University of Virginia Library

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.

I observe that the newspapers continue to criticise
the President's proclamation, and I find that some
of the criticisms excite the attention of dispassionate
& judicious individuals here.[73] I have heard it remarked

by such, with some surprise that the P.
should have declared the U. S. to be neutral in the
unqualified terms used, when we were so notoriously
& unequivocally under eventual engagements to defend
the American possessions of F. I have heard it
remarked also that the impartiality enjoined on the
people was as little reconcileable with their moral
obligations, as the unconditional neutrality proclaimed
by the Government is with the express
articles of the Treaty. It has been asked also
whether the authority of the Executive extended by
any part of the Constitution to a declaration of the
Disposition of the U. S. on the subject of war &
peace? I have been mortified that on these points I
could offer no bona fide explanations that ought to
be satisfactory. On the last point I must own my
surprise that such a prerogative should have been
exercised. Perhaps I may have not attended to
some parts of the Constitution with sufficient care,
or may have misapprehended its meaning. But, as
I have always supposed & still conceive a proclamation
on the subject could not properly go beyond a
declaration of the fact that the U. S. were at war or
peace, and an injunction of a suitable conduct on
the Citizens. The right to decide the question
whether the duty & interest of the U. S. require war
or peace under any given circumstances, and whether
their disposition be towards the one or the other
seems to be essentially & exclusively involved in the
right vested in the Legislature, of declaring war in
time of peace; and in the P. & S. of making peace
in time of war. Did no such view of the subject
present itself in the discussions of the Cabinet? I
am extremely afraid that the P. may not be sufficiently
aware of the snares that may be laid for his
good intentions by men whose politics at bottom are
very different from his own. An assumption of
prerogatives not clearly found in the Constitution
& having the appearance of being copied from a
Monarchical model, will beget animadversion equally
mortifying to him & disadvantageous to the Government.
Whilst animadversions of this sort can
be plausibly ascribed to the spirit of party, the force
of them may not be felt. But all his real friends
will be anxious that his public conduct may bear the
strictest scrutiny of future times as well as of the
present day; and all such friends of the Constitution
would be doubly pained at infractions of it under
auspices that may consecrate the evil till it be
incurable.

It will not be in my power to take the step with
the Friend of our Friend which you recommend.[74] It
is probable too that it would be either unnecessary
or without effect. If the complexion of the former
be such as is presumed, he will fairly state the truth
& that alone is wanted. If as I deem not impossible,
his complexion be a little different from the

general belief, there would be more harm than
good in the attempt. The great danger of misconstruing
the sentiment of Virginia with regard to
Liberty & France is from the heretical tone of conversation
in the Towns on the post roads. The
voice of the Country is universally and warmly
right. If the popular disposition could be collected
& carried into effect, a most important use might be
made of it in obtaining contributions of the necessaries
called for by the danger of famine in France.
Unfortunately the disaffection of the Towns which
alone could give effect to a plan for the purpose,
locks up the public gratitude & beneficence. . . .