Volume IV Part 5 (1/2)

”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 pa.s.sed 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 Was.h.i.+ngton, 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, p.r.o.nounce 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. Ma.s.s. 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 Hamps.h.i.+re 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 Ma.s.sachusetts.

Professor Channing thus states the American grievances: ”Inciting the Indians to rebellion, impressing American seamen and making them serve on British war-s.h.i.+ps, 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.