University of Virginia Library

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.

My last was on the 18th, and acknowledged yours
of the 30th Ult: & 7th instant. I had not then time
to mention that W. C. Nicholas passd. an evening
with me on his way home from his brother's where
he had met Ed Randolph on his return to Pha..
From his conversation, his sentiments are right &
firm on the French Revoln., and In other respects I
discovered no symptoms of heresy. He spoke particularly
& emphatically of the unquestionable unanimity
of the Country in favor of the cause of F. I
have no doubt that he held this language to every
one, and consequently that the impressions depending
on him have been rightly made. I could not
but infer from all that he said with regard to E. R.
that he considered the sentiments of him on French
affairs as similar to his own, and to such as were expressed
by himself. Some allowance however in all
such conversations, must be made for the politeness
or policy of respecting the known sentiments of the
party to which they are addressed or communicated.
He had seen the first part of H's publication[77] and
spoke of it as from that quarter. He expressed
some surprise at the doctrines & cabinet efforts of
the Author as he had learnt them from E. R., and
seemed unable to account for some things without
suspecting H. of a secret design to commit and
sacrifice the Pt. His ideas on this subject must have

grown out of the language of E. R., if not actually
copied from it. I have read over with some attention,
the printed papers you inclosed, and have made
notes towards a discussion of the subject. I find
myself however under some difficulties first from my
not knowing how far concessions have been made on
particular points behind the curtain.[78] 2dly. from my
not knowing how far the P. considers himself as
actually committed with respect to some doctrines.
3dly. from the want of some lights from the Law of
Nations as applicable to the construction of the
Treaty. 4th. from my ignorance of some material
facts,—such as whether any call was made by G. B.
or any other Belligerent power for the intentions of
the U. S. prior to the Proclamation—whether F. was
heard on the subject of her constructions & pretensions
under the Treaty—whether the Ex. had before
them any authentic documents or entered into any
discussions, on the question whether the war between
F. & G. B. is offensive or defensive &c: I do
not mean that all such information ought to be
brought into the controversy, tho' some of it is necessary
& some more might be used to advantage. But
all or most of it seems proper in order to avoid vulnerable
assertions or suppositions which might give
occasion to triumphant replies. If an answer to the
Publication be undertaken, it ought to be both a
solid, and a prudent one. None but intelligent
readers will enter into such a controversy, and to
their minds it ought principally to be accommodated.
If you can lay your hands on the Explanatory publication
of the real object of the Proclamn. referred
to in your last, or the preceding one, send it to me.
The one I had is no longer in my hands.—I expect
to day to receive your letter next in date to the 7th.