as the opinion that this statement was true? If we could doubt, our doubts are removed by the declaration that it would produce "discussions in the United States which may afford a triumph to the party of good republicans, the friends of France;" and by the declaration of Mr. Adet.

The interpolated sentence then does not vary the import of the letter, nor change the impression it made in France, and must make on the mind of the reader.

Were it otherwise, Mr. Jefferson should have directed his reproaches towards himself for the countenance his silent acquiescence gave to the opinion that the whole letter was genuine-not towards the great body of his countrymen who yielded implicit faith to this imposing testimony.

Could such a letter from such a personage be entirely overlooked by the biographer of Washington? Having assumed the task of delineating the character, and detailing the actions and opinions of the great soldier and statesman of America, an essential part of which was to be looked for in the difficulties and the opposition he encountered and overcame, could a transaction which contains such strong intrinsic evidence of those difficulties and that opposition be passed over in total silence? These questions were revolved in his mind while engaged in this part of the work; and the result to which his judgment conducted him was a conviction that, though he might forbear to make those strictures on the letter which the relative situation of the writer and the individual so seriously criminated seemed to invite, his duty required him to notice it so far as it indicated the violence of party spirit at the time, the extreme to which it was carried, the dangers to which it led, and the difficulties which the wise and firm mind of Washington was doomed to encounter.

The remarks of the French editor were quoted because they have a strong tendency, especially when connected with subsequent events, to explain the motives by which the Directory was actuated in its aggressions on the United States, and to justify the policy of the Washington administration. These remarks did not grow out of the interpolated sentence, nor were they confined to it. They apply to the whole letter. That sentence is not cited, nor is any particular allusion made to it, in the note which is charged with "exaggerating, recording, and sanctioning the forgery." How then could Mr. Jefferson deliberately make the charge?

In the same letter he endeavours to convey the opinion that the harsh and injurious strictures made to Mazzei were not intended for General Washington, and that this distinguished individual never applied them to himself.

The evidence in support of this proposition is not derived from the person whose opinion Mr. Jefferson undertakes to state. The writer says, "I do affirm that there never passed a word, written or verbal, directly or indirectly, between General Wash-. ington and myself on the subject of that letter." If his observations on this point are to be considered as reasoning rather than assertion, they may be freely examined. At the head of the list of those composing the "Anglican, monarchical, aristocratical party," the letter places "the executive." 'Against us are the executive, the judiciary, two out of three branches of the legislature, all the officers of government, all who want to be officers," &c.

"

The letter speaks in the present tense, and the term "executive" can describe only the then actual President. Consequently, it designates General Washington as expressly as if he had been named.

If this positive evidence could be strengthened by auxiliary proof, it is furnished by

⚫Vol. iv. p. 401.

the same sentence. "All officers of government, all who want to be officers," are included in the enumeration of those composing the party opposed to "the main body of citizens who remained true to republican principles."

By whom were these Anglican, monarchical, and aristocratical officers selected? By General Washington. To him alone were they indebted for their appointments. To whom did those "who wanted to be officers" look for the gratification of their wishes? To the same person. Would every individual in search of office enlist himself in a party so odious to "the main body of our citizens," and "the whole landed interest," if he did not think the road leading directly to that which he sought?

As if willing to keep out of view what can not be explained away, Mr. Jefferson turns our attention to other passages supposed to be more equivocal. He insists* that the letter saying "that two out of the three branches of the legislature were against us, was an obvious exception of him; it being well known that the majorities in the two branches of the senate and representatives were the very instruments which carried, in opposition to the old and real republicans, the measures which were the subjects of condemnation in this letter."

But did these measures obtain the force of laws by the mere act of the senate and house of representatives? Did not the President assent to them? If he did, how could the expression "two out of three branches of the legislature" be an obvious exception of him? But the letter speaks of the then existing legislature. "Against us are two out of three branches of the legislature." The fact is notorious that the house of representatives was, at the date of the letter, opposed to the administration. Mr. Jefferson himself gives us this information. In September, 1795,† he terms the effort to carry the treaty with Great Britain into effect, "an attempt of a party who find they have lost their majority in one branch of the legislature to make a law by the aid of the other branch and the executive under colour of a treaty," &c. Mr. Jefferson then has deprived himself of this explanation. He could not have intended to exclude the President by the phrase "two out of three branches of the legislature."

The same letter contains also the following expression, "Mr. Pickering quotes the passage in the letter of the men who were Samsons in the field and Solomons in the council, but who had their heads shorn by the harlot England.” "Now this expression also was perfectly understood by General Washington. He knew that I meant it for the Cincinnati generally; and that from what had passed between us at the commencement of that institution, I could not mean to include him."

In the letter to Mazzei these words obviously designate distinguished individuals, not whole classes of men, many of whom were unknown. "It would give you a fever were I to name to you the apostates who have gone over to these heresies; men who were Samsons in the field, and Solomons in the council, but who have had their heads shorn by the harlot England."

In addition to this apparent allusion to individuals, it may be asked, could Mr. Jefferson mean to say that every officer engaged in the war of our revolution (for almost every one of them was a member of the Cincinnati) was an apostate who had gone over to the heresies he was describing? Could he mean to say that all those who had passed their prime of manhood in the field fighting the battles of American independence, and of republicanism against England, had become apostates from the cause to which their lives had been devoted, and the vile instruments of the power it was their pride and boast to have overthrown? That they were in a body following their anVol. iv. p. 404.

⚫ Vol. iv. p. 405.

† Vol. iii. p. 316.

cient chief in a course directly opposite to that glorious career by which they had elevated their country to its high rank among the nations of the earth?

There is other evidence that he could not have intended to fix this foul stigma on the officers of the revolution. They were far from being united in support of the administration. In Virginia certainly, a large number, perhaps a majority of the Cincinnati were opposed to it. Two of them were in congress at the time, and were among the most zealous supporters of Mr. Jefferson, and of that system of measures which he termed republican. The very letter under discussion contains an assertion incompatible with this construction of these terms. "The whole landed interest is republican." At the date of this letter there were few if any members of the Cincinnati in the south who were not also land holders. In the southern region generally, the army of our revolution was officered by land holders and their sons.

But if the writer of the letter could have intended to designate the members of the Cincinnati as "Samsons in the field," could he also have alluded to them as "Solomons in council?" Were the brave and hardy men who passed their youth, not in college, not in study, but under arms, suddenly converted, all of them, into "Solomons in council?" That some of them were entitled to this appellation is acknowledged with pride and pleasure, but as a class, it could not fit them. It is difficult to treat the proposition seriously.

It is impossible for the intelligent reader to concur with Mr. Jefferson in the conclusion he draws from these premises, when he says, "General Washington then understanding perfectly what and whom I meant to designate in both phrases, and that they could not have any application or view to himself, could find in neither any cause of offence to himself."

But were it otherwise, had Mr. Jefferson been as successful in the opinion of others as he would seem to be in his own, in proving that the phrases on which he reasons do not comprehend General Washington, what would be gained? Would it follow that the word "executive" did not mean the President, or that it excluded General Washington who was President when the letter was written, and had been President during the whole time while the laws were enacted, and the measures carried into execution, which he so harshly criminates? If the word "executive" must mean him, does it palliate the injury to be assured that the writer did not class him among "Samsons in the field" or "Solomons in council?"

It is matter of some surprise to find in a letter written so late as June, 1824, on the political paragraph contained in the letter to Mazzei, the following averment. "In this information there was not one word which would not then have been or would not now be approved by every republican in the United States, looking back to those times."

In June, 1824, then, twenty-eight years after this extraordinary letter was written, and twenty-three years after its principal object had ceased to thwart the policy, or be an obstacle to the ambition of any man, Mr. Jefferson could deliberately, and on full consideration permit himself to make this assertion, and thus in effect to repeat the charge that General Washington belonged to an "Anglican, monarchical, and aristocratical party whose avowed object was to draw over us the substance as they had already done the forms of the British government,”—and this too while the venerated object of the charge was the chief magistrate of this great republic, acting under the obligation of a solemn oath "faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States, and to the best of his ability to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution!!! Vol. iv. p. 402.

• Colonels Cabell and Parker.

t Vol. iv. p. 406.

This unpleasant subject is dismissed. If the grave be a sanctuary entitled to respect, many of the intelligent and estimable friends of Mr. Jefferson may perhaps regret that he neither respected it himself, nor recollected that it is a sanctuary from which por soned arrows ought never to be shot at the dead or the living.

THE END.

Preliminary and eventual articles agreed upon between the United States and

General Washington resigns his commission and retires to Mount Vernon,
General Washington devotes his time to rural pursuits,-to the duties of friend-

58

ship, and to institutions of public utility,

61

Resolves of congress and of the legislature of Virginia for erecting statues to his
honour,

62

He recommends improvement in inland navigation of the great rivers in Virginia,
Declines accepting a donation made him by his native state,

67

70

Establishment of the Society of the Cincinnati,

72

General Washington is appointed president of the society,

74

The causes which led to a change of government of the United States,

75

Circular letter of General Washington to the governors of the several states,

80

Differences between Great Britain and the United States,

94

Mr. Adams appointed minister to Great Britain,

96

Discontents excited by the commercial regulations of Great Britain,

99

Rise of parties in the United States,

102

The convention at Annapolis,

Virginia appoints deputies to a convention in Philadelphia,

General Washington chosen one of them,