[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.