29, 1814, Van Tyne, 53.) Webster here refers to a war tax on playing-cards.
[126] Harper to Lynn, Sept. 25, 1812, Steiner, 584.
[127] See McMaster, iv, 199-200.
[128] Morison: Otis, i, 399.
[129] Pickering to Pennington, July 22, 1812, N.E. Federalism: Adams, 389.
[130] The vote of Pennsylvania, with those cast for Clinton, would have elected Marshall.
[131] Babcock, 157; and see Dewey: Financial History of the United States, 133.
[132] For an excellent statement of the conduct of the Federalists at this time see Morison: Otis, ii, 53-66. "The militia of Massachusetts, seventy thousand in enrolment, well-drilled, and well-equipped, was definitely withdrawn from the service of the United States in September, 1814." (Babcock, 155.) Connecticut did the same thing. (Ib. 156.)
[133] Annals, 13th Cong. 1st Sess. 302.
[134] See McMaster, iv, 213-14.
[135] Annals, 13th Cong. 1st Sess. 302
[136] Am. State Papers, For. Rel. iii, 609-12.
[137] The Republican victory was caused by the violent British partisanship of the Federalist leaders. In spite of the distress the people suffered from the Embargo, they could not, for the moment, tolerate Federalist opposition to their own country. (See Adams: U.S. v, 215.)
[138] Marshall to Pickering, Dec. 11, 1813, Pickering MSS. Mass. Hist Soc.
[139] Morison: Otis, ii, 54-56.
[140] "Curse This Government! I would march at 6 days notice for Washington ... and I would swear upon the altar never to return till Madison was buried under the ruins of the capitol." (Herbert to Webster, April 20, 1813, Van Tyne, 27.)
[141] The Federalists frantically opposed conscription. Daniel Webster, especially, denounced it. "Is this [conscription] ... consistent with the character of a free Government?... No, Sir.... The Constitution is libelled, foully libelled. The people of this country have not established ... such a fabric of despotism....
"Where is it written in the Constitution ... that you may take children from their parents ... & compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it?... Such an abominable doctrine has no foundation in the Constitution."
Conscription, Webster said, was a gambling device to throw the dice for blood; and it was a "horrible lottery." "May God, in his compassion, shield me from ... the enormity of this guilt." (See Webster's speech on the Conscription Bill delivered in the House of Representatives, December 9, 1814, Van Tyne, 56-68; see also Curtis: Life of Daniel Webster, i, 138.)
Webster had foretold what he meant to do: "Of course we shall oppose such usurpation." (Webster to his brother, Oct. 30, 1814, Van Tyne, 54.) Again: "The conscription has not come up—if it does it will cause a storm such as was never witnessed here" [in Washington]. (Same to same, Nov. 29, 1814, ib. 55.)
[142] See Morison: Otis, ii, 78-199. Pickering feared that Cabot's moderation would prevent the Hartford Convention from taking extreme measures against the Government. (See Pickering to Lowell, Nov. 7, 1814, N.E. Federalism: Adams, 406.)
[143] Some sentences are paraphrases of expressions by Jefferson on the same subject. For example: "I hold the right of expatriation to be inherent in every man by the laws of nature, and incapable of being rightfully taken from him even by the united will of every other person in the nation." (Jefferson to Gallatin, June 26, 1806, Works: Ford, x, 273.) Again: "Our particular and separate grievance is only the impressment of our citizens. We must sacrifice the last dollar and drop of blood to rid us of that badge of slavery." (Jefferson to Crawford, Feb. 11, 1815, ib. xi, 450-51.) This letter was written at Monticello the very day that the news of peace reached Washington.
[144] Hay: A Treatise on Expatriation, 24.
[145] Lowell: Review of 'A Treatise on Expatriation': by "A Massachusetts Lawyer."
[146] See vol. iii, chap. i, of this work.
[147] See Review of 'A Treatise on Expatriation,' 6.
[148] Marshall to Pickering, April 11, 1814, Pickering MSS. Mass. Hist. Soc.
[149] See Channing: Jeff. System, 170-71.
[150] M'Ilvaine vs. Coxe's Lessee, 4 Cranch, 209.
[151] Dawson's Lessee vs. Godfrey, 4 Cranch, 321.
[152] Case of the Santissima Trinidad et al., 1 Brockenbrough, 478-87; and see 7 Wheaton, 283.
[153] Plumer to Livermore, March 4, 1804, Plumer MSS. Lib. Cong.
[154] For example, the British "right" of impressment must be formally and plainly acknowledged in the treaty; an Indian dominion was to be established, and the Indian tribes were to be made parties to the settlements; the free navigation of the Mississippi was to be guaranteed to British vessels; the right of Americans to fish in Canadian waters was to be ended. Demands far more extreme were made by the British press and public. (See McMaster, iv, 260-74; and see especially Morison: Otis, ii, 171.)
[155] McMaster, iv, 383-88.