Monroe & Constitutional Rights 1787-88
Monroe’s Speech in Virginia on 10 June 1788
Monroe & New Government 1788-90
Senator Monroe in 1790-94
In April 1787 the voters in Fredericksburg elected James Monroe
to the Virginia House of Delegates.
In May he was disappointed that he was not chosen as a delegate to the
Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia where his friend James Madison
would have a major role in speaking and taking notes as the secretary.
Monroe wrote this letter to Madison on May 23:
My leisure furnishes me with the opportunity,
but the country around does not with materials
to form a letter worthy your attention.
The scale of my observations is a narrow one &
confined entirely within my room: & the subjects
of my researches in which I am but seeking to
make some proficiency, as I should only detail
to you the sentiments of others, give me
nothing to supply the deficiency.
We all look with great anxiety to the
result of the Convention at Philadelphia.
Indeed it seems to be the sole point
on which all future movements will turn.
If it succeeds wisely & of course happily,
the wishes of all good men will be gratified.
The arrangements must be wise, and every way well
concerted for them to force their way through the States.
The experience of the federal government has
taught Congress, or rather those who have
composed it, the sentiments of the several States
upon the subject of the powers it should possess.
Yet it may, by some be thought doubtful, whether it has
not taught them that it will be almost impossible to adopt
any plan that will have the concurrence of all the states;
or if it has, that will be of any duration afterwards.
It is however the business of every passenger
to do what he thinks right & to hope that
others will act on the same principle.
I have to acknowledge your kind attention to my
affairs in New York & particularly for the dispatch
of my furniture & the advance I find you have
been under the necessity of making for me.
I am sorry to find it probable that my share of Mordecai’s
effects (when obtained) will not even reimburse this sum.
At what time I shall be able to make up the deficiency
as well as remit the amount due for the completion
of our contract with Taylor I cannot precisely say.
I have hopes of effecting it soon,
but can give no assurance with certainty.1
On 10 June 1787 during the Constitutional Convention James Madison,
who became known as the father of the Constitution,
wrote this short letter to James Monroe:
I have been discouraged from answering
sooner your favor of May 23 by the bar which
opposes such communications as I should incline
not less to make than you must do to receive.
One of the earliest rules established by the
Convention restrained the members from any
disclosure whatever of its proceedings, a restraint
which will not probably be removed for some time.
I think the rule was a prudent one, not only
as it will effectually secure the requisite freedom
of discussion, but as it will save both the
Convention and the Community from a thousand
erroneous and perhaps mischievous reports.
I feel notwithstanding great mortification in
the disappointment it obliges me to throw
on the curiosity of my friends.
The Convention is now as full as we expect it to be
unless a report should be true that Rhode Island
has it in contemplation to make one of the party.
If her deputies should bring with them the complexion
of the State, their company will not add much to
our pleasure, or to the progress of the business.
Eleven States are on the floor.
All the deputies from Virginia remain except Mr. Wythe
who was called away some days ago by information from
Williamsburg concerning the increase of his lady’s ill health.
I had a letter by the last packet from Mr. Short,
but not any from Mr. Jefferson.
The latter had set out on his tour to the South of France.2
On 27 July 1787 Monroe wrote from Fredericksburg to Thomas Jefferson in France:
I can scarcely venture on an apology for my silence for
some time past but hope notwithstanding to be forgiven.
Since I left New York, I have been employed in the
discharge of duties entirely new to me, oftentimes
embarrassing and of course highly interesting, but which
have sought the accomplishment of only a few objects.
In October last I was admitted to the bar
of the courts of appeal and chancery and
the April following of the general court.
In the course of the winter I moved my
family to this town, in which I have taken
my residence with a view to my profession.
These pursuits though confined have not
been attended with the less difficulty.
A considerable part of my property has
consisted in debts, and to command it or
any part of it, has been no easy matter.
Indeed in this respect I have failed almost altogether.
Several considerations have induced me to prefer
this place for the present, the principal of which is
the command of a house and other accommodations
(the property of Mr. Jones) upon my own terms.
My standing at the bar has been so short that I cannot
judge of it in that respect, though am inclined to believe it,
not an ineligible position for one of that profession.
But I consider my residence here as temporary,
merely to serve the purpose of the time, and as looking
forward to an establishment somewhere on this side of
the mountains and as convenient as possible to Monticello.
Mr. Jones is in ill health and begins to be satisfied his
existence depends in a great degree upon a similar position.
I have earnestly advised him to move up
and at least make the experiment.
Mrs. Monroe has added a daughter to our society
who, though noisy, contributes greatly to its amusement.
She is very sensibly impressed with your kind attention
to her and wishes an opportunity of showing
how highly she respects and esteems you.
With the political world I have had
little to do since I left Congress.
My anxiety however for the general welfare
has not been diminished.
The affairs of the federal government are,
I believe, in the utmost confusion; the convention
is an expedient that will produce a decisive effect.
It will either recover us from our present embarrassments
or complete our ruin; for I do suspect that if what they
recommend should be rejected this would be the case.
But I trust that the presence of General Washington
will have great weight in the body itself, so as to
overawe and keep under the demon of party, and that the
signature of his name to whatever act shall be the result of
their deliberations will secure its passage through the union.
The county in which I reside
have placed me in the Legislature.
I have been mortified however to accept this
favor from them, at the expense of Mr. Page.
I supposed it might be serviceable
to me in the line of my profession.
My services have been abroad, and the
establishment others have gained at the bar
in the meantime requires every effort in my power
to repair the disadvantage it has subjected me to.
The governor, I have reason to believe,
is unfriendly to me and has shown
(If I am well informed) a disposition to thwart me.
Madison, upon whose friendship I have calculated, whose
views I have favored, and with whom I have held the most
confidential correspondence since you left the continent,
is in strict league with him and has, I have reason to
believe, concurred in arrangements unfavorable to me;
a suspicion, supported by some strong circumstances,
that this is the case, has given me great uneasiness.
However in this I may be disappointed,
and I wish it may be so.
I shall I think be strongly impressed in favor of and
inclined to vote for whatever they will recommend.
I have heard from Beckley though not from himself
(who accompanied the Governor up, in expectation of
being appointed clerk) they had agreed on giving the
United States a negative upon the laws of the
several States, if it can be done consistently
with the constitutions of the several States.
Indeed it might be well to revise them all
and incorporate the federal constitution in each.
This I should think proper.
It will if the body is well organized, be the best
way of introducing uniformity in their proceedings
that can be devised, of a negative kind,
or by a power to operate indirectly.
But a few months will give us
the result be it what it may.
You mentioned in your last the injury
you had sustained in your wrist.
How did it happen?
I hope you found your trip to the south of advantage.
Your Daughters I hope are well.
Nothing be assured will give me more
pleasure than to hear from you frequently.
If I can be of service in your private affairs in any line,
or with respect to Peter Carr I beg of you to command me.
It will always be convenient for me to attend to anything of
that kind, either in person or by a suitable messenger.3
Monroe had learned that the United States was going to be able
to negate the laws of the states, and he questioned that.
Virginia’s Governor Edmund Randolph and James Mason refused to sign
the Constitution that was approved by the Convention on September 17.
Monroe from the capital at Richmond on December 6 wrote this letter to James Madison:
I have had hopes of being able to give you
something from the proceedings of the Assembly of
an interesting nature which might also be agreeable.
But perhaps your wishes in this respect
may not even yet be gratified.
The resolutions respecting the Constitution
you have long since received.
In those you find no provision for the pay
or privileges of the members of the Convention.
These especially the former were thought the subject
matter for an act & were separated from them.
A few days since resolutions were brought in by Mr. Hopkins
& supported by Messrs. Henry & Mason for this purpose &
providing funds for defraying the expense of deputies to
attend other convention or Conventions of the States,
if this Convention should, think the measure expedient,
which were adopted by the house by a majority of about 15.
The bill is not yet brought in.
The British debt business has also been
another subject of curious management.
Resolutions of absolute repeal passed
the committee first by a great majority.
Without any apparent necessity Messrs. Mason & Nicholas
who advocated them agreed to a clause of suspension
until the other states should pass similar laws of repeal.
When the bill was under discussion yesterday Philip Nicholas
who had been most active & zealous in the business
changed his former ground in every instance and acceded
to the proposition of Mr. Henry which suspended
its effect until Great Britain shall have complied.
Owning himself convinced by the arguments that
had been used, this Gentlemen appears to have
abandoned the prospect of installments which
he brought forward early in the session.
That of district or circuit courts seems also
to be despaired of by those who are desirous
of amending this branch of our system.
A bill of Mr. Henry’s for prohibiting the importation of
foreign distilled spirits & other purposes, is among the
orders of the day & will most probably be thrown out.
It appears difficult to organize the affairs of this & perhaps
of any one State in a tolerable manner & it is doubtful,
if it were done whether it could be executed or whether
the people would not have it repealed the next Assembly.
The court of charity breaks up tomorrow.
The chancellor is yet present but in a low state of health.
I doubt whether I shall stay until the end of the session;
Mrs. M. & her sister are with me.
What is new with you?
I think the cloud which has hung over us for some
time past is not yet dispelled or likely soon to be.
Sincerely I am, dear Sir, your friend & servant
Jas. Monroe
Since the above, the house went in committee
on a bill for amending the county court law.
It terminated in 2 resolutions:
1. that the administration of justice should be
made more equal & expeditious
2. that under executions property sold so low as to
require some legislative provision for preventing it.
Afterwards in the house a proposition for establishing district
courts was agreed to; the alternative of extending the term
of the general court was rejected by a great majority.
The plan of installment will be brought forward,
and that of altering the execution law so as to
prevent property being sold but for ¾ its value.
The former is the favorite of Mr. Philip Nicholas
the latter of Mr. Henry.
It is not improbable but that the district bill may fail
if incumbered with either, could either get a decided
majority in preference to the other, yet it is possible that
their division upon this point may lessen the weight of
opposition to the district bill & promote its adoption.4
In May 1788 James Monroe was elected a delegate to Virginia’s convention
to ratify the new United States Constitution.
The major speakers were the Federalists James Madison and Edmund Randolph
for ratification and the Anti-Federalists Patrick Henry and George Mason against.
James Monroe also criticized the document, especially its lack of a bill of rights,
and
in his long speech on June 10 he said,
It is not without the greatest reluctance that
I presume to make any observations on the
present subject, for it is of sufficient importance
to awe & dismay a mind less diffident than my own.
It is of importance; not only as it involves in it the principles
of our government, a subject of the highest concern to
mankind, but as it applies to the present circumstances of
the confederacy, (so many States having adopted it & others
sit) which we find torn & rended in every quarter by the
opposite parties—under this consideration I should yield to
my own wishes, be silent, & suffer the torrent to pass by
me, if having been employed by my country in the practical
experiment of the present government, & of course in some
degree acquainted with its defects, I did not feel it in some
measure a duty to express my sentiments of these defects
and of the merits or demerits of that which is now proposed
to be substituted in its place I trust therefore as it is with
reluctance that I shall make any observations on the subject
& shall never presume to interfere with those aged &
illustrious characters which it hath pleased our country men
to place here upon the present occasion, that I shall be
heard patiently in any observations I shall make.
It were hard upon these States if the revolution were
not made a happy event to them, & in Those arguments
Sir are to be drawn from the present circumstances of
the confederacy, so far as considerations of expedience
are to be deduced from them, will I conceive
be improperly argued in the present stage.
They should be taken up apart from the merits
of the government, which is now before us,
& at the close of this discussion.
I mean either with respect to the defects of the old
government, and the superiority or inferiority of this to it.
With respect to the manner in which it has been received
by the States that have already been convened on it,
& the probability of losing this & even of disunion
unless we adopt it, or any considerations of expedience.
They should be taken up apart from the merits of this
government &c. with respect to as to the defects of the
present government, I take it to be a subject so thoroughly
paced & well known from the many satisfactory reasons
urged by Congress & the elaborate discussions that have
been made here & elsewhere on it, that it is unnecessary
to go into the subject, further than to mention these
defects—and even a recital of these appears unnecessary
unless they shall be questioned in the course of the debate.
I shall therefore proceed immediately a view of
the present plan & in the manner proposed.
In contemplating this subject a division naturally strikes
me which does not appear to have occurred to others
1st as to the organization of the government
2d as to its powers.
This distinction applies to all its branches—
the Legislative, Executive & Judiciary.
The former or organization is the external form
& modification of it.
The latter, or its powers, if I may use a metaphorical
expression, is the soul by which it is animated.
We should therefore contemplate it
as to its merits in these views.
Let us examine it as to its general form first,
or the great outlines of the government then
as to the form of each branch.
I am perfectly satisfied of the propriety of a division
of the government & a distribution of its powers into
three branches, Legislative, Executive & Judiciary.
This has been long established as a fundamental maxim
with respect to one State or of a government erected over
one people only—but it has been particularly dilated on
and exemplified by Montesquieu & Locke.
The only question which arises in the present case is,
whether such a division or distribution of power is suited
to a confederacy of states, and this is a new question
which no nations have practiced on or writers examined.
The field is of course unexplored.
They part with power or commit it to the
general government for the common good.
We will suppose the power delegated the proper measure,
the real power which it should exercise for the benefit of
the States, and of course that which they retain
what they should retain for their particular interests.
Will this power then be better exercised thus
distributed than if in the hands of one body?
With respect to the exercise of the power given to the late
Congress by that body, I must confess that I am astonished
that it ever conducted the war, (organized as it was)
to a fortunate close—each State drawing directions,
accommodating its measures to a state policy, it is a matter
of surprise to me that it ever moved on—superior talents
have perhaps had less weight there than elsewhere.
The delegates of States when they had points to carry,
lament that great talents are opposed to them, that
thereby they are so much harassed & embarrassed,
but never change their ground.
In fact the government has been so unwieldly that
it has been often under the necessity of having to
extravagant means for its safety—the investing
General Washington with a kind of dictatorial power—
a recourse I should be sorry we should be compelled to
resort to after that character shall have left the stage.
The difficulties of the government have often during my
service led into extravagant combinations to get it in motion,
formed powers fostered measures, which have shown
that where the government has defects,
men will be found having vices.
These & other considerations have induced me
long before this project was presented to our view
to wish for such a division—yet some evils
will be unavoidable under this division.
The President will be the man of a State;
is it not to be feared that he will wield the powers
entrusted to him principally for the benefit of his State.
The delegates of particular states it and although he may
be appointed by & in more measure be dependent on the
general government, yet as they expect to return there
for their final residence, and of course depend for the more
substantial benefits & bliss of human life may we not fear it
will make a by as on their minds & conduct so as to make a
job of the service the only check on reelection Government.
Whether that consideration will counter balance the benefits
of the change I will not pretend to determine, yet I will be
candid to own that my experience of the defects of the
former would induce me to make the experiment
whether this power is delegated to the President
under the proper checks I shall examine hereafter.
Propriety of judiciary to judge on laws in contradistinction
to legislature, making them—benefit to the legislature
itself—more wisdom & temperance—Judicial power will
judge on subjects, on which the Congress have made
no law—what rule will it take?
The President should be left to himself with the
hope of rising keeping in office before him, &
unconnected with anybody (senate) to whom
he may attribute the errors of his administration.
Mr. Monroe: Mr. Chairman, I cannot avoid expressing
the great anxiety which I feel upon the present occasion—
an anxiety that proceeds not only from a high sense of
the importance of the subject, but from a profound
respect for this august and venerable assembly.
When we contemplate the fate that has befallen other
nations; whether we cast our eyes back into the remotest
ages of antiquity, or derive instruction from those examples
which modern times have presented to our view;
and observe how prone all human institutions have
been to decay; how subject the best formed and
wisely organized Governments have been to lose
their checks and totally dissolve; how difficult it
has been for mankind in all ages and countries,
to preserve their dearest rights and best privileges,
impelled as it were by an irresistible fate into despotism.
If we look forward to those prospects that sooner
or later await our country, unless we shall be
exempted from the fate of other nations; even to a mind,
the most sanguine and benevolent, some gloomy
apprehensions must necessarily crowd upon it.
This consideration is sufficient to teach us the
limited capacity of the human mind;
how subject the wisest men have been to error.
For my own part, Sir, I come forward here not
as the partisan of this or that side of the question;
but to commend where the subject appears to
me to deserve commendation; to suggest my
doubts where I have any—to hear with candor
the explication of others; and in the ultimate
result, to act as shall appear for the best
advantage of our common country.
The American States exhibit at present a new
and interesting spectacle to the eyes of mankind.
Modern Europe, for more than twelve centuries past,
has presented to view one of a very different kind.
In all the nations of that quarter of the globe,
there has been a constant effort on the part of the
people, to extricate themselves from the oppression
of their rulers; but with us the object is of a very
different nature—to establish the dominion of law
over licentiousness—to increase the powers of the
national Government to such extent, and organize it
in such manner, as to enable it to discharge its duties and
manage the affairs of the States to the best advantage.
There are two circumstances remarkable
in our Colonial settlement:
1st, the exclusive monopoly of our trade.
2nd, that it was settled by the Commons of England only.
The revolution, in having emancipated us from the
shackles of Great Britain, has put the entire
Government in the hands of one order of people
only freemen; not of nobles and freemen.
This is a peculiar trait in the character of this revolution.
That this sacred deposit may be always retained
there is my most earnest wish and fervent prayer.
That Union is the first object for the security of
our political happiness in the hands of gracious
Providence is well understood and universally
admitted through all the United States.
From New Hampshire to Georgia,
(Rhode Island excepted)
the people have uniformly manifested
a strong attachment to the Union.
This attachment has resulted from a
persuasion of its utility and necessity.
In short, this is a point so well known,
that it is needless to trespass on your
patience any longer about it.
A recurrence has been had to history.
Ancient and modern leagues have been
mentioned to make impressions.
Will they admit of any analogy with our situation?
The same principles will produce the same effects.
Permit me to take a review of those leagues which
the Honorable Gentleman (James Madison)
has mentioned, which are
1st, the Amphictionic Council
2nd, the Achaean league
3rd, the Germanic system
4th, Swiss cantons
5th, the United Netherlands and
6th, the New-England Confederacy.
Before I develop the principles of these leagues,
permit me to speak of what must influence
the happiness and duration of leagues.
These principally depend on the following circumstances:
1st, the happy construction of the Government
of the members of the Union
2nd, the security from foreign danger.
For instance, Monarchies united would separate soon;
Aristocracies would preserve their Union longer;
but Democracies, unless separated by some
extraordinary circumstance, would last forever.
The causes of half the wars that have thinned the ranks
of mankind, and depopulated nations
are caprice, folly, and ambition:
These belong to the higher orders of Governments,
where the passions of one, or of a few individuals,
direct the fate of the rest of the community.
But it is otherwise with Democracies, where there is an
equality among the citizens and a foreign and powerful
enemy, especially Monarch, may crush weaker neighbors.
Let us see how far these positions are supported by the
history of these leagues, and how far they apply to us.
The Amphictionic Council consisted of three members,
Sparta, Thebes, and Athens.
What was the construction of these States?
Sparta was a Monarchy more analogous to the Constitution
of England, than any I have heard of in modern times.
Thebes was a Democracy, but on different
principles from modern Democracies.
Representation was not known then.
This is the acquirement of modern times.
Athens like Thebes was generally
Democratic but sometimes changed.
In these two States the people transacted
their business in person; consequently
they could not be of any great extent.
There was a perpetual variance between
the members of this confederacy, and its
ultimate dissolution was attributed to this defect.
The weakest were obliged to call for foreign aid.
And this precipitated the ruin of this confederacy.
The Achaean league had more analogy to ours,
and gives me great hopes that the
apprehensions of Gentlemen with respect
to our Confederacy are groundless.
They were all Democratic and firmly united.
What was the effect?
The most perfect harmony and friendship
subsisted between them, and they were
very active in guarding their liberties.
The history of that confederacy does not present us with
those confusions and internal convulsions, which Gentlemen
ascribe to all Governments of a confederate kind.
The most respectable historians prove this confederacy
to have been exempt from those defects.
(Here Mr. Monroe read several passages in Polybius,
tending to elucidate and prove the excellent
structure of the Achaean league, and the
consequent happy effects of this excellency.)
He then continued.
This league was founded on Democratical principles,
and from the wisdom of its structure continued
a far greater length of time than any other.
Its members, like our States, by our Confederation, retained
their individual sovereignty and enjoyed a perfect equality.
What destroyed it?
Not internal dissensions.
They were surrounded by great and powerful nations.
The Lacedemonians, Macedonians, and Ætolians.
The Ætolians and Lacedemonians making war on them,
they solicited the assistance of Macedon, who no
sooner granted it, then she became their oppressor.
To free themselves from the tyranny of the Macedonians,
they prayed succor from the Romans, who after relieving
them from their oppressors, soon totally enslaved them.
The Germanic body is a league
of independent principalities.
It has no analogy to our system.
It is very injudiciously organized.
Its members are kept together by the fear of
danger from one another, and from foreign powers,
and by the influence of the Emperor.
The Swiss cantons have been instanced also, as a
proof of the natural imbecility of Federal Governments.
Their league has sustained a variety of changes,
and notwithstanding the many causes that
tend to disunite them, they still stand firm.
We have not the same causes of disunion,
or internal variance that they have.
The individual cantons, composing
the league are chiefly Aristocratic.
What an opportunity does this offer to foreign powers to
disturb them by bribing and corrupting their Aristocrats?
It is well known that their services have been
frequently purchased by foreign nations.
Their difference of religion has been a source of divisions
and animosity between them, and tended to disunite them.
This tendency has been considerably increased by the
interference of foreign nations, the contiguity of their
position to those nations rendering such interference easy.
They have been kept together by the fear of those nations,
and the nature of their association; the leading features
of which are a principle of equality between the cantons,
and the retention of individual sovereignty.
The same reasoning applies nearly
to the United Netherlands.
The other Confederacy which has been mentioned,
had no kind of analogy to our situation.
From a review of these leagues, we find the causes
of the misfortunes of those which have been dissolved,
to have been a dissimilarity of structure in the
individual members, the facility of foreign
interference, and recurrence to foreign aid.
After this review of those leagues, if we consider
our comparative situation, we shall find that nothing can
be adduced from any of them, to warrant a departure
from a confederacy to a consolidation, on the principle
of inefficacy in the former to secure our happiness.
The causes which with other nations rendered
leagues ineffectual and inadequate to the security
and happiness of the people do not exist here.
What is the form of our State Governments?
They are all similar in their structure—perfectly Democratic.
The freedom of mankind has found an asylum
here, which it could find no where else.
Freedom of conscience is enjoyed here in the fullest degree.
Our States are not disturbed by a contrariety
of religious opinions, and other causes of
quarrels which other nations have.
They have no causes of internal variance.
Causes of war between the States have been
represented in all those terrors, which a splendid
genius and brilliant imagination can so well depict.
But, Sir, I conceive they are imaginary—
mere creatures of fancy.
I will admit that there was a contrariety of sentiments;
a contest of which I was a witness in some respect;
a contest respecting the western unsettled lands.
Every State having a charter for the lands within its Colonial
limits had its claim to such lands confirmed by the war.
The other States contended that those lands
belonged not to a part of the States, but to all.
That it was highly reasonable and equitable, that all should
participate in what had been acquired by the efforts of all.
The progress of this dispute gave
uneasiness to the true friends of America.
But territorial claims may be now said to be adjusted.
Have not Virginia, North Carolina, and other
States ceded their claims to Congress?
The disputes between Virginia and Maryland
are also settled; nor is there an existing
controversy between any of the States at present.
Thus, Sir, this great source of public calamity has been
terminated without the adoption of this Government.
Have we any danger to fear from the European countries?
Permit me to consider our relative situation
in regard to them, and to answer what
has been suggested on the subject.
Our situation is relatively the same to all foreign powers.
View the distance between us and them—
the wide Atlantic—an ocean 3,000 miles
across lies between us and them.
If there be any danger to these States, to be apprehended
from any of those countries, it must be Great Britain and
Spain, whose colonies are contiguous to our country.
Has there been anything on the part of Great Britain since
the peace, that indicated a hostile intention towards us?
Was there a complaint of a violation of treaty?
She committed the first breach.
Virginia instructed her delegation to demand
a reparation for the negroes which had been
carried away contrary to treaty.
Being in Congress, I know the facts.
The other States were willing to get some
compensation for their losses as well as Virginia.
New York wished to get possession of the
western posts situated within her territory.
We wished to establish an amicable correspondence
with that country and to adjust all differences.
The United States sent an Ambassador for this purpose.
The answer sent was that a compliance with
the treaty on our part must precede it on theirs.
These transactions are well known in every
State and need hardly be mentioned.
Certain it is that Great Britain is desirous of peace,
and that it is her true interest to be in friendship with us.
It is also so with Spain.
Another circumstance which has been dwelt upon,
is the necessity of the protection of commerce.
What does our commerce require?
Does it want extension and protection?
Will treaties answer these ends?
Treaties, Sir, will not extend your commerce.
Our object is the regulation of commerce and not treaties.
Our treaties with Holland, Prussia, and
other powers, are of no consequence.
It is not to the advantage of the United States to make
any compact with any nation with respect to trade.
Our trade is engrossed by a country with
Which we have no commercial treaty.
That country is Great Britain.
That monopoly is the result of the want
of a judicious regulation on our part.
It is as valuable and advantageous to them, on its present
footing, nay more so, than it could be by any treaty.
It is the interest of the United States
to invite all nations to trade with them.
To open their ports to all and grant no exclusive
privilege to any, in preference to others.
I apprehend no treaty that could be made,
can be of any advantage to us.
If those nations opened any of their ports to us in the
East or West Indies, it would be of advantage to us;
but there is no probability of this.
France and Holland have been said to be threatening
for the payment of the debts due to them.
I understood, that Holland has added to her
favors to us, by lending us other sums lately.
This is a proof that she has no hostile intent
against us, and that she is willing to indulge us.
France has made no pressing demand.
Our country has received from that kingdom the highest
proofs of favors which a magnanimous power can show.
Nor are there any grounds to suspect
a diminution of its friendship.
Having examined the analogy between the ancient leagues
and our confederacy, and shown that we have no danger
to apprehend from Europe; I conclude, that we are in no
danger of immediate disunion, but that we may calmly
and dispassionately examine the defects of our Government,
and apply such remedies as we shall find necessary.
I proceed now to the examination of the Confederation,
and to take a comparative view of this Constitution.
In examining either a division into two heads is proper, viz:
1st, the form, and 2nd, the powers of the Government,
I consider the existing system defective in both respects.
Is the Confederation a band of Union
sufficiently strong to bind the States together?
Is it possessed of sufficient power to enable
it to manage the affairs of the Union?
Is it well organized, safe and proper?
I confess that in all these instances,
I consider it as defective.
I consider it to be void of energy and badly organized.
What are the powers which the
Federal Government ought to have?
I will draw the line between the powers necessary
to be given to the Federal, and those which
ought to be left to the State Governments.
To the former I would give control over the national affairs.
To the latter I would leave the care of local interests.
Neither the Confederation nor this
Constitution answers this discrimination.
To make the first a proper Federal Government,
I would add to it one great power.
I would give it an absolute control over commerce.
To render the system under consideration safe
and proper, I would take from it one power only.
I mean that of direct taxation.
I conceive its other powers are sufficient without this.
My objections to this power are, that I conceive it
to be unnecessary, impracticable under a Democracy;
and if exercised, as tending to anarchy or the
subversion of liberty and probably the latter.
In the first place it is unnecessary,
because exigencies will not require it.
The demands and necessities of Government are now
greater than they will be hereafter, because of the expenses
of the war in which we were engaged, which cost us the
blood of our best citizens, and which ended so gloriously.
There is no danger of war, as I have already said.
Our necessities will therefore in a
short time be greatly diminished.
What are the resources of the United States?
How are requisitions to be complied with?
I know the Government ought to be so organized,
as to be competent to discharge its engagements
and secure the public happiness.
To enable it to do these things, I would give
it the power of laying an impost, which is
amply sufficient with its other means.
The impost at an early period was
calculated at near a million dollars.
If this calculation was well founded.
If it was so much at five per cent, what will it
not amount to, when the absolute control of
commerce will be in the hands of Congress?
May we not suppose, that when the General Government
will be able to lay what duties it may think proper,
that the amount will be very considerable?
There are other resources.
The back lands have already been looked
upon as a very important resource.
When we view the Western extensive territory
and contemplate the fertility of the soil, the noble
rivers which pervade it, and the excellent navigation
that may be had there; may we not depend
on this as a very substantial resource?
In the third place we have the resource of loans.
This is a resource which is necessary and proper,
and has been recurred to by all nations.
The credit of our other resources will enable us
to procure by loans any sums we may want.
We have also in the fourth place,
requisitions which are so much despised.
These, Sir, have been often productive.
As the demands on the States will be but for trivial sums,
after Congress shall be possessed of its other
great resources, is it to be presumed,
that its applications will be despised?
If the Government be well administered or possess
any part of the confidence of the people, is it to be
presumed that requisitions for trivial sums will be refused?
I conclude, Sir, that they will be readily complied with; and
that they with the imposts, back lands, and loans, will be
abundantly sufficient for all the exigencies of the Union.
In the next place it appears to me, that the exercise
of the power of direct taxation is impracticable
in this country under a Democracy.
Consider the territory lying between
the Atlantic ocean and the Mississippi.
Its extent far exceeds that of the German empire.
It is larger than any territory that ever
was under any one free Government.
It is too extensive to be governed
but by a despotic Monarchy.
Taxes cannot be laid justly and equally in such a territory.
What are the objects of direct taxation?
Will the taxes be laid on land?
One Gentleman James Madison has said that the
United States would select out a particular object
or objects and leave the rest to the States.
Suppose land to be the object selected
by Congress; examine its consequences.
The land holder alone would suffer by such a selection.
A very considerable part of the community would escape.
Those who pursue commerce and arts would escape.
It could not possibly be estimated equally.
Will the taxes be laid on polls only?
Would not the land-holder escape in that case?
How then will it be laid?
On all property?
Consider the consequences.
Is it possible to make a law that
shall operate alike in all the States?
Is it possible that there should be sufficient
intelligence for the man of Georgia to know
the situation of the men of New Hampshire?
Is there a precise similitude of situation in each State?
Compare the situation of the citizens in different States.
Are there not a thousand circumstances showing clearly,
that there can be no law, that can be uniform
in its operation throughout the United States?
Another Gentleman Edmund Randolph said,
that information would be had from the State laws.
Is not this reversing the principles of good policy?
Can this substitution of one body to thirteen assemblies,
in a matter that requires the most minute and
extensive local information be politic or just?
They cannot know what taxes can
be least oppressive to the people.
The tax that may be convenient in one
State may be oppressive in another.
If they vary the objects of taxation in different States,
the operation must be unequal and unjust.
If Congress should fix the tax on some
mischievous objects, what will be the tendency?
It is to be presumed, that all Governments
will sometime or other exercise their powers,
or else why should they possess them?
Enquire into the badness of this Government.
What is the extent of the power
of laying and collecting direct taxes?
Does it not give to the United States
all the resources of the individual States?
Does it not give an absolute control
over the resources of all the States?
If you give the resources of the several States to the
General Government, in what situation are the States left?
I therefore think the General Government will preponderate.
Besides its possession of all the resources of the country;
there are other circumstances, that will enable
it to triumph in the conflict with the States.
Gentlemen of influence and character, men of
distinguished talents, of eminent virtue, and great
endowments will compose the General Government.
In what a situation will the different States be, when all the
talents and abilities of the country will be against them?
Another circumstance will operate
in its favor in case of a contest.
The oath that is to be taken to support
it will aid it most powerfully.
The influence which the sanction
of oaths has on men is irresistible.
The religious authority of divine revelation will
be quoted to prove the propriety of adhering to it,
and will have great influence in
disposing men's minds to maintain it.
It will also be strongly supported by the last
clause in the eighth section of the first article,
which vests it with the power of making all
laws necessary to carry its powers into effect.
The correspondent judicial powers
will be an additional aid.
There is yet another circumstance which will throw
the balance in the scale of the General Government.
A disposition in its favor has shown itself in
all parts of the Continent, and will certainly
become more and more predominant.
Is it not to be presumed, that if a contest between
the State Legislatures and the General Government
should arise, the latter would preponderate?
The Confederation has been deservedly reprobated,
for its inadequacy to promote the public welfare.
But this change is in my opinion very dangerous.
It contemplates objects with which a
Federal Government ought never to interfere.
The concurrent interfering power of laying taxes
on the people will occasion a perpetual conflict
between the General and individual Governments;
which for the reasons I have already mentioned,
must terminate to the disadvantage,
if not in the annihilation of the latter.
Can it be presumed, that the people of America
can patiently bear such a double oppression?
Is it not to be presumed, that they will endeavor
to get rid of one of the oppressors?
I fear, Sir, that it will ultimately end in the
establishment of a Monarchical Government.
The people, in order to be delivered from
one species of tyranny, may submit to another.
I am strongly impressed with the necessity
of having a firm national Government,
but I am decidedly against giving it the power of direct
taxation; because I think it endangers our liberties.
My attachment to the Union and an energetic Government,
is such, that I would consent to give
the General Government every power
contained in that plan except that of taxation.
As it will operate on all States and individuals,
powers given it generally should be qualified.
It may be attributed to the prejudice of my education,
but I am a decided and warm friend to a Bill of Rights—
the polar star and great support of American liberty;
and I am clearly of opinion, that the general powers
conceded by that plan, such as the impost, &c.
should be guarded and checked by a Bill of Rights.
Permit me to examine the reasoning, that admits,
that all powers not given up are reserved.
Apply this.
If you give to the United States
the power of direct taxation—
In making all laws necessary to give it operation
(which is a power given by the last clause, in the eighth
section, of the first article) suppose they should be of
opinion, that the right of the trial by jury, was one of
the requisites to carry it into effect; there is no check
in this Constitution to prevent the formal abolition of it.
There is a general power given to them, to make all laws
that will enable them to carry their powers into effect.
There are no limits pointed out.
They are not restrained or controlled from making any law,
however oppressive in its operation, which they may
think necessary to carry their powers into effect.
By this general unqualified power, they may infringe
not only the trial by jury, but the liberty of the press,
and every right that is not expressly secured
or excepted, from that general power.
I conceive that such general powers are very dangerous.
Our great unalienable rights ought to be secured
from being destroyed by such unlimited powers,
either by a Bill of Rights, or by an express
provision in the body of the Constitution.
It is immaterial in which of these
two modes rights are secured.
I fear I have tired the patience of the Committee;
I beg however the indulgence of
making a few more observations.
There is a distinction between this Government
and ancient and modern ones.
The division of power in ancient Governments
or in any Government at present in the world, was founded
on different principles from those of this Government.
What was the object of the distribution of power in Rome?
It will not be controverted, that there was a composition
or mixture of Aristocracy, Democracy, and Monarchy,
each of which had a repellent quality, which enabled it
to preserve itself from being destroyed by the other
two so that the balance was continually maintained.
This is the case in the English Government,
which has the most similitude to our own.
There they have distinct orders in the Government,
which possess real efficient repellent qualities.
Let us illustrate it.
If the Commons prevail,
may they not vote the King useless?
If the King prevails,
will not the Commons lose their liberties?
Without the interposition of a check;
without a balance the one would destroy the other.
The Lords, the third branch, keep up this balance.
The wisdom of the English Constitution has given
a share of Legislation to each of the three branches,
which enables effectually to defend itself and which
preserves the liberty of the people of that country.
What is the object of the division of power in America?
Why is the Government divided into different branches?
For a more faithful and regular administration.
Where is there a check?
We have more to apprehend from the Union of
these branches, than from the subversion of any;
and this Union will destroy the rights of the people.
There is nothing to prevent this coalition.
But the contest which will probably subsist
between the General Government and the
individual Governments will tend to produce it.
There is a division of sovereignty between
the national and State Governments.
How far then will they coalesce together?
Is it not to be supposed that there will
be a conflict between them?
If so, will not the members of the former combine together?
Where then will be the check to prevent
encroachments on the rights of the people?
There is not a third essentially distinct branch to preserve
a just equilibrium or to prevent such encroachments.
In developing this plan of Government
we ought to attend to the necessity of having checks.
I can see no real checks in it.
Let us first enquire into the probability of harmony
between the General and individual Governments;
and in the next place into the responsibility the
General Government, either to the people at large,
or to the State Legislatures.
As to the harmony between the Governments,
communion of powers, Legislative and Judicial, forbids it.
I have never yet heard or read in the history of
mankind of a concurrent exercise of power by two
parties without producing struggle between them.
Consult the human heart.
Does it not prove, that where two parties or bodies
seek the same object, there must be a struggle?
Now, Sir, as to the responsibility—
Let us begin with the House of Representatives,
which is the most Democratic part.
The Representatives are elected by the people,
but what is the responsibility?
At the expiration of the time for which they are elected,
the people may discontinue them; but if they
commit high crimes, how are they to be punished?
I apprehend the General Government cannot punish them,
because it would be a subversion of the rights of the people.
The State Legislatures cannot punish them, because
they have no control over them in any one instance.
In the next place consider the responsibility of the Senators.
To whom are they amenable?
I apprehend to none.
They are punishable, neither by the General
Government nor by the State Legislatures.
The latter may call them to an account,
but they have no power to punish them.
Let us now consider the responsibility of the President.
He is elected for four years
and not excluded from re-election.
Suppose he violates the laws and Constitution,
or commits high crimes, by whom is he to be tried?
By his own Council—by those who advise him
to commit such violations and crimes?
This subverts the principles of justice,
as it secures him from punishment.
He commands the army of the
United States till he is condemned.
Will not this be an inducement to foreign nations
to use their arts and intrigues to corrupt his Counsellors?
If he and his Counsellors can escape punishment
with so much facility, what a delightful prospect
must it be for a foreign nation, which may be desirous
of gaining territorial or commercial advantages
over us, to practice on them.
The certainty of success would be equal to the impunity.
How is he elected?
By electors appointed according to
the direction of the State Legislatures.
Does the plan of Government contemplate any other mode?
A combination between the electors might easily happen
which would fix on a man in every respect improper.
Contemplate this in all its consequences.
Is it not the object of foreign Courts to have
such a man possessed of this power,
as would be inclined to promote their interests?
What an advantageous prospect for France
or Great-Britain to secure the favor and
attachment of the President, by exerting their
power and influence to continue him in the office!
Foreign nations may by their intrigues have great
influence in each State in the election of the President,
and I have no doubt but their
efforts will be tried to the utmost.
Will not the influence of the President himself
have great weight in his re-election?
The variety of the offices at his disposal will acquire
him the favor and attachment of those who aspire
after them, and of the officers and their friends.
He will have some connection with the members
of the different branches of Government.
They will esteem him, because they will be
Acquainted with him—live in the same town
with him and often dine with him.
This familiar and frequent intercourse
will secure him great influence.
I presume that when once he is elected,
he may be elected forever.
Besides his influence in the town where he will reside, he
will have very considerable weight in the different States.
Those who are acquainted with the human mind
in all its operations, can clearly foresee this.
Powerful men in different States
will form a friendship with him.
For these reasons, I conceive, the same President
may always be continued, and be in fact elected by
Congress, instead of independent and intelligent electors.
It is a misfortune, more than once experienced,
that the Representatives of the States do not
pursue the particular interest of their own State.
When we take a more accurate view of the principles
of the Senate, we shall have grounds to fear that the
interest of our State may be totally neglected—
nay, that our Legislative influence will be as little as
if we were actually expelled or banished out of Congress.
The Senators are amenable to and appointed by the States.
They have a negative on all laws, may originate any
except money bills, and direct the affairs of the Executive.
Seven States are a majority, and can in
most cases bind the rest; from which reason,
the interest of certain States will alone be consulted.
Although the House of Representatives is calculated
on national principles, and should they attend contrary
to my expectations, to the general interests of the Union,
yet the dangerous exclusive powers given to the Senate,
will, in my opinion, counter-balance their exertions.
Consider the connection of the Senate with the Executive.
Has it not an authority over all the acts of the Executive?
What are the acts which the President can do without them?
What number is requisite to make treaties?
A very small number.
Two-thirds of those who may happen to be present,
may with the President make treaties that shall
sacrifice the dearest interests of the Southern States—
which may relinquish part of our territories—
which may dismember the United States.
There is no check to prevent this.
There is no responsibility or power to punish it.
He is to nominate, and by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, to appoint Ambassadors,
other public Ministers, and Consuls, Judges of the
Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States.
The concurrence of a bare majority of those who may
be present will enable him to do these important acts.
It does not require the consent of two-thirds,
even of those who may be present.
Thus I conceive the Government is put
entirely into the hands of seven States;
indeed into the hands of two-thirds of a majority.
The Executive branch is under their protection, and yet
they are freed from a direct charge of combination.
Upon reviewing this Government, I must say,
under my present impression, I think it a dangerous
Government and calculated to secure neither
the interests nor the rights of our countrymen.
Under such a one, I shall be averse to embark
the best hopes and prospects of a free people.
We have struggled long to bring about this revolution,
by which we enjoy our present freedom and security.
Why then this haste—this wild precipitation?
I have fatigued the Committee, but as I have not yet
said all that I wish upon the subject,
I trust I shall be indulged another day.5
James Monroe wrote to James Madison on 12 July 1788:
Although I am persuaded you will have received
the proceedings of our convention upon the plan of
government submitted from Philadelphia,
yet as it is possible this may reach you
sooner than other communications
I herewith enclose a copy to you.
These terminated as you will find in a ratification
which must be considered; so far as a reservation
of certain rights go, as conditional, with the
recommendation of subsequent amendments.
The copy will designate to you the part which
different gentlemen took upon this very
interesting and important subject.
The detail in the management of the business, from your
intimate knowledge of characters, you perhaps possess
with great accuracy, without a formal narration of it.
Pendleton though much impaired in health and in every
respect in the decline of life showed as much zeal
to carry it, as if he had been a young man.
Perhaps more than he discovered in the commencement
of the late revolution in his opposition to Great Britain.
Wythe acted as chairman to the committee of the whole
and of course took but little part in the debate, but was for
the adoption relying on subsequent amendments.
Blair said nothing, but was for it.
The Governor exhibited a curious spectacle to view:
having refused to sign the paper
everybody supposed him against it.
But he afterwards had written a letter and having
taken a part which might be called rather vehement
than active he was constantly laboring to show that
his present conduct was consistent with that letter
and the letter with his refusal to sign:
Madison took the principal share in the debate for it.
In which together with the aid I have already
mentioned he was somewhat assisted by
Innes, H. Lee, Marshall, Corbin, and G. Nicholas
as Mason, Henry and Grayson were the
principal Supporters of the opposition.
The discussion as might have been expected where
the parties were so nearly on a balance, was conducted
generally with great order, propriety and respect of
either party to the other, and its event was
accompanied with no circumstance on the part
of the victorious that marked extraordinary exultation,
nor of depression on the part of the unfortunate.
There was no bonfire illumination &c. and had there
been I am inclined to believe, the opposition would
have not only expressed no dissatisfaction, but have
scarcely felt any at it, for they seemed to be governed
by principles elevated highly above circumstances
so trivial and transitory in their nature.
The conduct of General Washington upon this
occasion has no doubt been right and meritorious.
All parties had acknowledged defects in the federal system,
and been sensible of the propriety of some material change.
To forsake the honorable retreat to which he had retired
and risk the reputation he had so deservedly acquired,
manifested a zeal for the public interest, that could after
so many and illustrious services, and at this stage
of his life, scarcely have been expected from him.
Having however commenced again on the public theatre
the course which he takes becomes not only highly
interesting to him but likewise so to us: the human character
is not perfect; and if he partakes of those qualities which
we have too much reason to believe are almost inseparable
from the frail nature of our being the people of America
will perhaps be lost: be assured his influence carried this
government; for my own part I have a boundless
confidence in him nor have I any reason to believe
he will ever furnish occasion for withdrawing it.
More is to be apprehended if he takes a part in the public
councils again as he advances in age from the designs of
those around him than from any dispositions of his own.
In the discussion of the subject an allusion was made
I believe in the first instance, by Mr. Henry to an opinion
you had given on this subject, in a letter to Mr. Donald.
This afterwards became the subject of much inquiry
and debate in the house, as to the construction of the
contents of such letter, and I was happy to find the
great attention and universal respect with which the
opinion was treated; as well as the great regard and
high estimation in which the author of it was held.
It must be painful to have been thus made a party in
this transaction but this must have been alleviated by
a consideration of the circumstances I have mentioned.
From the first view I had of the report from Philadelphia,
I had some strong objections to it, and as I had
no inclination to enlist myself on either side,
made no communication or positive declaration
of my sentiments until after the Convention met.
Being however desirous to communicate them to my
constituents I addressed the enclosed letter to them,
with intention of giving them a view thereof eight
or ten days before it met, but the impression was
delayed so long, and so incorrectly made, and the
whole performance upon reexamination so loosely
drawn that I thought it best to suppress it.
There appeared likewise to be an impropriety
in interfering with the subject in that manner
in that late stage of the business.
I enclose it you for your perusal and comment on it.
You have no doubt been apprised of the
remonstrance of the Judges to the proceedings
of the Legislature in the passage particularly
of the district court law, as likewise of its contents.
The subject will be taken up in the fall.
The legislature although assembled for the purpose
declined entering into it, because of the season of the
year being anxious to get home about their harvest.
For this purpose they passed an act suspending
the operation of the district court law until
sometime in December or January next.
Although different modifications may be made of it,
yet I think the bill will be retained in its principal features.
I still reside here and perhaps shall continue
to do so while I remain at the bar, especially
if the district court law holds its ground.
I hold a seat in the legislature and
believe I shall do it for some time.
The absence from my family is painful, but I must
endeavor to have them with me as much as possible.6
Monroe and Madison ran against each other for the House of Representatives
in the first election in October 1788, and Madison
was elected with 1,308 votes to 972 for Monroe.
They both used a letters campaign, and they remained good friends.
Virginia’s Attorney General James Innes appointed Monroe to be a deputy state attorney.
Monroe wrote to Thomas Jefferson on 15 February 1789
about the new Constitution and government.
Your favor of the 9th of August last has been received.
Before this I doubt not mine of a date subsequent
to those you acknowledge has reached you.
It gave you a detail of the proceedings of the
convention of this state, since which the eleven that
have adopted the government, under the act of
Congress that was necessary to put them in motion,
have taken the necessary measures for its organization;
except New York whose operations have been
retarded by some misunderstanding between
the senate and the other branch of the government.
This obstacle will however I doubt not be removed
since I have reason to believe, it has on neither side
any other object in view than some arrangement suited
to the prejudices of the pre-existing parties of that state.
The public papers say it respects the
mode of appointing Representatives.
The letter from the Convention of that State was
supposed to have suggested the mode of obtaining
amendments that would be most likely to succeed.
After all the preparatory arrangements were
carried for organizing the government,
it was taken up here and approved.
In consequence whereof an application was made to
the Congress of the new government to be presented
when convened, to call a convention for that purpose.
The weight of business that would devolve on the
government itself if no other consideration might
occur was supposed a sufficient reason why
this trust should be reposed in another body.
It could in no event be productive of harm for the
discussion of subjects however important by the
deliberative bodies of America, create little heat
or animosity except with the parties on the theatre.
The draft was revised and corrected by Bland
and partakes of his usual fire and elegance.
This Commonwealth was divided into 10
districts from each of which a member was
to be placed in the House of Representatives.
A competition took place in many, and in this,
consisting of Albemarle, Amherst, Fluvanna,
Goochland, Louisa, Spotsylvania.
Orange and Culpeper between Mr. Madison and myself.
He prevailed by a majority of about 300.
It would have given me concern to have excluded him,
but those to whom my conduct in public life had
been acceptable, pressed me to come forward in
this government on its commencement, and that
I might not lose an opportunity of contributing my
feeble efforts in forwarding an amendment of its
defects nor shrink from the station those who
confided in would wish to place me, I yielded.
As I had no private object to gratify so a
failure has given me no private concern.
It has always been my wish
to acquire property near Monticello.
I have lately accomplished it by the
purchase of Col. G. Nicholas improvements in
Charlottesville and 500 acres of land within a
mile on the road to the R. fish gap.
To those of Gilmour he has added others
of Stone of considerable value so as to
have expended in that line £2,200.
The land is tolerably good and great part in wood.
I give him in western property to be valued as such
property would sell upon two years credit, £2,500 and
if I dislike the valuation, I may retain the land and pay
the money at the expiration of 6 years with interest.
Whether to move up immediately or hereafter
when I shall be so happy as to have you
as a neighbor I have not determined.
In any event it puts it within my reach to be contiguous
to you when the fatigue of public life, should dispose you
for retirement, and in the interim will enable me in
respect to your affairs, as I shall be frequently at
Charlottesville as a summer retreat, and in attendance
on the district court there, to render you some service.
You will I doubt not command me with
that freedom the pleasure I shall have
in executing your desires will authorize.
Peter Carr was with me a few days since he came
from Williamsburg for his health, having been indisposed
with the ague and fever, and has found the trip of service.
I think him well informed and a promising young man.
Mr. Short has entirely forgotten me.
I have heard of his intention to return this year and hope he
will not disappoint the wishes of his friends in that respect.
I hope you enjoy your health and that your
daughters are favored with same blessing.
I have latterly heard nothing of Mr. Mazzei.
I fear the want of punctuality in my correspondence has
lessened me in his esteem a circumstance I should much
lament as I respect him for his virtues and talents.7
On 23 February 1789 the first President-elect George
Washington wrote this short letter to James Monroe:
I received by the last Mail your letter dated the
15th of this month, accompanied with your printed
observations on the new Constitution, and am much
obliged by this token of your polite attention.
However I may differ with you in sentiment on some
of the points, which are advocated in your Treatise;
I am pleased in discovering so much candor
and liberality as seem to predominate in
your Style and manner of investigation.
That a Spirit of unanimity, accommodation and rectitude
may prevail so extensively, as to facilitate the means
for removing any well-grounded apprehensions of the
possible future ill consequences, which may result
from the general government, is the sincere wish.8
In August 1789 the Monroe moved to a house on a farm in Charlottesville
near Jefferson’s Monticello home in Albemarle County.
Virginia’s United States Senator William Grayson died on 12 March 1790,
and Governor Harrison named John Walker to serve until the next legislative election.
Monroe decided to run and was elected for the four years.
Gov. Harrison died at home on 2 April 1790.
Monroe became a United States Senator in December at the age of 32.
Monroe had his ideas on the state debts, and he wrote to Jefferson on July 3:
Your favor of the 20th of June I have received
and am happy to hear of your restoration to health.
Mrs. Monroe and family are in Albemarle
whither I set out in a day or two.
They are well.—
The assumption of the state debts is disliked here and will
create great disgust if adopted under any shape whatever.
The minds of all are made up on it, and I
doubt whether even the immediate removal
to the Potomac would reconcile them to it.
I merely mention this as a fact which I consider as well
established, without entering at present into its merits,
further than to observe, that I am of opinion it is in
every point of view impolitic; that its advocates have
put the public name and interests in jeopardy, and
that it will be hard if they will still press forward
and sacrifice these important considerations,
if we do not yield upon terms which are improper.
It is however much to be wished a revenue
bill could pass satisfactory to all parties.
For this is certainly essential to the public welfare.
We still hope for the establishment of the seat of
government on the Potomac, if a permanent one is fixed on.
Though I must confess I consider a vote to that purpose
at present to take effect hereafter as of but little importance.
I observe a bill has passed for settling the claims
of Individual States with the U. S. and that
under it 2 Commissioners are to be appointed.
Virginia would surely have a member at that board.
If so, Mr. Dawson of the Council
would be happy in obtaining it.
I have known him for some time past
and really think him well qualified for it.
He is a young man of sound judgment, parts and attention
to business, and am persuaded in the discharge of that
trust would merit the approbation of the government.
An impression perhaps took place some years since, on
his first commencement, that he was somewhat dissipated.
If this was even at that time well founded,
yet be assured it has been since done away.
He has been lately appointed to Congress and the Council
and in my opinion possessed of the public confidence.
As I think him fit for the station and really wish him well,
and on that account as well as from a desire to avail
the public of his services, am anxious for his promotion.
For this purpose I have taken the liberty to mention
him to you, that so far as you concur with me in an
opinion of his merit, he may be availed of your aid.
I shall write you from Albemarle upon a presumption
you have your cypher on a subject
somewhat interesting to myself.9
Monroe joined the United States Senate on 6 December 1790.
That month Thomas Jefferson returned from France to Monticello.
On 21 February 1791 Monroe proposed that the Senate doors be open
and that a gallery be made available to an audience except in secret sessions.
In that speech he said,
By excluding the people from a view of
our proceedings, a jealousy is created.
This may ripen into an odium that may
produce effects we are not aware of.
Remove the cause, and the effect will cease.10
Yet it would be exactly three years before those doors would be opened.
On 3 March 1791 James Monroe was appointed again
to continue as the Senator from Virginia.
On June 17 Monroe wrote this letter to Jefferson:
I have been favored with 2 letters from you
since my arrival with Paine’s pamphlet in one,
and should have answered them sooner,
but knew of your departure Eastward and
of course that it would not have been sooner received.
By the 25th we shall be settled in Albemarle upon my
plantation, the unfinished state of the buildings
having prevented the removal there sooner.
The appeals and general court are sitting.
Their respective terms will not expire so as to
enable me to get home by that time,
but my own business will be finished,
and I shall not stay longer.
Upon political subjects we perfectly agree, and
particularly in the reprobation of all measures that may
be calculated to elevate the government above the people,
or place it in any respect without its natural boundary.
To keep it there nothing is necessary, but virtue in
a part only (for in the whole it cannot be expected)
of the high public servants, and a true development of the
principles of those acts which have a contrary tendency.
The bulk of the people are for democracy,
and if they are well informed,
the ruin of such enterprises will infallibly follow.
I shall however see you in September at which time
we will confer more fully on these subjects.
I have been associated in the room of Mr. Pendleton
with the Commissioners for revising the laws of this State.
The appointment was communicated to me yesterday
by the Executive and as it was neither wished nor expected,
I can give no information of the extent of the duty
or the time it will take to execute it.
Upon the hope of completing what is expected
from us before the meeting of the next Congress
I have accepted the appointment.
I am extremely anxious to procure
rooms near you for the next session.
If such should be known to you which may be pre-engaged,
to be occupied on the commencement of the session,
shall thank you to contract for them in my behalf.
I shall certainly be there at that time, for having accepted
this appointment I am resolved to pursue and not be
diverted from it by any consideration whatever.11
Senator Monroe published articles using the name “Aratus”
on 9 November 1791, on November 22, and on December 7.
In #1 Monroe criticized articles by “Publicola,” which
had been written by John Quincy Adams, by writing,
Authors of a great revolution, which has operated
like a first cause upon the proudest and most
enlightened nations of the earth, they owe it to Him
who gave them comfort in the day of their distress—
they owe it to themselves and to the cause of humanity,
to cherish the principle upon which they acted.
And deservedly degraded would they be in the common
estimation of the world, if after having roused their fellow
men in other countries … while the conflict was at the
height and the prospect of a brilliant achievement within
their reach, they should by a neglect of their duty, as
an abandonment of their principles, be the first to yield
the ground which had been with such difficulty acquired.12
The principle upon which the French Revolution was
founded is not a novel one; … in America …
whoever owns the principles of one revolution
must cherish that of the other.
In both instances, the power which belonged
to the body of the people, and which had been
or was about to be wrested from them was resumed.
To the people of France it must be a matter of
astonishment, that a contrary sentiment can exist here….
There the despotism still reigns with unabated vigor.
It has deprived man of his natural and civil rights …
preying … on the best interests of man,
it has done everything but exterminate him.13
In “Aratus” #2 Monroe wrote, “The revolution in America and France …
opened to them a more splendid prospect than ever dawned
upon their ardent hopes at any former era.”14
In “Aratus #3 he wrote,
A new political balance has been created between
the people and a hereditary monarch….
No minister will be able to preserve his station
without the confidence of the National Assembly;
nor in general will any be appointed who do not possess it….
As a friend of humanity, I rejoice in the French revolution;
but as a citizen of America,
the gratification is greatly heightened.15
The war between the English and the French became an issue when Genêt
came to the United States to recruit ships and men to fight the British.
Monroe wrote this letter to Jefferson on 28 May 1793:
My last informed you that I had just received yours of
the fifth, as I returned from a circuit of professional duties.
It communicated to you likewise what I had to communicate
respecting your own commissions in that line.
The European war becomes daily
as it progresses more interesting to us.
I was happy to find Mr. Genêt whom I passed on the road
between Fredericksburg and Richmond had made a most
favorable impression on the inhabitants of the latter city.
It furnishes a favorable presage of his impression on a more
important though if possible not a more prejudiced theatre.
There can be no doubt that the general sentiment
of America is favorable to the French revolution.
The minority compared with the strength of those in that
interest, if the division could be properly drawn, would
in my opinion, be as the aggregate of Richmond and
Alexandria to Virginia—but general as this sentiment is
I believe it is equally so in favor of our neutrality.
And this seems to be dictated by the soundest policy
even as it may respect the object in view,
the success of the French revolution.
For if we were to join France, we should
from that moment put it out of her power
to derive any advantage from these States.
We could neither aid her with men nor money.
Of the former we have none; and of the latter our weak
and improvident war with the Indians, together with
the debts we have assumed will completely exhaust us.
Our declaration would not be felt on the continent.
It would produce no effect on the general combination
of European powers—would not retard the movements
of Brunswick, or any other invading army.
It would in fact be simply a declaration against Great Britain,
which would prove beneficial to her,
and highly injurious to France and ourselves.
From the view I have of the subject it would relieve her
from restraints growing out of the present state of things,
which would be both gratifying and advantageous to her.
For while the rights of neutrality belong to us,
some respect will be shown to those rights, nor is it
probable that an invasion of them by her will be
countenanced by her other associates in the war.
Under the protection of these rights the ports and the
bottoms of America will be free to France; in addition
to which every act of gratuity and favor which a
generous and grateful people can bestow without an
infringement of them on the other side will be shown.
France may greatly profit from this situation, for under a
wise management immense resources may be gathered
hence to aid her operations and support her cause.
And America must flourish under it, if indeed it
were generous to count her profits arising
from the general misfortunes of mankind.
Let it be noticed as a posterior consideration,
after estimating the effect our declaration or
neutrality might produce upon the affairs of France.
On the other hand I am persuaded our declaration
in favor of France, would not only in a correspondent
degree, injure that nation and ourselves,
but benefit the party we meant to injure.
Freed from any embarrassing questions respecting
the rights of neutrality, our commerce would be her
lawful plunder, and commanding as I presume
she will the seas, but little would escape her.
Neither the vessels of France nor even our own
would be safe in our ports unless we raised
fortifications in each for their protection.
I shall not therefore be surprised to find Great Britain
endeavoring to draw us into the war, even against her,
by every species of insult and outrage which a proud,
selfish, and vindictive nation can impose; or that this
disposition should show itself in the impressment of
our ships’ sailors and other violations of our neutrality.
Whether an appeal from such conduct should be made
to the general sense even of the combined powers,
with whom I see no reason why we should not stand
on good terms with a view of degrading her among
all civilized nations, as the Algiers of Europe, or to any
other means for the purpose of teaching her better
principles and manners, I will not pretend to determine.
Certain however I am, at least this is my present
impression, that it is our duty to avoid by every
possible dexterity a war which must inevitably injure
ourselves and our friends and benefit our enemies.
One circumstance seems to press us at present, and which
I fear will lessen, before any possible remedy can be
applied, the benefits of our neutrality and to those for whom
they are wished, I mean the scarcity of American bottoms.
I am told such cannot be procured, and in consequence
that our productions cannot be exported.
The injury that must arise from such
a cause will be universally felt.
Can this be otherwise remedied than by allowing the
American merchants to buy in the bottoms of other nations,
for a limited time 12 months for instance?
I can perceive no other cause at present which can make
the meeting of Congress necessary before, or much before
the time appointed; and the fact I hope does not exist,
or so partially as will admit of a remedy under the
regular operation of the existing law by the great
encouragement offered to American ships.
If such an event should take place (a more early meeting
of Congress) which is much spoken of here by letters
from Philadelphia, shall thank you to mention the time
you think it will sit, as it will regulate me in my family
and law concerns, and particularly whether I shall
bring Mrs. M. with me or leave her behind.
If such a call should be made, however injurious it may
be to me, I shall obey it—for while I hold the present
station, I shall always endeavor to perform its duties.
I have troubled you with a long letter upon subjects
very familiar to you, and upon which you have
no doubt long since made up your mind.
Mr. R. and family were well two days past
and the neighborhood generally—except Mrs. M.
who has been indisposed for a few days past.
With great respect & esteem I am
your affectionate friend & servant
Jas. Monroe
Is it not surprising that since my arrival in Virginia,
I have not received one of Freneau’s papers,
though Fenno’s have come regularly.
Perhaps they have not been sent—will you be pleased to
enquire and direct them to be sent in case they are not.
He should know that Davis is, if not in the opposite interest,
yet so miserable a tool of it as not
to be counted on in any respect.
I enclosed for Beckley from Fredericksburg
for that paper a political Jeu de Esprit of a friend
who wishes well to the republican cause.
If Beckley should be absent, as the cover to him was
intended merely as one from you, to prevent your
being troubled with it, could not this be mentioned
to the Editor to authorize his stripping it off?16
Thomas Jefferson on June 28 wrote this letter to James Monroe
concerning Washington’s neutrality in the European War:
I have to acknowledge your favor of May 28.
I believe that through all America there has been
but a single sentiment on the subject of peace
and war, which was in favor of the former.
The Executive here has cherished it
with equal and unanimous desire.
We have differed perhaps as to the tone of
conduct exactly adapted to the securing it.
We have as yet no indications of the intentions
or even the wishes of the British government.
I rather believe they mean to hold
themselves up and be led by events.
In the meanwhile Spain is so evidently picking a quarrel
with us, that we see a war absolutely inevitable with her.
We are making a last effort to avoid it, but our cabinet is
without any division in their expectations of the result.
This may not be known before the last of October,
earlier than which I think you will meet.
You should therefore calculate your domestic
measures on this change of position.
If France collected within her own limits, shall maintain
her ground there steadily, as I think she will (barring
the effects of famine which no one can calculate)
and if the bankruptcies of England proceed to the
length of a universal crush of their paper, which
I also think they will, she will leave Spain the bag to hold.
She is emitting assignats also, that is to say Exchequer bills
to the amount of 5 millions English or 125 millions French:
and these are not founded on land as the French
assignats are, but on pins, thread, buckles, hops
and whatever else you will pawn in the exchequer
of double the estimated value.
But we all know that 5 millions of such stuff forced
for sale at once on the market of London where there
will be neither cash nor credit, will not pay storage.
This paper must rest then ultimately on the
credit of the nation as the rest of their
public paper does, and will sink with that.
If either this takes place, or the confederacy is
unsuccessful, we may be clear of war with England.
With respect to the increase of our shipping,
our merchants have no need, you know, of a
permission to buy up foreign bottoms.
There is no law prohibiting it.
And when bought, they are American property and
as such entitled to pass freely by our treaties with
some nations, and by the law of nations with all.
Such accordingly, by a determination of the Executive
will receive American passports.
They will not be entitled indeed to import goods
on the low duties of home built vessels, the laws
having confined that privilege to these only.
We have taken every possible method to guard
against fraudulent conveyances, which if we can
augment our shipping to the extent of our own
carriage, it would not be our interest to cover.
I enclose you a note from Freneau explaining
the interruption of your papers.
I do not augur well of the mode of conduct
of the new French minister.
I fear he will enlarge the circle of those
disaffected to his country.
I am doing everything in my power to moderate the
impetuosity of his movements, and to destroy the
dangerous opinion, which has been excited in him,
that the people of the U. S. will disavow the acts
of their government, and that he has an appeal from
the Executive to Congress, and from both to the people.
Affairs with the Creeks seem to present war
there as inevitable.
But it will await for you.
We have no news from the Northern commissioners,
but of the delay likely to be attempted by the Indians.
But as we never expected peace from the negotiation,
I think no delay will be admitted which may
defeat our preparations for a campaign.
Crops here are likely to be good, though the
beginning of the harvest has been a little wet.
I forget whether I informed you that I had chosen a house
for you, and was determined in the choice by the Southern
aspect of the back buildings, the only circumstance of
difference between the two presented to my choice.17
On 23 July 1793 Monroe in a letter to Jefferson discussed the situation with Spain.
I came here yesterday upon some business in the office
of the Court of chancery, and shall return tomorrow.
I shall see Barrett today and give him a line to
Mr. Pope for the adjustment of his claim.
Mr. Lewis and Divers have valued Thenia and
children but have not furnished me the statement.
They will on my return.
I am likewise in your debt for the Encyclopedia.
Be so obliging as state in your next the amount,
and I will include the whole in the same bond.
Tis impossible to adjust the transaction in
a manner more agreeable to me and
therefore hope it will likewise be so to you.
The information contained in your last of the prospect
of a war with Spain is truly alarming—but I still hope it
may be avoided—as it embarks us of course in the general
war of Europe and puts our fortunes afloat on the event.
The unanimity of our Executive councils on the
subject begets strange suspicions with me.
By the proclamation so far as it had a right,
we are separated from France.
The progress of the war then is not intended
to be in great harmony with that nation,
as for the support of public liberty.
We shall however be at war with Spain upon a
private quarrel of our own—for instance for the
Mississippi, and which I hear has been lately guaranteed
by Britain to that power—but the guarantee has not
been published and perhaps not intended to be.
The commencement in the object and parties to the war,
contains as little hostility to Britain and monarchy as
possible; the odium of it too with the present Indian war—
will be placed to account of the western country,
already unpopular enough throughout the continent.
Britain it is obvious will prescribe the terms of the peace
and what these may be, in the unsettled state of the world
with respect to government the disposition of many with
respect to the western country and torn to pieces as we are,
by a malignant monarchy faction is altogether uncertain.
Besides upon what principle can it be accounted for,
that the certificate party lose the support of Hamilton
upon this occasion furnished them upon all others?
The certificates are in the dust if we are involved in a war,
and he has shown he could bear any kind
of indignity from the British Court.
The whole is mysterious to me.
I fear the party, finding its affairs desperate and that by
fair discussion before the public it will be crushed and that
the public credit partly by the mismanagement of the public
finances, and partly by the present war whose effect is felt,
are disposed to precipitate us into some dreadful
catastrophe which may end we know not where.
The circumstance of a Spanish war is of all others
the happiest expedient for them.
They have shown themselves the patrons and advocates
for peace by the proclamation—a war, and for the
Mississippi or southern boundaries will not be theirs—
its odium will fall elsewhere.
I am (against every invitation to war)
an advocate for peace.
The insults of Spain, Britain, or any other of the combined
powers I deem no more worthy our notice as a nation,
than those of a lunatic to a man in health—
for I consider them as desperate and raving mad.
To expose ourselves to their fury if we can get out of their
way would be as imprudent in the former as the latter case.
To preserve peace will no doubt be difficult
but by accomplishing it, we show our wisdom
and magnanimity—we secure to our people the
enjoyment of a dignified repose, by indulging
which they will be prosperous and happy.
There is no sacrifice I would not be willing to make
for the sake of France and her cause—
but I think by this course we advance her interest—
and I am persuaded she must so understand it.
In the meantime, whatever the principles of neutrality
would allow of should be granted her.
I observe a curious publication signed “pacificus”
written no doubt by Mr. Hamilton.
The principles it contains are really novel.
The President he says may of himself annul any treaty
or part of a treaty he thinks fit, as the Organ of
communication with foreign powers—
that he has done so by the proclamation—
in respect to the guarantee, which he has declared void,
and the other two articles he has
permitted to remain in force.
It contains other doctrines equally exceptionable—
but which I have not time at present to notice
nor you I presume to read.18
Monroe wrote this short letter to Jefferson on 4 December 1793:
I find the establishment of the charge against Mr. Genêt
will depend principally upon what you heard Mr. Dallas say.
This latter will deny that he ever said
anything like what the certificate states.
John Jay and Rufus King heard it from Alexander Hamilton
and Henry Knox, these latter from Mifflin, and I am told
that there is a difference between those Gentlemen
and Mifflin, and likewise between him and Dallas
as to what they respectively stated.
So that the fact will be disproved against them,
unless the circumstances they are able
to adduce are supported by you.
If they procure from the President your report to him
will not this transfer the business from them to him.
I have just heard the above and
transmit it for your information.19
Senator Monroe on 8 April 1794 wrote this short letter
to President George Washington:
Having casually heard that it was requested by many
of Col. Hamilton’s political associates, that you would
nominate him as Envoy to the Court of Great Britain,
and as I should deem such a measure not only
injurious to the public interest, but also especially so
to your own, I have taken the liberty to express that
sentiment to you & likewise to observe farther,
that in case it is your wish I should explain to you
more at large my concern for this opinion, I will wait
on you at any hour you may appoint for that purpose.20
Senator Monroe wrote this letter to Jefferson on May 4:
Yours of April 24th reached me yesterday.
Since my last the proposition of Mr. Clarke for
prohibiting the importation of British goods until the posts
shall be surrendered and compensation made for the
depredation on our trade was rejected in the Senate.
Upon the question the first section which determined the
fate of the bill, Jackson and Bradley withdraw which left
us 11 only against 14, in consequence of which every
section was negative; yet a question was notwithstanding
taken whether the bill should be read a 3rd time and
in favor of which these gentlemen voted, and Ross
the successor of Gallatin taking into his head now to
withdraw, the house was equally divided and the
casting vote given by the Vice President against it.
Thus the bill was lost, the most mature and likely to succeed
of all the propositions respecting Great Britain which have
been presented before the legislature during the session.
Its fate may be ascribed to an executive maneuver:
for while it was depending in the Representative
branch and obviously a great majority in its favor,
the nomination of Mr. Jay was introduced,
as Envoy Extraordinary for the British court.
From that moment it was manifest the measure
would be lost, and although it passed the other
branch and perhaps with greater vote than would
have been the case, had not the sense of the Senate
been clearly indicated by the approbation of the nomination,
yet it was plain the prospect of success was desperate.
An Extraordinary mission was a measure of conciliation,
it was urged; prohibitory regulations were of a
different character and would defeat its object.
Thus you find nothing has been carried against
that nation, but on the contrary the most
submissive measure adopted that could be devised
to court her favor and degrade our character.
Tis said that the Envoy will be armed with
extraordinary powers, and that authority
to form a commercial treaty will
likewise be comprised in his instructions.
Under a similar power upon a former occasion,
granted too by implication only, this person had
well nigh bartered away the Mississippi.
What then may we not expect from him upon the
present crisis, when the power is expressly granted
and the fortune of the party whose agent he is, may
be considered as hazarded in the success of his mission?
After degrading our country by showing to the world,
that they were more willing to confide in retribution
&ca. from their justice and favor, than from the
strength of our union and the decision of our councils,
will this man return baffled in the enterprise and
seek to atone for himself and those who sent him
to the community by owning his and their folly
which had exposed us to such humiliation?
And when it is considered that Britain contemplates the
conquest of the French and perhaps afterwards of the
Spanish Islands, and the downfall of the Spanish power
in this region of the world a course of policy which will
part her not only from Spanish but perhaps from the
present combination of powers, is it not probable she will be
disposed to seek an alliance here as well for the purpose of
aiding her in these projects as detaching us from France?
Some symptoms of discontent have already appeared
in the Spanish cabinet, and these it is probable will be
increased when the conquest of Britain in the Islands
is attended to, and her views become further developed.
The circumstance of sending an envoy to negotiate
with England at the time that the minister of France,
on the ground and clothed with similar powers, is only
amused with acts of civility, shows that a connection
with the former power is the next object of the Executive.
The present French minister expressed lately the wish of
his country that Gouverneur Morris should be recalled and
in consequence arrangements are making for that purpose.
Being forced to send a republican character the
administration was reduced to the dilemma of selecting
from among its enemies or rather those of opposite
principles, a person who would be acceptable to that nation.
The offer of the station has been presented to Catherine
Livingston as I hear in a letter written by the President.
Tis thought he will accept it.
Burr’s name was mentioned to Randolph
but with the success that was previously expected,
indeed it was not urged in preference to the other,
but only noted for consideration.
I thank you for the intelligence
respecting my farm near you.
I think we shall adjourn in about 3 weeks
after which I shall immediately proceed home.21
Senator Monroe from Philadelphia wrote again to Jefferson on 26 May 1794:
The session begins to draw to a close.
The 3rd of June is agreed on by both houses
as the day on which it shall end,
and I believe the agreement will be executed.
The enclosed paper will show you
the state of things with England.
This incursion into our country has no pretext to be called
or considered otherwise than an actual invasion,
and as such presume it will be treated by the
President whose powers are competent
by the existing law to its repulsion.
The Governor of Pennsylvania has a small force
within 16 miles of Presque Isle
and intends taking possession of the latter post.
Within a few days past however it has been notified
to him by some Indians that it will be opposed,
and in consequence thereof he has ordered out 1000
of the western militia to secure the lodgment.
I suspect however these movements were dictated
in November last and should not be considered as an
indication of the temper of the English Court at present.
They may even be disavowed
if a change in circumstances requires it.
The incident has been seized, you will observe, as a
ground for pressing an increase of the military forces—
in consequence of which a proposition was immediately
introduced into the Senate for authorizing the President
to raise 10,000 additional troops under provisions
more popular than those rejected in the Representatives
and of course more likely to succeed even there.
In the Senate it will pass immediately,
for the republican party is entirely broken in that branch.
Thus it results that through the influence of the Executive
aided by the personal weight of the President, the republican
party notwithstanding its systematic and laborious efforts
has been able to accomplish nothing which might vindicate
the honor or advance the prosperity of the country.
I believe I intimated to you in my last that the President
had offered to Mr. Livingston after the refusal of
Mr. Madison the legation to France in the place of
Gouverneur Morris who would be recalled,
that Col. Burr had been a competitor.
Since that time Livingston has declined,
and Burr has continued under auspices
very favorable to his success, sole candidate.
Present appearances authorize
the belief he will be appointed.
Of course he goes as a republican, and I am inclined
to think the President supposes he lays that party
under obligations to him for the nomination,
for I am persuaded in addition to other
considerations he really surmounts some
objections of a personal nature in making it.
But when it is known that the Jersey members,
Judge Patterson &ca, have promoted his interest,
our confidence in the steadiness of his
political tenets will not be increased.
We shall be with you as soon as
possible after the adjournment.22
Later in his Autobiography Monroe wrote about his time in the U. S. Senate
and how in 1794 he was appointed as the Minister to France:
Although Mr. Monroe was a member of the party
called Anti-Federal, yet his conduct was moderate.
He had been an advocate for an essential change
of the system, and in the convention of the state
by whom the Constitution was adopted,
he had declared that sentiment in decided terms.
In the Senate he had opposed in several instances
the measures proposed by the President,
of which it is proper to notice two examples,
the appointment of Mr. Morris to France and of
Mr. Jay to England, the latter of which occurred a few
weeks only before this mission was offered to him.
The relation, however, which had been formed
between them in his early youth was not shaken.
In support of this fact, it may not be improper to mention
an incident which occurred before his nomination to
the Senate and appointment by the President
as Minister Plenipotentiary to the French republic.
The government of France had demanded the
recall of Mr. Gouverneur Morris, who then held
that station with that government.
They considered him unfriendly to their revolution
and were anxious that he should be removed and a
successor be appointed to him of different principles.
As soon as this demand was made known to the President,
he resolved to comply with it and, in consequence,
instructed the Secretary of State, Mr. Edmund Randolph,
to consult with and take the opinion of Mr. Madison
and Mr. Monroe, as to the person whom
they thought best suited to the trust.
They recommended a citizen to whom the
appointment was offered, and who declined it.
The offer was then made to Mr. Monroe, who declined,
that he had never contemplated such a trust,
that his views were different, and that the proposition
was the more unexpected from the consideration
that he had opposed in the Senate some of the
most important measures of the President.
Mr. Randolph replied that the President was decidedly
friendly to the French Revolution and of which,
as Mr. Monroe’s principles were well known,
he was desirous of his appointment to give to the
government and people of France an unequivocal proof.
With respect to the part he had acted in the Senate,
Mr. Randolph assured him that it formed no obstacle
to his appointment, for the President had never
ascribed it to other than upright and honorable motives.
On due consideration and the advice of his friends
and of those generally with whom he harmonized
in Congress, he resolved to accept it.
Of this he apprised Mr. Randolph and, in consequence,
his nomination was made to the Senate, approved by it,
and the appointment immediately conferred on him.
Mr. Monroe accepted this appointment with an earnest
desire to discharge his duties with advantage to his country,
satisfaction to his government, and credit to himself.
The trusts which he had before held were very
distinguished, and considering his age, proof of
the high confidence reposed in him by his native state,
from all of which he had retired with the
approbation of his fellow citizens.
The manner of his appointment to this mission was
peculiarly gratifying to him, by the person from whom
it emanated and the sentiment which accompanied it
from that illustrious person in his favor.
The theater on which he was called to act was new, and
the trust itself of a nation the more difficult and delicate from
the state in which he left affairs at home, and that which
existed in France, where his duties were to be performed.
Great Britain and France were engaged in a war
which menaced the existence of each power,
and both pursued it with a spirit which manifested
a desire to crush, if not to exterminate, the other.
All the other powers of Europe were arranged on the
side of Great Britain, but with the same object in view.
The principle on which the contest turned was that
on which our governments were founded,
and it was believed, by those who formed the
Anti-Federal party, that the result in favor of either
side would produce a corresponding effect with us.
In the fury of the contest both Great Britain and France
had struck at and done us great injury.
Both had seized a large number of our vessels at sea,
condemned and sold their cargoes,
and imprisoned many of our citizens.
With the government of France a treaty of commerce had
been formed in 1778, on liberal principles which had been
violated, and much injury inflicted on us in breach thereof.
It was well understood that the French Revolution had taken
its origin in that of the United States, and as the success of
so great a power as France threatened the overthrow of
all the monarchies of Europe, the dread of which had united
them against her, it might fairly be concluded that the cause
of the two countries in that respect was the same,
and that the fate of France might decide that of America.
If she should be crushed, there seemed to be no ground
on which to rest a reasonable presumption that they would
strike at the source from whence the danger emanated.
The naval force of Great Britain predominated at sea,
and her government had not adopted with us,
in favor of neutral powers, those few principles of
maritime right which France had done,
so that the French government had injured
its character as well as its interest
by the breach of the treaty of 1778.
Mr. Monroe resolved to present these views to the
French government and to urge them with great zeal
in the hope of inducing it to revoke the order for seizing
our vessels, to restore the treaty to its full force,
obtain an indemnity for injuries already received,
and to preserve the best understanding and policy between
the two governments and the people of the two countries.
He sailed from Baltimore the latter end of June
and arrived at Havre de Grace on the 31st of July,
and at Paris on the 2nd of August following.23
President Washington asked Monroe to communicate
his concern in writing, and he did so.
The President nominated Monroe to be the Minister to the French Republic
on May 27, and the Senate confirmed him the next day.
In a letter on June 1 Monroe accepted the position and promised that
he would work for the country and the President’s administration.
On June 10 Secretary of State Edmund Randolph sent detailed
instructions to Monroe, and in his conclusion he wrote,
You go, Sir, to France, to strengthen our friendship with
that country; and you are well acquainted with the line
of freedom and ease, to which you may advance
without betraying the dignity of the United States.
You will show our confidence in the French Republic
without betraying the most remote
mark of undue complaisance.
You will let it be seen, that in case of war
with any nation on earth, we shall consider
France as our first and natural ally.
You may dwell upon the sense which we entertain
of past services, and for the more recent interposition
in our behalf with the Dey of Algiers.
Among the great events with which the world
is now teeming, there may be an opening for
France to become instrumental in securing
to us the free navigation of the Mississippi.
Spain may, perhaps, negotiate a peace,
separate from Great Britain, with France.
If she does, the Mississippi may be acquired
through this channel, especially if you contrive
to have our mediation in any manner solicited.24
Notes
1. The Writings of Monroe, Volume 1 1778-1794 ed. Stanislaus Murray Hamilton,
p. 171-172.
2. From James Madison to James Monroe, 10 June 1787 (Online).
3. The Writings of Monroe, Volume 1 1778-1794, p. 172-175.
4. Ibid., p. 178-180.
5. June 10, 1788, James Monroe Draft Of A Speech For The Virginia Ratification
Convention (Online).
6. The Writings of Monroe, Volume 1 1778-1794, p. 184-188.
7. Ibid., p. 197-200.
8. From George Washington to James Monroe, 23 February 1789 (Online).
9. The Writings of Monroe, Volume 1 1778-1794, p. 209-210.
10. The Last Founding Father: James Monroe and a Nation’s Call to Greatness
by Harlow Giles Unger, p. 87-88.
11. The Writings of Monroe, Volume 1 1778-1794, p. 223-224.
12. James Monroe: The Quest for National Identity by Harry Ammon, p. 87-88.
13. The Last Founding Father: James Monroe and a Nation’s Call to Greatness
by Harlow Giles Unger, p. 92.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid., p. 92-93.
16. The Writings of Monroe, Volume 1 1778-1794, p. 256-260.
17. From Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 28 June 1793 (Online).
18. The Writings of Monroe, Volume 1 1778-1794, p. 267-270.
19. Ibid., p. 279.
20. Ibid., p. 291-292.
21. Ibid., p. 292-296.
22. Ibid., p. 296-298.
23. The Autobiography of James Monroe, p. 67-69.
24. The Writings of Monroe, Volume 2 1794-1796, p. 8.