“ burg; I believe at Lord Dunmore’s; & I find in my pocket book of that year (1774.) an entry of the narrative as taken from the mouth of some person whose name however is not noted, nor recollected, precisely in the words stated in the Notes on Virginia. the speech was published in the Virginia gazette of that time: (I have it myself in the volume of gazettes of that year:) & though it was the translation made by the common Interpreter, & in a style by no means elegant, yet it was so admired, that it flew thro’ all the public papers of the continent, & thro’ the magazines & other periodical publications of Great Britain; & those who were boys at that day will now attest that the speech of Logan used to be given them as a school-exercise for repetition. it was not till about 13. or 14. years after the newspaper publications that the Notes on Virginia were published in America. combating in these the contumatious theory of certain European writers, whose celebrity gave currency & weight to their opinions, that our country from the combined effects of soil & climate, degenerated animal nature, in the general, and particularly the moral faculties of man, I considered the speech of Logan as an apt proof of the contrary, & used it as such: & I copied verbatim the narrative I had taken down in 1774. & the speech as it had been given us in a better translation by L ^d. Dunmore. I knew nothing of the Cresaps, & could not possibly have a motive to do them an injury with design. I repeated what thousands had done before on as good authority as we have for most of the facts we learn through life, & such as to this moment I have seen no reason to doubt. that anybody questioned it, was never suspected by me till I saw the letter of m ( ^~ r) Martin in the Baltimore paper. I endeavored then to recollect who among my cotemporaries, of the same circle of society, & consequently of the same recollections, might still be alive. three & twenty years of death & dispersion had left very few. I remembered however that General Gibson was still living & knew that he had been the translator of the speech. I wrote to him immediately. he in answer, declares to me that he was the very person sent by L ^d. Dunmore to the Indian town, that after he had delivered his message there, Logan took him out to a neighboring wood, sat down with him, and rehearsing with tears the catastrophe of his family, gave him that speech for L ^d. Dunmore; that he carried it to L ^d. Dunmore, translated it for him, has turned to it in the Encyclopedia, as taken from the Notes on Virginia, & finds that it was his translation I had used, with only two or three verbal variations of no importance. these I suppose had arisen in the course of successive copies. I cite General Gibson’s letter by memory, not having it with me; but I am sure I cite it substantially right. it establishes unquestionably that the speech of Logan is genuine: & that being established, it is Logan himself who is author of all the important fact. ‘Col ^o. Cresap, says he, in cold blood & unprovoked, murdered all the relations of Logan, not sparing even my women and children. there runs not a drop of my blood in the veins of any living creature.’ the person, & the fact, in all it’s material circumstances, are here given by Logan himself. Gen ^l. Gibson indeed says that the title was mistaken: that Cresap was a Captain, & not a Col ^o. this was Logan’s mistake. he also observes that it was on a water of the Kanhaway, & not on the Kanhaway itself that his family was killed. this is an error which has crept into the traditionary account: but surely of little moment in the moral view of the subject. the material question is Was Logan’s family murdered, & by whom? that it was murdered, has not I believe been denied. that it was by one of the Cresaps, Logan affirms. this is a question which concerns the memories of Logan & Cresap; to the issue of which I am as indifferent as if I had never heard the name of either. I have begun & shall continue to enquire into the evidence, additional to Logan’s, on which the fact was founded. little indeed can now be heard of, & that little dispersed & distant. if it shall appear on enquiry that Logan has been wrong in charging Cresap with the murder of his family, I will do justice to the memory of Cresap, as far as I have contributed to the injury by believing & repeating what others had believed & repeated before me. if on the other hand, I find that Logan was right in his charge, I will vindicate as far as my suffrage may go, the truth of a Chief, whose talents & misfortunes have attached to him the respect & commiseration of the world. ”

On March 25, Jefferson wrote to Dr. Samuel Brown of Ohio: “ You were a witness, before you left our side of the continent, to the endeavors of the tory party among us, to write me down as far as they could find or make materials. ‘Oh! that mine enemy would write a book!’ has been a well known prayer against an enemy. I had written a book, and it has furnished matter of abuse for want of something better. m ( ^~ r) Martin’s polite attack on the subject of Cresap & Logan, as stated in the Notes on Virginia, had begun before you left us. it has continued & still continues; tho’ after the perusal of the first letter had shewn me what was to be the style of those subsequent, I have avoided reading a single one. a friend of mine having wished for a general explanation of the foundation of the case of Logan, I wrote him a letter of which I had a few copies printed, to give to particular friends for their satisfaction, & on whom I could rely against the danger of it’s being published. I inclose you a copy as well for these purposes, as that I think it may be in your power to obtain some information for me. indeed I suppose it probable that General Clarke may know something of the facts relative to Logan or Cresap. I shall be much obliged to you for any information you can procure on this subject. you will see by the inclosed in what way I mean to make use of it. I am told you are preparing to give us an account of the General, which for it’s matter I know, & for it’s manner I doubt not, will be highly interesting. I am in hopes in connecting with it some account of Kentucky, that your information & his together will be able to correct and supply what I had collected relative to it in a very early day. indeed it was to Gen ^l. Clarke I was indebted for what degree of accuracy there was in most of my statements. I wish you to attend particularly to the overflowage of the Mississippi, on which I have been accused of error. present me affectionately to the General, & assure him of my constant remembrance & esteem: and accept yourself salutations & sentiments of sincere attachment from Dear Sir . . . ”

Dr. Brown replied from Lexington, Kentucky, on September 4: “The letter you did me the honor of writing me, in March last, I intended to have answered long since; & to enable me to do so, the more to your satisfaction, I took the earliest opportunities of informing General Clarke & several other gentlemen, who had been the companions of his youthful campaigns, of the illiberal attack made on you, by the Attorney General of Maryland. I have defered replying to your friendly letter hitherto, from an expectation of collecting from different sources, a variety of statements & facts relative to the murder of Logans family. But as most of the Gentlemen to whom I wrote on the subject, reside in remote parts of the country, at a distance from post Roads, I am induced to attribute their silence to the want of safe modes of conveying their letters to Lexington. I am, however, happy, in having it in my power to transmit to you, an interesting letter, from your friend General Clarke, which, indeed, appears to me, to render further investigation quite unnecessary. The only point for which you contend (viz) that Logan is really the Author of the Speech ascribed to him, in your Notes on Virginia is now established beyond the possibility of contradiction. The incidents in General Clarkes narrative follow each other in a manner so simple & so natural as to afford, to every liberal & candid enquirer, the highest internal evidence of their reality. To those who have the happiness of being acquainted with that truly great man, his statement will bring the fullest conviction. His memory is singularly accurate, his veracity unquestionable. To such respectable authority I can suppose no one capable of objecting, except Mr Luther Martin. I have shewn General Clarkes letter to Major Morrison, the Supervisor of the Ohio District, who resided near Pittsburg, when the transactions respecting Logan occurred. He assures me that he knows most of them as stated in the letter to be true for they are within his own recollection. Colo. Paterson who likewise lived in that Country about that time mentioned to me a circumstance which appears worthy of notice. There were, then, in that, as in almost every other frontier, two parties--By the one Capt. Cresap was considered as a wanton violator of Treaties as a man of a cruel & inhuman disposition; By the other he was esteem[ed] as an intrepid warrior & as a just avenger of savage barbarities. You probably became first acquainted with his character at Williamsburg the seat of Government; General Clarke joined him in the War path. This circumstance will, perhaps, in some measure, account for the very different sentiments, which two Gentlemen so perfectly capable of appreciating Cresaps character, may have entertained respecting it.

"Should you judge it adviseable, at the present time, I could easily obtain from General Clarke the substance of his narrative & have it published here as an answer to spontaneous enquiries of my own. It can be done without your appearing at all in the business. This however I shall not attempt to do without your permission; yet I wish that Gen ^l Clarkes statement could be made public in some shape or other, as it would doubly mortify Mr Martin to have his assertions refuted without receiving a reply from you whom he has so assiduously laboured to draw forth into the field of controversy. I can assure that your friends in this quarter are highly gratified at the silent contempt with which you have treated that redoutable Hero of Federalism--And it is with heartfelt pleasure that I further assure you, that nothing which old Tories, aristocrats & governmental Sycophants can say against you, will in any degree, diminish the confidence, which the good Citizens of this state repose in your abilities & patriotism. Never was a State more unanimous in execrating the measures supported by your Enemies who, I trust, will soon prove themselves to be, what I have long thot them, the enemies of Liberty & their Country . . .”

Dr. Brown sent General Clarke’s [i.e. General George Rogers Clark] deposition, 8 pages folio, dated June 17, 1798.

This deposition reads in part: Your Letter was handed to me by M ^r. Thruston, the Matter therein contained was new to me; I find myself hurt that Mr. Jefferson should have been attacked with so much Virulence on a Subject which I know he was not the Author of; but except a few Mistakes of Name of Person & Places, the Story is substantially true; I was of the first and last of the active Officers who bore the Weight of that War, and on perusing some old Papers of that Date I find some M emoirs; but independent of them I have a perfect Recollection of every Transaction relative to Logans Story. The Conduct of Cresap I am perfectly acquainted with, he was not the Author of that Murder, But a Family of the Name of Greathouse--But some Transactions that happened under the Conduct of Capt ⁿ. Cresap a few Days previous to the Murder of Logans Family gave him sufficient Ground to suppose that it was Cresap who had done him the Injury; But to enable you fully to understand the subject of your Enquiry, I shall relate the Incidents that gave Rise to Logan’s Suspicion; and will enable M ^r. Jefferson to do Justice to himself and the Cresap Family, by being made fully acquainted with Facts . . .

On May 4, 1798, James Lewis, Jr., wrote to Jefferson from Fredericksburg, Virginia: “At this momentous crisis, when one party style themselves the enemies to abuse, and the friends of Reform; and the other party are contending for the continuance of their degraded institutions and unrelenting usurpations, the powers of man are everywhere in action. The struggle is, who shall prevail: the passions of men are no less active, than their understandings. No example can more effectually exhibit this activity, than a furious invective of Luther Martin, publicly applauded by Francis Corbin, a man of some conspicuity in our state, against you. At such a period, the friends of reform should let be known, that they act from from [ sic -- Ed. ] the enlightened convictions of truth & justice and from the respectable motives, that such principles necessarily inspire; our motives should be pure and our integrity unimpeached. That publication has attempted to attach to you, the degraded motive of endeavouring in your notes to raise your Literary fame at the expence of another’s reputation and to effect it, have not stopped at misreprentation [ sic -- Ed. ] & calumny. I will not, enlightened friend of man and your Country, decide as to the mode of repelling this charge, designed for this period--By a Letter of yours to our friend Mr Page your mode of resisting it, is known to me. Let me do my duty, by notifying to you, the existence of a document, w ^ch. in my estimate, will be greatly serviceable.

"S ^t. George Tucker is here attend ^g in his official character, as Judge of this District: Conversing with him, he authorises me, to communicate to you, that he thinks he possesses a paper Contemporary with the facts alluded to, w ^ch details them, as your Virginia notes do: if he should have it not, his recollection of having read such detail, in such paper, within a short time, is thoroughly vivid--If the possession of such paper or his Certificate can be beneficial to you, at your notification thereof, he will transmit them or either of them to you. It is unnecessary for me to add, that my services are at your disposal.

"In the above conduct my motives cannot be scanned. I am determined to devote my life to the cause of equality, Justice & mankind & thus my duty is, that the votaries of such principles should always be enabled to shield their characters & exhibit their genuine features.”

Jefferson replied on May 9: “ I am much obliged by your friendly letter of the 4 ^th. inst. as soon as I saw the first of m ( ^~ r) Martin’s letters, I turned to the newspapers of the day & found Logan’s speech as translated by a common Indian interpreter. the version I had used had been made by Gen ^l. Gibson. finding from m ( ^~ r) Martin’s stile that his object was not merely truth, but to gratify party passions, I never read another of his letters. I determined to do my duty by searching into the truth & publishing it to the world, whatever it should be. this I shall do at a proper season. I am much indebted to many persons who without any acquaintance with me have voluntarily sent me information on the subject . . . ”

Between 1798 and 1800 Jefferson collected through various friends the depositions he subsequently printed in the Appendix to the Notes on Virginia.

Amongst the deponents was Judge Harry Innes of Danville, Kentucky, with whom Jefferson had considerable correspondence on the subject.

On March 2, 1799, Judge Innes wrote from Kentucky (Near Frankfort) to Jefferson: “The other day being in the county of Shelby I was shewn a letter from Doctor Sam ^l. Brown of Lexington to Doctor Knight, requesting information respecting the murder of some Indians at Yellow Creek on the Ohio in the Spring of 1774, supposed to have been committed by Col ^o. Cresap which caused the Indian War of that year. Doctor Brown in his letter stated that he wished to collect facts respecting the murder & the Speech of Logan as written in your Notes of Virginia, to transmit them to you in order to justify your charge against Cresap, as you had been caled upon so to do by Luther Martin Esq ^r. of Maryland.

"My respect for both your public & private character induced me to make some enquiry into the circumstances (of the person in whose hands I saw the letter) relative to the above facts, the result of which appears to be this; That about the month of April 1774 from eight to twelve Indians, men, women & children were kiled at the mouth of Yellow creek at the house of one Joshua Baker who kept a Tavern at that place; the women & children were in the house, their shreiks & cries reached the ears of some Indian men on the opposite shore of the Ohio who came over in canoes, the men were kiled as soon as they had landed; this murder was committed by a certain Daniel Greathouse & others, in the perpetration of which Cresap had no part, neither was he present.

"About the same time Col ^o. Cresap with fourteen or fifteen men were asscending the Ohio & fell in with three Indian men between Wheeling & Buffaloe creeks who he murdered.

"I received this information from Jacob Newland of Shelby county who lived at the time on the Bank of the Ohio below the mouth of Buffaloe, a man of integrity who was informed of the fact by Cresap & his party, but he cannot recollect the reason (if any) assigned in justification of the murder.

"If you still wish to pursue the enquiry farther, Cap ^t. Newland recommends it to you to apply to, Charles Polke & Isaac Greathouse of Shelby, Herman Greathouse & Thomas Polke of Nelson, John Sappington of Madison of this state & Joshua Baker before noted on Cumberland River of the state of Tenessee.

"If sir you will state to me particular facts of which you are to be informed respecting the said murders & the causes which produced them, I will chearfully unite with Doctor Brown my endeavours to collect every information which these men can now recollect respecting the transactions. It can be done without much trouble, & if it will render you any essential benifit I will make a personal application to each of the persons resident within this state & apply by letter to Baker.

"With respect to the authenticity of Logan’s Speech they probably know nothing about it--application made to Officers near Dunmore’s person, or the Feild Officers of his division, would be apt to give more particular information on the subject. I recollect to have seen it in 75 in one of the public prints.

"That Logan conceived Cresap to be the author of the murder at Yellow creek, it is in my power to give, perhaps a more particular information, than any other person you can apply to. In 1774 I lived in Fincastle county, now divided into Washington, Montgomery & part of Wythe, being intimate in Col ^o. Preston’s family I happened in July to be at his house, when an express was sent to him as the C ^y. Leiut. requesting a Guard of the militia to be ordered out for the protection of the inhabitants residing low down on the north fork of Holstein river, the Express brought with him a war club & a note which was left tied to it at the house of one Robertson whose family were cut off by the Indians & gave rise for the application to Col ^o. Robertson, of which the following is a Copy then taken by me in my mem ^o. Book.

"“Captain Cresap

What did you kill my people on Yellow creek for, th white people killd my kin at Conustoga a great while ago, and I thought nothing of that, but you kill’d my kin again on Yellow creek and took my cousin prisoner, then I thought I must kill too and I have been three times to war since, but the Indians are not angry only myself.

Captain John Logan

July 21 ^st. 1774

"The foregoing statement of Facts has made my letter so long that I shall forbear any observations respecting our political situation & opinions of the western country--if they shall conduce anithing to your satisfaction I shall feel myself compensated for the trouble I have had in writing them.”

This letter was not used by Jefferson in this Appendix.

Jefferson replied from Monticello on June 20: ““ I have to acknolege the reciept of your favor of March the 2 ^d. and to return you many thanks for it. I am very desirous to collect all the information I can relative to the murder of Logan’s family, who were the perpetrators, & how far Cresap had counselled or ordered it; for tho’ there exists a very general belief that he was present, yet the information I have recieved seems rather that he ordered Greathouse & his party on that business & took another upon himself. of the authenticity of Logan’s speech I have the evidence of General Gibson who recieved it from Logan’s hand, delivered it to Lord Dunmore & translated it. the speech proves that Logan considered Col ^o. Cresap as the murderer; and nothing can prove it more authentically than the copy of the note you have been so kind as to send me. my statement therefore, which has been attacked is nothing more than the universally recieved account of that transaction. if mankind have generally imputed that murder to Cresap, it was because his character led them to it, numerous murders of the Indians having drawn them to fix this on him. his character becomes an object of enquiry on this account. after letting this matter remain uncontradicted for upwards of 20. years it has now been raked up from party hatred, as furnishing some [illegible] with the design of writing me down. I have left their calumnies unanswered but in the meantime have asked the favor of gentlemen who have it in their power to procure me what information they can as I mean to prepare a correct statement of the facts respecting the murder of Logan’s family, to be inserted by way of amendment into the text of the Notes on Virginia. this I hope to be able to publish next winter when in Philadelphia, so I have asked from my friends to furnish me whatever they shall have collected by the month of December next. material from the evidence will probably be published in support of the text as it will be amended. the information will mention [illegible] affidavits where convenient, or of certificate or letter where not so. minute details will be most desirable. any assistance you can give me in procuring this or any other material information on the subject will be very thankfully recieved, my distance from the evidence of persons acquainted with the transaction rendering it impracticable for me to obtain it otherwise than by the aid of my friends. I would also ask to recieve it by or before the month of December. I should not have taken the liberty of troubling you but as you have been so kind as to offer your aid . . . ”

On December 6 Innes sent to Jefferson the depositions of Charles Polke and Jacob Newlan with a long letter from himself, which Jefferson answered from Philadelphia on January 23, 1800: “ Your favor of Dec. 6. I recieved here on the 30 ^th. of the same month, and have to thank you for the papers it contained. they serve to prove that if Cressap was not of the party of Logan’s murderers, yet no injury was done his character by believing it. I shall while here this winter publish such material testimony on the subject as I have recieved; which by the kindness of my friends will be amply sufficient. it will appear that the deed was generally imputed to Cressap by both whites & Indians, that his character was justly stained with their blood, perhaps that he ordered this transaction, but that he was not himself present at the time. I shall consequently make a proper change in the text of the Notes on Virginia, to be adopted if any future edition of that work should be printed . . . ”

On March 14 in the same year General John Gibson wrote from Pittsburgh to Jefferson: “I recieved the enclosed letter from a M ^r. Luther Martin of Baltimore requesting me to answer the Queries therein contained. But as I am fully convinced he is actuated by party spirit, more than by any other consideration, I shall not return him answer until I hear from you, in the mean time permit me to request you to send me a Copy of the last letter I wrote to you, when I shall be able to Give you a deposition of every thing, I know concerning it . . .”

Jefferson replied on March 21: “ I recieved last night your favor of the 14 ^th. and now inclose you a copy of your letter. I was within a day or two of putting into the press the evidence I had collected on this subject. I have been long in collecting it, because of the distance & dispersion of those acquainted with the transaction. however I have at length thot of a dozen or fifteen persons, who clear up the mystery which threw doubt on this phase of history. it appears that instead of one, there were four different murders committed on the Indians. the 1 ^st. by Creasp & his party a little above Wheeling, on two Indians. the 2 ^d. by the same persons on the same or the next day on a party of Indians encamped below Wheeling at the mouth of Grave creek, among whom were some of Logan’s relations. the Indians have returned the fire & wounded one of Cresap’s party. the 3 ^d. by Greathouse & Tomlinson a few days after this was a hunting party of Indian men, women & children encamped at the mouth of Yellow creek opposite to Baker’s bottom. Greathouse went to their camp as a friend; found them too strong, and invited them over to Baker’s to drink. they came over, were furnished with as much rum as they could drink, & when the men were quite drunk Greathouse’s party fell on & massacred the whole except a little girl Logan’s cousin whom they made prisoner. here his sister was murdered and some other of his relations. the Indians over the river, alarmed at the guns, sent over two canoes of men to use for their friends. Greathouse & his party recieved them as they approached the shore with a well directed fire and killed and wounded several. at this massacre Baker says there were 12. killed & 5. or 6. wounded. the popular report, at a distance from the scene, had bleynded all these together and made only one transaction of it; and passing from one to another unacquainted with the geography of the transaction, the Kanhawa had been substituted for the Ohio. here too arose the doubt whether it was not Greathouse instead of Cresap who killed Logan’s relations. the principal murder was by Greathouse at Yellow creek; but some of them had been killed a few days before by Cresap at Grave creek. the mistake of Cresap’s title, calling him Col ^o. instead of Cap ^t. I presume was merely an Indian mistake. I think I have observed them call those whom they deemed great men among us Col ^o. by way of courtesy. I suppose from the letter you inclose me, which I now return, that some chicanery is to be exercised on Logan’s speech, it’s genuineness, whether it was written in the Indian language, & by whom, but as to all this you can set us to rights. this gentleman begun as I am told (for I have never read a single one of his papers except as much of the beginning of the first as shewed me the stile in which he thought proper to indulge himself, and which determined me at once not to gratify him by reading what he wrote to give me pain) he begun it is said by denying that any such speech was ever delivered, by declaring it a forgery, & a forgery of mine &c.; he finds the current of testimony too strong to be resisted, and wants to see if he can take any hold on the circumstances of it’s being written or spoken, in what language, by whom etc. you have perfectly declared the cause of his taking up the subject. while his wife lived he never noticed it. for years after her death he never noticed it. but when it became an object with a party to injure me in the eyes of my countrymen, this, among other circumstances, was thought to furnish grounds for writing me down. they set this cat’s paw to work on it: and he has served them with zeal. I shall never notice him otherwise than by publishing the evidence I have collected, & correcting the text on the Notes on Virginia conformably to the more exact information of the historical fact. I shall delay doing this a few days, in hopes of recieving from you the deposition you are so kind as to promise. if this could be by the first return of post I should be glad because I must get these testimonies printed before Congress leaves this place. ”

The first issue of the Appendix was printed before May 8, 1800, on which day John Dickinson wrote from Wilmington to Jefferson: “John Dickinson presents his Thanks for the Appendix, and has been much gratified in perusing so complete a Vindication of a Character he has so long and so constantly regarded with high Esteem.”

Two days later, on May 10, Jefferson wrote to Samuel Brown: “ I am much indebted to you for your aid in procuring evidence on the subject of the murder of Logan’s family. your brother has explained to you what was thought best as to Gen ^l. Clarke’s deposition. I received Sappington’s declaration yesterday. I had already published & sent out the pamphlet which I inclose you. but I am now endeavoring to get this declaration printed to annex it to the remaining ones, & if done in time a copy of it shall accompany this . . . ”

A letter to Jefferson from Nathaniel Niles, dated from West Fairlee (Vermont), February 12, 1801, contains the paragraph: “. . . I duly received, and am much obliged by the apendix to the Notes on Virginia, altho the strictures of Mr. Martin, had not, so far as I know, reached this part of the country. I have not learned how he received, nor how he treated the apendix, but presume he must have been silent . . .”

The original autograph letters concerned in this Appendix, the letters from the deponents to Jefferson’s correspondents and the original autograph depositions (part of that of John Gibson lacking) are in the Jefferson Papers in the Library of Congress. There are, however, important gaps in the correspondence. Dr. Samuel Brown’s letter concerning General Clark’s deposition is dated September 4, 1798; the deposition itself is dated June 17, 1798. There is no mention of the reason for not including in the Appendix General Clark’s deposition nor the letter of Judge Innes of March 2, 1799. That there was a reason for the omission of Clark’s deposition is mentioned by Jefferson in his reply to Dr. Brown on May 10, 1800 (quoted above).

The same letter to Dr. Brown announces the printing of the second issue of the Appendix to include the deposition of Sappington which Jefferson had received “ yesterday” (i.e. May 9, 1800). The letter of Samuel McKeen attesting to the declaration of John Sappington (which exonerated Cresap) is dated from Madison County, February 13, 1800, almost two months earlier than the latest deposition included in the first issue (April 4, 1800). There is no information as to why Sappington’s letter had not been received by Jefferson at the time it was written.

Luther Martin, 1748-1826, first Attorney-General of the State of Maryland, was the son-in-law of Captain Cresap, described by Jefferson in the Notes on Virginia as a man infamous for the many murders he had committed on those much injured people (i.e., the Shawnee tribe) (1782 edition, page 115). Jefferson recounted in the Notes how Cresap had murdered the Logan family. Luther Martin protested against this as shown above, and Jefferson wrote the Appendix, printed in two issues in a separate publication in 1800, and appended to the 1800 and all later editions of the Notes on Virginia. Martin became involved again with Jefferson during the trial of Aaron Burr at which time Jefferson described him to George Hay as “ this unprincipled & impudent federal bull dog.”

For a pamphlet by B. S. Barton on this subject see no. 3343.

On the title-page Jefferson has written: by the rev ^d. D ^r. Linn of New York .

For Jefferson’s opinion of this pamphlet see his letter to De Witt Clinton, who sent him a copy of his reply, no. 3197. William Linn was a Reformed Dutch clergyman who had some correspondence with Jefferson to whom he sent a copy of one of his sermons in 1798, see no. 1647. This is the only copy listed by Sabin, whose note reads: Contains stories calculated to ruin Jefferson among all pious people. Dr. John M. Mason assisted in the performance.

With the name James Simons, Collector, written at the end.

James Simons was Collector of the Port of Charleston. He was one of the founders of the Botanic Garden at Charleston, and as Chairman of the Standing Committee sent to Jefferson, in 1805, a circular concerning its establishment.

On the title-page Jefferson has written the name of the author Mr Desaussure.

Written to prove Jefferson’s unsuitability to the Presidency of the United States.

The indictments against him are varied, and include his conduct as Governor of Virginia; his negotiations for the establishment of the National Gazette ; his anti-Washington attitude; the fact that he wishes the 500,000 blacks in America should be emancipated--he wishes their condition, both of body and mind raised--as the expression applies to the blacks in slavery, it can mean nothing, if it does not mean emancipation , and others.

Extracts from Jefferson’s letters are quoted in proof of the points raised. Beside some of these is written in ink false quotation. The letters are falsely quoted and vary in words and in sense from the actual letters of which Jefferson’s autograph polygraph copies are in the Jefferson Papers in the Library of Congress.

Henry William Desaussure, 1763-1839, lawyer, a director of the United States Mint, and for some years Chancellor of South Carolina.

Against the Alien Laws and the Adams administration. Jefferson’s name is not mentioned.

Albert Gallatin, 1761-1849, friend of Jefferson, became Secretary of the Treasury in 1801, under Jefferson’s administration.

Between this tract (numbered 9 on the title-page), and the next, numbered 11, are the stubs of the removed tract, no. 10.

This Substitute forms pages 155 to 159 of the Journal of the House of Delegates, Virginia General Assembly, 1811/1812 . There is also a separate edition, see no. 3406. It cannot be known which edition was included in this volume of pamphlets.

Benjamin Watkins Leigh, 1781-1849, Virginia lawyer and statesman. Leigh was elected to the United States Senate in 1834 after the resignation of W. C. Rives.

A substitute was offered by Mr. Mercer in lieu of the Substitute proposed by Mr. Leigh of Dinwiddie.

After a passage describing the excellencies of the Declaration of Independence, the author states (page 12): . . . It was the capacious mind and nervous pen of Jefferson, which thus pourtrayed his country’s injuries and rights. Excellent and enlightened citizen! Thou art superior to the voice of adulation! Yet on this day thou shalt receive the tribute of feeble, though well deserved praise: United with the names of Washington, Montgomery and Mercer; surrounded by a glorious constellation of fellow statesmen and patriots, thy fame shall descend unsullied to posterity, and millions of freemen yet unborn shall bless and strive to imitate thy virtues . . .

Matthew Livingston Davis, 1773-1850, friend and biographer of Aaron Burr, was the editor of the Evening Post in 1794, and collaborated with Philip Freneau on the Time Piece and Literary Companion . Davis worked for Burr during the 1800 election campaign, and on becoming Vice-President the latter wished to reward him with office, but this was refused by Jefferson. Later he became the Grand Sachem of the Tammany Society. In the volume the Ode by Samuel Low, on the last two leaves, is numbered 12.

Both letters mention Jefferson; Dickson’s, dated from Philadelphia, May 1st, 1800, criticising, and that of Holland, Lincolnton, July 11, 1800, justifying, his attitude.

The autograph signature of Charles Lewis on that back of the title-leaf.

A pro-Jefferson election pamphlet. Justifies Jefferson’s actions and attitudes, and ends with a summary of his qualifications, his character, and the positions he had held.

Initialled by Jefferson at sig. I. The top margin of the first two leaves torn away, the first probably with a name, the second damaging the text.

A pro-Jefferson pamphlet. The Appendix contains at the end an extract from the Notes on Virginia , with the final comment: Is this the language of an atheist?

On November 30, 1800, Jefferson wrote to Thomas Mann Randolph: “ Davy will set out in the morning on his return with the horses. I will endeavor before he goes to get one of Hamilton’s pamphlets for you, which are to be sold here. Bishop’s pamphlet on political delusions has not yet reached the bookstores here. it is making wonderful progress, and is said to be the best anti-republican eye-water which has ever yet appeared. a great impression of them is making at Philadelphia to be forwarded here . . . ”

Abraham Bishop, 1763-1844, a classmate of Joel Barlow at Yale, was the son of that Samuel Bishop whose appointment by Jefferson to the post of Collector of the Port of New Haven was the cause of such controversy. In 1803 Abraham, an ardent supporter of Jefferson, was appointed to the office.

For a note on Griswold, a Jeffersonian republican, see no. 1664.

The first edition was privately printed earlier in the same year for distribution among Hamilton’s political friends in the hope of giving Thomas Pinckney a majority over Adams. Aaron Burr obtained a copy and extracts were published in the Republican press, after which Hamilton gave the copyright to John Lang. The pamphlet contains numerous references to Jefferson, concerning whom the author states on page 9, 10: It is, in particular, a tribute due from me, to acknowledge that Mr. Adams, being in quality of Vice-President, ex officio, one of the Trustees of the Sinking-Fund, I experienced from him the most complete support, which was the more gratifying to me, as I had to struggle against the systematic opposition of Mr. Jeferson, seconded occasionally by Mr. Randolph.

Contains references to Jefferson. MS. corrections in the text.

William Pinkney, 1764-1822, lawyer, statesman and diplomat, was born in Annapolis. Under Jefferson’s administration he succeeded Monroe as minister in London.

See the next entry.

Contains:

The Governor’s [James Monroe] annual message, dated December 1st, 1800 [some manuscript corrections in ink].

The Governor’s communication relative to Gabriel’s insurrection, dated December 5th, 1800.

The documents relative to the conduct of John K. Read, as in the previous separately printed pamphlet.

Documents relative to the Insurrection of the Slaves [Gabriel’s Insurrection].

Extract of a letter from Thomas Jefferson to George Wythe, dated from Monticello, January 16, 1796 [original letterpress copy in the Jefferson Papers in the Library of Congress]. The letter includes a statement of “ the particular acts of the assembly of Virginia in my possession either in MS. or Printed, and of those not in my possession, and presumed to be lost .”

Gabriel’s insurrection, an attempt on the part of a number of slaves to obtain their freedom, took place on December 5, 1800. The plot was betrayed, and the conspirators arrested.

James Thomson Callender [q.v.] wrote to Jefferson from Richmond Jail September 13, 1800, an account of the insurrection: “Nothing is talked of here but the recent conspiracy of the negroes. One Thomas Prosser, a young man, who had fallen heir, some time ago, to a plantation within six miles of the city, had behaved with great barbarity to his slaves. One of them, named Gabriel, a fellow of courage and intellect above his rank in life, laid a plan of revenge. Immense numbers immediately entered into it, and it has been kept with incredible Secrecy for several months. A number of Swords were made in a clumsy enough manner out of rough iron; others by breaking the blade of a scythe in the middle, which thus made two Swords of a most formidable kind. They were well fastened in proper handles, and would have cut of [ sic -- Ed. ] a man’s limb at a single blow. The conspirators were to have met in a wood near Prosser’s house, upon Saturday before-last, after it was dark. Upon that day, or some very short time before it, notice was received from a fellow, who being invited, somewhat unguardedly, to go to the rendezvous, refused, and immediately Informed his master’s overseer. No ostensible preparations were, however, made until the afternoon preceding the night of the rendezvous; and as the militia are in a State of the most contemptible disorganization, as the blacks are numerous, robust and desperate, there must have been bloody work. But upon that very evening just about Sunset, there came on the most terrible thunder storm, accompanied with an enormous rain, that I ever witnessed in this State. Between Prosser’s, and Richmond, there is a place called Brook Swamp, which runs across the high road, and over which there was a bridge. By this, the africans were of necessity to pass, and the rain had made the passage impracticable. besides, they were deprived of the junction and assistance of their good friends in this city, who could not go out to join them. They were to have attacked the Capitol and the Penitentiary. They could hardly have failed of success, for after all, we could only muster four or five hundred men, of whom not more than thirty had muskets. This was our stile of preparation, while several thousand stands of arms were piled up in the Capitol and Penitentiary. I do not pretend to blame the executive Council, for I really am not sufficiently master of the circumstances to form an opinion. Five fellows were hung this day; and many more will share the same fate. Their plan was to massacre all the whites, of all ages and sexes; and all the blacks who would not join them; and then march off to the mountains, with the plunder of the City. Those wives who should refuse to accompany their husbands were to have been butchered along with the rest; an idea truly worthy of an African heart! It consists with my knowledge that many of these wretches, who were, or would have been, partners in the plot, had been treated with the utmost tenderness by their owners, and more like children than slaves.

"I hope, Sir, that you will excuse me for the freedom of sending you the above details. I have been, for some days past, incommoded with so great a dimness of my sight, that I was obliged to employ an assistant in writing the last page. A great part of the above details I had from your old acquaintance and Protegee, M ^r. Rose.”

This incident led to plans for the transportation of negroes to Africa.

On July 13, 1802, Jefferson wrote to Rufus King a long letter on this subject, reading in part: “ The course of things in the neighboring islands of the W. Indies appears to have given a considerable impulse to the minds of the slaves in different parts of the U. S. a great disposition to insurgency has manifested itself among them; which in one instance in the state of Virginia, broke out into actual insurrection. this was easily suppressed; but many of those concerned (between 20. & 30. I believe) fell victims to the law. so extensive an execution could not but excite sensibility in the public mind, and beget a regret that the laws had not provided, for such cases, some alternative combining more mildness with equal efficacy. The legislature of the state, at a subsequent meeting, took the subject into consideration, and have communicated to me, through the Governor of the state, their wish that some place could be provided, out of the limits of the U. S. to which slaves guilty of insurgency might be transported; and they have particularly looked to Africa as offering the most desirable receptacle. we might for this purpose enter into negociations with the natives on some part of the coast to obtain a settlement, and by establishing an African company combine with it commercial operations which might not only reimburse expenses but procure profit also. but there being already such an establishment on that coast by the English Sierre Leone company, made for the express purpose of colonizing civilized blacks to that country, it would seem better by incorporating our emigrants with theirs to make one strong, rather than two weak, colonies . . . ”

This is a separate issue, with caption title, of part III of Paine’s Compact Maritime . See the next entry.

This part is paged [1]-4, and is complete in itself; it is dated 1 October, 1800, the date of Paine’s letter from Paris to Jefferson, in which he enclosed the manuscript of the separate pamphlet published as Compact Maritime. This is probably the English edition of Paine’s “ Piece N ^o. 3 ” referred to in his letter to Jefferson quoted in the note to the next entry, q.v.

The separate pieces which form this pamphlet were sent to Jefferson in manuscript by Paine on October 1, 1800, and were immediately published by the former.

Paine wrote from Paris on that date: “. . . This brings me to speak of the manuscripts I send you.

"The piece N ^o. 1, without any title, was written in consequence of a question put to me by Bonaparte. As he supposed I knew England and English Politics he sent a person to me to ask, that in case of negociating a Peace with Austria, whether it would be proper to include England. This was when Count St. Julian was at Paris, on the part of the Emperor negociating the preliminaries--which as I have before said the Emperor refused to sign on the pretence of admitting England.

"The piece N ^o. 2, entitled, On the Jacobinism of the English at Sea, was written when the English made their insolent and impolitic expedition to Denmark, and is also an auxiliary to the politic of N ^o. 1. I shewed it to a friend who had it translated into french and printed in the form of a Pamphlet, and distributed gratis among the foreign ministers, and persons in the Government. It was immediately copied into several of the french Journals, and into the official Paper, the Moniteur . It appeared in this paper one day before the last dispatch arrived from Egypt; which agreed perfectly with what I had said respecting Egypt. It hitt the two cases of Denmark and Egypt in the exact proper moment.

"The Piece N ^o. 3 entitled Compact Maritime is the sequel of N ^o. 2 digested in form. It is translating at the time I write this letter, and I am to have a meeting with the Senator Garat upon the subject. The pieces 2. & 3. go off in manuscript to England by a confidential person where they will be published . . .

"The pieces 2, 3, may go to the press. They will make a small pamphlet, and the printers are welcome to put my name to it. It is best it should be put. From thence they will get into the newspapers. I know that the faction of John Adams abuses me pretty heartily. They are welcome. It does not disturb me, and they lose their labour; and in return for it I am doing America more service, as a neutral nation, than their expensive commissioners can do, and she has that service from me for nothing. The piece N ^o. 1 is only for your own amusem[ment] [ sic -- Ed. ] and that of your friends . . .

Jefferson replied on March 18 of the following year: “ Your letters of Oct. 1. 4. 6. 16. came duly to hand, and the papers which they covered were, according to your permission, published in the newspapers & in a pamphlet, & under your own name. these papers contain precisely our principles, & I hope they will be generally recognized here . . . ”

On February 12, 1801, Jefferson sent a copy of the Compact Maritime to M. Page, J. Page, Governor Monroe, P. N. Nicholas, J. W. Eppes, T. M. Randolph, Colonel N. Lewis, P. Carr, Dr. Bache, James Madison, and Archibald Stuart.

On the fly-leaf is written a list of the tracts (not by Jefferson).

JA36 .P8 vol. 99

In the upper margin of the first page is written the date, 1793 (partly cut away), probably by Jefferson.

Under date July 5, 1793, Jefferson, in Philadelphia, noted in the so-called Anas : M ^r. Genet called on me, and read to me very rapidly instrñs he had prepared for Michaud who is going to Kentuckey, an address to the inhab. of Louisiana, & another to those of Canada. in these papers it appears that besides encouraging those inhabitants to insurrection, he speaks of two generals at Kentuckey who have proposed to him to go & take N. Orleans if he will furnish the exp. about £3000. sterl. he declines advancing it, but promises that sum ultimately for their expences, proposes that officers shall be commiss ^d. by himself in Kentuckey & Louisiana, that they shall rendezvous out of the territories of the US. suppose in Louisiana, & there making up a battalion to be called the [this space left in the original] of inhabitants of Louisiana and Kentuckey and getting what Ind ^ns. they could, to undertake the expedñ against N. Orleans, and then Louisiana to be established into an independant state connected in commerce with France & the US. that two frigates shall go into the river Mississipi and cooperate against N. Orleans.--the address to Canada, was to encourage them to shake off English yoke, to call Indians to their assistance, and to assure them of the friendly disposñs of their neighbors of the US. he said he communicated these things to me, not as Sec ^y of state, but as m ( ^~ r) Jeff . . .

On this copy Jefferson has written: By Genet.

Edmond Charles Genet, d. 1834, a supporter of the Revolution, represented France in Russia before coming to the United States in 1792 as ministre-plénipotentiaire. His activities in that position caused Washington to have the appointment cancelled. He remained in the United States, became naturalized, and married the daughter of General Clinton, Governor of New York.

Contains instruction to the Secretary of the Treasury signed by the President and by Jefferson as Secretary of State.

Concerns General Marshall and the Alien and Sedition Act.

Sent to Jefferson by the author who wrote an undated letter (received by him on November 14, 1810): “. . . The accompanying may perhaps afford amusement during a leisure hour at Monticello, I should be happy if I could contribute a moment of pleasure to one who has rendered millions happy & promoted principles which have averted calamities . . .”

On December 22, writing from Washington on another matter, Law added a postscript: “I did myself the pleasure of forwarding to you my Pamphlet on Instinctive impulses.”

Jefferson replied from Monticello on January 15: “ An absence from home of some length has prevented my sooner acknoleging the reciept of your letter covering the printed pamphlet which the same absence has as yet prevented me from taking up, but which I know I shall read with great pleasure. your favor of Dec. 22. is also recieved . . . ”

In May, 1814, Law sent to Jefferson a copy of his Second Thoughts on Instinctive Impulses, and in his letter of thanks, dated from Poplar Forest June 13, 1814, Jefferson mentioned that he “read it with great satisfaction; and with the more, as it contained exactly my own creed on the foundation of morality in man.”

On the half-title is written in ink: From the author.

For a note on d’Ivernois see no. 298.

On the fly-leaf Jefferson has listed in [ sic -- Ed. ] the pamphlets as follows:

1.	Priestly’s letters to the inhabitants of Northumberl d.
2.	M c.knight’s Sermon on the present state of the world.
3.	Thoughts on the wealth & National economy of the US.
4.	Enquiries on assuming jurisdiction over Columbia.
5.	Woodward’s considñs on the gov( ~m ) t of the territory of Columbia.
	{ T. Jefferson’s Inaugural speech.
6.	{ d o. French.
	{ d o. Italian.
	{ d o. German.
7.	Griswold’s sermon on overcoming evil with good.
8.	Bishop’s Oration before the Republicans of Connecticut on the election.
9.	Proceedings of democratic society of Gloucester, N. J.
10.	Address to Westchester in fav r. of electing Van Rensellaer & Watson.
11.	Yznardi’s letter.
12.	Essay on Naval establ( ~m ) ts.
13.	Story’s oration at Dorcester on the 4 th. of July.
14.	Kennedy’s d o. at Charleston d o.
15.	Reply to the Examination of the President’s answer to Newhaven.
16.	Workman’s Essays on the French revolñ.
17.	Leland’s Stroke at the branch.
18.	Wilmingtoniad.
19.	Hanson’s Statement of the bank of Columbia.

Initialled by Jefferson at sig. I.

Sent to Jefferson on April 10, 1801, by Priestley, who wrote from Philadelphia: “. . . Your resentment of the treatment I have met with in this country is truly generous, but I must have been but little impressed with the principles of the religion you so justly commend, if they had not enabled me to bear much more than I have yet suffered. Do not suppose that, after the much worse treatment to which I was for many years exposed in England (of which the pamphlet I take the liberty to inclose will give you some idea) I was much affected by this. My Letters to the Inhabitants of Northumberland were not occasioned by any such thing, tho it served me as a pretence for writing them, but the threatnings of M ^r. Pickering, whose purpose to send me out of the country M ^r. Adams (as I conclude from a circuitous attempt that he made to prevent it) would not, in the circumstances in which he then was, have been able directly to oppose. My publication was of service to me in that and other respects, and I hope, in some measure, to the common cause. But had it not been for the extreme absurdity and violence of the late administration, I do not know how far those measures might not have been carried. Much, however, must be ascribed to the successes of the French and something also, perhaps to the seasonable death of Gen ^l. Washington. I rejoice more than I can express in the glorious reverse that has taken place, and which has secured your election. This I flatter myself will be the permanent establishment of truly republican principles in this country, and also contribute to the same desirable event in more distant ones . . .”

For a copy of the first edition see no. 3217.

The English edition of La Rochefoucault-Liancourt’s Travels through the North American States was first published in London in 1799 in a translation by H. Newman; the original French edition, undated, was published in Paris in the same year.

John McKnight, 1754-1823, a native of Carlisle, Pennsylvania, was for a short time President of Dickinson College.

Anonymous presentation copy from the author with an autograph inscription on the title-page, signed The Author, partly cut away.

Samuel Blodget, 1757-1814, merchant, economist and architect, was born in New Hampshire, lived in Philadelphia for a time, where he married the daughter of Dr. William Smith, Provost of the University of Pennsylvania [q.v.] and built the first Bank of the United States. In 1792 he came to Washington where he lived the rest of his life, promoted the sale of real estate by lotteries, and was financially ruined. Blodget was in correspondence with Jefferson from time to time.

According to the Records of the Columbia Historical Society: There is some reason to suppose that this production, issued without date, was the earliest book printed in Washington. A clue to the actual time of its publication is found in A. B. Woodward’s fifth number of “Epaminondas on the Government of the Territory of Columbia,” under date of “City of Washington, January 15, 1801,” in which the author distinctly refers to this production as recently met with by him. Presumptively, therefore, this publication saw the light some time in the latter part of the year 1800.

Its issue “from the Cabinet Office” refers to the printing office of “ The National Magazine, or Cabinet of the United States,” issued in Washington (eight numbers) in 1800-1801.

On the title Jefferson has written: by Augustus Woodward

This pamphlet contains no. 1-4 and the Appendices.

The first paragraph reads: Since writing the previous numbers on the Government of the Territory of Columbia, I have met with a production, entitled ‘Enquiries into the necessity or expediency of assuming exclusive legislation over the District of Columbia; respectfully submitted to the Members of Congress; by a private citizen of the District , thus giving the clue to the date of that pamphlet, q.v., no. 3255 above.

The complete set has eight numbers; all were published anonymously by Woodward, friend of Jefferson, other works by whom appear in this catalogue.

Three autograph drafts, with corrections, of Jefferson’s speech are in the Jefferson Papers in the Library of Congress, which contain also the original draft of the first speech in this pamphlet, that to the Senate on February 28, and the originals of the letters sent to him by the Senate.

The passage We are all Republicans; We are all Federalists, printed in large capitals in this and all the printed editions of the speech, is not emphasized in any way in Jefferson’s drafts.

4 parts in 1, each with a caption title, no title-page. The last page has the offset from an inscription in ink by Jefferson on the first page of the next pamphlet.

On the title-page Jefferson has written: translated by Philip Mazzei.

Sent to Jefferson by Mazzei on July 30, 1801.

In a letter to James Madison dated from Pisa, 28 ( ^~x)bre, 1803, Mazzei wrote: “ . . . Io mi maraviglio molto (essendoci tante occasioni dirette) di non aver’avuto alcuna risposta a tante mie lettere scritte al Presidente dopo quella del 6 ( ^~x ) bre 1800, che mi avvisò d’aver ricevuto, colla sua del 17 Marzo 1801, pervenutami da Milano con un’altra del 9 Aprile 1800 al principio d’Aprile 1802, sul punto di partir per Pietroburgo. In una del 30 Luglio 1801 gli avevo incluso la mia traduzione del suo divino discorso pronunziato nell’assumer la carica di Presidente, stampata alla macchia, e conseguentemente incorretta. Il 15 9 ( ^~b ) re dell’istesso anno glie ne avevo mandato un’esemplare della seconda edizione corretta . . .”

Another edition of Mazzei’s translation, see the note to the above entry.

Jefferson is mentioned three times by name. On page 30, 31: Be not devoted to men. Let principles ever guide your attachments. To be blindly devoted to names and men’s person’s, is at once a token of a slavish spirit, and a sure way to throw the country into virulent parties. Be ready to sacrifice a Jefferson as freely as any man, should he become elated with power, exalt himself above the Constitution and depart from republican principles . . .

On page 35: Be great then, like WASHINGTON,--be inflexible like ADAMS,--be intelligent and good like JEFFERSON.

Give me leave on this occasion particularly to point you to Thomas Jefferson as a laudable example of that magnanimous and peaceable conduct which I have recommended to you in this discourse, and which is so peculiarly necessary to be put in practice at the present juncture . . .

Other sermons by Samuel Griswold, Congregational minister and a Jeffersonian republican, appear in this catalogue.

Initialled by Jefferson at sig. I.

Jefferson is mentioned by name several times; at the end is printed his Inaugural Speech, of March 4, 1801. In this reprint the words republicans and federalists, in the often-quoted phrase, are printed in italics.

At a meeting held on the day of Jefferson’s inauguration, Jefferson was the third toast, Aaron Burr, the Vice-President, the fourth.

Ascribed to Samuel Bayard.

Several references to Jefferson occur.

Stephen Van Rensselaer, 1764-1839, was elected as a Federalist to the New York Assembly in 1789 and 1790, was a State Senator from 1791 to 1795, and Lieutenant-Governor for 1795 to 1801. In 1801 he was defeated for the governorship by George Clinton. He married Margaret Schuyler, and thus became the brother-in-law of Alexander Hamilton.

Samuel Bayard, 1767-1840, jurist, a Federalist in politics, was agent for the United States in London to settle claims after the ratification of Jay’s Treaty. He was one of the founders of the New-York Historical Society.

Contains copies of Yznardi’s letter and relative documents concerned with his conduct in his disagreement with Joseph Israel during his pro-consulateship at Cadiz, and consequent dismissal by John Adams.

Not in Sabin.

The documents inlcude a copy of a letter from Jefferson, whose name occurs both as Secretary of State and as President. Yznardi was for a time in frequent correspondence with Jefferson.

On page 30 is quoted an extract from Jefferson’s inaugural address.

This pamphlet was sent to Jefferson by the author’s father, who wrote to him from Marblehead on October 27, 1801: “. . . I now send you, Sir, an Oration of my son; and should have sent it sooner, had it been in my power. He has wrote a book of poetry, which art he must have derived from his mother, who has a good taste that way, and she from her great-grandmother, Governor Bradstreet’s Lady. He is a Lawyer in Sterling near Worcester. His brother Mr. Bradstreet Story is in England on commercial business. I have spared neither for cost nor pains upon them, and they amply repay me . . .”

Jefferson replied to the letter and acknowledged the receipt of the Oration on December 5.

Isaac Story, 1774-1803, poet and miscellaneous writer.

On page 21 the Declaration of Independence is referred to as having been penned by the enlightened, dignified and patriotic Jefferson, and advocated by the firm, honest and sagacious Adams.

A pro-Jefferson pamphlet.

The New-Haven Remonstrance referred to the appointment of Samuel Bishop as Collector of Customs. See no. 3235.

The original Remonstrance and Jefferson’s reply, both a draft and a fair copy all in his hand, are in the Jefferson Papers in the Library of Congress.

Sent to Jefferson by the author on November 15, 1801, with a letter written from Alexandria in which he states that he is a citizen of the American Republic.

Jefferson replied on December 4: “ Th: Jefferson presents his compliments to Mr. Workman and his thanks for the pamphlet sent him which he shall peruse with pleasure. The event of peace will leave territorial possessions in their present state until the men of Europe shall have recovered breath and strength enough to recommence their sanguinary conflicts which they seem to consider as the object for which they are brought into the world. ”

On March 13, 1807, Joseph C. Cabell wrote to Jefferson from Williamsburg, Virginia: “I hope no apology is necessary for the liberty which I take in sending you the Book accompanying this; as it may throw some light on one of the principal characters who stands accused of an agency in the late conspiracy in the west, and may cast a distant & feeble ray on the conspiracy itself. For some time past, in reading the accounts of the transactions at New Orleans, my eye has been arrested by the name of Workman. Having once known a gentleman of that name, I entertained doubts whether he might not be the same person. But as it is said he once resided at Charleston, and as Col ^o. Freeman in his report published in the National Intelligencer of the 4 ^th. Inst. gives other particulars of his life, I am now confirmed in my opinion as to the identity of the persons. The Book which I now send you is a collection of well-written pamphlets from the pen of Judge Workman, at the time that he was a student of Law, in the Middle Temple, in London; and you will perceive, that the last is a plan for the conquest of the Spanish provinces in America, and is, in fact, the very proposition to the English Government on that subject, which Col ^o. Freeman mentions in his Report.

"As I was going round from Norfolk to Charleston, in company with my Brother William, in the winter of 1801-2, I happened to become a fellow passenger with M ^r. Workman and his lady. Accident led us all to the same Boarding House in Charleston, and we passed most of the winter together. I was much pleased with the talents and information of M. W, & then received from him the present of this little volume. I knew not what motive had induced him to leave England; but he seemed to have come to our country, with those indefinite expectations of success generally entertained by the Foreigners who visit us, and those especially who feel the consciousness of talents. At the time I saw him, he appeared to have conceived a strong disgust at the manners, customs, & character of the Americans; and told me, that if he should ever write again, it would be on this subject. I supposed he had not been as well received as he had wished, & had indulged unjustifiable expectations of attention from the first characters in the gov ^t. He was then engaged in merchandize in a small way, in Charleston, but talked of going off immediately to the Island of Trinidad, which had just been ceded to G. Britain. Here I took leave of M ^r. Workman; and I confess that, waving his prejudices against the U. States, I left him with very favorable impressions. Whilst in Europe, I was informed by a young friend from Charleston, that he had unfortunately lost M ^rs. Workman, by an attack of the Yellow-fever, soon after I parted with him; which event had diverted him from his projected trip to the Island of Trinidad. Since that period, I had lost sight of him, till his late reappearance at New-Orleans.

"I have taken the liberty, respected Sir, of troubling you with these little details coming within my own observation, not with the view of injuring M ^r. Workman, (which I should be very sorry to do); but to perform what I conceive to be the duty of every good citizen, by communicating to you all possible information respecting the persons charged with being concerned in this extraordinary & nefarious expedition. When you shall have satisfied your curiosity respecting this little work, I will be thankful for the return of it: for should M ^r. W. clear up his reputation, I shall continue much pleased to hold such a testimonial of his esteem . . .”

To this Jefferson replied from Washington on March 18: “ Th: Jefferson presents his friendly salutations to mr Cabell, & his thanks for the communication of Workman’s pamphlet which he now returns, being in possession of one which the author had sent him some two years ago. Of the author he knew nothing personally; but being known to be one of the Mexican league, his availing himself of his office as judge to liberate his accomplices is not in his favor. this insurrection will probably shew that the fault in our constitution is not that the Executive has too little power, but that the Judiciary either has too much, or holds it under too little responsibility. ”

A pro-Jefferson pamphlet, with frequent references to him.

John Leland, 1754-1841, “the Mammoth Priest”, was a Baptist minister, and a Jeffersonian Republican. He was resident at Cheshire, Massachusetts, from which town he travelled to Washington after the election, in 1801, to present to Jefferson a mammoth cheese, weighing fourteen hundred and fifty pounds, made in his honor by the women of Cheshire.

Possibly by John Vaughan, who sent to Jefferson a pamphlet from Wilmington, with a letter dated December 3, 1800: “You will please to accept the enclosed pamphlet as a tribute of esteem from its author. The only apology I have to plead in extenuation of the privilege assumed, is the liberality, necessarily attached to your character as a Philosopher . . .”

Jefferson replied from Washington on December 10: “ Th: Jefferson presents his compliments to Doct ^r. Vaughan, and his thanks for the pamphlet enclosed to him, which he is assured he shall peruse with pleasure at the first leisure moment. he prays him to accept the assurances of his respect. ”

Headed: To all whom they may concern, Stockholders as well as others, the following “Bank-Secrets” are disclosed.