Newspaper Page Text
i
\
niaodie. The subject fttfs llwu dibjHJSfil vl
and was not renewed.
Mr. Cathoiln had previously communicated
to Mr. Crawford his intention to presen* the
question to Mr. Monroe, an intention Mr. Craw
ford approved, although not believing-, as he
stated to Mr. Calhoun, that General Jackson
would be either arrested or censured by the
President. «
With great respect, I am. dear sir, yours,
JOHN FORSYill.
Maj. J\9rts Hamilton, New York.
Mr. Crawford to Mr jCalhoun.
Woodlawn. Oct. 2. 1830
*Sia—Since the adjournments' ol Congress,.
the copy of a letter from you to the President,
containing 11 sheets, has been placed in my
hands. The object of this labored essay is to
prove, that a statement contained in a letter
from me to the Hon. John Forsyth, of the Se
nate of the United States, is incorrect. 1;
there was no evidence but that w hich is con
tained in that essay, 1 should wot he afraid ol
convincing every rational and unprejudiced,
•mind, that the statement to Mr. Forsyth ts es
'seetially correct.
In the brief comment which T intend to make
upon your essay of 11 sheets, I propose to a-
'voidHie example you have set inc in three
'things, v»js:-I shall not begin by deprecating
the official dignity-and weight ot character ol
the person I address; when 1 meet with a fact
<that-l cannot frankly and distinctly deny, I
will not attempt to prove a negative by argu
Tnent; and I shall not falsely and hypocritically
profess a forbearance which T do not feel.
I shall first notice your observation upon'
'the disclosures of the secret ot the Cabinet,
which you say is the first that occurred, at leas!
in this country. Do you really believe this a«
sertion, Mr Calhoun 1 How did tire writtei
opinoins of Messrs Jefferso n and Hamilton, oi.
tlwi first hank bill, ever see light ? How wer
the tacts and circumstances which preceeded
and accompanied the removal ot Edmund R n-
dolph from the State Departun nt, by Gen.
W ashington, disclosed and made known t*
the public? If your assertion be true, thos»*
ffacts and c rcumstances would, at this moment
bo buried in Egyptian darkness. White a ca
binet is in existence, and its usefulness liable
'to be impaired, reason ,and*common sense point
■out the propriety of keeping its proceeding-
fecret. But after tho Cabinet no longer exists
when its usetutness can be no longe r im
. paired by disclosures of its proceedings, net
ther reason, common sense, nor patriotism
’requires th>«t those proceedings should b«-
shroudetl'in impenetrable darkness. The act>
of such a X^ahinet become history, and t he
nation has the same right to a knowledge
of them that it hasto any other historical tact
It is presumed that AH nations have entertained
this opinion, and have acted upon it. Whenc*
the secret history of Cabinets, the most de*
potic in Europe. Hence tho history ol the
house of Stuart by Charles James Fox, which
discloses the most secret intercourse between
'Charles the II., and the French Minister, ly
•which it was proven That Charles was a pen
sioner of Louis the XIV. King ol France, & had
secretly engaged to re-establish Popery in Eng
land. Yet in the'face of all,these facts; y-u
t}>uo to presume upun tli« mn,c o« lh
distinguished person you were addressing, so
far as to insinuate that such disclosures hao
never been made in any country, but certainly
not ih this republic.
The next thing which I shall observe ts, tb«
manner in which you attempt to obtain evi
donee to-controvert my statement to Mr F >
myth. That stal< ment contained one prom
\eent and distinct fact, ev»*nr thing else in thai
statement w^s secondary and collateral to tha
fact. It was reasonable, in controverting tha
statement, that you should have sought to ob
tain evidence to controvert that fact Yo i
apply to Mr. Monroe and Mr Wirt, for evi
dence. But of what t - N »t of the principa
fact, but of secondary collateral matter— Ho
omission to appeal to Mr. Monroe whether von
made the proposition ascribed to you in rny
Tetter to -Mr. Forsyth, is stong pr-sump* ivt
'evidence that you believed his answer woubt
confirm my statement. v You remembered the
excitement which your proposition produced
in the mind and upon th-- feelings of the Pre
sident; and did not dare to ask him any ques
tion tending to revive his recollection ot that
proposition. The different manner in which
you approach the President and Mr. W iri
eveff^npon the collateral secondary fact, upon
which vou do venture to interrogate them
• proceeds from the same fact that m.nfe yon
uvoid interrogating them upon the principal
fact. 'When you make the inquiry ol Mr
W*rt, you enclose him such an extract from my
Tetter as informs himofthc nature of the evi
.dence. you arc in search of, because, 1 pre
tume, you believed that extract would not tend
4o refresh his memory, or relied implied:y up
on Mr. Wirt’s disposition to give such evi
dence as you desired from hun But you
' wereappretiensive that the same extract seni
to Me. Monroe, might refresh his memoiy,
unit' me Wo him ta give such an answer as:
Ivould'iipt sftt your views. The extract of my
Tetter sent u? r - Wirt, describes tacts ami
circumstances b which Mr Monroe was a
principal actor It w.as therefore deem, d ur.
hale to sfthimit them tb ' * " c excitement
produced dpoti the President w ^ so manifest
that you did not belieVe it could escaped,
the attention oi Mr. Witt; yfl»r Vhciv fo-' 0 ** “
Tiered it unsafe to interrogate himfas to jc'fr
proposition, personally affecting Gen. JucksO."* j
Mr. JTlToDroe says not awdrd tending to show '
that the confidential letter was not produced
■end read m the Cabinet, which was not stag-
gested by Mr. Wirt. .EveryJyro in the science
of law will felt yott, that-it i* a rule of evi
dence, that one affirmative witness outweighs
fOany negatives; but although you were at the
bar several years, it is possible your law-learn*
ing never ascended so high: I might safely
rest fbe case here; but I will produce one af
firmative witness in support of'the accuracy of
4S»y statement. The Hon Benjamin W. Crow-
Hfusbield, in a letter dated 25th July, 1830,
says—‘.YOtf a*kifl recollect, while in the
councils of the Cabinet, of a letter written by
Gen. Jnckson to the Pressdent Monroe? I do
Recollect of a conversation about a private let
which Mr. Galhouo, I believe, asked for
anD the President said he had not got »•» h«
upon examination foundl he had it- ibis let
ter contained information and opinions re
specting Spain and her colony, the Floridas;
but the particulars I cannot now undertake
to say. or state correctly I remember, I
think, your slating that the circumstances
there spoken of, did fully explain Gen. Jack-
son’s conduct during the campaign. I remem
ber, too that Mr. Calhoun was severe upon
the conduct of the General, but the words par
ticulariy 6poken, have slipped my recollect ion-
'Noiv, sir what do .you think ot the negative
statement of Mr. Wirt? Do you think it now so
very certain that that letter was not produced
and read in the Cabinet upon which your
inemorv is so distinct? Do you no't, on the
contrary, feel convinced of having attempted
lo pass off a falsehood upon the president ot
the United States?
The main fact contained in my^tarement, is
not denied dir ctly or indirectly in your elabo
rate essay. But a negative attempted by ar
gument And what kind of an argument is of
fered ? Why, that “d would he to rate his
(vour.j understanding very low to suppose
that an officer under our laws could he punish
ed without arrest and trial.” S r I rate any
man’s understands very low, who acts with a
total disregard to principle It is true, that in
addi i >n to the argument you add, that to say
vou did not propose to arrest General Jackson,
but that he should be punished or reprehend
ed in some form -or other, is absurd on its face
What need is there for arrest and trial prepar
atvry to -repremand ? But is it iu teed true
'hat a military officer cannot he punished
without arrest and trial ? Was not tho disap
probation of the case in the Seminole war a
punishment ? 4 think General-Jackson must
; i»ive felt it to be soch. Fshould have oppos-
d it, it I had seen any way of placing the go
vernment in the right as to Spain, without dis
• vowing the principal eveuts df tho Seminole
war
•It' you are not satisfied with the evidence
-F \Ir Crownmshi -ld, Mr. Adams, in n letter
dated 30t<i July* 1830 says: 'the main point up
.n which it was urged that G *n J-tcksou should
*»e brought to trial was, that he had violated
his orders by taking St. M irks and Pensaco
la.” I; is true that Mr. Adams does not say
by whom it was urged to bring General Jack-
son to trial ; but you know very well that
here was no proportion made iu the Cabinet
ff cling G nt-ral J u kson per-^nally, but what
>vas made by yourself , If you deny this. I
•vdl obtain the necessary .explanation from Mr.
Adams. L m«y be proper to state that the
two tetters from Messrs. Adams andCrownin*
shi dd, are the only communications I have re
ceived from them since my departure irom
Washington and they ar»- in reply to the only
letters 1 have written to them since the alert?'
said period There has been as little sympa
> hy either individual or political between those
gentlemen and me as between (hem and you,
and in fact much less between Mr. Adumi and
myself than between him and you, at leas' h»
fori the coalition hi tween him and Clay. In
tact, befote that event-, my impression was
that from the time yoifr name was put down
lor the Presiib'ncy, you favored the cause o:
Mr. A lums And the fact that alt hi* elec
tors voted for you as Vxe^President, and tha!
»ou suffered Ins printer lo'bncome proprietor
of the press you had e-uaMt.-hed in Washing-
on for the express purpose of vnfyiiig my
haractt-T and landing yours, without stipula
ing that it sh -ntd trot ho ivndded again-t Gen.
J ick-ion, go tar to es'ab’ish the fact. I have
• ow done with vour argumentative denial, and
be negative i vide *ce ol Mr. WtYt,hacked hy
, our distinct recollection
- I shall now take some notice ot your attack-
iDon me, wlncti, with the exception of Mr M’
L) iffi ’s letter, are all argumentative, aod prm
ipa tv founded upon thai- letter.
For the present, I shall say nothing about
hit letter or the reasoning founded upon it
Yon exp-ess much f« rbeara'-.ca towards me,
»Ccau*e you sav I have been unfortunate.^ If
ymj mean thirt l have stiff red much bodily
Iff rtion, you are right ; but, (hank Go >, t hose
(Actions are pa^t ynd I am now, and hav«-
uoen for more t a t ilwee yaars, in the enjoy
nent of vigorous uninterrupted-health. Bui
if by uiif .rtunati . vou mean 1 wa9 not elected
President m 1824 5. I must beg leave to dis-
-i-nt from the truth of.that assertion I am
conscious of being less untortwnaie than you
were. Y »u after -.btruding your name upon
?he nation as a candidate for the Presidency
;n a manner until then unknown, and i trust
will never be repeated, ami con*lucted yourscM
:n the sam»‘ unprecedented manner wtule your
name was permiied lo tie up, were put down
i»v the State of Pennsylvania, upon which you
ff-cted to rely for success My oarne wa-
{•ill up by my friend- for the same office, and
hv them was kept up, notwithstanding my ho-
iffl etions, till the election was consumated in
! . House of Representatives in February,
1825. No man in ttie nation w .s better
pleased with my exclusion than I was; lor I
dhen vernly believed, and do now believe,
that had I been elected, my remains would
now he rrpusmg in the national burying
ground, near the eastern branch of the Poto
mac. I wa9 therefore far from con-idcrmg
my self unfortunate in the result ol the election
;n the ll<wise or Represi nfatives.
Your forhearance towards n»e has been al
fected because you believed you could more
effectually injure me. I request, that hereaf
ter. if you -hould have occasion to write or
speak ol me, you would not again feign a for
bearance you do not feel.
Y>U affect to lament that my friends did not
mu' rfere hd<I prevent my meddling with thi>
-matte/ I make no doubt that you would
have bee.? very glad to h ave been spared the
trouble of making so elaborate a comment up
on A feller of th/ec pages. I make no doubt
that yon dislike thw lu.va of being exposed and
stript of the covert yo' 1 have been enjoying
undet the Presidint’s wit)gv, by moans of false
hood ii misrepresentation. You ass. rt that my
suspicion-that you wrote or c/used to he writ
ten, the letter which was publKiu'^d in a N ish
vide Ga2otte, Is Without louudalion. A m«irs
who knows as well as I do, the smaH weight to
which any assertion of yours is entitled, in a
matter where your interest leads you to disre
gard truth, must have other evidence than
yodr assertion, to remove even a suspicion.—
You ask why 'not charge Mr- Adams with hav
mg written or caused that Idfter to be written?
The answer is easy and conclusive; !*he let
ter contained two falshoods—one intended to
injure me; the other intended to bi-nefit you,
and that which was for your benefit, taking
from Mr Adams half the credit of defending
General Jackson, and giving il to you. Ad
mining for thesabc of argument, that Mr. Ad
auras was disposed to injure me, no one will I
think, suppose that he would voluntarily .as
cribe half the merits of his oivn actions to the
man who wa* tbuihost strenuous opposer ol
his wishes. * ,Jf the intrinsic evidence of the
letter fixes ft upon yon and not upon Mr. Ad
aros. subsequent events strongly corroborate*
the inference deducible from the oontchts of
the published letter. During the whole of the
"President ml canvass of ’23, and ’24. I have no
recollection of any act of Mr. Adams, tending
to vilify me ; but yoiihrizc, that you set up
the Washington Republican in Washington, for
the express purpose of Villifymg rt»y reputa
tion, and had the effnintly and -sham-lessness
to cause it to be published by h 'clerk in the
department, whose tenure of office Was your
will The f»cts which 1 have stated ‘frill exon
erate Mr. Adams from the charge Of having
any concern with the Nashville letter tfnd fix
that charge upon you in the estimation of ren-^
son able men, your denial to the contrary nut
withstanding.
Y »u place great stress upon tho cdrtfliicT of
gentlemen in Congress, whom yon assert to be
my friends. This is what might be expected
from a man of your loose principles. My
friends in Congress were men who would have
been insulted, had any man, however »-levated,
approached them in the language of entreaty
aod persuasion. I never did, and never
would, if I were to live a thousand years, inter
fere with a man who was acting under tho ob
ligations of an oatb, to persuade or entreat him
to act contrary to the convictions of his own
judgement; and if I were such member and
any man, however elevated he might be. were
to interfere with me ty way of entreaty or per
suasion ; 1 should feel myself insulted, and
should certainly insult the person so interfere
ing The only conversation l recollect ever
Johave participated in with a member of Con
gress, in reference to the foregoing subject,
was with Mr Cobb, at mj own House, in
the presence of Mr. Macon, of N. Carolina.
In that conversation I supported General Jack-
son’- right.to put Ambrister to death. Mr.
Mr. Macon, I believe, was convinced ; but I
am not: certain that Mr Cobb wa9. That gen
tleman acted in concert with Mr. Clay in the
part he acted in.the discussion upon the Sem
mole war Mr Forsyth and Mr. Lacock were
men of high character and experience, -and
leant upon no person. Mr. Epps made a
speech in favor of the report which was in
truded to be made, and was rn conspqnenc*’
placed on the committee in place of Mr For-
*vth. I wonder you had not disc-ivived, that
he too was a particular friemlof mine.
Y*ui say that, as it appears from Mr M’Duf.
fio’- I tter, I no -croples about di=clos.ng the
mcrets of tho Cabinet, I hud it in my power
to change the opinions of i?»y friends, by dis
closing the contents of the confidential letter
No person who bad a proper regard or the
Feting* or ehatact. r of Mr Monroe was Capa
Me ol that duplicity which would connive* »t
the execution <fa measure, and disavow it
rafter it was executed I mild confess, had I
been President, 1 shorn! not have been fl.it»er
ed by its reception. It’ I had, as you errone
<'U«ly repn 3ont me been little scrupulous a
b ait disclosing the secrets of the Cabinet,
winch «s positively denied, notwithstanding Mr.
M'Duffii-’s statement, I should havo made no
••se of that letror and this from respect to Mr
VI mroe's feelings and character
In the whole course of my life. I have heeu
so much in th** habit of utterii g my opinions
inti stating facts as they are known to me, when
made proper hv time and place, that when I
am charge,f, afrer uny lapse ol* time with hav
•ng uttered opinions or made statements .of
fic»s, I do not hesirat to admit such opininn*
w»-re uttered or statement of facts made, if the
opinions c**rri»spnnded with thosed entertained
or with the knowledge of facts I then possess
e-'; bwt when I Atn charged with otteringopm-
i'inR-1 never entertained, or with m-k ng state*
meat of fycts, inconsistent with my knowledge
of them at.tJ*** time they are alleged to have
been mad , under circumstances not rendering
tho disclosure proper, i have as hub* hesitation
>n declaring the charge false Applying this
rule To Mr .Vl’P'tffie’s letter, I have no hesita
tion in saying he is mistaken in every part of
it. 1 can account for tus mist-ke in tho firs
p»rt ot his statement. In my letter to Mr.
Forsyth, I state that previous to Mr Monroe’s
return to the city, you in a private conversa
tion with m- ', stated your determination to pur
sue the course in the Cabinet that you did,
and tliai I approved of it Mr. M’Duffie h«s
applied this conversation to the cabinet delib
erations, and has jmade me approve of yoiir
prnpositittn unfriendly to Gen. J ick-on, which
I aver s untrue and you ’your-e f know it to
be untrue. At the time of 1|ms private con
vrrsalir-if I bad never seen the order- under
which G iieral J ickson acted, nor any of his
despatches, nor heard of" the confidential let
ter. I r lied upon the-accuracy of your re) -
ri sentatiohs, and according to them G n j ick
son appeared clearly in the wrong and I do*
not hesitate to t#ll you f thioight you in thi
right. At the time I visit, d Goorgia, I have
no recollection rhat Ghii J. rk-onhad adopied
any measures to tor^t.J: public opinion, and
thereby to anticipate the decision ot the admi
nisi ration*- Aipr. have I d this moment any re
collection of the existence of any such meas
ure If none such existed and I believe non'**
existed, then it is utterly impossible that. I
should have expressed myself as Mr M’DjU
fio makes me, I have, therforo. no hesitation
v< saying, the whole, of Mr. M’Duffie’s state
rnent is a mistake. I say nottong of the mo
lives of 8fj|r. MTluffio in making the statement
llecause !•-do mu. know them; but this I wt!
*ay, ‘that'Mr. McDuffie tins, upon a former oc
caxion-, ^bowu a -willingness to asperse me, It
is somewhat doubtful for what purposes Mr.
M’Duffie’s statement was obtained, as his slate
meht hi|s no direct bearing on the fact’s, state.’
iu my letter to Mr Forty!h It appears to rnr
>n reflection, that tiio princip-il object in oi*
taming it, To impeacJ^ my veracity. 1;
that whs tbe objcct, I have no fear of.the re
sult, where he and I are known To give
you a Rowland for your Oliver, read the en
closed extract of the letter of Cap'ain Ross.
I know nothingx/f the correctness of his state
ment, farther than that he made the statement
to me in substande before he left'Washington,
and further added, that he communicated bis
impression to a military officer residing ih
Washington, and attached to the War Depart
ment, who told bun that was no matter of sur
prise: that tho officers attached *to the D«. -
parttnent had made.that discovery j$ffore. I
nave left (he r.ame of the office* a blank, as 1
was unwilling to involve him in a controversy
with jrou, without his consent.
You say that the decision of the Cabinet was:
unanimously agreed fo. This I heliove to be
untrue at ttie time you wrote it. Mv reasons
are the following :—The Cabinet deliberations,
commenced on Tuesday morning, and on
Friday e' eirng, all the questions which had
been discussed were, I thought, decided,
Hhd Mr. Adam9 d rected to draff a note
to the Spai.irah Minister, conformable to
those decisions. I intended to set off for
Georgia on Sttuday morning *. and, in order to
to prepare the Department I6r my absence, 1
was busily employed in office, when, about one
or two o’clock, I rece ved a note from the Pre
sident, requesting my 'attendance. When I.
entered, the greatest part of Mr. Adams’ notev
had been rejected, &l the remirindcr was short
ly after, and he was directed to draft another
note pursuant to the decision which had been
made. The next morning I set off for Geof
gia. Xlr Adams' letter, which is now before
me, contains a repetition of the arguments he
used in the Cabinet; and in the letter he in
forms me, that tho exposition which appeared
in the Intelligencer, fras not written hy him.
From all these tacts, 1 think it fairly inferrable,
that Mr Adams did not agree to the decision
of the Cabinet, and that yota must have known
it; for it » clear that be did not agree to it on
Saturday; arid it is highly improbabHe that n-
ny arguments should have been urged to con
vince him* after ha had been twice directed to
draff his note in conformity to decisions which
had been pre viously made.
You dwell with much stress upon the lapse
of time since those deliberations, and seem to
be unconscious that the same lapse of time ap
plies to all your certificates, negut.ve and affir
mative.
Yon seem (o repose full confidence cn Mr.
M’Du-ffie’s recollection, although it was of a
casual conversation, not likely to m^ko the
same impression upon the mind, as tho facts
contained in my letter to Mr Forsyth. You
even Tefer to your recollection of a very trivial
fact, which tou say happened during the next
session of Congress. T have now a letter be
fore me, dated in October, 4821, in which 1
state to you, that you hwi a short time before
informed mo, that your memory conld not be
relied on as to facts. You wrote me a letter
'he next day> in which, you did not controvert
that fact; yet, now after a lapse of twelve years
you rely upon you* memory for a very trivial
tact, via : Your application toseethat private
confidential letter, because you had received
sonip hints about it, and you believe from some
of my friends Do yon not perceive some in
consistency in your essay ? You bad just cen
sured me for not using this letter, and then in-
vnuate that I had used it, as you seem to think
I ought to have used it. In truth I do not be
lie v* ono word of your insinuation, nor do I
believe you do, for the reason 1 have already
stated ; I know I never made use of it. But
you insinuate that I made disclosures of the
secrets of the Cabinet to the editor of the
newspaper in Miltedgeville, because General
Clark suspected it, and because I never de-
Med it. I never knew that 1 was charged with
it except in Gt-nerai Clark’s book, and there
the evidence effered in support of it was so
ridiculous, that no person, less ignorant and
malignant that General Clark, would have paid
the f ast attention to it. Besides, if I had dc-
n-ed that charge and nut gone through his book
>nd denied everv charge in it however ridicu
I tus, it would have been alleged hy you & your]
tolaborers, that th^chargos not denied were ad
uuted. But. sir, since you renew the charge,
I give it the most unqualified denial. The edi
tor of the paper alluded to. said presence, in my
that he had been informed that it had been pro
posed in the Cabinet, to arrest Gen. Jackson.
I simply replied that no such proposition hud
been made in the Cabinet.
Let us apply vour own role to you, and see
•tow you will stand the test of your own reas
oning. A Charleston paper of last March,
•tated that you had been charged with parti
cipation in the Ninian Edward’s plot against
my reputilion. Have you ever denied this
chargi ?
Again : you have been charged in the
3-utli Carolina papers with being a nulhfier.
— Air Gales has denied this for you ; but have
you denied it yoursell ? Have you ever con
-ulered the ridiculous figure you may cut in
the sequel, if this nullification advances much
further?
In 1818, you v»ete among the foremost in
avowing the expediency and right of protect
ing domestic manufactures. Now, your disci-
;de* deny the right, and propuse to nullify an
act <of Congress, founded upon the principle ol
protection. You may depend upon it, if you
tod year friends sboUl i proceed so far as to
•o. ur the guilt, and suffer the punishment oi
treason and uii*uccussiul rebellion, you will
ueet with no sympathy among the sister
Suites
I have said that Mr Wirt’s negative state
ment is the only evidence you have in support
>f your negative assertion, tbut the confiden-
tal letter was not produced and read in the
Cabinet. For proof of this, read theencios
d extract of Mr. Monroe’s h tter by which it
will be sees that, having no reliance upon his
•wn recollection, be applied to Mr. Wirt for
"dorniation ; and he candidly and very prop-
rly adits: “Still, as the quest ion turns on me
mory alone, Mr Wirt, as well'as 1, may be mis-
aken—and in fegard to me, as I was sick iu
••ed when. I received the letter, that presump-
ion is the more probable.”
Y<-u appear to boast of the serviees’you ren-
;ered Gen. Jjckson in his tit most need What
nose services were, you have not condescen-
t-d lo slate in your very elaborate essay. : Nor
«ave 4 hoard them dialed at before# Perhaps
” ■ * V #. •.
your meritorious service* were in entreating^
persuading members of Congress to appruvn
acts that you deemed worthy of punishment
when'deliberating in the Cabinet. 1 will, how
ever ’hrit -dwell upon this topic. If you can
satisfy the President that you rendered him es
sentia? /i&rVice, I have no objection I bat you
should be rewarded for it . W hat 1 object to
is, that be should ?>e rewarded for ascribing to
me vour own acts. ' .
You say Ihfct to plrfce Gen. Jackson’s de
fence upon the confidential letter, is to do him
an injary, and that he in his reports never rest
ed it upon that ground. Whether this he trie
or not, 1 have no means of judging But, in
the course of the subsequent winter, I saw an'
essay in a Nashville paper, in which the wri
ter asserted, that the Administration knew that'
G-n Jackson entered Florida, that he intend
ed to take the Spanish forts; and that know
ing it, and not countctmanding it, the Adminis
tration hid made his acts their own, and were
not at liberty to disavow them. I carried this
letter to the President*, and requested him to
read the essay, giving him my opinion that tho
es^ay was either wrilte’n Under Gen Jackson’s
immediate inspcctiop, cr by a person that haff
access to his private papers; for. that the con
fidential letter was evidently referred to A
short time after, he returned the Gazette, say.
ing, ho entirely concurred with me in opinyui.
Extract No. 2, of bis letter shows, that Mr.
Monroe now recollects the circumstances, td
which my letter to him called his attention
I must take some further notice of Mr.
Wirt’s negative statement, before 1 close this
commentary. Mr. Wirt commences his letter
by expressing doubts about disclosing the sc*
crets of the Cabinet, without the consent ot
the President, and every member of the Ca
binet present f suppose this squenmishness of
Mr. Wirt, suggested to you the very wise de
clarations that you only request information as
to your part, in the declarations of the cabinet.
This he gravely assents to, and then states
that you proposed an injury to General Jrack-
son’9 conduct He then proceed* with nearly
two pages, stating what he doe9 not recollect,
A'l that he does not rccollet, I do distinctly re
collect, and so does Mr. Crowninshield. feut
what he does not recollect, is arraved t>v Vou as
evidence against what I anil Mr. CrowninshieM
do recollect. And Mr. Wirt, from his manner
ol stating his non-recollccljona, seems disposed
to countenance the use you have made of his
negative statement. You are welcome to it,
and to the reasoning with which he has supplied
vou.’ Since the dissolution of Mr Monroe’s
Cabinet, I have not felt myself restrained from
disclosing any fact that transpired io it. While
existed. I disclosed none of its sccrots ; and
whoever says 1 did, 3;»V9 what is not true. 1
know of no intrigues to injure you or any otJipr
it person, either directly ; r indirectIv. Had i
been called in the year 1825, iifior the third of
March, n* I was called on by Mr. Forsvth last
spring. I should have made the same de-clo
sures then, (hat I made to Mr Forsyth. Whi
ther Mr. Wirt remembers the facts contained
in my statement, is perfectly indilT-rent to me,
even if Mr Crowninshieltl had no» remember
ed them. But his recollection of the facts m
almost as distinct as mine Mr. Adams’ recol
lection is, that it was proposed to tiring Gene
ra! Jackson to trial; and Mr. CrowninshieldV,
that yon Were screre npon the conduct of the
General.
I believe both of these gentlemen have giv
en the impression that your arguments made
npon their minds. ImLed neither of tb*>fn
have intended to give your express words I
•- m. therefore,not withstandingffre'ir statements,
of opinion the pr^iosition ascribed fo vou in
my letter to Mr Forsyth, U literally correct ;
although “it may be to rate his (vour) undo*-
standing" very luW and may be absurd on its
face.” I believe I baVe bow gone through
vour tedious essay and have been murh more
tedious than I expeled to be ; hut your insinu
ations have b<*en so multifarious and various
that I ould not well he shorter. ;.nd fhave r t
timo fo revise it and make it shorter. A few
words more about conspiracies. General No
ble informed me that for about two weeks be*
fore Ninian Edivards set off to the west in
1823, he lodged in th*- same house witlrlum, &&
that a person going to Edwards’ room, had to i
pass by his, and that during that time you paid
a daily visit to his (Edwards’) room arid spent
from one to two hours with him He sent his
memorial back to Washington, while he was
on hi« journey; it is therefore highly probable
that the njt>9t of it was written in Washington,
and reviewed and revised hy you during, your
daily visits to that compeer of yours. Everv
person who knew Edwards, was convinced he
never would have ventured upon such a step
without having received assurances from p r-
*ons he deemed capable of protecting him —
Your letter ot the 3d vf Jolv to the managers
of.the 4th of July dinner at Washington, was
considered at the time an act redeeming tho
pledge of protection you had given him It
is true that Mr. Adams and Mr M’Lean united
with you in the letter. Mr Adams’ motive
for singing it Was apparent. E iwnrds was his*'
political supporter. His son-in-law held the
vote ot Illinois in his bands; without which,
it appeared in the event, Mr. Adams could not
have been elected. Mr. Adams, therefore,
had an adequate political motive for doing the
act. You could have had >o such motive,
nor could Mr. M’Lean, 1 beli ve, have had
any other motive for his, Conduct than that
of subserviency to your wishes, and a de
sire to enable you to fuifif your promise to Ed*
wards. Froan the.time Gen. Noble gave me the
information^ and that you signed the letter of
the 3d of July, ( never doubted that the plot
against my reputation was your handy work,
and originated in your brain, so fertile in mis
chief And yet voU complain of intrigues and
conspiracies* 4 have through my whole life
been a plain thorough going man. When diffi
culties have arisen 1 have honestly met them, &'
undet the protection ot the shield of integrity
have Vanquished them. I am now twp old to
adopt a r.e W course of conduct* I atttth rot ire*
rnont, and bare no wish to emerge from that
ret rement.
I had like to have forgot your charge of infringe
ng the purity of the electoral colleges. ‘I wrote
the letter to Mr. Barry of which you qpmplairv
and that was not the only letter. But at the
time that letter was written, I had fio io forma
tion that .(he ejeetore ef Kentucky frero pUdf