have never been contested, that what Mr. Jefferson chose to call "transactions against the excise law;" and to represent as having been "nothing more than riotous," was really an avowed and armed opposition to the executive, legislative, and judicial authority of the United States. That it had existed for more than three years, and had been persevered in, in spite of the tender consideration of the legislature, and the patriotic forbearance of the executive; and had advanced from an organized disobedience of the law, to a military attack upon its officers. That one detachment of the insurgents had seized and violated the public mail, on its route to the seat of government; that another had waylaid and shot at a civil officer in the execution of his duty; that a third had laid siege to the house of the inspector, and forced a detachment of the United States' troops to surrender at discretion; that from intimidating particular agents of government, they had proceeded to expel from their homes and banish from their country, bodies of peaceable, orderly citizens; that they had rejected all terms of conciliation, and openly proclaimed their determination to control the national legislature by military force.

It is impossible to suppose that Mr. Jefferson could have been ignorant of the outrages of these deluded people, and of their infamous leaders; for, independently of their alarming notoriety, they took place in the interval between December, 1791, and September, 1794, during all but nine months of which term he was at the head of Gen. Washington's cabinet. Nor could he be ignorant, that of this strong and turbulent district, thus obstinate in resistance, and determined on violence, the military population had been estimated at 16,000 men, and the fighting force ready for the field, at 7,000; a force about three times as great as that with which a feeble but ardent adventurer, gained the victory of Preston Pans; about twice the number of the army with which he won the action at Falkirk, and fought the desperate battle of Cullodon; after having taken Edinburgh, Glasgow, Carlisle, and Manchester; and, penetrating from the remotest parts of Scotland, to within a hundred miles of London, had thrown an old and powerful, kingdom into consternation.*

Mr. Jefferson must have known likewise, that the governor of Pennsylvania had formally announced to the president, the inadequacy of the well-affected militia of that state, to subdue this revolt; that the condition attached to the act, empowering the government to call forth the militia of the states to quell insurrections, had been complied with, and that it was of a nature which, while it proved the existence of the insurrection, proved also that it was the duty of the executive to suppress it. He admits too, that "there was indeed a meeting to consult about a separation." Yet with all these treasonable acts and designs-this array of force and violence of

* Smollet, Book II. Chap. 8.

spirit, in opposition to a law which he allows was constitutional, and to a government in the first years of its establishment, he has the injustice to heap this ridicule and execration on the lawful, moderate, and beneficial conduct of his own and his country's friend.

He goes on to assert, that although the excise law was admitted by the constitution, it was "an infernal law," discovering his disguised but real disrespect for that instrument; and to affirm that the culpable interference of the executive with the "transactions and riots" in Western Pennsylvania would lead to a dissolution of the Union. He then adds a piece of information, which besides its striking conformity with truth, reflects an interesting light on his own history. He declares notwithstanding the well known facts that some of the leaders of the insurrection had submitted, that others had been seized, and that one, the most obnoxious to punishment, had effected his escape into the territories of Spain, and that the authority of the law had been completely restored throughout the disaffected country-notwithstanding these stubborn facts-he assures Mr. Madison that from what he could learn, "although the western people let the militia army pass quietly, they were objects of their laughter not of their fear: and could have been cut off by one thousand men in a thousand places in the Alleghany mountains." Now who ever believes this may very reasonably infer that, when he as governor of Virginia, allowed Arnold with a force amounting to less than one thousand men* to take possession of the capital of that state-at that time the strongest, as it was the soundest and most warlike in the Union-and to destroy or carry off the public stores in its neighbourhood, it was laughter not fear, which prevented Mr. Jefferson from cutting him off, and which permitted that traitor with a rope about his neck, after calling in his undisturbed detachments, to retire as he had advanced, by a march of twenty-five miles, in safety to his ships. And upon the same principle it may be supposed, when Tarleton with a few dragoons penetrated 80 miles higher up the country, and dislodged Mr. Jefferson from Monticello, that instead of escaping in a paroxysm of fright, as was generally believed, he really went off in a fit of laughter!"

The idea of censuring the employment of force because it was in danger of being cut off by the insurgents, of reprobating the expedition as improper, and ridiculing it as insufficient, must by its felicity engage your attention, while it furnishes one of the many examples left by Mr. Jefferson, of the weakness of his reason when opposed by his passions. It is placed in bolder relief by his assertion that the confidence of the insurgents and their detestation of the law and of the government had all been increased by this unrighteous act of Gen. Washington; and also by the fact that at the

* Marshall, Vol. IV. p. 389.

very time he was writing this letter to Mr. Madison, he knew that Gen. Morgan with a detachment of the militia force was safely encamped in the midst of the insurgents, and keeping them in awe and order.*

It is worthy of remark too, in reference to this part of his letter, that the very man who was the acknowledged father of the perpetual embargo law, and the chief magistrate who enforced its provisions, by which our revenue from customs was completely annihilated is the one who denounced the excise law as "an infernal one," and protested that the power of enacting it granted by the constitution was a vice in that charter.

His letter proceeds-"I expected to have seen some justification of arming one part of society against another-of declaring a civil war the moment before the meeting of that body which has the sole right of declaring war." This passage it is impossible to consider without wonder. Here is a man of great reputation for talents and learning, of ripe experience, of long acquaintance with state affairs, who had been governor of Virginia at a time when that station was supposed to require public spirit and abilities, had been member of the Revolutionary Congress, envoy to France, and chief of a Cabinet over which Washington presided, and of which Hamilton was a member, gravely writing nonsense, which would disgrace the quibble of a county court attorney. He not only calls the employment of military force, in obedience to an act of congress, and to the president's oath of office, for the purpose of executing a constitutional law and preventing the dissolution of the Union-"the arming of one part of society against another," but accuses the president of having declared a civil war, and of having thereby illegally forestalled congress, which had alone the right of making that declaration.

In the first place it may be asked who ever heard of such a thing before as the declaration of a civil war? War has hitherto been declared by one sovereignty against another, by independent powers. In our first war with Great Britain there was no declaration of war on either side. In our second, there was a declaration on both sides because in the first case the war was a civil one, a contest between portions of the same sovereignty; and in the second the parties were two separate and independent nations. In short, a declaration of war has always been understood to be an appeal to the great family of nations, in justification of a resort to the trial of arms, by one of its members, against another. It fol

[* Mr. Tucker says (Vol. I. p. 487,) "the ease with which this open resistance to the laws was quelled, afforded matter of triumph and congratulation to the friends of the administration, for the prudence and humanity of their course, and of censure on the part of the opposition for the vain parade and unnecessary expense of a force so disproportionate to the occasion." Thus it would seem that Mr. Jefferson differed from all parties in deeming the forces of the government as fit only to be an object of laughter to the insurgents.]

lows as a corollary from this proposition that had war been declared against the insurgents, it would ipso facto, have removed all cause of complaint against them. For if they were proper objects of a declaration of war by our government, they were independent of the United States, and the excise law could have been no more binding on them than on the people of France or England.

But overlooking for a moment this absurdity, and admitting that the President had thus violated the exclusive right of the Legislature, let us see how Congress, if not forestalled, would have managed a declaration of war in this case. Was Mr. Madison the leading delegate from Virginia and the most accomplished debater in the House of Representatives, to have risen in his place, gravely announced to the delegations of the other states that the Northwestern district of Virginia was in a state of open insurrection, and solemnly required them to declare war against it? Was his colleague, who represented the disturbed district, to second or oppose this motion? If the first, what became of the right of instruction, the reality of representation; if the second, would not war have been to be declared against the honourable gentleman himself? Were the members from Pennsylvania to insist that the delegations from Massachusetts, New York and Carolina, should declare war against their state; and were the Representatives from Maryland to demand of Congress a similar favour? Is it not lamentable that such stuff as this should have been addressed by the Sage of Monticello to the Sage of Montpellier, for the purpose of effacing from the minds of the American people a just sense of the wisdom and patriotism of Washington and Hamilton; and is it not yet more so, that it should have had that effect?

I had hoped this letter would contain all I have to say in reference to Mr. Jefferson's statements and cavils, respecting the character of the Western insurrection and the policy of its suppression. But I find the subject, and I fear you will, as toilsome and extensive as the broad chain of mountains along which the disturbance took place. The conclusion of one branch of it is only the beginning of another, and while expecting rest, we are called on for further labour. However, as we may be said to have overpassed the crest of the principal ridge, we may reasonably expect to clear the whole range in the next letter.

LETTER III.

IF, as Mr. Jefferson seems to have required, Gen. Washington, after Congress had passed a law empowering him to employ the military force of the country, prescribing the condition and defining the emergency which were to render its employment properif after this condition and this emergency had been legally ascertained to have arisen, he had declined resorting to the means of restoring the suspended action of the laws, and turning round upon Congress had said he could not think of thus delaring war when they alone had the power of doing it, it is not easy to determine whether he would have been more liable to ridicule or punishment, more likely to provoke contempt or impeachment: either of which would have rendered less expedient the course of duplicity and injustice that with respect to him, Mr. Jefferson had then entered upon, and which, as you will perceive, with various windings and shiftings he pursued to the end of his life.

The broad insinuation which succeeds-that in his speech just delivered to Congress, he had uttered falsehoods-"the fables in the speech," though more indecent is not more unjust than the observations which have been already noticed. Taken in connexion with them, it fully substantiates the complaint of Gen. Washington, "that every act of his adminstration had been tortured, and the grossest and most invidious misrepresentations of them made in such exaggerated and indecent terms, as could scarcely be applied to a Nero."

To this complaint, the effusion of a strong and heroic mind, tortured by the unseen stings of calumny and ingratitude, Mr. Jefferson saw fit to make no reply. Gen. Washington, he discovered, though aware of the injuries aimed at him, was far from suspecting the hand by which they were dealt, and though warned by his faithful friend Gen. Lee, refused to admit a suspicion which might be unfounded, and would in that case be ungenerous. He saw, that instead of withdrawing his confidence he had actually renewed its expression, and in proof of it had revealed the substance of the information which had been conveyed to him-that like Alexander, he showed the accusation while he swallowed the draught. In this mood of magnanimity, so congenial to a soul of dignity and honour, and so likely to extinguish every rising suspicion, he sagaciously determined to leave him; forbearing to disturb a temper of mind, which, by opposing unguarded generosity to collected guile, was so favourable to the success of his machinations, or to commit himself, in reference to the unheeded warning of Gen. Lee, by any