the information and opinions of Mr. Adams, communicated to him at these two preceding periods, he could not have received the information from him.”

It will at once appear to the reader, that the matter of the two letters of Mr. Jefferson is irreconcilable. His more discreet friends at the time deeply regretted and censured the course of Mr. Giles in publishing the extracts of the letter of the 26th of December, which had been the occasion of calling out the other; the two taken together showing conclusively the failure of Mr. Jefferson's memory and mental faculties. They saw no justification for thus violating the sacredness of pri. vate correspondence to gratify his own animosities. Mr. Giles was for a time suspected of not having correctly represented the contents of the letter from which he published extracts. This suspicion was founded upon the fact of his having suppressed the letter of the 25th, which bore testimony to Mr. Adams' “ fidelity to his country," whereas common justice required that both letters, if either, should have been given to the public.

Mr. Giles gave as a reason for not publishing the first of the two letters, that he believed it “to have been so undue and unfortunate an impression, producing so many palpable errors, as that its publication would have done no less injustice to Mr. Jefferson than to the public."

The statement in the Intelligencer" that Mr. Giles and other members of congress wrote to Mr. Adams confidential letters, informing him of the various measures proposed as reinforcements or substitutes for the embargo, and soliciting his opinions on the subject ;” and that “he answered those letters with frankness and in confidence,” Mr. Giles denied, and insinuated that Mr. Adams had “ invented the extraordinary tale to screen himself from imputations he could not otherwise avoid.” Whereupon the editors of the Intelligencer stated that Mr. Adams had read to them from his letter-book copies of his letters in answer to four letters of Mr. Giles, during the session of 1808–9.

Mr. Giles having in one of his communications in the Richmond Enquirer, used the name of T. J. Randolph in a manner deemed by Mr. Randolph “unmerited and uncourteous," the latter addressed a letter to the editors of that paper, justifying himself for allowing the letter of Mr. Jefferson to be used “to remove certain false impressions, entertained by the public, of the estimation in which Mr. Adams was held by Mr. Jefferson;" explaining that part of the letter of the 25th of December, 1825, in which Mr. Jefferson was supposed to have committed errors in consequence of the failure of his mind and memory; and administering some severe rebukes to Mr. Giles.

Mr. Randolph thus explains the apparent errors in the letter alluded lo: “ Mr. Jefferson uses the expression of the war then going on,' and again at the close of the war.' Having myself heard the substance of this letter from his own lips so often, and its having been so long familiar to me, I had not, perhaps, sufficiently adverted to the literal construction which would be applied to these words, by persons to whom the subject would be new. In the first expression, he alludes to the war waged by the belligerents on our commerce, and the war of restrictive measures on our part. In the latter he speaks of the actual war which was about to take place, and which the whole language of his correspondence of that day shows that he believed to be immediate and inevitable. How otherwise is the inconsistency of these expressions with the following to be accounted for? I saw the necessity of abandoning it; and instead of effecting our purpose by this peaceful weapon, we must fight it out.' If the first expressions are to be taken literally, and not figuratively, great, indeed, must have been the wane of mind and of memory, which had become inadequate to detect the striking inconsistencies of so short a letter ; copying, too, from the rough draft, (as he always did,) and revising carefully everything before it passed from his hands. As an additional evidence that those words were used figuratively, and not literally, I quote from a letter of his, dated January 28, 1809, to Mr. Monroe, when the events here spoken of were in their actual transit, the following expression : Our peace and prosperity may be revived.' This taken literally would likewise suppose the actual existence of war; for ' peace' to be revived,' must first have been lost, and its opposite condition, war, in existence; and yet I presume it is not intended to be insinuated that this fatuity existed in 1809."

Mr. Randolph also states that Mr. Giles omitted one important sentence in publishing the extracts from the letter of December 26, 1825 : that sentence was the first, as follows: “I wrote you a letter yesterday of which you will be free to make what use you please. This will contain matter not intended for the public eye.” “Yet,” says Mr. Randolph," this letter was shown immediately after its receipt, (see Mr. Jefferson's letter of January 21, 1826,) and, I am well assured, was openly alluded to in a debate in the senate, the letter being at the very moment in the pocket of the speaker who based his attack on Mr. Adams on the contents of that letter."

Mr. Giles having stated that “Mr. Jefferson never entertained a good opinion of Mr. Adams, perhaps for some time before, and certainly never after his message to congress, in December, 1825,” Mr. Randolph, in reply, refers to the letter before mentioned, of January 21, 1826. It was probably an answer to one from a friend who had informed him

of the use Mr. Giles had made of his letter of December preceding. The following are extracts from it :

“ Dear Sir: Your favor of Jan. 15th, is received, and I am entirely sensible of the kindness of your motives which suggested the caution it recommended; but I believe what I have done, is the only thing I could have done with honor and conscience. Mr. Giles requested me to state a fact which he knew himself, and of which he knew me to be possessed. What use he intended to make of it, I knew not, nor have I a right to inquire, or to indicate any suspicion that he would make an unfair one; that was his concern, not mine; and his character was sufficient to sustain the responsibility for it.

With his personal controversies I have nothing to do. I never took any part in them, or in those of any other person : add to this, that the statement I have given him on the subject of Mr. Adams, is entirely honorable to him, in every sentiment and fact it contains. There is not a word in it which I would wish to recall ; it is one which Mr. Adams himself might willingly quote, did he need to quote any thing. It was simply, that, during the continuance of the embargo, Mr. Adams informed me of a combination, (without naming any one concerned in it,) which had for its object the severance of the union, for a time at least; that Mr. Adams and myself, not being then in the habit of mutual consultation and confidence, I considered it as the stronger proof of the purity of his patriotism, which was able to lift him above all party passions when the safety of his country was endangered ; nor have I kept the honorable fact to myself; during the late canvass particularly, I had more than once occasion to quote it to persons who were expressing opinions respecting him, of which this was a direct corrective. I have never entertained for Mr. Adams any but sentiments of esteem and respect; and if we have not thought alike on political subjects, I yet never doubted the honesty of his opinions; of which the letter in question, if published, will be an additional proof. Still I recognize your friendship in suggesting a review of it."

Doubts having been expressed of the existence of the letters said to have been written to Mr. Adams by Mr. Giles, during the session of 1808–9, they were procured from Mr. Adams' domicile in Massachusetts, and published. In them Mr. Giles speaks of the "purity and disinterestedness” of Mr. Adams—expresses the hope that he would “again appear upon the theater of public life”-and applauds him for his "judicious and independent conduct."

CHAPTER XXXIV.

POLITICS OF 1808. MR. ADAMS AND THE BOSTON FEDERALISTS.CHARGE

OF AN ATTEMPT TO DIVIDE THE UNION.

As might have been expected, the publication of the letter of Mr. Jefferson of the 25th of December, 1825, to Mr. Giles, detailing the disclosures of Adams respecting the designs of the eastern federalists in 1808, and the statement, authorized by Mr. Adams, and published in the National Intelligencer, produced considerable excitement among the leading men of Massachusetts, and, at least for a time, alienated in a measure the affections, and impaired the confidence and esteem of many of the friends of Mr. Adaras in that state.

On the 26th of November, 1828, thirteen citizens of Massachusetts residing in and near Boston, addressed a letter to Mr. Adams, asking from him such a full and precise statement of the facts and evidence relating to this accusation, as might enable them fairly to meet and answer it. Although they did not claim the title of “leaders” of any party in Massachusetts, they said they were associated in politics with the party alluded to; some of them had concurred in all the measures adopted by that party; and all of them warmly approved and supported those measures. They requested Mr. Adams to state, who were the persons, designated as leaders of the party prevailing in Massachusetts, whose object was a dissolution of the union, and the establishment of a separate confederation; and what was the evidence.

These citizens say: “A charge of this nature, coming as it does from the first magistrate of the nation, acquires an importance which we can not affect to disregard; and it is one which we ought not to leave unanswered. We are therefore constrained, by a regard to our deceased friends, and to our posterity, as well as by a sense of what is due to our own honor, most solemnly to declare, that we have never known nor suspected that the party which prevailed in Massachusetts in the year 1808, or any other party in this state, ever entertained the design to produce a dissolution of the union, or the establishment of a separate confederation. It is impossible for us in any other manner to refute, or even to answer this charge, until we see it fully and particularly stated, and know the evidence by which it is to be maintained.”

The letter was signed by H. G. Otis, Israel Thorndike, T. H. Perkins, William Prescott, Daniel Sargent, John Lowell, Wm. Sullivan, Charles Jackson, Warren Dutton, Benj. Pickman, Henry Cabot, C. C. Parsons, and Franklin Dexter. The last three were the sons and representatives of George Cabot, Theophilus Parsons, and Samuel Dexter, deceased.

The reply of Mr. Adams is of such length as to forbid its insertion entire. He said he could not recognize the persous who addressed him as the representatives of the party alluded to; and he undertook to show the impropriety of answering their interrogatories. He does, however, detail some of the facts upon which he founds the charge of a design to separate from the union. He says:

“ The simple fact of which I apprised Mr. Jefferson was, that, in the summer of 1807, about the time of what was sometimes called the affair of the Leopard and the Chesapeake, I had seen a letter from the governor of Nova Scotia to a person in Massachusetts, affirming that the British government had certain information of a plan by that of France, to conquer the British possessions, and to effect a revolution in the United States, by means of a war between them and Great Britain. · As the United States and Great Britain were in 1807 at peace, a correspondence with the governor of Nova Scotia, held by any citizen of the United States, imported no violation of law; nor could the correspondent be responsible for any thing which the governor might write. But my inferences from this fact were, that there existed between the British Government and the party in Massachusetts opposed to Mr. Jefferson, a channel of communication through the governor of Nova Scotia, which he was exercising to inflame their hatred against France, and their jealousies against their own government. The letter was not to any leader of the federal party; but I had no doubt it had been shown to some of them, as it had been to me, without injunction of secrecy; and, as I supposed, with a view to convince me that this conspiracy between Napoleon and Mr. Jefferson really existed. How that channel of communication might be further used, was matter of conjecture; for the mission of John Henry was nine months after my interview with Mr. Jefferson, and precisely at the time I was writing to my friends in congress the letters urging the substitution of the non-intercourse for the embargo. Of Mr. Henry's mission I knew nothing until it was disclosed by himself in 1812.

“It was in these letters of 1808 and 1809, that I mentioned the design of certain leaders of the federal party to effect a dissolution of the union, and the establishment of a northern confederacy. This design had been formed in the winter of 1803 and 4, immediately after, and as a consequence of the acquisition of Louisiana. Its justifying causes to those who entertained it were, that the annexation of Louisiana to the union transcended the constitutional powers of the government

а