American Sphinx (57 page)

57. James Madison to Jefferson, October 5, 1794,
Smith,
II, 857.

58. James Madison to Jefferson, November 16, 1794; Jefferson to James Madison, December 28, 1794,
Smith,
II, 859–60, 866–68; Jefferson to Edmund Randolph, September 7, 1794,
Ford,
VI, 512.

59. On the Whiskey Rebellion, the most recent study is Thomas P. Slaughter,
The Whiskey Rebellion
(New York, 1986). An older but still-valuable account is Leland D. Baldwin,
Whiskey Rebels: The Story of a Frontier Uprising
(Pittsburgh, 1939). On the politics of the Federalists arguing for a massive show of military force, see Richard H. Kohn, “The Washington Administration’s Decision to Crush the Whiskey Rebellion,”
JAH,
LIX (1972), 567–74.

60. James Madison to Jefferson, November 30, 1794, and December 21, 1794,
Smith,
II, 861–62, 865–66. See also Philip S. Foner, ed.,
The Democratic-Republican Societies, 1790–1800: A Documentary Sourcebook
(Westport, 1976).

61. Jefferson to Madison, December 28, 1794,
Smith,
II, 866–68. See also Jefferson to William Branch Giles, December 17, 1794,
Ford,
VI, 515–16.

62. Jefferson to James Madison, February 5, 1795, February 23, 1795, March 5, 1795,
Smith,
II, 871–75. See also Jefferson to James Monroe, May 26, 1795,
Ford,
VII, 16–17.

63. For the decision to subscribe to the
Aurora,
see Jackson,
A Year at Monticello,
104.

64. Jefferson to James Madison, March 6, 1796,
Smith,
II, 922.

65. Perhaps my own lack of conviction toward most efforts at psychohistory requires me to offer an aside to the skeptical reader here. The problem with most Freudian, neo-Freudian or Eriksonian explanations of human motivation is that they employ a methodology that does not meet the traditional canons of evidence employed by historians and biographers. They essentially posit a hypothetical cause deep in the subconscious and usually deep in the childhood experience of the subject that “explains” the pattern of behavior by the adult but that lies beyond our retrieval except by reference to the particular theory posited at the start. The adult behavior sanctions or confirms the theory, which then achieves the status of a “fact,” and a circular process has begun that can generate some notorious conclusions. This is the method of Fawn Brodie in
Intimate History
and Erik Erikson in
Dimensions of a New Identity: The 1973 Jefferson Lectures in the Humanities
(New York, 1974). My intention here is not to attempt an exhaustive discussion of the clinical literature, which is vast, but rather to record my own inability to accept such circular reasoning and to note the central flaw of this interpretive tradition as I see it—namely, its capacity to “create” its own evidence based on a purely hypothetical model.

That said, any historian or biographer worth his or her salt is intellectually obliged to make some occasional effort at explaining a decision or act without possessing all the direct evidence one would like. The explanation offered here for Jefferson’s obsessive hatred of the Hamiltonian fiscal program does not depend on any specific theory of human personality. It depends only on establishing a connection between Jefferson’s private problems with debt and his public position on the enlargement of the national debt. Since the private and public Jefferson were the same person, it is a connection made by common sense rather than theory. It represents an effort to unite that which Jefferson wished to keep separate in his own mind. The credibility of the connection also depends on the massive evidence about Jefferson’s indebtedness gathered in Herbert Sloan’s
Principle and Interest.

66. The two authoritative books on the Jay Treaty are Samuel Flagg Bemis,
Jay’s Treaty: A Study in Commerce and Diplomacy
(New Haven, 1962) and Jerald A. Combs,
The Jay Treaty: Political Background of the Founding Fathers
(Berkeley, 1970).

67. James Madison to Jefferson, February 15, 1795; Jefferson to James Madison, February 23, 1795; Jefferson to James Madison, March 5, 1795,
Smith,
II, 872–74.

68. James Madison to Jefferson, June 14, 1795,
ibid.,
879–80. The references to Hamilton and the mock toast are conveniently summarized in
ibid.,
882–85.

69. Jefferson to James Madison, September 21, 1795, November 26, 1795, James Madison to Jefferson, December 13, 1795,
ibid.,
897–98, 900–01, 903–04; Jefferson to James Madison, November 30, 1795,
ibid.,
888–89.

70. These are essentially the conclusions of Bemis and Combs, cited above, as well as the most recent scholarly treatment by Elkins and McKitrick,
Age of Federalism,
375–450. Concerning Jefferson’s rock-ribbed belief that England was a nation on the decline, it would be fascinating to give him a copy of Linda Colley’s
Britons: Forging the Nation, 1707–1837
(New Haven, 1992), a truly elegant appraisal of the various sources of extraordinary allegiance the emerging British nation was able to draw upon from all sectors of its populace.

71. James Madison to Jefferson, March 23, 1795,
Smith,
II, 875–76; James Madison to James Monroe, February 26, 1796, quoted in
ibid.,
940.

72.
Ibid.,
940–41.

73. Jefferson to Philip Mazzei, April 24, 1796,
Ford,
VII, 72–76. The infamous “Mazzei Letter” was picked up by an Italian newspaper in Florence and then translated back into English by Noah Webster’s Federalist newspaper the
Minerva,
on May 14, 1797. Washington ceased all correspondence with Jefferson as of this date. See
Malone,
III, 267–68, 302–07, for a heroic but futile effort to rescue Jefferson from his own denials of authorship.

74. Jefferson to William Branch Giles, December 31, 1795; Jefferson to James Monroe, March 21, 1796,
Ford,
VII, 41–42, 67–68; Jefferson to James Madison, March 27, 1796,
Smith,
II, 928.

75. Madison’s explanation of his constitutional strategy is most readily available in his many letters to Jefferson during the spring of 1796. See especially James Madison to Jefferson, March 6, 1796, and March 13, 1796,
Smith,
II, 925–26.

76. John Adams to Abigail Adams, April 28, 1796, cited in
ibid.,
894; James Madison to Jefferson, May 1, 1796, April 18, 1796, April 23, 1796, May 22, 1796,
ibid.,
933–34, 936–38. A major contributing factor to the switch of western interests was the announcement of Pinckney’s Treaty with Spain, which guaranteed navigation rights on the Mississippi River and, when linked with the removal of British troops guaranteed by the Jay Treaty, allowed for unimpeded expansion into and beyond the Mississippi Valley. See Samuel Flagg Bemis,
Pinckney’s Treaty: America’s Advantage from Europe’s Distresses
(rev. ed., New Haven, 1960).

77. Jefferson to James Monroe, June 12, 1796, and July 10, 1796,
Ford,
VII, 80, 89.

78. For an extended discussion of this more democratic brand of politics and its implications for the Federalists, see Elkins and McKitrick,
Age of Federalism,
431, 451–88.

79. Fisher Ames to Oliver Wolcott, September 16, 1796, quoted in
Smith,
II, 940; James Madison to James Monroe, May 14, 1796,
ibid.

80. James Madison to Jefferson, December 5, 1796,
ibid.,
II, 948. On Adams’s political position vis-à-vis Hamilton at this stage, see Stephen G. Kurtz,
The Presidency of John Adams: The Collapse of Federalism, 1795–1800
(Philadelphia, 1957), 96–113. See also Manning Dauer,
The Adams Federalists
(Baltimore, 1953).

81. Jefferson to James Madison, December 17, 1796,
Smith,
II, 949–50.

82. Jefferson to John Adams, December 28, 1796,
Cappon,
I, 262–63; Jefferson to Archibauld Stuart, January 4, 1797,
Ford,
VII, 102–03; Jefferson to James Madison, January 1, 1797,
Smith,
II, 952–55; Jefferson to John Langdon, January 22, 1797,
Ford,
VII, 111–12; Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, January 22, 1797,
ibid.,
VII, 114.

83. Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, May 13, 1797, Jefferson to Edward Rutledge, December 27, 1796,
Ford,
VII, 119–20, 93–95; Jefferson to James Madison, January 8, 1797,
Smith,
II, 955.

84. Jefferson to John Adams, December 28, 1796, enclosure with letter of January 1, 1797,
Smith,
II, 954–55.

85. James Madison to Jefferson, January 15, 1797,
ibid.,
II, 956–58.

86. Jefferson to James Madison, January 30, 1797,
ibid.,
962–63.

87. Jefferson’s recollection in “The Anas,”
Ford,
I, 273; Adams had a corresponding sense of the poignancy of the separation, though he tended to regard both Jefferson and his Federalist colleagues in the cabinet as misguided and motivated by party considerations. See Charles Francis Adams, ed.,
Works,
IX, 285.

88.
Malone,
III, 296–301.

4.
WASHINGTON, D.C.: 1801–04

1.
Domestic Life,
275–76, for the legendary account.

2. Jefferson to Spencer Roane, September 6, 1819,
L&B,
XV, 212.

3. My effort at a realistic rendering of the inauguration draws upon multiple accounts. See especially Smith,
The First Forty Years of Washington Society, History,
I, 126–48; Noble Cunningham, Jr.,
The Process of Government Under Jefferson
(Princeton, 1978). The quotation is from Jefferson to Maria Jefferson Eppes, February 15, 1801,
Domestic Life,
274–75. The chief secondary work on the revolution theme is Daniel Sisson,
The American Revolution of 1800
(New York, 1974).

4. Constance McLaughlin Green,
Washington: A History of the Capital, 1800–1850
(Princeton, 1962), I, 3–20; James Sterling Young,
The Washington Community, 1800–1828
(New York, 1966). There is also a splendid summary in Martin Smelser,
The Democratic Republic, 1801–1815
(New York, 1968), 2–5.

5. Bob Arnbeck,
Through a Fiery Trial: Building Washington, 1790–1800
(Lanham, 1991); Charles Janson,
The Stranger in America
(London, 1807). For an excellent collection of travelers’ accounts and early maps, see John W. Reps,
Washington on View: The Nation’s Capital Since 1790
(Chapel Hill, 1991), 50–85.

6. Smith,
Forty Years,
10–13; George Waterston,
The L . . . Family at Washington, or A Winter in the Metropolis
(Washington, 1822), 21–22; Reps,
Washington on View,
51.

7. See, for example, the description of the Capitol in
History,
I, 135.

8. For a convenient review of the scholarly literature on Burr, see J. C. A. Stagg, “The Enigma of Aaron Burr,”
Reviews in American History,
XII (1984), 378–82. The standard biographies are Nathan Schachner,
Aaron Burr: A Biography
(New York, 1937) and Milton Lomastz,
Aaron Burr
(2 vols., New York, 1979–83). Though obviously not reliable as history, Gore Vidal’s
Burr
(New York, 1973) is a fictional treatment of considerable erudition and even greater wit.

9. Sisson,
Revolution of 1800,
13–58, offers the fullest secondary account of the election.

10. On the election in the House, see Morton Borden,
The Federalism of James A. Bayard
(New York, 1955), 73–95.

11. There is no first-rate modern biography of Marshall. Leonard Baker,
John Marshall: A Life in Law
(New York, 1974) falls short. The best biography remains Albert J. Beveridge,
Life of John Marshall
(4 vols., Boston, 1916–19).

12. The “twistifications” reference is from Jefferson to James Madison, May 25, 1810,
Smith,
III, 1632. John Marshall to Alexander Hamilton, January 1, 1800, Charles F. Hobson, ed.,
The Papers of John Marshall
(7 vols., Chapel Hill, 1974– ), VI, 46–47.

13. For the midnight judges story and Adams’s view of the political context, see Ellis,
Passionate Sage,
19–26.

14. John Marshall to Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, March 4, 1801; Jefferson to John Marshall, March 4, 1801; Marshall to Jefferson, March 4, 1801, Hobson, ed.,
Marshall Papers,
VI, 88–89.

15. Sisson,
Revolution of 1800,
41–58; Elkins and McKitrick,
Age of Federalism,
726–42.

16. Smith,
Forty Years,
25–26; Jefferson to James Monroe, February 18, 1801,
Ford,
VII, 490–91;
Malone,
IV, 10–14.

17. My interpretation of Jefferson’s political ideology in 1800 draws upon my reading in the vast scholarly literature on republicanism that has appeared over the last thirty years. For a succinct summary of the “oppositional” argument, see Banning,
Jeffersonian Persuasion,
273–302. For the Federalists’ fears of Jefferson, see Elkins and McKitrick,
Age of Federalism,
746–50. The quotation is from Charles Lee to Leven Powell, February 11, 1802, cited in Cunningham,
Jeffersonian Republicans,
316.

18. Jefferson to Gideon Granger, August 13, 1800,
LC;
in the same vein, see Jefferson to Thomas Lomax, February 25, 1801,
Ford,
VII, 500. The classic secondary account of what was in Jefferson’s mind as he assumed the presidency is
History,
I, 145–47.

19. Alexander Hamilton to James A. Bayard, January 16, 1801, Harold Syrett, ed.,
The Papers of Alexander Hamilton
(27 vols., New York, 1961–81), XXV, 319–20.

20. The Inaugural Address is printed in a somewhat muddled fashion in
Ford,
VIII, 1–6. I am indebted to Andrew Burstein, who provided me with copies of Jefferson’s final draft from the Jefferson Papers in the Library of Congress.

21.
Ford,
VIII, 5.