JK 
 
 155 
 
 " ^ J-T 
 
 . ■':^' 
 
 
 :^i3-?~^ 
 
 
 
 
 - vf..> ^^^-» -^^^^ ^,^lv^ .f/^^jv-.'^^ 
 
 ■:^' , 
 
 
 7^^VM 
 
 
 «»s^^^^ 
 
 -41^ ^.',* 
 
 ^*»-j*:^j 
 
 <K'v. 
 
M2 
 
 ^ 
 
DECS n'^ 
 
 
 Date 
 
 Due 
 
 
 MftlT'l i 1? 
 
 ^1 * 
 
 
 
 PWR i J^ ' "^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 r^ itW 
 
 
 
 ^•^-^^hm^ 
 
 
 
 <^f"""' "1 
 
 
 
 
 1=; uwU 
 
 3 30 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 -1^ i^\ 
 
 49fiflil D 
 
 
 
 ■•»jw i.1 Jf 
 
 
 
 I . I . 
 
 
 
 
 iir* 
 
 >4fci^r 
 
 
 
 
 
 _^ 
 
 
 SEP 
 
 sJ^ri 
 
 g 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 T'^ooT'" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Cornell University Library 
 JK155 .J42 
 
 Correspondence between John Jay and Henr 
 
 Clin 
 
 3 1924 030 454 346 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924030454346 
 
Price 30 Cents. ^ 
 
 
 MR. JAY'S 
 
 SECOND LETTER 
 
 ON 
 
 DAWSON'S INTRODUCTION TO THE 
 FEDERALIST, 
 
 WITH A NOTE ON THE UNFRIENDLY POLICY OF 
 
 FRANQE TOWARDS THE UNITED STATES AT 
 
 THE TIME OF THE TREATY OF PEACE. 
 
NEW PLOTTINGS IIT AID OF THE REBEL DOCTRINE OP 
 STATE SOVEREIGNTY. 
 
 MR. JAY'S SECOND LETTER 
 
 ON 
 
 mim mmmm to the fed[riilist, 
 
 Exposing its FALSirroATion or the History op the Constitptios ; its 
 
 Libels os DUANE, LIVINGSTON, JAY and HAMILTON ; and 
 
 its kelation to kecent efforts by Traitors at home, and 
 
 Foes abroad, to maintain the Rebel Doctrine or State 
 
 Sovereignty, fob the Subversion of the Unity of 
 
 THE RePCBLIO and THE SuPREME SoVEBEIONIY OF 
 
 THE Amebioan People. 
 
 "Tbe bantling— I had liked to hare said,— Mqksteb." 
 
 Washington to Jay on State /Sovtreignty, 
 
 ** If any man attempts to haul down the National Flag, 
 Ehogt talm on the spot."— 2)fte. 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 
 AMERICAN NEWS COMPANY, 121 NASSAU STREET. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 TRGBNER & COMPANY, 60 PATERNOSTER ROW. 
 
 1884. 
 
 e 
 
TV 
 
 WASHmoTow TO Madison, 1787: 
 
 " • * Thirteen Sovereignties pulling against each other and all 
 
 tugging at the Federal head, will soon bring ruin on the whole.'' 
 
 Fbanklw Pieboe to JpFFBRSoif Davis, Jan. 6, 1860: 
 
 (Quoted iD the Boiton Jitumal^ 
 
 " * * The fiiihting will not be along: Mason and Dison's Une 
 merely. It will be within cur borders — in our own streets," &o. 
 
 Vallandicham to Col. D. D. Inshali., of the 8</» AlabaT^a Volunteers, 18G3 : 
 
 (Quoted in the Boston J^yumal.) 
 
 " ■ * * You have but to persevere, and the victory wijl easily 
 be yours. You must strike home. * * You can have ^ uai owu terms by 
 giving battle on youi' enemies' soiL" 
 
NEW PLOTTINGS IN AID OP THE REBEL DOCTRINE OP 
 STATE SOVEREIGNTY. 
 
 MR. JAY'S SECOND LETTER 
 
 DAWSON'S INTEODUCTION 
 
 THE FEDERALIST. 
 
 To the Editors of the Evening Post. 
 
 Sirs, — ^When in February I wrote my first letter on Mr. Daw- 
 son's edition of the Federalist, I had been chiefly struck with 
 the instances to which I called attention, of the singular misap- 
 preciation exhibited, in the " Introduction," of the character of 
 tlie Avork, its extraordinary misrepresentation of the course pur- 
 sued by the friends of the Constitution, and its inexplicable 
 violation of historic truth in regard to the most familiar incidents 
 in the life of my grandfather. 
 
 In the face of the fact apparent to every student of American 
 liistory, and which is thus stated by John Adams, "Mr. Jay 
 had as much influence in the preparatory measures for digesting 
 the Constitution and in obtaining its adoption as any man in the 
 nation," a fact which has been eloquently dwelt upon by Mr. 
 "Webster in his well known letter to the Honorable James A. 
 Hamilton and other citizens of "Westchester county, the declara- 
 tion of Mr. Dawson that Jay found in the Constitution " little 
 that he could commend, and nothing for which he could labor," 
 seemed to me to exhibit a very remarkable amount either of 
 ignorance or of malice. 
 
 A more careful reading of the " Introduction," the tone of Mr. 
 
Dawson's reply printed in the Evening Post, and facts that have 
 since come to my knowledge of his association with certain 
 writers in the interest of the Eebellion, convince me that it 
 would be unjust to attribute Mr. Dawson's en-ors purely to ignor- 
 ance, or his assaults upon Jay simply to personal malice ; and I 
 propose to consider the bearing of his Introduction upon a wide 
 spread attempt now being made to mystify and demoralize the 
 American people in regard to the American Constitution : to 
 convince them, if possible, that they do not constitute a nation : 
 and to pursuade them that their only safety consists in dissolv- 
 ing the Union, and recognizing the individual sovereignty of 
 each separate State. 
 
 The questions involved in the examination, relate to the con- 
 stitutional history of the country, and in their bearing upon the 
 issues of the pending war, concern the gravest interests of the 
 American people. In noticing, therefore, some parts of Mr. 
 Dawson's letter, I shall not reply to the gross personalities which 
 he has introduced, seemingly with no other intent than to divert 
 attention from the real issue. If he has misrepresented the facts 
 of history, as I shall prove that he has done, he cannot justify 
 those misrepresentations by perverting the facts of the last de- 
 cade : nor can he, by his abuse and slanders of the living, atone 
 for his libels on the dead. 
 
 ME. DAWSON's pledges TS ASKING ASSISTANCE. 
 
 Before proceeding to expose the character and aim of Mr- 
 Dawson's introduction, it may be proper for me to explain how 
 I was induced to countenance, at his hands, an edition of the 
 Federalist. Having known him some ten years since as an active 
 member of an Anti-Slavery League, my intercourse with him had 
 been interrupted by causes to which it is unnecessary to refer 
 until, on the 17th of February, 1862, he wrote to me that he had 
 undertaken to carry an edition of the Federalist through the 
 press, and asked my assistance. He said : 
 
 " I desire to make such a work as will satisfy all who may 
 " examine it." And he closed his letter with this assurance : 
 
 " In making this request, I beg to assure you that I am actu- 
 " ated entirely by a desire to render justice to the memory of 
 " your ancestor, as one of the authors of the work in question : 
 
" and I trust tliat for tlie same reason, and for the purpose of 
 " this enquiry at least, I may be met in the same spirit, regard- 
 " less of past differences on less important subjects." 
 In a second letter, of March 15, 1862, he remarked : 
 " As I have said before, I desire to produce an edition of the 
 " Federalist, which shall stand the test of the most careful ex- 
 " amination, and my plan of operations has been examined and 
 "heartily approved by Hon. James A. Hamilton, — Mr. John 
 " C, his brother, is too sick to be seen — and I have received the 
 " use of every paper which he has in his possession. It will 
 " afford me the greatest satisfaction, if I may also enjoy the ben- 
 " efit of your papers, and your advice on the same subject, that 
 " those who follow us may receive from our hands the imcon- 
 " taminated writrags of those who have preceded us." 
 
 To these requests and assurances, after some hesitation, in 
 view of the urgent occasion for an edition of the Federalist, I 
 persuaded myself that I should accede. How Mr. Dawson's 
 pledges have been kept, will appear in the sequel. I promptly 
 wrote to him, as he says, a letter of sixteen pages, with numer- 
 ous references to the works of Washington, Franklin, Adams, 
 Jay, &c., which I thought might assist him to a thorough ap- 
 preciation of the contest in regard to the Constitution ; and I 
 sent him three extracts from letters of Washington and Jay, 
 bearing upon the same general topic, advising him, however, at 
 the same time, as he admits, that I could find nothing among 
 Jay's papers relative to the Federalist. 
 
 Having thus — setting aside personal differences — done what I 
 could to assist Mr. Dawson (with whom I had not spoken for 
 years) to make his edition of the Federalist as complete as pos- 
 sible, and his acknowledgment of my courtesy and my assist- 
 ance having been rendered in a manner calculated to induce the 
 belief that I approved of his conduct as an editor, I feel myself 
 absolutely at liberty to subject his part of the work to " the 
 careful examination " which he invited : and to show, not by 
 vague assertions, but by particular facts, that he has not only 
 broken faith with me in his volunteered pledge to do justice to 
 my ancestor, whom, as I showed in my former letter, he has 
 grossly misrepresented, vilified, and belied; but that he has 
 with questionable faith towards the subscribers to the work, and 
 
6 
 
 towards the American people, converted their reverence for the 
 Federalist to his. own purposes, and made this edition, which I 
 was induced to believe would be " uncontaminated," the vehicle for 
 circulating, in an introduction, distorted criticism on the work, 
 monstrous misrepresentations of the truth of history, and unjust 
 aspersions on the fame of the authors ; in short, that this volume, 
 so eagerly subscribed for by loyal citizens, as an honest edition 
 of the Federalist, is welcomed by apologists of secession as coming 
 from a sympathizer with the London Times in its assaults upon 
 our nationality, and as calculated to strengthen that " monster " 
 doctrine of State Sovereignty which is now striving to overthrow 
 our Constitution. 
 
 ITOETHEEN CONSPIEAOT TO AID THE EEBELS. 
 
 ' The Eoening Post has occasionally du-ected attention to 
 ' Papers from the Society for the Diffusion of Political Knowl- 
 edge," organized u.nder the auspices of Mr. S. F. B. Morse, and 
 there is reason to believe that a wide-spread conspiracy exists 
 throughout the ITorth, among the sympathizers with the re- 
 bellion, for organizing a State's Eights party, for the subversion 
 of the American Constitution, and its reconstruction on the 
 basis, not of ISTational, but of State sovereignty. 
 
 It will be remembei-ed that the rebel commissioner from Mis- 
 sissippi to Maryland, in December, 1860, expressly declared that 
 " their plan was for the Southern States to withdraw from the 
 Union for the present, to allow amendments to the Constitu- 
 tion." And it is well known that the rebels have been recom- 
 mended, by their Northern sympathizers, to continue their 
 resistance, in the hope that the American people might be in- 
 duced to acquiesce in a project of national suicide. In the 
 Senate of New Jersey, a bill has been recently introduced, to 
 punish, with iine and imprisonment, whoever shall enlist free 
 negroes, thus exhibiting the spirit of State sovereignty, and the 
 manner in which the doctrine may be made effective to weaken 
 the National Government, and add strength to the rebellion. A 
 recent Boston paper calls attention to new movements in 
 Massachusetts, of rebel sympathizers, under the name of 
 '■'■Gitisen Caucuses," and the use of this term, for the purpose 
 of disloyalty and treason, recalls its emplojmient for similar ob- 
 
jects, during tlie administration of our first President. It was 
 a favorite designation -witli that disreputable faction which 
 fomented the rebellion in Pennsylvania, to increase the embar- 
 rassments of "Washington, and, if possible, to overthrow the Gov- 
 ernment ; which, in defiance alike of patriotism and decency, 
 encouraged Genet, the Minister of the French Eepublicans, in 
 his efforts to compromise our neutrality, and his threat to appeal 
 from the President to the people, and which exhibited the extent 
 to which party hostility may be carried, by gravely charging 
 "Washington, Hamilton, and Jay, with intent to subvert the 
 Constitution and establish a monarchy. Such were the patriots 
 who, in the excess of their zeal for the good of the people. Im- 
 itated the Jacobins of Paris, and substituted " Citizen " for Mr., 
 and " Citess " for Miss. 
 
 The efforts of the faction which is to-day repeating towards 
 the administration of Mr. Lincoln the conduct of Its predecessor 
 towards that of Washington, are by no means confined to 
 caucuses. 
 
 Among the elaborate worts issued by this modern band of 
 conspirators, who call themselves indifferently, " States' Eights 
 Democrats " and " Federal Eepublican Citizens," is one upon 
 which I chanced In the " Astor Library," entitled, " Citizen- 
 ship Sovereignty, by J. S. "Wright, assisted by Professor J. 
 Holmes Agnew, D. D., Chicago. Published for American 
 Citizens, the true maiatainers of State Sovereignty, 1863." 
 The latter of these gentlemen has since been announced as the 
 editor of the Knickerbocker, which in an article of the March 
 number, entitled, " The Issue Between the North and the 
 South," denounces the Declaration of Independence as inspired 
 by " a spurious philosophy." As Mr. Wright and Doctor 
 Agnew cordially recognize Mr. Dawson, as an efficient co- 
 worker with them in their labors for destroying and recon- 
 structing the Constitution, and quote him as almost wholly 
 concurring In their views, it will be useful to glance at the 
 principles and theories, which, according to them, Mr. Dawson 
 has brought to his editorial exposition of the character of the 
 Federalist his elucidation of the history of the Constitution, 
 and the fame and services of Its framers and expounders. The 
 work of Messrs. Wright and Agnew — no name of printer or 
 
pubKsher appears, but tbe funds are supplied by " a kind patro 
 in New York," and some in Chicago — seems to be intended as a 
 feeler of the public pulse. Its law, according to the advertisement, 
 is approved of by the Hon. Chas. O'Conor— a statement which, 
 however honestly made, I regard as singularly erroneous and un- 
 just to that eminent jurist, and its authors have been constantly as- 
 sisted by Mr. S. F. B. Morse, to whom they make their acknowl- 
 ments for his "judicious counsel and affectionate interest." Its 
 display of learning is well calculated to impress the uninstructed 
 and careless reader, while its parade of impious piety, its daring 
 familiarity with God's designs, its audacious application of 
 Scriptural texts, its affected jealousy of the honour of " our King 
 Jehovah," and its misplaced invocation " for enlightenment by 
 the Holy Ghost," seem intended to divert the attention of the un- 
 suspecting, from the diabolical character of the plot which is 
 gradually unfolded in the volume, for overthrowing the constitu- 
 tional liberties of our Kepublic and the National Sovereignty of 
 the American people, and subjecting all loyal citizens to the 
 tender mercies of slavery and secession. The reader is treated 
 with references to the Bible, and Barbeyrac, Bacon and Puf- 
 fendorf, Grotius and Hooker, Sir "Walter Ealeigh and Sir 
 Thomas Eidley, Hobbes and Harrington, Cumberland and 
 Clark, Sherlock and Selden, Tower and Milton, Eilmer and 
 Locke, Burlamaqui and Montesquieu, Ferguson and Kutherford, 
 Vattel and "Ward, Bentham and Wheaton, "Webster and Kent, 
 Martens and Heineccius, Foucher and Lieber, Manning and 
 De TocqueviUe, Gillies and Bynkershoeck, "Wolfe and Ko\is- 
 seau, Blackstone and Sydney, Manning and Thirlwall, Aristotle, 
 Lord Brougham, Guizot, Lacroit, and Necker. He is cau- 
 tiously advised of the unfairness of Kent, the misconceptions of 
 Story, the erroneous theories of Hamilton and Jefferson, the 
 ignorance of John Adams of the A B C of the Constitution, 
 the errors of Madison, the confusion of principles exhibited by 
 the views of Marshall, Eawle, "Wheaton, Dane, Bradford, 
 "Webster, Duer, Lincoln, Everett, Curtis, and Motley, and is 
 taught that on important points, the Governmental teachings 
 of Wheaton, Kent, and Story, have the same tendency with 
 those of Rosseau, Tom Paine, and the French school of Infi- 
 delity (page 49), Amid this condemnation of the publicists of 
 
9 
 
 America, the teachings of Calhoun are eulogized ; the oppor- 
 tuness is welcomed of " Sectional Controversy," a hook by 
 Wm. Chauncey Fowler, LL. D., published by Seribner, I^ew 
 York, advocating the right of secession, and warm praise is , 
 bestowed on Bishop Hopkins' " valuable work, the American 
 Citizen" The reader is next taught that a Sovereign State 
 should be unaccountable to all else but Deity : (p. 48), and that 
 it was ignorance of Governmental principles which led the North,, 
 almost to a man, to deny the right of secession. 
 
 Among the wrongs of the South, is included by the authors, 
 «' the infamous deception as to supplying Forts Sumpter and 
 " Pickens, * * * to say nothing of previous wrongs, 
 which are greater than even the South has known !" (51.) 
 
 The only remedy for secession is represented to be a " re- 
 newal of the league," and " every slave stolen or absconded, 
 and all losses or injuries of every description to be paid for." 
 " The South" (says the author), " can never with honour consider 
 " the question of re-union, except on the Federal basis," * * * 
 " and the alternative being war or consolidation, which must 
 " bring monarchy, I hope " (he adds), " with all my heart, the 
 " South will adhere to its course, though the war should last 
 c' fifty years," (p. 59). 
 
 These States' Eights Democrats, with a marvellous assurance, 
 think this a fitting time to enlarge upon the advantages which 
 the people of the North have derived from the South giving to 
 the Federal service their " genuine aristocrats," whose superior- 
 ity to the better classes at the North is warmly insisted upon, 
 (Page 151.) 
 
 "If" (say these model • democrats ! — and it is hard to say 
 whether the sham aristocracy of the Southern slave-masters or 
 the sham democracy of their Northern serfs is the most 
 despicable,) "we cannot have and perpetuate a high grade 
 " of aristocracy from which our rulers shall be almost uniformly 
 " elected, we can never sustain free Government. Revolu- 
 " tions and anarchy must be our fate, tijl we find relief in Des- 
 " potism, and then fortunate shall we be, if, by establishing an 
 'hereditary Aristocracy, with all its burthens, we shall reach 
 '' as free a condition as Britons enjoy." (P. 150.) " Let the 
 " nobility of Britain understand that they have in us, earnest 
 
10 
 
 '' coadjutors to maintain Aristocracy" (133) ; and, as if to show 
 the sincerity of this assurance, we have, on page 159, a sentence 
 almost as startlina; in its sentiments as in its grammatical con- 
 
 's 
 struction : 
 
 " Had George III. only been as good a Tory as were our 
 " Fathers, {sic) the noble fellow, for he was a splendid monarch, 
 " would never have endured the mortification of acknowledging 
 " the independence of these States." 
 
 The reader, after duly digesting this new fact in American 
 History, will remember that our Constitution, which Mr. 
 Dawson characterizes as " the devoted instrument," forbids the 
 granting of patents of nobility ; there is in this prohibition a 
 real grievance, which loudly demands the reconstruction of the 
 Constitution, to secure to us " as free a condition" as is enjoyed 
 by Britons. 
 
 The author proves, to his own satisfaction, that the Confede- 
 rate States " have nobly sustained themselves," and are better 
 able to-day to continue the contest than when it was begun, and 
 asks : " Should not such a power be recognized by sister nations 
 " as having an existence " (p. 163) ? and assures Britain that 
 " thousands of us in the North will rejoice" if she wiU lead 
 Europe in thus maintaining States' Kights. The writer might 
 here, with great propriety, have eulogized the democratic gen- 
 tlemen of New York who secretly approached Lord Lyons and 
 besought him to secure the intervention of the British Govern- 
 ment in oar domestic affairs, an act of infamy on the part of 
 American citizens which should never be forgiven nor forgotten. 
 
 Mr. AVright expresses displeasure at the timely and able letter 
 of Mr. Motley to the London Times, that ally of secession, 
 vindicating our nationality : but declares that " Mr. Henry B. 
 " Dawson has a rod in pickle that will be sufiBcient to whip him 
 " (Mr. Motley) into the traces." (P. 187.) 
 
 The reader is now deemed prepared for the development of 
 the^ilot ; a coming struggle in the North on the question of 
 State Sovereignty is predicted as at hand, and we are told that 
 " the struggle in the days of Adams and Jefferson was nothing 
 " to what'this will be," (P, 192.) 
 
11 
 
 A page or two further, and the infernal scheme is hinted at, 
 rather than disclosed, by which these pious States-rights gentle- 
 men think to accomplish the destruction of our nationality, and 
 the overthrow of the sovereignty of the people : 
 
 " Yet will it not be the most impossible of circumstances, if 
 " the Federal republican citizens of the North should be joined 
 " with the armies of the South, to re-establish the Federal insti- 
 " tutions of our Fathers against the efforts of consolidists and 
 " abolitionists. May God save us from such a horrid catas- 
 " trophe, yet, if it must come, in order to save our institutions, 
 "Amen!" 
 
 This' Christian resignation to the banding together of ISTorth- 
 ern renegades'and Southern traitors, to desolate the homes of all 
 who cling to the American Constitution and the American Flag, 
 is illustrated by^an impious application of the text, as a warning 
 to those who are disposed to resist the traitors, " "Woe unto him 
 who striveth with his Maker." 
 
 Similar hints begin to aboimd in the secession newspapers of 
 the North. The-Detroit Free Press of the 17th March, 1864, 
 in a leader headed " Is a Revolution Imminent ? " threatens the 
 Government that unless it yields to their demands, " a revolu- 
 tion will come sweeping over the coi^ntry with the besom of 
 destruction." 
 
 The writer again refers to the London Times, the demolition 
 ol whose arguments in favor of secession he is not disposed to 
 forgive, and says, once more (p. 197) : " Mr. Dawson will soon 
 publish a reply to Mr. Motley's letter to the London TimesP 
 Then comes, on page 197 of Mr. Wright's volume, a passage of 
 great significance in illustrating Mr. Dawson's charges of fraud- 
 ulent conduct on the part of Hamilton and his associates, in the 
 Introduction to the Federalist: 
 
 " It has been supposed that prior to the adoption of the 
 present Constitution wo were almost in anarchy; to use the 
 words of the elegant Mr. Motley, ' in chaos.' Mr. Dawson will 
 soon publish a reply to Mr. Motely's famous letter to the Lon- 
 don Times, to which the reader's attention is earnestly bespoken, 
 wherein he demonstrates our immense prosperity at tliat time, 
 
12 
 
 and beyond donbt it could have been said of us as Moses said of 
 the Hebrews. But Jeshuran waxed fat," &c. Although an- 
 nounced by prospectus nearly two years ago, the world has not 
 yet been favored with this wonderful letter of Ms. Dawson, 
 which has so delighted the hearts of the Chicago secessionists, 
 and which is to demonstrate " our immense prosperity " at the 
 most critical and gloomy period of our history. 
 
 I will add but one more extract from Mr. Wright's volume. 
 The opening clause of the Constitution, " We the people," is a 
 clause detested by these " Federal EepubHcan citizens." It un- 
 mistakeably recognizes the nationality, the sovereignty of the 
 American people, which the foes of our country at home and 
 abroad are resolved, if possible, to destroy. The significance of 
 those words was not overlooked when the Constitution was 
 adoped. Patrick Henry said, in the Yirginia Convention, 
 " Have they said, ' "We the States ?' Have they made a proposal 
 " of a compact between the States ? If they had, this would be 
 " a Confederation. It is otherwise, most clearly, a consolidated 
 " Government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little 
 " thing, the expression, ' We the People,' instead 'of the States 
 " of America.' " 
 
 Mr. Wright thinks that the founders of the Constitution 
 should have said, " We the J'eqples," (a word, I beKeve, hardly 
 used with ns until anglicized by Kossuth,) and he speaks in his 
 book not of the American people, but of " these American 
 Peoples." 
 
 At its close, amid Scriptural texts and pious ejaculations that 
 besprinkle the page like a sermon, occurs this objurgation : 
 
 " The very first three words, " We the People," of that in- 
 " strument, dra^vn without a public invocation of Divine wis- 
 " dom, with no recognition of the Sovereign of the Universe, 
 " have been the prime, almost the sole cause of leading these 
 " pco])]c8 astray and into civil war. * * * Acciu-sed be the 
 " instrument, no matter what loved and honored names are at- 
 " tached to it, that thus dishonors the Monarch of all Peoples. 
 " Tear it to shreds, trample it in the dust, damn it to everlast- 
 " ing infamy," &c, &c. P. 198. 
 
13 
 
 The volnme from which these extracts are taken is entitled 
 " Introductory Compend," and it is to be followed by a work to 
 be entitled " Our Federal Union — State Eights and Wrongs," 
 in five Tolumns, at $2 50 each, and it is announced that Dr. 
 Agnew is to issue, with appropriate notes from the " Eepublican 
 Stand-Point," translations of Aristotle, Grotius, and Puflfendorf. 
 
 MB. DAWSOU'S COIOTEOTIOK WETH THESE CONSPIEATOES, ABTD THE 
 PAET ASSUMED BT HIM. 
 
 But the author, and the work, upon which Mr. "Wright and 
 Dr. Agnew seem chiefly to rely for important aid in their scheme 
 against the Constitution, which they would tear to shreds, 
 trample in the dust, and damn to eternal infamy, is Mr. Henry 
 B. Dawson, and his edition of the Federalist. They evidently 
 look to him as a leader, and quote him as an authority. In the 
 *' Explanatory," p. iv., they say : 
 
 " Many of the ideas in the compend and also in the work will 
 " be so novel to many readers, that the writer deems it suitable 
 *' also to remark that they are almost wholly concurred in, both 
 *' as to Governmental principles, and as to historic facts, by 
 " Mr. Henry B. Dawson, who being in a similar line of research, 
 *'we have frequently had occasion to compare notes. The 
 " chief point of difference between us is, that he consh)ees the 
 
 " WOED ' NATION ' SHOULD NEVEE BE USED IN CONNECTION WITH THE 
 
 ** TJntted States, each State being the only ' nation ;' whereas 
 " it appears to the writer that with clear conceptions, that each 
 " State is the real nation, the United States may properly be 
 "called a 'nation' of nations. Mr. Dawson's edition of the 
 " Federalist has been alluded to, and his val/udble notes will ie 
 ^^ found coincident with the views herein taken, and will be fol- 
 ** lowed with {sic) the publication of other debates connected 
 " veith the adoption of our Constitution, most opportune, and 
 " furnishing important information of which few have knowl- 
 "edge. * * * 
 
 " His extensive historical explorations convinced him, years 
 " ago, that we wero all wrong about the tlieory of our Govern- 
 *' nient." 
 
 A note, with a statement about liis views on slavery, in which 
 
14 
 
 it says, "Mr. Dawson very properly desires to have it added}. 
 &c.," intimates that the statements contained in the text, had 
 been approved by him with that addition ; and with the new 
 light thus thrown upon Mi-. Dawson's theoretic views, the facUity 
 with which he bends to them the most stubborn facts of history, 
 and the plan of action in which he is co-operating, we recur once: 
 more to his Introduction to the Federalist : prepared to under- 
 stand aright the part assumed by him in the scheme for denation- 
 alizing the American people by preparing their minds to discard 
 the American Constitution, and to demand a convention of 
 delegates from the States to inaugurate again a simple con- 
 federacy or league, from which each State, in the exercise of its 
 separate sovereignty, may secede at pleasure. 
 
 It is to be noted that the authors of " Citizenship Sovereignty" 
 profess to be entirely confident of success, although after "a 
 tremendous conflict." How widely ramified is their organiza_ 
 tion is unknown, but they say (page 4 of " Explanatory ") : 
 " The views taken by Mr. Dawson as to the nature of our exist- 
 "ing Government, and which are herein also presented, are 
 " surely to be adopted by ninety-nine hundredths in the ISTorth," 
 and they speak as though it were a certain thing, of "the 
 changes that must be made in the new Union." 
 
 Among the first steps which ingenious plotters for the over- 
 throw of our Constitution by effecting a revolution in public 
 sentiment in favor of the confederate form of Government, which 
 was discarded in 1789, would be : 
 
 First, to undermine the confidence of the people in the 
 statesmen who exposed the defects of the confederation, and 
 recommended the Constitution. 
 
 Secondly, To induce the belief that the evils under which the 
 country then laboured, and which led to the relinquishment of the 
 articles of confederation, and the adoption of the present Govern- 
 ment, did not naturally result from any defects of the con- 
 federacy, but from extrinsic causes, and, 
 
 TJiirdly, To show that the people had been induced to accede 
 to the new Constitution on false pretences and by political 
 trickery. 
 
15 
 
 The puWication of the Federalist with an Historical Intro- 
 duction, has afforded an opportunity which has not been ne- 
 glected, for endeavoring to indoctrinate the American public 
 upon these three points, with the assumed impartiality of an 
 editor, and the determined recklessness of a partizan. 
 
 The first point — the attempt to impair the confidence of the 
 people in the heroes and statesmen who laid the foundation of 
 our country's greatness — was one that no native-born American 
 could be expected to undertake. Amid all the divisions and 
 rancour of American parties, there is one ground on which our 
 countrymen are accustomed to meet in harmony, one sentiment 
 that they hold in common. From infancy they are] taught to 
 rejoice in their priceless heritage as citizens of one Republic, and 
 on each recurrence of our national birthday they meet to cele- 
 brate in unison, the brave deeds and virtues of their fathers, and 
 teach their children to do reverent homage to the great dead of 
 our Revolution. 
 
 ISTot even a foreigner who in the least appreciated the historic 
 grandeur that belongs to the infancy of oux Republic, the hero- 
 ism that in the cause of Constitutional freedom defied, in the field, 
 the armies of Britain, and the statesmanship which commanded 
 the highest eulogium from the lips of Chatham, could descend 
 to the low oince of violating the truth of History, in order to 
 revile and cover with odium their cherished fame. Easy as it 
 is to pervert facts and misrepresent opinions, to rake over the 
 newspapers and correspondence of the Revolution, and hunt up 
 and dig out the exploded slanders of the last century, which 
 have been buried so deep that their unpleasant effluvium has 
 hardly polluted our atmosphere for generations : easy as it is to 
 disinter these decayed libels, and to attempt to re-animate them 
 with the breath of modern secession, and present them to the 
 world as veritable facts of history, it is a task from which any 
 man whose ancestors had fought in that struggle on the side of 
 liberty, or who had himself drawn his first breath in the Ameri- 
 can Republic, would naturally have shrunk. 
 
 This was the tr-sk which, in the scheme disclosed by the 
 " Explanatory " of the Chicago volume, for demoralizing the 
 American people in regard to their national Constitution, with a 
 view to aiding the Rebellion, was assigned to or voluntarily as- 
 
16 
 
 snmed by Mr. Henry B. Dawson. His fitness for the work had 
 already been proven beyond a question by the reckless audacity 
 of his foul attack upon the fan- fame of General Israel Putnam. 
 
 ma TOTPEOVEN CHAEGE8 AGAINST PUTNAM. 
 
 "With none of those advantages of education which the country 
 that he assisted to create has since bestowed upon his calumnia- 
 tor, with few of the accomplishments or characteristics which are 
 usually associated with military greatness, and in despite of the 
 temporary prejudices aroused against him by mishaps for which 
 it afterwards appeared he was not responsible. General Putnam 
 is yet one of the most popular among the heroes of the Kevolu- 
 tion. By the force of his own talents and energy he raised him- 
 self from the position of a farmer to the station of the first 
 Major-General in the army of the United States, standing in rank, 
 according to his biographer, second only to "Washington himself. 
 Brave, humane, and devoted to the cause of his country, these 
 manly virtues were combined with an illiterateness that seemed 
 to identify him with the masses, and his fearlessness and patriot, 
 ism have been handed down as household words : while the stories 
 of his entering the wolfs den as a boy, and of his dashing down 
 the heights of Horseneck where the British cavalry feared to 
 follow, are cherished legends with the American schoolboy ; and 
 to-day the farmers of New York designate the county that bears 
 his name by the title that was familiarly and affectionately given 
 him of " Old Put." 
 
 In a small quarto volume, entitled " Gleanings from the Har- 
 vest Field of American History, Part VI., by Henry B. Daw- 
 son," printed at Morrisania, N. T., for private circulation, in 
 1860, occurs, in a note on page 165, the following passage, in- 
 tended, by a stroke of the pen, to brand Putnam as a traitor, and 
 thus to convert the gi-atitude and admiration of the American 
 people into execration and abhon-ence : 
 
 " The evidence is before me which clearly proves the compli- 
 " city of General Putnam with Arnold in the "West Point treason, 
 " for which Major Andre was hung and General Arnold became 
 " an exile and an outlaw." 
 
17 
 
 Not a scintilla of tlie alleged evidence is produced nor even 
 referred to, unless it be a New York letter in a London news- 
 paper of December 21st, 1776, which says Putnam "never wa# 
 a favorer of American independence," and which is entitled to 
 about the same consideration as the letters in our time of " Man- 
 hattan," in the London Standard, or those of Charles Mackay, 
 LL.D., in the London Times, or any other of the romances 
 written to order by the British advocates of secession. 
 
 Washington, who had. during the war, disapproved in part of 
 Putnam's conduct, at the close of the war in 1783, wrote to him 
 in these words : 
 
 " I can assure you that among the many worthy and merito- 
 " rious officers with whom I have had the happiness to be con- 
 " nected in service through the course of this war, and from 
 " whose cheerful assistance and advice I have received much 
 " support and confidence in the various and trying vicissitudes of 
 " a complicated contest, the name of Putnam is not forgotten : 
 " nor will it be but with that stroke of time which shall obliterate 
 " from my mind the remembrance of all the toils and fatigues 
 "through which we have struggled for the preservation and 
 " establishment of the rights, liberties, and independence of our 
 " country." 
 
 Dui'ing the Presidential tour, in 1789, General "Washington, 
 mindful of his old companion in arms, and of the attachment 
 felt for him by the country, and especially by New England, 
 selected his route through Connecticut, with the intent of honour- 
 ing him with a visit, and Dr. Dwight, who knew Putnam well, 
 has recorded of him that his " uprightness commanded absolute 
 confidence." 
 
 And it is the fame of a Eevolutionary General thus trusted by 
 Washington, thus endorsed by his intimate friends, and thus 
 cherished by the American people, that Mr. Dawson has pro- 
 posed to blot with treason and infamy, upon the unsupported 
 word of a hostile Englishman, and the slanderous insinuation of 
 a foot-note. 
 
 It must be admitted that Mr. Dawson, the champion of the 
 London Times, in its attacks upon our nationality, and now at 
 once the editor of the Federalist, and the friend of those who 
 
18 
 
 are striving to destroy the constitution and give us in its place a 
 compound of Southern secession and British aristocracy, has 
 little reason to feel strong affection for the memory of the Gen- 
 eral who once sent so unpleasant an answer to Sir Henry Clin- 
 ton, the representative of that "noble fellow, and splendid 
 monarch, George III." 
 
 Lieutenant Palmer, an officer in His Majesty's service, had 
 been arrested within our lines, and Sir Henry demanded his re- 
 lease. Putnam replied in language not to be mistaken, that 
 Palmer " was taken as a spy, lurking in our lines, he has been 
 tried as a spy, condemned as a spy, and shall be executed as a 
 spy," and, an afternoon postscript to the note, curtly added, 
 " he is hanged." 
 
 But even admitting that Mr. Dawson, in view of the awkward 
 exposure by Mr. Wright of his desire to strengthen the London 
 Times in its malignant assaults upon our nationality, may be ex- 
 cused for not entertaining a warm sympathy for an officer who 
 dealt thus summarily with an English spy who falsely assumed to 
 he a loyal American, it must still be admitted that his effort to 
 overthrow the fame of Putnam by his naked ipse dixit, is as fine 
 an exhibition of British assurance, although not nearly so asmus- 
 ing, as any that Bourcicault has pictured for the stage, or that 
 the American people have yet been favoured with in real life. 
 
 Where sleeps the ample proof, alleged by Mr. Dawson to be 
 in his possession, that Putnam was the accomplice of Arnold ? 
 Why is it not demanded by the Historical Societies ot Massachu- 
 setts, Connecticut, or Vermont, or do our Historical Societies 
 tliink that they have nothing to do with the memories of Ameri- 
 can Statesmen, beyond furnishing facilities for British calimi- 
 niators to distort their history and blacken their fame 1 
 
 There is no true patriot of the Eevolution who may not be 
 condemned as guilty of untold vices, if party libels and newspa- 
 per scurrility are received as proof. Washington was denounced 
 ia and out of Congress as " destitute of all merits as a soldier, or 
 a statesman," and accused persistently of robbing the treasury — 
 while Jay was damned as a traitor who had sold his conntiy, 
 and Hamilton as a monarchist who was resolved to overthi-ow 
 the Constitution and introduce a kino-. 
 
 In addition to the lies cii-culated through the press, no smaE 
 
19 
 
 amoimt of scurrility was perpetrated in more ephemeral ways ; 
 and I was told the other day, at Boston, by the venerable 
 James Savage, President of the Massachusetts Historical So- 
 ciety, of one rather remarkable anathema, which will be an 
 invaluable addition to the stock which Mr. Dawson, according 
 to his announcement, has accumulated with a view to proving 
 Jay to be unworthy of tlie fame accorded to him. 
 
 It was during the height of the excitement aroused by the 
 Democrats, who, under the lead of French Jacobins, raved 
 against the Jay Treaty, that Mr. Savage saw these words chalked 
 in large letters on the board fence around the enclosure of Mr. 
 Treat Paine : " Damn John Jay ! damn every one that won't 
 damn John Jay ! ! damn every one that won't put lights in his 
 windows and sit up all night damning John Jay ! ! !" 
 
 If upon this curious reminiscence Mr. Dawson should base an 
 assertion that Mr. Treat Paine had done the chalking with his 
 own hand, that it embodied a solemn order of the City Council, 
 and that all Boston sat up that night with lights in their win- 
 dows damning Jay, and all who refused to damn him, the story 
 of Mr. Savage would probably afford him fifty times stronger 
 proof for his new version of it, than he can adduce for his most 
 insolent declaration that General Ptitnam was a traitor. 
 
 By the same rule, some Dawson of the next century, may de- 
 clare that he has the proof before him that Mr. Seward was " an 
 habitual drunkard :" that Gen. Butler was a veritable " beast i" 
 that Gen. McClellan had a secret interview with Gen. Lee the 
 night after the battle of Antietam : and that Lincoln, sometimes 
 supposed to be notably honest, truthful and patriotic, was in fact 
 " a liar — a thief— a robber — a brigand — a pirate — a perjurer — a 
 traitor — a coward — a hypocrite— a cheat — a trickster — a mur- 
 derer — a tyrant — an unmitigated scoundrel, and an infernal 
 fool." For this character of Mr. Lincoln, posterity may have 
 the personal assurance of the editor of the Selimgrove,. Pa., 
 Times, a democratic sheet that swears by "Woodward, Yallandig- 
 ham and McClellan. 
 
 Mr. Dawson has adopted, as the innocent motto of his auda- 
 cious tract on Putnam, the verse from Euth : " I pray you, let 
 me glean and gather after the reapers among the sheaves." It 
 may be impossible to fix a limit to the license of quotation, but 
 
20 
 
 tMs is, I believe, the first time that the gentle appeal to Boaz 
 has been cited as a warrant for playing the part of a scavenger 
 of tory libels on American statesmen, or for robbing of their 
 fame the silent dead of the battle-fields of the Eevolution. 
 Nearly four years have elapsed since that dastardly attack upon 
 the patriotism and loyalty of the farmer-soldier of New Eng- 
 land, and although Mr. Dawson declared that ample proofs of 
 Putnam's treachery were before him when he penned the slan- 
 der, he took excellent care not to produce them. He has never 
 since submitted them to the world, and the country may well 
 cherish its ancient confidence in the patriot-general, and rest 
 undisturbed in their assurance that Putnam was loyal, and 
 that the charge of his calumniator is false. 
 
 In view of his treatment of Putnam— which can hardly be 
 characterized in language that a gentleman likes to use— tlie 
 world will estimate aright the assurance given in Mr. Dawson's 
 reply, that he can produce proofs of the infamous charges he 
 has now brought agamst the great statesmen of our republic ; 
 for the reception of which, he has converted an introduction 
 which pretends to be historic, into a cess-pool of libels on the 
 authors of the FederaUsi—liheh which, like insects in amber, 
 the Federalist itself is insolently made use of to preserve. 
 
 HIS mjUSTICE TO CHANCELLOE LIVrCTGSTON. 
 
 Eecurring to that introduction, let us glance at the portraits 
 he has drawn of the leading friends of the Constitution in New 
 York. One of the most earnest, eloquent, and efficient mem- 
 bers of the State Convention, Chancellor Eobeet E. LivmesToir 
 who had been Secretary for Foreign Afi-airs, and had been 
 thanked by Congress for his services in that high position and 
 who was subsequently our minister to France, appointed bv 
 Jefferson, is declared to have " evinced in public but little in- 
 terest m the subject" of the Constitution; and the editor with 
 the same assurance with which he pronoimced Putnam a traitor 
 accuses Livingston of an « overpowering love of ease," renderin-^ 
 him " dilatory and uncertain ;" and with these unjust slurs upon 
 his chai-acter and his course, this illustrious statesman is dis- 
 missed. 
 
 How wickedly trutUess in its suggestions is this view of 
 
21 
 
 Livingston's connection witli the Constitution, will be seen by 
 contrasting it -with a sketch by Webster, in speaking to the citi- 
 zens of New York ; 
 
 " * * At the time of the adoption of the Consti- 
 tution he was its iirm and able advocate. He was a member of 
 the State Convention, being one of that list of distinguished and 
 able men who represented this city in that body ; and he threw 
 the whole weight of his talents and influence into the doubtful 
 scale of the Constitution." 
 
 ms WRONGFUL INSINTJATIONS AGAINST DUANE. 
 
 !N"ext is introduced the Hqjiorable James Ditane, an alumnus 
 and trustee of Kings, now Columbia, College, and eulogized by 
 an eloquent writer as one of the fow faithful among the faith- 
 less. As his biography is still unwritten, I will refer briefly 
 to the leading incidents of his life. Mr. Duane represented 
 New York in the first Continental Congress, heading the list of 
 five deputies ; and Duane and Jay are referred to by Lt. Gov. 
 Golden, in his dispatch of the 6th July, 1774, to the Earl of 
 Dartmouth, on these illegal proceedings, as " two eminent law- 
 yers." Duane's course in that Congress was so satisfactory to 
 his constituents that he was re-elected in April, 1775, to the 
 Congress which met in Philadelphia on the 10th May. He was 
 present on that day, assisted in raising an army, electing "Wash- 
 ington commander-in-chief, establishing a post-oflSce, and assum- 
 ing other powers of governmetit. He attended Congress faithfully 
 until 31st May, 1776, when New York claimed his attendance 
 in the New York Convention, to assist in framing a State Con- 
 stitution, which he subsequently reported, acting meanwhile as 
 an active member of a special committee on the forts in the 
 Highlands, and the Committee of Safety, In 1777, Duane was 
 one of a committee to arrange the Articles of Confederation. 
 In 1778, he was again a member of Congress, at the urgent re. 
 quest of the Governor and his fellow-citizens ; and still again in 
 1779-80. 
 
 In 1781, some slanderous articles, published anonymously in 
 the newspapers were brought to the attention of the Legislature, 
 and that body, on the 27th June, passed a joint resolution ex- 
 
22 
 
 pressing their continued confidence in him, and requesting his 
 return to Congress. At the same time, Generals McDougal, 
 Schuyler and Scott, Colonel Floyd, Chancellor Livingston, Mr. 
 Wisner, and Gov. Chnton, who had been his colleagues in Con- 
 gress at different times, came forward in his full vindication. 
 
 At the close of the war, the Common Council of ISTew York 
 City petitioned the Governor to nominate Mr. Duane as Mayor ; 
 " as no one," they said, "is better qualified, so none will be more 
 acceptable to us and our constituents at large than Mr. Duane. 
 Few have sacrificed more or deserve better from their country." 
 
 As Mayor, in 1785, he welcomed to Xew Tork the old Con- 
 gress, and in 1789 the first Congress under the Constitution, 
 and Washington as President of the United States. In the 
 Mayor's Court, and as State Senator, he performed valuable ser- 
 vices to the State, and in 1788 he was nominated by "Washing- 
 ton District Judge of the Southern District of New Tork. 
 
 This office he resigned in 1794, when he declined also the 
 wardenship of Trinity Church, which he had held since 1784, 
 having been a vestryman some years before the Eevolution. 
 Kesolutions were passed by the vestry testifying their regard. 
 He soon removed to Duanesburgh, where, in 1795, Bishop Pro- 
 voost consecrated an Episcopal church built at Mr. Duane's ex- 
 pense ; and in 1796 he died honored and beloved. 
 
 Mr. Dawson takes pains to blacken the memory of Judge 
 Duane by charges and insinuations of sympathy and collusion 
 with the Eoyal authorities, carefully avoiding, however, specifi- 
 cation of time — a most convenient omission for the more plausi- 
 ble perpetration of this sort of slander — especially if the reader 
 should fail to remember that in the commencement of our Rev- 
 olutionary difficulties there was not the slightest desire for inde- 
 pendence on the part of the colonies, but that they exhibited 
 the loyalty to the Eoyal authorities, which after the Declara- 
 tion of Independence, they transferred to the revolutionary 
 government established by the people. "Washington, Jay 
 Duane, and many of those most instrumental in establishing 
 the National independence of the United States, and con- 
 stituting them a nation, previously held honom-able places under 
 the Crown or the colonial governments ; and the charge of 
 sympathy or collusion with the Eoyal authoritieSj against a 
 
23 
 
 Btatesman like Duane, made witliout specification of time, place, 
 or circumstances, while it may seem to one forgetful of these 
 facts to have a narrow basis of truth, is in its implication against 
 his patriotism infamously false. 
 
 Botta, in his interesting history of the Revolution, fell into 
 the mistake far more excusable on the part of an Italian, writ- 
 ing so long ago, than it can ever be on the part of later histo- 
 rians, of supposing that " there existed in the Colonies a desire 
 for independence." 
 
 In a letter (13 January, 1821,) to Geo. A. Otis, of Boston, 
 Jay, in regard to this passage, refers to the explicit professions 
 and assurances of allegiance and loyalty to the Sovereign 
 especially since the accession of "William III., which abound in 
 the journals of Colonial Legislatures, and the Congress and Con- 
 ventions, from an early period to the second petition of Congress, 
 in 1775 ; and remarks, that if they were factitious and decep- 
 tive, they present to the world an unprecedented instance oi 
 long continued, concurrent, and detestable duplicity in the 
 Colonies. He adds, " our country does not deserve this odious 
 and disgusting imputation. During the whole course of my 
 life and until after the second petition of Congress, in 1775, I 
 never did hear any American of any class or description ex_ 
 press a wish for the independence of the Colonies." 
 
 Dr. Tranldin, in language if possible more comprehensive, 
 assured Lord Chatham in August, 1774, that he " never had heard 
 in conversation from any man, drunk or sober, the least expres- 
 sion of a wish for a separation, or a hint that such a thing 
 would be advantageous to America." The letter of Jay to 
 Mr. Otis was submitted by the latter to John Adams and 
 Jefferson, both of whom thoroughly confirmed its statements. 
 Jefferson declared, and his personal and political sentiments 
 add force to his testimony, that before the commencement of hos- 
 tilities, " I never heard a whisper of a disposition to [separate 
 from Great Britain, and after that, its probability was contem- 
 plated with afiliction by all." 
 
 Mr. Gibbs, in the just and philosophic comments with which 
 he introduces his " Memoirs of the Administration of Washington 
 and Adams," after quoting Burke's remark of the American 
 war, that it was not a Eevolution, but a Kevolution prevented, 
 
24 
 
 says, " tlie course of events made it indeed a Tvar of Indepen- 
 dence, but there was in its tone nothing revolutionaiy, nothing 
 subversive of the established order of things. Some leaders, 
 more far-seeing than the rest, had predicted the result, but what 
 the people wanted— what they took np arms to get, was not 
 Bome new privilege— some new liberty, but the security of 
 rights, ijrivileges, and immunities which they had always had." 
 
 On the 6th "of July, 1775, Congress published a declaration 
 "setting forth the cause and necessity of then- taking up arms," 
 and in this they proclaimed, "we mean not to dissolve that 
 union which has so long and so happily subsisted between ns, 
 and which we sincerely wish to see restored." 
 
 On the 8th of July, 1775, two days later. Congress individu- 
 ally signed a petition to the King. This "rather singular 
 measure," in the language of the JS'ew York Eeview, " origin- 
 ated in the sagacity and prudence of Jay, who argued, and 
 wisely, that in order to unite the nation in forcible resistance to 
 Britain, it must be satisfied that all possible peaceful remedies 
 were exhausted by the action of Congress. The result evinced 
 his wisdom. Its rejection by the thi-one was the throwing away 
 of the scabbard." 
 
 The petition, according to Mr. Curtis, in his " History of the 
 Constitution," was refused a hearing in Parliament as emanating 
 from an unlawful assemblage in arms against the Sovereign 
 and the country was thus prepared to accept with an unanimity 
 that would otherwise have been impossible, the decisive action 
 of Congress wliich culminated in the Declaration of Indepen- 
 dence. WliUe touching upon the subject of this petition, and 
 Jay's part in it, I may refer incidentallyto the testimony of Mr. 
 Bancroft, who, in his seventh volume, had unwittingly done in- 
 justice to Jay, by erroneously attributing to him traits which 
 Jay in a familiar letter to an intimate fi'icnd wi-itten before the 
 Eevolution, and before liis ovrn character had been developed, 
 had with characteristic modesty attributed to himself. In his 
 eighth volume Mr. Bancroft, while gradually unfolding Jay's 
 career in its close connection with the history of the country 
 recognizes " the firmness and purity of his character," and the 
 profoimd wisdom of his counsels in securing unanimity in the 
 adoption of a Xational policy and the recognition of the sov- 
 ereignty of the people. 
 
25 
 
 " Tlie darker the hour, the more he stood ready to cheer — the 
 " greater the danger, the more promptly he stepped forward to 
 " guide. lie had insisted on the doubtful measure of a second 
 " petition to the King, with no latent weakness of purpose or 
 " cowardice of heart. * ''• * Joining a scrupulous 
 " obedience to his ideas of right with inflexibility of purpose, 
 " he could not admit that the Provisional Congress then in 
 " session had been vested with power to dissolve the connection 
 " with Great Britain, and he therefore held it necessary, first, 
 " to consult the people themselves. For this end, on the 11th 
 " of June, the Ifew York Congress, on his motion, called upon 
 " the freeholders and electors of the Colony to confer on the 
 " deputies they were about to choose full power of administer- 
 " ing Government, framing a Constitution and deciding the 
 " question of Independence — in this manner the unanimity of 
 " New York was ensured." 
 
 Mr. Dawson completes his calumnies on Duane by de- 
 nouncing him as " an imwortliy member of Congress," &c., 
 &c., and the fair fame of this gentleman, so closely identified 
 with the city of New York as the first choice of her citizens 
 for the mayoralty, honoured by "Washington, cherished by 
 Columbia College and Trinity Cliurcli, and remembered with 
 pride and affection by the people of the State, is without the 
 slightest occasion dragged before the public, to be branded with 
 infamy and dismissed with scorn. 
 
 Then come the two statesmen of New York chiefly identified 
 with the Federalist, and the triumph of the Constitution, to 
 whom a classic orator of Columbia College has thus referred : 
 
 " Before our Kevolutionary struggle, while itself scarce 
 "fledged, our college took an eagle's flight and gave to the 
 " nation and its coming contest, I might almost say its sword 
 " and shield, the Mareellus and Fabius of our Borne, Hamilton 
 " and Jay. What, I pray you, were the story of our Bevolu- 
 " tion without these names." 
 
 HIS MALICIOUS BLUNDEEING IN EEGAED TO JAY. 
 
 I have already exposed the untruthfulness of tlic charges 
 against Jay, which are made with such blundering ignorance, as 
 
almost to refute tliemselves, as for instance, when Mr. Dawson 
 declares, that during the contest for the Constitution in New 
 York, Jay was not looked to by the people for counsel or for 
 leadership, but was regarded "by a majority of his fellow, 
 citizens as selfish, impracticable, and aristocratic," when the 
 total New York city vote for members of the Convention was 
 2,833, of which Jay- received 2,735, leaving to represent lilr. 
 Dawson's majority, who did not look to Jay for counsel or 
 leadership, the beggarly account of 98. While on this topic, I 
 may adduce one item of historic information, which I have 
 within a day or two received from Mr. Bancroft, and which 
 comes just in time to place the stamp of error upon one of the 
 reckless assertions of Mr. Dawson, who after representing Jay 
 as lukewarm in his sympathy for the Constitution, says that he 
 was " induced to undertake," the portions of the Federalist 
 written by him, " both of them being subjects which his posi- 
 "tion enabled him to discuss with unusual ability, without 
 " compromising in the least his general political sentiments, 
 " and without obliging him to assent, even by implication, to 
 " any portion of the proposed Constitution." 
 
 JAMES MADISON TO THOMAS JEFFEESOIT. 
 
 " New Yoek, August 10, 1788. 
 
 " Colonel Carrington tells me that he has sent you the first 
 <■'■ volume of the Federalist, and adds the second by this convey- 
 " ance. I believe I never yet mentioned to you that publication. 
 '' It was undertaken last fall, by Jay, Hamilton and myself. 
 " The proposal came from the two former. The execution was 
 " thrown, by the sickness of Jay, mostly on the two others." 
 
 Mr. Dawson's additional charge, that " some portion of Jay's 
 earlier political action was remembered," at this period to his 
 disadvantage, and had impaired the regard and confidence of 
 his fellow citizens, is also disposed of by that most significent 
 vote, and, indeed, by the concurrent testimony of American 
 historians. On the 16th of May, 1774, he was appointed one 
 of the New York Committee of Fifty, to consult on the measm-es 
 
27 
 
 proper to be pursued, in consequence of the passage of tlie 
 Boston port bill : next, one of a sub-committee, which, on the 
 23d of May, reported a letter to Boston, of which copies were 
 sent to Connecticut, Philadelphia, and South Carolina, propos- 
 ing a Congress of Deputies from the Colonies in general. On 
 the 25th of July, he was elected unanimously to the Congress at 
 Philadelphia, and there drafted the address to the people of 
 Great Britain, which Jefferson pronounced the production of 
 the finest pen in America — and which Dr. Sam. Johnson an- 
 swered in his " Taxation ISTo Tyranny." " That address," said 
 the North American Beview, " gave to Jay, at once, an ascend- 
 ency which he never afterwards lost." In 1778, elected 
 President of Congress, and the next year appointed Minister 
 to Spain, then a Commissioner to negodate the Treaty of 
 Peace, and after its conclusion, elected Secretary for Foreign 
 Affairs, while yet abroad, and holding that place, the most 
 important in the Confederacy, until it was superseded by 
 the Constitution, when "Washington offered to him the choice 
 of places, and he selected the Supreme Court ; it is difficult to 
 conceive of a more truthless charge than that which, without 
 the slightest regard to facts, has been so blunderingly brought 
 by Mr. Dawson. " The first thing that strikes lis in it," said Dr. 
 McYickar, in the New Fork Review, October, 1841, after a 
 after a rapid sketch of Jay's life, " is tlie xmbroken continuity — 
 " the ceaseless succession of honorable confidences throughout 
 " this twenty-eight years' course, reposed in Jay by his country- 
 " men. From first to last not one intervening hour, the new 
 " oifice or new honor always claiming him before the old was 
 " ready to yield him, and oftentimes two or even three incom- 
 " patible calls of his country, contending for his choice ; as, for 
 " instance, in the year 1795, Special Minister to England, Chief 
 " Justice of the Supreme Court, and Governor elect of the State 
 " of New York, all at one and the same moment. This, cer- 
 " tainly, is a singular fact in the history of any country ; but, 
 " above all, in one especially jealous of such monopoly. What 
 " again adds to their wonder, in the popular judgment, though in 
 " ours it helps to explain it, is the total absence in Jay's char- 
 " acter, of all personal ambition. If honours came, they came 
 " unsought, and as often rejected as accepted, and we have his 
 " own direct authority, for asserting that through his whole life 
 
28 
 
 " he tad never asked an office, nor solicited a vote ; and yet, as 
 " we have seen, honour and office flowed in npon him in a 
 " stream." 
 
 The American people are too well instructed in their own 
 history to be at all distm-bed in their estimate of Jay by the un- 
 supported assertions of a foreigner. Of the insinuations against 
 his patriotism and purity, so audaciously and insolently put 
 forth in Mx. Dawson's letter, where each charge is, if possible,, 
 more infamous in its intent than the preceding, I shall take no- 
 notice. "Webster's remark that " when the spotless ermine of 
 the judicial robe fell on John Jay it touched nothing less spotless 
 than itself," stands unquestioned by any American author, of 
 any school of pohtics ; and when it is known that Jay's new 
 assailant is an Englishman, who denies our nationahty, and would 
 destroy our Constitution, his libellous critiques on its framers 
 and supporters, after the first flush of indignation at this new 
 instance of British audacity, will arouse no sentiment but con- 
 tempt, with perhaps a shght feeling of annoyance, whenever he 
 may chance to endorse a fact, or to commend a statesman. 
 
 HIS IMPEACHMEin OF HAMILTON', AND HIS FALSIFIOATIOIT OF 
 mSTOEIC TEUTH. 
 
 Of Hamilton, Mi-. Dawson, in his introduction, professes to 
 speak with admiration and respect; but his very compliments 
 are indictments. On page 19, he intimates that Hamilton, as a 
 matter of expediency, resolved to employ the press " for the 
 dissemination of sentiments, which he hoped would counteract 
 the arguments oi his opponents ;" and then an elaborate sdieme 
 which Mr. Dawson pretends to unfold for the deceiving and 
 deluding the people of New York into the adoption of the 
 Constitution, he attributes to what he calls "the tact which 
 formed so prominent a trait in Hamilton's character." But it is 
 quite clear, that if Mr. Dawson's statements are correct. Gen 
 Hamilton exhibited, not " tact " in its acceptable sense, but 
 downright knavery, and that Mr. Dawson, while eulogizing his 
 tact, is in fact, impeaching his integrity and his honour. 
 
 Of the Union formed by the present Constitution, Webster said : 
 " It had its origin in the necessities of disordered finance, prostrate 
 commerce, and ruined credit," and in the language of Curtis, in 
 his able work on the Constitution, speaking of our condition 
 
29 
 
 under the confederacy, tlie Union was " feeble, and trembling on 
 the verge of dissolution," and the Grovemment, utterly inade- 
 qtiate to the exigencies of a great empire, without funds and 
 without credit, was unequal to the task of preserving the prop- 
 erty and honor, or vindicating the rights of the nation. Disimion 
 and ruin stared the country in the face, and its far-seeing states- 
 men viewed the probable consequences, in case the Constitution 
 should fail to be adopted, with profound anxiety. 
 
 Mr. Dawson, after praising the acuteness and ability of the 
 States' Eights leaders, in opposing the Constitution, and eulo- 
 gizing their " powerfully written essays " against it, and, on the 
 other hand, describing the Federalist as wanting in precision in 
 the use of technical terms, and disfigured by the misfortune of 
 its authors being hampered by their training under British 
 masters, and their imperfect knowledge of the ancient Eepublicsj 
 and intimating that it was intended to disseminate sentiments in 
 reply to arguments, ventures, with singular audacity, to confront 
 the great facts of history, to deny the reality of the evils from 
 which the country was suffering : to deny that the derangement 
 of the Federal finances was the legitimate result of a radical 
 defect in the articles of confederation : to charge that " the stag- 
 nation of trade," which he represents as " apparent " and not 
 real, was "the necessary consequence of an over supply of goods 
 and of an undue proportion of vendors when compared with the 
 aggregate of the population ;" and to aver that Hamilton, with 
 the view of assisting " both to his projected condemnation of the 
 existing Federal system, and to his proposed appeal in behalf of 
 the new Constitution," resolved that the existing evils — that is, 
 the derangement of the Federal finances, and the apparent stag- 
 nation of trade, shoidd be " magnified to such an extent, and 
 presented in such a manner, as to make them appear as the 
 necessary results of a defective form of Government." (P. xx.) 
 
 We will stop for a moment, to examine this all important 
 historical question of the condition of the country when the Con- 
 stitution was adopted, in regard to which Mr. Dawson takes 
 issue with the statesmen of the Revolution, and I believe with 
 every American historian, for it is upon this, that he bases the 
 charge of perfidy and deception against the friends of the Con- 
 etitution, and against Hamilton as their leader. 
 
80 
 
 In Mr. Dawson's letter to Mr. Motley, according to Ms fiiend, 
 Mr. Wright, who anticipated from its publication such important 
 advantage to the cause of secession and rebellion, and who be- 
 speaks for it his readers' earnest attention, he— Mr. Dawson— 
 "demonstrates our immense prosperity at that time," and 
 *' beyond doubt," says Mr. Wright, who evidently trusts to Mr. 
 Dawson as to an oracle of truth, " beyond doubt it could have 
 been said of us, as Moses sang of the Hebrews,— But Jeshuran 
 waxed fat and kicked ; thou art waxen fat that has grown thick, 
 thou art covered with fatness.''^ 
 
 In his introduction, Mr. Dawson, with milder phrase, but with, 
 equal significance, charges that the apparent stagnation of trade 
 was not owing to any defect in the government of the Confed- 
 eracy ; a:id makes these two assumptions, first, that our national 
 prosperity at that time was so immense, and the land so 
 covered with fatness, that overcome by an excess of prosperity, 
 we kicked liked Joshuran ; and secondly, that whatever appear- 
 ance there might have been of stagnation of trade — there being 
 no such stagnation in reality, was owing to temporary and local 
 causes. Upon these two assumptions rests his charge, made with 
 some degree of circumvolution, it is true, but still distinctly made 
 and implied, that Hamilton deliberately misrepresented and 
 magnified the derangement of the Federal finances, and the 
 apparent stagnation of trade, so as to make them appear as the 
 legitimate result of a defect of the Articles of Confederation ; and 
 the conclusion naturally follows that Hamilton and his asso- 
 ciates were a set of rogues, that their opponents were the only 
 true patriots, and that the American people, by the most scan- 
 dalous deception, were swindled into the ratification of the Con- 
 stitution. 
 
 It would be impossible to open the volume of American 
 history, in the years 1786, '7, and '8, without finding the saddest 
 proofs, multiplying and accumulating, until the most sanguine 
 of the revolutionary statesmen were almost in despair, of evils, 
 calamities, and disorders, and above all of the loss of public 
 faith and rectitude, that were fast humbling in the dust the 
 American people, at the very time when Mr. Dawson would 
 like his readers to beheve that they were exulting in the 
 immensity of their prosperity — and in fact kicking from a 
 BUperfiuity of fatness. 
 
31 
 
 It would be hardly tte thing to quote in opposition to his 
 grave assertions, the explicit testimony of Hamilton, Madison, 
 and Jay, or any other of the men of the Revolution, of whom, 
 by gentle insinuations, that they were " uncertain " patriots, 
 " unworthy" members, and not entitled to the confidence of the 
 people, he attempts to convey an idea not far removed from- that 
 expressed by Mr. Benton, when he said to the constituents of Mr. 
 Petit — " Your Senator is a great liar and a dirty dog :" but as 
 thus far Washington has escaped denunciation at the hands of 
 Mr. Dawson, we will quote one or two from the multitude of 
 similar testimonies contained in the private correspondence of 
 the Father of his country, and they will show at the same 
 time, the reasons he had for regarding State sovereignty as a 
 " monster." 
 
 To Knox he wrote, 26 December, 1786 — " I feel, my dear 
 General, infinitely more than I can express to you, for the dis- 
 order which has arisen in these States. Good God ! who besides 
 a Tory could have forseen, or a Briton predicted them ?" 
 
 After reading the account given by Washington, in the next 
 extracts, of the extent of tbese disorders, the reader will be 
 tempted to ask "who but a Tory could misrepresent, or a 
 Briton deny them ?" 
 
 To Madison he wrote : 
 
 " How melancholy is the reflection, that in so short a time 
 we should have made such large strides towards fulfilling the 
 prediction of our trans-Atlantic foes,^eavc them to themselves, 
 and their government will dissolve. * * Thirteen 
 
 sovereignties pulling against each other, and all tugging at the 
 Federal head, will soon bring ruin on the whole." 
 
 To Knox, 25th February, 1Y87, he wrote : 
 " Oar affairs generally seem to be approaching some awful 
 crisis. God only knows what the result will be." 
 
 To Lafayette, 15th August, 1787: 
 
 " The present Government has been found too feeble and in- 
 adequate to give that security which our liberties and property 
 
33 
 
 render absolutely essential, and whicli the fulfillment of public 
 faith loudly requires. 
 
 " Vain is it to look for respect from abroad, or tranqiiillity at 
 home ; vain is it to murmur at the detention of our "Western 
 posts, or complain of the destruction of our commerce ; vain are 
 all the attempts to remedy the evils complained of by Mr. Demas, 
 to charge the interest due on foreign loans, or satisfy the claims 
 of foreign officers, the neglect of which is a high impeachment 
 of our national character, and is hurtful to the feelings of every 
 well wisher to his country, in and out of it ; vain is it to talk of 
 chastising the Algerines, or doing ourselves justice in any other 
 respect, till the wisdom and force of union can be more concen- 
 trated and better applied." 
 
 We can understand, after reading this letter, the significance 
 of the language used by the Convention which fi-amed the Con- 
 stitution, in submitting their work to Congress : " In all our 
 deliberations on this subject, we kept steadily in our view that 
 which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, 
 the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our pros- 
 perity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence" 
 
 Eemembering that Mr. Dawson, according to Mr. "Wright, 
 has discovered that we are " aU wrong about the theory of our 
 Government," and " that he considers the word ' nation ' should 
 never be used in connection with the United States, each State 
 being the only nation ;" it is perhaps natural enough that he 
 should wish, if possible, to discover new facts to support, in 
 some degree, his theory. And as the Dawson theory is opposed 
 to that of Jay, Marshall, Story, "Webster, Curtis and Kent, it is 
 not extraordinary that the Dawson facts adduced to support it, 
 should be plumply contradicted by the emphatic testimony of 
 Washington. 
 
 "We return now to Mr. Dawson's introductory sketch and his 
 further notice of the plan of operations concocted by Hamilton 
 for persuading the people that the Articles of Organization were 
 defective. This " plan of operations," including, as we have seen, 
 according to Mr. Dawson, the perpetration of a fraud on the 
 people by unduly magnifying the apparent public evils, and 
 falsely presenting them as due to one cause, when they were 
 really due to another, if indeed they existed at all^ he describes 
 
83 
 
 as " well calculated to produce confusion in the ranks of tliose 
 t' wlio opposed the new system, and to shake the confidence 
 '' of its leaders," meaning the anti-constitutionalists ; and it 
 " needed," adds Mr. Dawson, " only a careful elaboration of its 
 " details, and a prompt and energetic execution of its different 
 " parts to insui'e some degree of success. To secure these 
 " Colonel Hamilton appears to have sought the assistance of 
 " those whose peculiar qualifications adapted them to the dis. 
 " charge of peculiar lines of duty, reserving to himself, however, 
 " not only the general control of the discussion, but the execu- 
 " tion of that portion of it which appears to have been attended 
 " with the greatest difficulties." 
 
 Whether the parts of this '■'■plan of operations" attended with 
 the greatest difficulties, were those which required the largest 
 skill and audacity in invention and misrepresentation, the 
 greatest coolness in moral peijury, and the widest scoundrelism 
 in deceit, is left to the imagination of the reader; but this, 
 according to Mr. Dawson, was the damnable scheme to mystify 
 a nation and deceive a people, into discarding a confederacy 
 suited to their wants, and adopting a constitution inconsistent 
 with their liberties^ which Hamilton's " tact " enabled him to 
 inaugurate, and which, as the head manager, he carried into 
 execution, employing Jay and Madison as his subordinates and 
 tools. 
 
 "Well may the secessionists of Chicago claim Mr. Dawson as 
 their honored ally, and point to his edition of the Federalist as 
 an important instrument in preparing the people of America to 
 subvert a constitution so fi-audulently imposed upon them. 
 
 The temper and object of Mr. Dawson's Introduction may 
 perhaps, in part, be gathered as much from what is omitted as 
 from what is expressed. In the first place, there is no reference 
 in the Introduction to the large influence exerted with the 
 American people in favor of the Constitution, by the fact that 
 it was reported to Congress by "WAsniNGTOjr, and by that great 
 man wannly recommended for adoption ; nor has Mr. Dawson 
 ventured directly to attack the patriotism of the Father of liis 
 County. Such a course would instantly liavo excited alarm ; 
 but it is attempted to be shown that those whom Wasliingtou 
 
34 
 
 loved and trusted were tmwortliy of confidence, and the views 
 wMch they held in common with Washington, are misrepresent- 
 ed and decried. Even in his reply, Mr. Dawson ventures a 
 sneer at the designation of States' Eights Sovereignty as a 
 "monster," although he knew that the expression was from the 
 pen of "Washington. 
 
 Washington emphatically declared (Aug. 16, 1786), "Per- 
 suaded I am that the primary cause of all our disorders lies in 
 the different State Governments and in the tenacity of that 
 power which pervades the whole system." 
 
 The men of our day who would enlarge the sovereignty of 
 the States, at the expense of that of the National Government, 
 however much they may profess to reverence the wisdom of 
 Washington, are setting at defiance his deepest convictions and 
 most earnest counsels. In his Farewell Address, which, as Mr. 
 Horace Birney, Jr., has recently reminded us, he did not date at 
 Philadelphia, nor at Mount Vernon, hut which he significantly 
 signed " George Washington, TJioted States, Sept. 17, 1796," 
 he solemnly impressed upon the American people that " the 
 unity of government is a main plUar in the edifice of your real 
 independence." 
 
 Again, Mr. Dawson, writing of the bhth of that Constitution 
 which has given to our country its proud place among the na- 
 tions — of the more perfect consolidation of that Union which had 
 existed since the Declaration of Independence, and of which the 
 enlightened Emperor of Eussia recently said : " The Union has- 
 exhibited to the world the spectacle of a prosperity without ex 
 ample in the annals of history," we find not one syllable from 
 Mr. Dawson of eulogy or commendation ; not one of the new 
 vista of prosperity and happiness which it opened to the Ameri- 
 can people, and which might have continued unbroken for 
 c enuries but for the assaults of that " monster," State sov- 
 ereignty. 
 
 In Madison's Debates is preserved a pleasing reminiscence of 
 Frankhn, which might probably have found place in an intro- 
 duction to the Federalist from the pen of one who believed us 
 to be a nation. 
 
 On the last day of the session ol the Convention, when the 
 members were signing the engrossed Constitution, Dr. Franklin, 
 
35 
 
 looking toward the President's chair, at the back of which a sun 
 was painted, observed to the person next him, " I have often 
 and often, in the course of the session, and the vicissitudes of 
 my hopes and fears as to its issue, looked at the sun behind the 
 President, without being able to teU whether it was rising or 
 setting; at length I have the happiness to know that it is a ris- 
 ing, and not a setting sun. 
 
 On the 20th of July, 1788, Washington wrote to Trumbull : 
 " We may, with a kind of pious and grateful exultation, trace 
 the finger of Providence through the deep and mysterious events 
 which first induced the States to appoint a General Convention, 
 and then led them, one after another, by such steps as were best 
 calculated to effect the object, into an adoption of the system 
 recommended by the Convention ; thereby, in all human proba- 
 bility, laying a lasting foundation for tranquillity and happiness, 
 when we had to much reason too fear that confasion and misery 
 were coming rapidly upon us." 
 
 J\Ir. Dawson, presumptuously assuming, according to Mr. 
 Wright, that we were " all wrong about the theory of our gov- 
 ernment," and that he is to correct the errors of our constitu- 
 tional expounders, the well-known authoritative rulings of the 
 Supreme Court of the United States, in regard to the character 
 of our Constitution, are contemptuously ignored. Tlie object of 
 the framers, as Mr. Justice Story remarks, was to substitute a 
 government of the people for a confederacy of States — a consti- 
 tution for a compact. Tlie Constitution, said Chief Jiistice 
 Marsliall, was ordained and established, not by the States in 
 their sovereign capacities, but emphatically, as the preamble of 
 the Constitution declares, by the people of the United States. 
 
 " Tlie sovereignty of the nation," said the Supreme Court, by 
 Jay, Chief Justice, in 1793, " is in the people of the nation, and 
 the residuary sovereignty of the State in the people of the 
 State." 
 
 The national government, according to Story, adopting the 
 language of Webster, is as popular, and just as much emanating 
 from the people as the State governments. It is created for one 
 purpose, the State governments for another. It was in.i,dc by 
 the people, made for the people, and is responsible to the 
 people. 
 
36 
 
 The language of the Supreme Court, through Chief Justice 
 Marshall, in the case of McCullough against the State of Mary- 
 land, and of Chief Justice Taney, in the case of Eooth against 
 the United States, is to the same effect, and in each case the 
 Court was unanimous. It is true that the people, in adopting 
 the Constitution, acted in their several States; and "where 
 else," asked Chief Justice Marshall, " should they have as- 
 sembled ? 'No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of 
 breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of com- 
 pounding the American people into one common mass. Of conse- 
 quence when they act they act in their States. But the measures 
 they adopt do not on that account cease to be the measures of 
 the people themselves, or become the measures of the State 
 governments. * * * * The assent of the States in their 
 sovereign capacity is implied in calling a Convention, and thus 
 submitting that instrument to the people. But the people were 
 at perfect liberty to accept or reject it, and their act was final. 
 It required not the affirmance and could not be negatived by the 
 State governments. The Constitution, when thus adopted, was 
 of complete obligation, and bound the State sovereignties." 
 
 From that time, for all the purposes declared by the Constitu- 
 tion, the people of the United States were, in Mr. Madison's 
 words, " one people, nation, or sovereignty." And the States 
 having been shorn of the attributes of sovereignty which the 
 people with the volunteered assent of the State governments, and 
 by their own sovereign will, had conferred upon the national 
 government, although retaining all the rights of sovereignty 
 which had not been so ceded could no longer be regarded as 
 " Sovereign States " in the general acceptation of the word, but 
 as States bound to recognize the supreme sovereignty of the 
 National Government within the sphere prescribed to it, and 
 bound to fealty to the limitations of the Constitution, and to the 
 rightful jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Honourable 
 Eeverdy Johnson, in recently alluding to the doctrine avowed 
 by the rebel leaders — the doctrine which it is the object of Mr. 
 Wright's volume to inculcate, and Avhich he announces that 
 Mr. Dawson's notes to the Federalist will materially assist- 
 that the only true sovereignty is that which belongs to the 
 States ; expresses his conviction, in which intelligent and loyal 
 
37 
 
 men ■will concur, that " there never was a greater political 
 heresy ; and that if this was doubtful before the war, which is 
 now desolating that section and carrying distress and agony into 
 every household, it is demonstrated to be as fatally ruinous as it 
 is unsound." 
 
 It is difficult to conceive that any man with a spark of intelli- 
 gence or a grain of patriotism should now, in view of the fact 
 that this heresy of "State sovereignty" is the basis of the 
 rebellion which is shaking the Republic to its foundation, shed- 
 ding our dearest blood, wasting our resources, and subjecting 
 us to insult and outrage by foreign nations, believe that he can 
 advocate the doctrine of " State sovereignty," without becoming 
 morally guilty of aiding and abetting the plot for the over- 
 throw of the American Republic, and of assisting in the slaughter 
 of the armies that are fighting to protect the honour of our 
 national flag and to perpetuate the principles which it symbolizes 
 to the world. 
 
 If Mr. Dawson has been naturalized, and has become a citi- 
 zen, not " of the State of New York," as he says, but of the 
 United States of America, it is, of course, a pity that he can 
 make no better return to the coimtry which has so highly 
 honoui'ed him, than by thus attempting to defame her statesmen, 
 to misrepresent her history, and to pervert her Constitution. 
 One would suppose that the experience of the thirty years, dur- 
 ing which he has shared the blessings which the Constitution has 
 secured to the American people, might have taught him that 
 the strongest feeling in the American breast is that of National- 
 ity, and that he might have learned during the last three years, 
 if he never learned it before, that when the question of national- 
 ity arises, true Americans of all parties are united ; that loyal 
 Democrats as well as Republicans hold alike to the resolve 
 of Jackson, that the Union must and shall be preserved ; that, 
 whatever our differences on other topics, we are one in the de- 
 termination that the sovereignty of the whole people of the 
 United States, and the unity of our great Republic shall be main- 
 tained from the St. Johns to the Rio Grande, from the Lakes 
 to the Gulf, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific ; and that we 
 will tolerate no interference with that sovereignty fi-om any 
 quarter, foreign or domestic, and certainly not from that ex- 
 
eeedingly small class of Englishmen, who, admitted to the privi- 
 vileges of American citizenship, deny to the United States the 
 right to be called a nation, and who attempt to strengthen the 
 arguments of our European opponents, by playing the part of 
 Jackal to the British Lion, and second fiddle to the London 
 Tivier;. 
 
 Least of all are the loyal American people, at this moment, 
 and in regard to this rebelKon, in a humor to tolerate any want 
 of frankness. 
 
 If Mr. "Wright correctly represents Mr. Dawson's views— and 
 no indictment for libel has been found against him, for mis- 
 representation, — Ma Dawson might properly have announced 
 in advance his discovery that " we were all wrong in our theory 
 of government" — ^that " the word nation should never be used in 
 connection with the United States," and that his notes on the 
 Federalist would " be found coincident with the views" taken by 
 the author of " citizenship sovereignty." 
 
 Had such an announcement been made, or had he simply 
 adopted as the motto of his edition the language of 
 his Chicago friend, and placed upon his title page 
 the words " The Constitution of the United States ! tear 
 it in shreds! trample it in the dust!! damn it to everlast- 
 ing infamy ! ! !" he would certainly have escaped all possible 
 imputation of having solicited subscriptions under false pre- 
 tences ; and if he had thereby admitted himself an ingrate to 
 the country that had received him, and a traitor to the flag he 
 had sworn to support, he might yet have commanded a certain 
 sort of respect, as one who manfully avowed his real sentiments, 
 and bravely accepted the responsibility. A Southern member 
 of Congress, who was once referred to, on the floor of the house, 
 as " an incarnate fiend," replied that, " if he was a devil, he was 
 not a mean, sneaking devil ;" but the right to indulge in such 
 a boast presupposes quahties which are not conspicuous in the 
 behaviour of this editor of the Federalist towards the gentlemen 
 whose countenance he sought, to give character to his edition. 
 The language in which he refers to Jay, both in his Introduc- 
 tion and in his letter, contrasts so strangely with that in which 
 he solicited my assistance, as almost to entitle the promise and 
 its fulfillment to a place among the Curiosities of Literatui-e. "I 
 
39 
 
 am actuated entirely," was his language on the 17th February, 
 1862, -when asking assistance, " by a desire to render justice to 
 the memory of your ancestor." 
 
 " * * It will be your duty and mine," he publicly writes, on 
 the 22d February, 1864, after the assistance he sought had been 
 rendered, " to examine your grandfather, both as a man, a pro- 
 fessor of religion, and a politician ; as a British subject, and as 
 a citizen of an independent republic ; as a friend and supporter 
 of the Royal Colonial government in "New York, and as an open 
 and untiring opponent of popular rights in America ; as a mem- 
 ber of ' Popular Committees,' of Provincial Congresses, of 
 State Conventions and of Continental Congresses ; as an active 
 opponent of ' independence ' in the Continental Congress of 
 1776, and as its spasmodic supporter, after twelve of the thirteen 
 colonies had become ' fi-ee and independent States,' in the Pro 
 vincial Congress of ^ew York ; as the secret opponent of Frank- 
 lin in the formation of the treaty of 1783, as the nominal friend 
 and supporter of that treaty at the time of its execution, and as 
 the first of those who had signed it, subsequently to repudiate 
 its terras; as 'Publius,' and as the open opponent of 'Pub- 
 lins's' sentiments ; as one of the authors of the Federalist, and 
 yet not an advocate of the proposed Constitution ; in short, as 
 the earnest and consistent advocate of a concentration of politi- 
 cal power in the few, of whom he should always he one, and the 
 equally earnest and consistent opponent of the political equality 
 of the many, of whom he should never he one." 
 
 The assault upon the fame of Hamilton, if somewhat less 
 indecent in its language, is equally scurrilous and truthless, and 
 the descendants of those statesmen, for vindicating their memo- 
 ries from such abominable falsehoods, are thus answered : 
 
 " Both alike fear the result of an honest, earnest, and inde- 
 pendent exposition of the truth. Each of you is more or or 
 less a pretender ; each has endeavored, in his own way, to en- 
 velope his family with a "glory" which shall rival that which 
 is said to surround the heads of the saints ; each, like another 
 sorcerer, has succeeded only in raising a smoke, with which he 
 hopes to deceive the spectators, and secure for himself and his 
 family the veneration of the world." 
 
40 
 
 Perhaps no further reply would have been needed to the mis- 
 representations of the Introduction than these brief quotations 
 exhibiting the tone of this editor of the Federalist ; but the 
 revelations made by Mr. "Wright, who, it is proper to say, pro- 
 fesses a profound veneration for the Eevolutionary statesmen 
 whom Mr. Dawson has devoted himself to defame, seemed too 
 important to be overlooked in their relation to the pending 
 efforts to weaken the "moral power of the National Government, 
 and to encourage the belief that it has no right to exercise a na- 
 tional sovereignty, and that our country cannot properly be 
 called a nation. 
 
 On the assumption that the Introduction was the work of 
 one who appreciated^the wisdom and had imbibed the spirit of the 
 Federalist, who listened reverently to the counsels of "Washing- 
 ton, and clung to the nationality over whose birth he presided, 
 the tone and statements of the Introduction were an unexplained 
 enigma. But the moment the author is disclosed as an English- 
 man who denies our nationality, who is announced as one who 
 has discovered that we are " mistaken in our theory of govern- 
 ment," and that our Justices of the Supreme Court, from Jay to 
 Taney, were ignorant of the first principles of constitutional law, 
 as one who asserts om- immense prosperity when the Constitu- 
 tion was adopted, and who has " a rod in pickle " for Mr. Mot- 
 ley for daring to differ from the London Times, the moment 
 these sympathies are disclosed, the American who runs may 
 read the whole meaning of the Introduction : and the fitness of 
 this editor's maligning Putnam and Duane, and Livingston, and 
 Hamilton, and Jay, and of his intimating that the Constitution 
 was fastened on the people by political trickery and fraud is 
 perfectly apparent. The " monster " cliaraeter of this edition 
 of the Federalist is found out, and henceforth it takes its 
 place in our literary history as a notable feature of this era of 
 rebellion. 
 
 It will, of course, be a subject of mortification to the gentle- 
 men who have been deceived, and the exposure will be a warn- 
 ing to Historical Societies how they allow themselves to be used 
 in advancing that rebel doctrine of State sovereignty, which has 
 proved itself, as "Washington anticipated, the pretence for trea- 
 son, and which now endangers " our national existence." Little 
 
41 
 
 blame, however, can fairly attach to those who have supposed, 
 until they had read carefully his Introduction, that this editor 
 of the Federalist was a supporter of American nationality. He 
 came possessed, as he declared of copies of the family papers oi 
 Jay and Hamilton, and they were approached in as innocent a 
 guise as that assumed by the pirates of Jeff. Davis, when they 
 shipped as passengers on board the Chesapeake. And this 
 brings me to a point involving an interesting question of fact 
 upon which I have a word to offer in reply to Mr. Dawson. 
 
 QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE FAinLT PAPEES OF JAT. 
 
 Mr. Dawson says: "You say concerning the family papers of 
 Jay, relative to the Federalist, ' I (you) gave you (me) none 
 such ;' and on that slight foundation you assume that I have had 
 no such ' family papers of Jay,' at any time past or presentj/rom. 
 any other person, and by inuendo you accuse me of falsehood 
 and deceit. If it will gratify you, I will admit, as I do admit^ 
 that I have not received from you at any time any paper what- 
 ever ' relative to the Federalist per se, except the original drafts 
 of number LXIII (these were discovered in a bundle of ancient 
 newsj)apers after the volume was printed) ; but you must admit 
 that I never said, even in the ' Prospectus,' which you have 
 quoted from, that you had given any such papers to me at any 
 time ; and you must also admit, if you are not a willing slan- 
 derer, tliat the only foundation for your insinuation has been 
 your own disordered imagination. Indeed, I challenge you to 
 produce a single specimen of ' Prospectus,' ' Advertisement,' or 
 any other publication, either by myself or my publisher, wherein 
 it is stated, either by me or for me, that you had given me such 
 ' family papers of Jay,' as you have described, or any other." 
 
 In this paragraph Mr. Dawson makes two points : 
 
 1. He attempts to vindicate the truth of his assurance to the 
 public, that, in the preparation of the Federalist, he had been 
 favoured with copies of the family papers relative thereto of 
 Chief Justice Jay, by giving the public now to understand 
 that although he had received no such papers from me, he had 
 
42 
 
 received them at some time or other from some otiier person or 
 persons. 
 
 2. He insists that my assumption, that he could have had no 
 such papers, because I had given him none such, rests upon a 
 " slight foundation '' — that its only foundation was my " disor- 
 dered imagination," and he challenges me to produce a line 
 from himself or his publisher in support of my assumption that 
 he had indicated me as the source whence he received the 
 papers. 
 
 In reply to this second point, I quote the entire paragraph 
 from his prospectus, of which he twice quotes only the first sec- 
 tion, ending with " Chief Justice Jay," each time carefully 
 omitting the last paragraph, which does indicate the source of 
 the favor. I mark the section quoted by him I^o. 1, and the 
 section omitted ISTo. 2. 
 
 ■ {Wo. 1.) " In the preparation of this edition of the Fede- 
 roHist, the subscriber has been favored with copies of the family 
 papers relative thereto of General Hamilton and Chief Justice 
 Jay; {No. 2) and has also the pleasure to announce, through 
 the further courtesy of Hon. James A. Hamilton and John Jay, 
 Esq., original portraits of Messrs. Hamilton and Jay, for the 
 illustration of the work." 
 
 I understood " the further courtesy''^ of Mr. James A. Hamil- 
 ton and myself in furnishing portraits, to imply that it was 
 through our previous courtesy that Mr. Dawson had been fur- 
 nished with copies of family papers. I submit that that is the 
 plain meaning of the passage, that the construction of the sen- 
 tence justifies no other interpretation, and that his own language 
 in the prospectus refutes the idea he now wishes to impress 
 upon the public that he never intimated that he had received 
 such papers fi-om me. I entirely disbelieve his present intima- 
 tion that he has copies of the family papers of Jay relative to 
 the Federalist per se which have been given to him by some 
 person or persons other than myself, and there are one or two 
 facts bearing on this point in reply to his charge that my sus- 
 picion that he has no such papers rests on a " slight foundation " 
 
43 
 
 and, indeed, solely on my " disordered imagination." The -vvill 
 of Chief Justice Jay contained this item : 
 
 " I give and bequeath all my manuscript books and papers, 
 other than such as respect my own estate or the estate of others, 
 to my two sons, Peter A. Jay and William Jay, jointly, and not 
 to 1)6 divided. On the death of one of my sons, these manu- 
 scripts are to belong solely and absolutely to the survivor." 
 
 Mr. Peter A. Jay died first, and the papers which had re- 
 mained at Bedford, in my father's possession, then belonged 
 solely to him, and by his will, he gave them to me. They have 
 been kept together and not divided. Thinking it barely pos- 
 sible that a few papers might have by chance regained in the 
 hands of Mr. Peter A. Jay, and have been given to Mr. Dawson 
 by his son, John C. Jay, Esq., of Kye, I inquired, and was in- 
 formed by Mr. Jay that he had no papers of Chief Justice 
 Jay, and that he did not know Mr. Dawson. 
 
 I know, from a conversation with my father about the 
 Federalist, that he knew of no papers of Jay relating to the work, 
 and if such manuscripts or copies of manuscripts exist, furnished 
 to Mr. Dawson, as he intimates, by some " other person," at 
 some " time past or present," I know not why I should not 
 repeat " Produce the papers !" 
 
 Nor am I disposed to acquiesce in the propriety of his not 
 producing them, on the plea that he has ceased to lay stress upon 
 them in his advertisements, and that he finds them comparative- 
 ly unimportant. His language on this point is, " As my facili- 
 ties for acquiring information concerning the Federalist were 
 increased from time to time, I became myself satisfied of the 
 comparative unimportance of the family papers of Jay and 
 Hamilton relating to the Federalist ^er se, and I discontinued 
 my references to them as deserving of special notice." 
 
 Whether this subsequent discovery of the little value of the 
 papers was the only reason for discontinuing his references to 
 them, or whether that discontinuance was owing, in part at 
 least, to Mr. James A. Hamilton's declaring that there were no 
 such papers of his father as the prospectus announced, and in- 
 sisting that the announcement should be suppressed, I shall not 
 stop to inquire : but the passage I have quoted from Mr. Daw- 
 son's reply will not satisfy the public with the non-production 
 
44: 
 
 of tlie papers, for the question now is, not of their " comparative 
 unimportance," but of their actual existence. 
 
 Mr. Dawson has had the temerity to charge me with having 
 a " disordered imagination," and with being guilty of slander 
 because I intimated that he was mistaken in supposing that he 
 had any copies of family papers of Jay relative to the Federalist. 
 He assures the public that he has such pajpers — not received 
 from me, as he distinctly intimated in his prospectus, but from 
 some other person, and he intimates that he has examined them 
 at least twice ; once, before he announced in his prospectus that 
 he had been favored with such papers, which he then regarded 
 as important, and again, after his facilities for information had 
 increased, when he decided that they were of comparative un- 
 importance, and discontinued the reference to them .in his 
 prospectus. 
 
 These " copies of family papers" — he mentions them in the 
 plm-al, so that there was more than one — have become matter of 
 profound historic interest, apart from their bearing on Mr. Daw- 
 son's veracity. Who gave to Mr. Dav/son these copies ? who 
 has the originals ? and where did the person or persons get the 
 originals ? Seventy-six years have elapsed since the Federalist 
 was written, and here are family papers of Jay respecting the 
 Federalist, per se, of which his family never heard, discovered 
 just in time to be useful to Mr. Dawson in his prospectus, dis- 
 closed to him alone, not communicated by him to me, notwith- 
 standing the courtesies I had extended to him might seem to have 
 entitled me to so simple a requital : suddenly discovered by Mr. 
 Dawson to be comparatively unimportant, after the prospectus 
 had accomplished its object, and no longer announced either by 
 him or his publisher, not quoted in the text, nor as yet referred 
 to in foot notes. So far as their historic value is concerned, ac- 
 cording to Mr. Dawson, they spring up in a night, and wither 
 in a day. But he stiU insists upon their reality ; he represents 
 them as tangible and visible, and he intimates that none but a 
 disordered imagination could suppose that his statement was 
 baseless as a dream. 
 
 Mr. Dawson, however will see, or, at all events, those who 
 read this correspondence will see, that nothing but the produc- 
 tion of the alleged papers, and the disclosure of the person or 
 
45 
 
 'persons from ■whom lie professes to have received them, will 
 satisfy his subscribers that he ever received copies of any family 
 papers of Jay relative to the Federalist, from any person other 
 than myself, and that, as he admits, he received no such papers 
 from me, the assertion that he has such papers in his possession 
 is entirely erroneous. 
 
 BXPOSTTRE OF ME. DAWSON BT HON. JAMES A, HAMILTON. 
 
 Mr. Dawson, in his reply to my first letter, in which, alluding 
 to his claim that he possessed " copies of family papers relative 
 to the FederaMst, " I had said, " the sons of Hamilton knew of 
 no such papers of their father," intimated that I was his sole 
 accuser, and that "Mr. Hamilton, the respected' Second son of 
 General Hamilton, had read that portion of the proof sheets of 
 the advertisement to which I had alluded, without suggesting 
 any change whatever in the portion to which I objected," and 
 added, " he has subsequently been pleased to approve, in the 
 kindest and most gratifying terms, my entire volume as it has 
 heen given to the public, and my whole course as its editor, with- 
 out the least exception.''^ 
 
 Here are two distinct averments voluntarily proffered by Mr. 
 Dawson : 
 
 1. That Mr. James A. Hamilton suggested no change in that 
 part of the advertisement to which I had alluded, and, 
 
 2. That Mr. Hamilton had approved of the entire volume, 
 and of Mr. Dawson's whole course as its editor, without the least 
 exception. 
 
 To these declarations Mr. Hamilton has responded in the 
 Evening Post, in a letter dated April 7, 1864, in which, in refu- 
 tation of the first statement, he quotes a letter addressed by him 
 to Mr. Dawson, on the 31st July, 1863, desiring him to strike 
 his (Mr. Hamilton's) name from the advertisement, because he 
 had given him no such advice or assistance as to authorize such 
 a notice, and because he did not choose to be considered in any 
 respect responsible for a work which he had not examined. 
 
46 
 
 Mr. Hamilton quotes also a letter he had sent to Mr. Dawson 
 on the 20th Septemher, 1862, in which he said : 
 
 "Tour prospectus is received. I regret to find in it this 
 statement : ' In the preparation of this edition of the Federalist, 
 the subscriber has been favored with copies of the family papers 
 relative thereto of General Hamilton.' I have no knowledge 
 of any family papers of General Hamilton, and did not favor 
 you with any copies of such papers. My brothers and friends 
 know such papers do not exist." 
 
 In answer to the charge that Mr. Hamilton had approved of 
 Mr. Dawson's course as an editor, without the least exception, 
 Mr. Hamilton quotes from the same letter, in which he declared 
 hedid not choose to be considered in any respect responsible for 
 the work, which he had not examined. 
 
 * * * "I observe, with regret, that your introduction 
 bears hardly upon Mr. Dtjaije, &c." 
 
 Mr. Hamilton remarks that he has since read that part of the 
 introduction relating to his father's strategy, in which Hamilton 
 is represented " as a mere politician, deliberately uttering con- 
 scious sophistries and absolute untruths, for the purpose of cheat- 
 ing the people into a course of action that should serve his selfish 
 ends, and, thereby, his party ;" and, with natural indignation 
 that Mr. Dawson should have asserted that he approved of this 
 with the rest of his volume, he exclaims : 
 
 " Surely, even the slightest respect for a father's memory 
 would not permith such an assertion to pass unnoticed." 
 
 Mr. Hamilton, after alluding to Jay's wisdom, foresight, fair- 
 ness, and patriotism, and to the confidence reposed in him by 
 "Washington and his contemporories, declares : " It is impossible 
 that I should have approved the groundless strictures upon his 
 conduct and character." After a well deserved and scorching 
 rebuke of that taste for calumny which " will go mousing about 
 the scurriloiis publications of our country during the period of 
 
47 
 
 oar ferocious party conflicts^'' for atrocious libels on the wisest, 
 purest, and most patriotic men of the time, lie refers to the lies 
 of one of Mr. Dawson's predecessors in this dirty work — " An 
 English hired calumniator,^'' — one Callender, who, in a work 
 published in 1800, sneered at the extravagant popiilarity posses^ 
 sed by " this citizen," Washington, and accused him of being 
 twice a traitor and a robber of his army, with as much coolness 
 as his successor and fellow-Briton, Mr. Dawson, now vents his 
 ghoul-like spite upon the fame of Putnam, Livingston, Duane, 
 Hamilton, and Jay. The thanks of the country are due to Mr. 
 Hamilton, for his complete exposure of the various falsehoods 
 whose utterance had compelled him to come before the public, in 
 vindication alike of his own conduct and of his great father's 
 memory, in spite of his advanced age, when controversy becomes 
 a burthen, and of a recent domestic sorrow, in which a wide 
 circle has deeply sympathised. His calm, clear, and convincing 
 statement of facts, convicts Mr. Dawson of a degree of bad faith, 
 which, but for the positiveness of the proof, would seem almost 
 incredible, towards a venerable gentleman who had honoured him 
 with friendly attentions : and whose generous confidence he has 
 basely betrayed, first by calumniating the father, and then by 
 giving the country to understand that these calumnies were ap- 
 proved of by the son. Mr. Dawson sought, in his advertise- 
 ment, to convey a similar impression with regard to myself, and 
 to make the world believe that I had furnished him with family 
 papers that might be supposed to justify his mendacious charges 
 against my grandfather. 
 
 In my first letter, unadvised of the object of his misrepresen, 
 tations, I gently pointed out some of his more notable blunders 
 referring him, in several cases, to the positive proof of their mi- 
 truth. Among others, I showed him that his averment that 
 Jay's earlier conduct caused distrust and dissatisfaction ; that he 
 was not looked to by the people for counsel or leadership in 
 regard to the Constitution, but was regarded by a majority of 
 his fellow-citizens as selfish, aristocratic, and impracticable ; was 
 signally and thoroughly refuted by the vote of the city of New 
 
48 
 
 York electing him, at the very time refeiTed to, to the State 
 Convention, by a majority of twenty-eight to one ; and by the 
 fact that in that Convention, Jay was selected to move the adop- 
 tion of the Constitution ; and again, to draft the " Circular let- 
 ter" to the States, recommending the adoption of the proposed 
 amendments, which received the unanimous approval of the 
 body, and secured the cordial acquiescence of the people of this 
 State in the relinquishment of the Articles of Confederation, 
 and tlie establishment of a National Constitution by the united 
 voice of the whole people. 
 
 In hfe reply, Mr. Dawson, with a fatuity which would be siu*. 
 prising, had his behaviour towards Mr. Hamilton left room for 
 surprise at any degree of persistence in mis-statements, again 
 asserts that Jay was " not an advocate of the proposed Consti- 
 tution." 
 
 In case this persistence should lead any one to suppose that 
 there is a shadow of truth in the charge, I will quote a para- 
 graph or two from Mr. Webster's elaborate letter to citizens of 
 ■Westchester, to which I have already alluded, in which he dwelt 
 at length on Jay's devotion to the Constitution, and quoted 
 largely from his writings in its behalf: 
 
 " Gentlemen," said Mr. Webster, after an eloquent eulogium 
 on Hamilton, " the mortal remains of another great man, vener- 
 ated and loved through the whole cijurse of a long life, repose in 
 the county of Westchester ; of course, I mean John Jay. The 
 public life of this illustrious man was almost wholly devoted to 
 the preservation of the States, the establishment of the Con- 
 STiTOTioN, and the administration of the powers conferred by it. 
 E"o man saw more clearly, or felt more deeply, the evils arising 
 from the existence of States with entire and distinct sovereignties. 
 No man appealed to his countrymen against such a state of 
 things with more earnestness, eloquence, or power. * * He 
 foretold its dangers, and did as much as any man to secure the 
 public opinion from its pernicious grasp." 
 
 Advised by Mr. Wright's volume that Mr. Dawson's edition 
 of the Federalist and the volume with notes that is to follow it, 
 is relied upon to aid in resuscitating at the North the Kebel 
 
49 
 
 doctrine of State Sovereignty, that he denies that the United 
 States constitute a nation, and insists that each State — South 
 Carolina for instance — ^is a separate nation : and that his Cliicago 
 associates, who claim him as an earnest and effective ally in 
 their scheme, are striving to trample the Constitution in the 
 dust, and are prepared, if necessary, to join themselves " with 
 the armies of the South," and inaugurate war upon Northern 
 soil, against all loyal citizens ; learning Mr. Dawson's advocacy 
 of that " monster" State Sovereignty, it is clear that the fierce- 
 ness of his assaults on Jay is induced not by the pretended fact 
 that he was opposed to the Constitution, but by the historic fact, 
 so clearly stated by Mr. Webster, that to no man was the country 
 more indebted for the establishment of the Constitution, and that 
 no man more early or more effectively opposed the assumed right 
 of the States to override the sovereignty of the people. "Whether 
 as a legislator or as Chief Justice, Jay uniformly maintained the 
 doctrine — then as now denied by the opponents of our nation- 
 ality — that " the only true source of sovereignty is the People." 
 The further fact stated by Mr. "Webster, and confirmed by the 
 testimony of the living and the dead, that Jay was " venerated 
 and beloved through the whole course of a long life," seems to 
 have afforded to Mr. Dawson a provocation to attribute to him 
 qualities that would forbid all idea of such veneration and affec- 
 tion, and impair at once the regard of youthful and unenlight- 
 ened readers, for his character, his abilities, his influence, and 
 his position. 
 
 The task is one which Mr. Dawson would have found difii- 
 cult to accomplish, even if his own views had not been discovered. 
 As it is, the malignant hatred he exhibits towards Jay, I accept 
 as the most fitting homage which can be paid to his memory by 
 an Englishman, who, declaring that his own " grandfather was an 
 honest English laborer," would subvert the nationality of the 
 Eepublic in whose preservation are involved the hopes of honest 
 labourers of England and the world over ; — of a foreigner, who, 
 sheltered by our fiag, and educated in our schools, repays the 
 debt by attempting to pervert the American Constitution, join- 
 ing himself with the London Times and aristocratic sympathi- 
 zers with rebellion, to destroy the unity of our Eepublic, and 
 bpt our country from the roll of nations. 
 
50 
 
 Long before the instinctive conviction of Wasliington and Jay 
 in regard to the danger with -which the doctrine of State Sover- 
 eignty threatened the American people, had been verified as it 
 now is, by the most detestable rebellion recorded in history, and 
 while loyal Democrats stUl looked with doubt and displeasure 
 on the national doctrines held by .the framers of the Constitution, 
 which have since been approved by the supreme judiciary, and 
 incorporated with our common law — one of the very warmest ot 
 Jay's political and personal foes, James Monroe, (according to 
 his eulogizer, John Quincy Adams,) in the zenith of public 
 honour, and in the retirement of his latter days, " left, recorded 
 with his own hand, a warm and unqualified testimonial to the 
 pure patriotism, the prominent ability, and the spotless integrity 
 of John Jay." "When such was the feeling towards Jay in the 
 calm evening of life, on the part of one who had been his active, 
 earnest, and prejudiced opponent, — and a similar testimonial is 
 said to have been paid to him, after a long period of separation, 
 by his early friend and subsequent rival, Chgj^Uor Livingston : 
 — ^we need not wonder at the bold language used by that accom- 
 plished scholar and elegant writer, Guliau 0. Yekplanck, in 
 his often-quoted eulogy on Jay : 
 
 " A halo of veneration seemed to encircle him as one belong- 
 ing to another world while yet lingering among us. When the 
 tidings of his death came to us, they were received through the 
 nation, not with sorrow or mourning, but with solemn awe, like 
 that with which we read the mysterious passage of ancient 
 Scripture — And Enoch walked with God, and he was not for 
 God took him." 
 
 OTJE PRESENT POSITION, AND THE COMBINATIONS AGAINST ITS, ' 
 
 One advantage, and it is not a slight one, which we derive 
 from the disclosures made by the frank volume of Mr. "Wright 
 and his political literary coadjutors, among whom Mr. Dawson 
 is so prominently introduced, is a more accurate knowledge of 
 our position. "We learn from then- own pens the real sympathies 
 and designs of these " Federal EepubUcan " citizens, alias State- 
 Kights Democrats, who, in their assaults upon American nation- 
 
51 
 
 ality, tteir distortion of American jurisprudence, their falsifica- 
 tion of American history, and tlieir shameless libels upon 
 American statesmen, are found to be sympathizers with slavery 
 and rebellion, the fast friends of British aristocracy, and the 
 earnest allies of the London Times. 
 
 The same men who, under pretence of maintaining State 
 Bights, consign to infamy the American Constitution, and 
 threaten to unite with the rebels and devastate the loyal North, 
 are the men who declare, " Let the nobility of England under- 
 stand that they have in us, earnest coadjutors to maintain aris- 
 tocracy ;" and they rightly feel that any step in this direction is 
 hopeless, unless they can impair the feelings of American na- 
 tionality, by destroying the reverence of the people for the men 
 who assisted at the birth of the nation, who proclaimed its fun- 
 damental principles in the Declaration of Independence — who 
 rescued it from the dissolution threatened by the imbecility of 
 the Confederation, and established its unity and strength by our 
 If ational Constitution. 
 
 The effect of that Constitution in consolidating the power of 
 the American people, was at the time duly appreciated by the 
 sagacious statesmen of Europe, and when Genet came to us as 
 minister from the " French Republic," he submitted to our 
 Government official documents disclosing the unfriendly views 
 which had been entertained by Yergennes and Montmorin to- 
 wards the United States, manifesting in plain terms the solici- 
 tude of France and Spain to exclude the United States from the 
 Mississippi, their jealousy of the growing power and ambition 
 of this country, and the wish of France, expressed while the 
 question was pending, that the Constitution might not 'be adopted, 
 as it suited France that the United States should remain in their 
 present state, because if they should acquire the consistency of 
 which they were susceptible, they would soon acquire a force or 
 a power which they would be very ready to abuse."* 
 
 Notwithstanding the careful avoidance by the United States 
 for seventy years of all meddling with the affairs of Europe, and 
 the recognition, as an American principle, of the non-interven- 
 tion recommended by Washington, we have found that aristo- 
 
 ♦ See note on " The Polict or Fbasoe iowakds thb Uhited States," in the Appenillx. 
 
52 
 
 cratic England is, from the real or supposed exigencies of its 
 position, the inevitable foe of the American Eepublic, express- 
 ing frankly, in yiew of our supposed dissolution, the fears it has 
 entertained of our rising greatness. They saw in us, according 
 to the London Times, " a great empire that had threatened to 
 predominate over all mankind," and for a little while they 
 exultingly believed that we were shattered into fragments. It 
 is not to be supposed that they will view with satisfaction the 
 re-establishment of our national unity, or that they will forget, 
 in our case, the maxim which England so well understands, 
 — divide and contjuer. 
 
 Immense disappointment has been created by the views and 
 the conduct of the British aristocracy, British statesmen, and 
 British authors : with such notable exceptions as the Duke of 
 Argyle and Lord Carlisle, Eichard Cobden, and John Bright, 
 Mill and ISTewman, and Forster, and others, whose names will 
 be always remembered with honour as men who rose to the 
 dignity of the occasion, and remembered their duty to humanity 
 and to God. But, however great has been our disappoint- 
 ment at the low and narrow view of the American question 
 taken by the higher classes in England, or however modified that 
 disappointment has been by the wider instincts and broader 
 sympathies of the working classes, in the efforts of the American 
 people to maintain against the assaults of slavery, liberty, na- 
 tionality and law, the fact remains that we have calmly ac- 
 cepted the situation ; we recognize the inexorable fact that our 
 fate is in our own hands ; we have had a bitter foretaste of the 
 treatment that awaits a divided people, and we realize the 
 truth that there is no end to the insults, and no depth to the 
 humiliation which we may expect, not alone from England, but 
 from every nation in Christendom, unless we re-establish the pres- 
 tige of our Republic, by maintaining the integrity of om- borders 
 the supremacy of our Government, and the honour of our flao-. 
 
 It is not the part of wisdom to undervalue the signiiicance of 
 hostile and simultaneous n,iovements on account of the insio-nifi- 
 cancc of the tools employed, nor in our contempt for the infamy 
 of the workmen, to overlook the dangers with which their masters 
 threaten us. To those accustomed as we are, to contemplate 
 
53 
 
 with pride, the intelligence, the patriotism, and the common 
 sense of the American people, it may at first seem unreasonable 
 to suppose that men who murder the Queen's English, can do 
 the least harm to the American Constitution : or that book-worms, 
 burrowing amid the rubbish of the party by whom that Consti- 
 tution was opposed in its infancy, can aid the faction that would 
 subvert it in its strength, by resuscitating for the benefit of the 
 Tories of to-day, the hbellous abortions that struggled and died in 
 the last century. 
 
 But the fact is not to be forgotten that each is doing his own 
 particular part in a grand conspiracy against American nation- 
 ality, " and that like grains of gunpowder" to borrow an image 
 from Coleridge, " although each by itself be smutty and con- 
 temptible, their combined force may be terribly destructive." 
 
 In this conspiracy are arrayed against us not simply the rebels 
 of the South, bent upon the establishment of a slave empire, 
 headed by crafty and desperate leaders, guided by officers edu- 
 cated by ourselves, who have violated their honour and betrayed 
 their flag, and backed by a misguided army of determined 
 bravery ; but the aristocracy of England, who having thrown 
 away the friendship of this great nation, with a folly as great as 
 that by which their ancestors estranged and lost their most 
 loyal colonies, now see in the success of Republican government 
 the decay of their order and the prostration of their power. To 
 these must be added the despotism of France, presently to be 
 represented on our continent by an Arch-Duke of Austria, whose 
 very presence on the throne of Mexico, guarded by French 
 bayonets against the reluctant people he comes to govern, will 
 be of itself an insult to our country that will rankle in the 
 breast of every true American. Last of all, to aid these foes ot 
 our Kepublic in the South, in Britain, in France, and in Mexico, 
 appears an anti-constitutional party in the North, with Democ- 
 racy and State Sovereignty for their battle-cry, equally bent 
 with our aristocratic, our monarchial, and our imperial enemies 
 upon the destruction of our nationality — a party, whose wealthy 
 members in this metropolis supply fands for circulatinsp per- 
 versions of history and travesties of religion : whose ideas of 
 patriotism and honour allow men assuming to be gentlemen to 
 approach with supple knees a British minister, and solicit in our 
 
54 
 
 domestic affairs foreign intervention : who assure of their sym- 
 pathy and support the British aristocracy, even while they are 
 chuckling over the exploits of British iron-clads in sweeping from 
 the seas American merchant-ships and transferring our commerce 
 to British bottoms : who volunteer assistance to the " London 
 Times^'' in its malignant assaults upon our national integrity, 
 and distort facts to sustain its unsupported arguments : and who, 
 when they forget their caution, raise theu* traitorous voice against 
 the American Constitution, calling on the people to tear it into 
 shreds, and consign it to eternal infamy. From the citations 
 already given, the reader can decide for himself how far the 
 man who now advocates the "monster" and rebel doctrine of 
 State Sovereignty, in defiance of the constitutional adjudications 
 of the Supreme Court, aids and abets the wide spread conspiracy 
 against American nationality ; and how far it is possible for 
 one who denies that nationality, imder colour of history to falsify 
 the truth, and under pretence of enlightening the world by re- 
 producing the wise counsels of the Federalist, to rake the ashes 
 of the Kevolution for libels on its authors, and issue to an 
 unsuspecting people the immortal volume of Hamilton, Madison 
 and Jay, prefaced by insinuations, infamously false, against the 
 pm-ity of their patriotism and the worthiness of their fame. 
 I am, Sirs, 
 
 EespectfuUy your obedient servant, 
 
 JOHN JAY. 
 
 119 Madison Avenue, 
 New York, April 14, 1864 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 {Note to page 51.) 
 
 The Policy of Peance towards the United States. — This quotation is 
 from a note in the 5th volume of Marshall's Life of Washington, and the 
 important fact it discloses proves, beyond all question, the soundness of 
 Jay's views (in 1783) touching the policy of the French Court, which he had 
 had the opportunity of studying for years during his residence in Spain, at a 
 Court then closely allied to France, and governed, like France, by a Prince 
 of the House of Bourbon. It proves, also, the wisdom and propriety of hia 
 resolve in negociating the Treaty of Paris to disregard the positive instruc- 
 tions of Congress, " to undertake nothing in the negociation for a peace or a 
 truce without their (the Ministers of the King of France) concurrence ;" and 
 " ultinjately to govern yourself by their advice and opinion." This humilia- 
 ting instruction had been dictated to Congress by the diplomatic representa- 
 tive of France, and accepted by a majority of its members with an unbounded 
 confidence in the disinterested friendship of that Court, that redounds, per- 
 haps, rather to their amiable confidingness of disposition and unlimited sense 
 of gratitude to France, than to the sternness and exclusiveness of their 
 regard for the honour, rights and interests of the Kepublie. 
 
 The first advice given by France, under these instructions, decided promptly 
 the course of Jay. The British Cabinet wished to compel the negociators 
 to treat not on equal terms, as the ministers of one independent na- 
 tionality, but as individuals, not even named in the British Commission, 
 representing the several thirteen colonies or plantations of America. By an 
 acquiescence in this, the American negociators would have admitted themselves 
 to be British subjects, who, after having for seven years claimed to be a free 
 and independent people, were at last obliged humbly to acl^owledge that 
 their Independence was still a subject of negociation, and that its recognition 
 was a boon to be granted by Great Britain as an article of treaty. 
 
 The French Court, by Vergennes, instead of sustaining the demand of Jay 
 for a new and proper Commission, was found by him to have interfered, 
 through Mr. Fitzherbert, to prevent the British Cabinet from treating us as an 
 Independent nation ; and then Jay, assured that the interests of our Eepublic 
 
u 
 
 required that the treaty should not be framed by an ally so regardless of her 
 honour, announced his views to the British Minister with such determi- 
 nation and address, as to induce the British Cabinet to issue a proper Com- 
 mission; and thus was given to the statesmen of both nations, who even 
 then anticipated the early dissolution of our Confederacy, their first lesson in 
 that fundamental principle which they find it so difficult to comprehend, that 
 it is not for transatlantic powers to disturb the unity, to check the growth, or 
 to direct the destiny of the American Republic. 
 
 Freed, by the resolution of Jay, from all further interference by Tergennes, 
 with whom no fiirther communication was had on the treaty until the pro- 
 visional articles had been signed, the American negociators were enabled to 
 attend simply to our own national interests, and to secure the boundaries and 
 the fisheries without being hampered by the claims of Spain to the one, or 
 of France to the other. 
 
 The English, freed from the malign influence of France, were persuaded to 
 yield to us the boundaries which they had claimed for Canada — the Ohio on 
 the South, extending due west to the Mississippi, including all the lakes, Ohio, 
 Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and the North-west. The claims of Spain, as 
 set forth a little further South by M. D'Aranda, at the suggestion, according 
 to Washington, of the Court of France, to boundaries commencing on the 
 North " at the confluence of the Ohio and the Eenhawah, and running round 
 the Western shores of Erie, Huron, and Michigan, to Lake Superior," were 
 as summarily laid aside ; and our young Republic, which commenced the ne- 
 gooiation by refusing to treat except on the footing of an independent na- 
 tionality, emerged from the European Congress with a diplomatic prestige 
 that was yet more increased, when the large advantages gained by her nego- 
 ciators, by their manly frankness and unassisted skill, were compared with 
 the slender concessions that the trained diplomatists of France and Spain suc- 
 ceeded in extorting from the Court of England. 
 
 " The treaty," says the author of the Diplomacy of the United States, " was 
 exceedingly favorable and honourable to America, and was negociated by the 
 Commissioners with uncommon address." 
 
 The difierenoe of view in regard to the disinterestedness of the friendship 
 professed for us by France, on the part of Jay and Adams on the one side 
 and of Franklin on the other, altho' it did not prevent the venerable 
 philosopher from following the lead of his more youthful coflean-ue has in- 
 duced an earnest and persistent effort on the part of the biographers and 
 eulogists of F^nkUn to prove that Jay was unreasonably suspicious and 
 altogether mistaken : and that he deserved censure for not deferrino- to the 
 suggestions of Vergennes, and allowing him to approve of the form of the 
 Commission, and to decide the question of the fisheries and the boundaries. 
 
 It is singular that in this discussion, in which Dr. Jared Sparks has borne 
 so prominent a part, and in which his assurance that he had examined 
 of&cial documents in London and Paris which proved the good faith 
 
Ul 
 
 France, (Mr. Sparks' note, vol. 8, Diplomatic Correspondence, p, 208,) has 
 been accepted by maay as conclusive : that the fact has been so entirely 
 ignored that the whole question engaged the attention of Washington, and 
 received at his hands and that of his Secretary of State, Mr. Pickering, the 
 most careful and thorough investigation. 
 
 I refer to the letter addressed by Mr. Pickering to Mr. Pinckney, our newly- 
 appointed Minister to France, in reply to the complaints and reproaches of M. 
 Adet, the Minister from the French Kepublic. It was communicated to Con- 
 gress by President "Washington, by special message, on the 19th Jan., 1797 ; 
 and may be found in the 1st volume of American State Papers, pp. 559-576. 
 
 After quoting largely from the observations of the Court of France on the 
 justicative memorial of the British Government vindicating the war it in- 
 tended to wage against France, in which France admitted that her only object 
 in entering into engagements with us, after she regarded our independence as 
 secured by the defeat of the army of Bourgoyne, was to diminish the British 
 power, to advance her own interest, and secure her own safety: the Secretary 
 reviewed the conduct of the French Ministers in our negociations for peace, 
 and the eifort of M. Tergennes to induce the American negooiators to con- 
 sent to treat under a British Commission, in which neither the United States 
 nor their commissioners were named — in which case, pending the negociation, 
 " they would have been," said the letter, " not independent citizens, but, by 
 our own acknowledgment, British subjects. * * The honour of an inde- 
 pendent nation forbade their treating in a subordinate capacity." The Secre- 
 tary goes on to shew the reasons why France wished the American 
 negociators so to act; and why France, having formed other connections, with 
 whose views we had no concern, we were not bound to postpone the offered 
 peace. He referred to a combination of facts and circumstances which had 
 satisfied the American G-overnment that, in facilitating our independence of 
 Great Britain — " leaving the King master of the terms of peace" — the mani- 
 fest object of certain measures of the French Court was to deprive the United 
 States of an immense Western Territory, of the Navigation of the Mississippi, 
 and of the Fisheries, except on our own ooast. 
 
 Eeferring to our negociations with Spain, the Secretary said — " It is certain 
 " that, originally, Spain made no pretensions to any line eastward of the 
 i' Mississippi, to the northward of the Floridas, and it is clear that the idea 
 " of her finally making the claim was suggested by the Court of France." 
 
 " We are now prepared," he adds, " to understand the declarations made 
 'i in the instructions *o Citizen Genet, Minister Plenipotentiary from the 
 " French Kepublic to the United States. These instructions are dated the 4th 
 " of January, 1793, and were published in December of that year, in Phila- 
 " delphia, in vindication of his extraordinary measures which had induced 
 " our Government to desire his recall. In these instructions we find the fol- 
 •' lowing passages : ' The Executive Council has called for the instructions 
 "giTOn to Citizen Genet's predecessors in America, and has seen in them 
 
IV 
 
 '' with indignation, that at the -very time the good people of America ex- 
 " pressed their gratitude to us in the most feeling manner, and gave us every 
 ■' proof of their friendship, Vergennes and Montmorin thought that it wag 
 " right for France to hinder the United States from taking that political sta- 
 " bihty of which they were capable ; because, they would soon acquire a 
 '' strength which it was probable they would be eager to abuse.' * * 
 
 " ' The same Machiavellian principle influenced the operations of the war for 
 " independence; ilie same duplicity reigned over the negociations for peace.' 
 
 " We see, then,'' continued the Secretary, " that in forming connections 
 " with u& in 1788, the Court of France, the actual organ of the nation, had no 
 " regard to the interests of the United States : but that their object was, by 
 " seizing the occasion of dismembering the British Empire, to diminish the 
 " power of a formidable rival, and that when after we had carried on a dis- 
 " tressing war for seven years, the great object for which we had contended — 
 " Independence — was within our reach, that Court endeavoured to postpone 
 " the acknowledgment of it by Great Britain, and eventually to deprive us of 
 " its fairest fruits — a just extent of Territory, the Navigation of the Missis- 
 " sippi, and the Fisheries. 
 
 " Such being the motives and conduct of France, what inspired our truly 
 " grateful sentiments to that nation ? * * We were engaged in a common 
 ■' cause against Great Britain — we received loans of money — we were as- 
 " sisted, by troops and ships, in attacking the common enemy in the bosom 
 " of our country, and this association in war produced acquaintance, which 
 '' became friendship ; and experiencing these benefits, we gave way to our 
 " feelings without enquiry into the motives from which they were rendered." 
 
 The despatch has the additional value of exhibiting the clear, calm, convic- 
 tions of Washington, which were approved also by Hamilton, after the lapse 
 of thirteen years. 
 
 Washington's letter to Mr. Pinckney (4th Jan., 1797), while the despatch 
 was in progress, exhibits the strongest anxiety that it should be unexception- 
 able and unanswerable, for the reason that " if there be the least ground fo 
 " it, we shall be charged with unfairness, and an intention to impose on and 
 " to mislead the public judgment." 
 
 " Hence, and from a desire that the statement may be full, fair, calm, and 
 " argumentative — without asperity, or anything more irritating in the com. 
 "ments than the narrative of facts which expose unfounded charges and 
 "assertions, does itself produce, I have wished that the letter to Mr; 
 " Pinckney may be revised over and over again. Much depends on it, as it 
 " relates to ourselves, and, in the eyes of the world, whatever may be the 
 " effect as it respects the governing powers of France." 
 
 It is more than probable that the oflacial documents submitted to our Govern- 
 ment by Genet, and -which so strongly aroused the indignation of the French 
 Directory, were not among those submitted in Paris to Dr. Sparks' scrutiny - 
 since proofs that carried such firm conviction to the calm mind of Washing- 
 ton could hardly have been passed over by his biographer without the 
 shghtest notice ; and yet I am not aware that Dr. Sparks has ever even re- 
 
ferred, in this connection, to the very extraordinary disclosures of Genet, nor 
 to the use made of tliem.by Washington in triumphantly vindicating our Re- 
 public from the charge of ingratitude. 
 
 The unfortunate blunder into -which Dr. Sparks seems to hava permitted 
 himself to fall, and which I doubt not he will be the first to regret, hj assum- 
 ing to decide so grave a question, involving the honour of American diplo- 
 matists, upon the strength of documents exhibited to him in Europe, strangely 
 overlooking the unanswerable official proofs (embodied in our own diplomacy) 
 gathered from the French archives by the French Directory, and discovering 
 beyond all possibility of doubt the duplicity of Vergennes, is a blunder that 
 to this day is being perpetuated in works claiming to be historic, and made 
 the basis of the most unworthy slanders both in America and in Europe. 
 
 The comments of Mr. Parton, in his recent Life of Franklin, where he relies 
 confidingly and complacently on Dr. Spark's assurances about the documents 
 he examined abroad, ignoring equally with Dr. Sparks the positive proofs so 
 strangely brought to light by the French Revolution, and communicated to 
 Washington by Genet, have their counterparts in the charges of Mr. F. C. 
 Sohlosser, tlie author of a History of the Eighteenth Century, translated from 
 the German by D. Davison, M.A., and published at London in 1845. 
 
 On the 297th page of the fifth volume, Mr. Sohlosser, after stating that 
 Franklin wished to delay the settlement of the preliminaries " out of gratitude 
 to France," but "he was overruled by Jay and Adams, and the latter signed 
 the treaty" (Mr. Schlosser's language implies that Franklin did not sign it) 
 "without even asking Vergennes, to whom America owed so much;" the 
 author refers to the very advantageous terms obtained by the American nego- 
 tiators in " regard to territory beyond the Blue Mountains, where the most 
 flourishing provinces and towns now are," — an extent of territory far beyond 
 what had been expected in America — " as well as in regard to ports, islands, 
 and the right of fishing," and remarks — slandering in one breath the Republic 
 and its Commissioners — ''according to the universally received proposition in 
 " America, that the principal end of human wishes is and ought to be the 
 " greatest wealth and external advantage, the American lawyers Jay and 
 " Adams behaved very properly in opposing their colleague Franklin. The 
 " American quibblers invented a word to avoid that condition in their treaty 
 " with France, according to which they were not to sign any preliminaries 
 " until Franco had done the same. They called the articles on which they had 
 " agreed 2"'ovisional articles. Frankhn's most recent biographer has plainly 
 *' asserted what Franklin only hints at in his letters, that he by no means ap- 
 " proved of the ruse by which Messrs. Jay and Adams deceived the French 
 " ministry.'' 
 
 As it was expressly stipulated by the provisional articles, that the prelimi- 
 naries agreed upon in Paris by the American and English negotiators, should 
 not be signed until the English and French had come to terms at Versailles, 
 the charges of quibbling and chicanery, based upon the language of Dr. 
 Sparks, lead back directly to the question, how far the good faith of France 
 towards the United States justified the commissioners in disobeying the in- 
 
VI 
 
 structions of Congress, to defer in everything to French advice ; and upon this 
 point the testimony, but little known, of Lord St. Helens, who, as Mr. Pitz- 
 herbert had been commissioned by England to treat at that time with the 
 European powers, may be worth referring to. I quote from the N. Y. Re- 
 view, vol. ix., pp. 306-7. The memoranda of Lord St. Helens were addressed 
 to Sir George Eose, in returning the volumes of Jay's Life and Letters. 
 
 " These memoirs are indeed highly deserving of further attention on both 
 " sides of the Atlantic, and, as you justly foresaw, particularly interesting to 
 " myself, from my intimate acquaintance with Mr. Jay, when we were re- 
 " speotively employed at Paris, in 1782 ; and I can safely add my testimony 
 " to the numerous proofs afforded by these memoirs, that it was noi only 
 " CHIEFLY but SOLELY through his means that the negooiations of that period 
 " between England and France were brought to a successful conclusion." 
 
 After referring to the British ofioial discussion with France touching the 
 French Fisheries, Lord St. Helens added : 
 
 "But in the course of their discussion, M. de Vergennes never failed to insist 
 " on the expediency of a concert of measures 'bdv:ecn France and England, for 
 " the purpose of excluding the American States from these fisheries, lest they 
 " should hecome a nursery for seamen." The New York Review, in a note, to 
 show that it was well understood at the time that to Jay belonged the chie 
 merit of saving the fisheries, quotes John Adams as writing to him — " You 
 have erected a monument to your memory in every New England heart,-" 
 and a letter from Hamilton, saying: "The New England people talk of mak- 
 ing you an annual fish oiFering." 
 
 The undue length to which this note has unintentionally extended itselj 
 will, no doubt, be pardoned, if its references to the offtcial proofs of Jay's sa- 
 gacity in discovering and defeating the designs of France to abridge the 
 territory, limit the resources, and cripple the greatness of our young Repub- 
 lic, shall lead to a definitive settlement of the historic doubts on this subject, 
 which have naturally enough been engendered by the too hasty opinioo, 
 long since uttered after a partial investigation of our own archives, by the 
 venerable historian, and biographer of Washington and Franklin. 
 
 Extraordinary as it may seem to those familiar with the extent of the 
 field covered by Dr. Spark's historical researches, that he should actually 
 have been ignorant of the decisive bearing on this discussion of the reply of 
 Washington, in 1797, to the complaints of Mr. Adet — at once undignified and 
 unjust — that America was guilty of ingratitude to France, and of the unan- 
 swerable testimony cited by Washington, that France had cancelled any debt 
 we might have owed her for favours during the war, by her secret attempts 
 to deprive us, at its close, of its fair fruits ; — extraordinary as it may seem, 
 that Dr. Sparks should never even have alluded in this connection, to the 
 resurrection at the hands of the French Directory, of the secret proofs, buried 
 deep in the confidential recesses of French diplomacy, of " the Machiavellian 
 principle" that had governed the friendship towards America of Vergennes 
 and Montmorin, and of " the duplicity," on their part, that " presided over 
 the negotiations of peace," I do not for a moment suppose that Dr. Sparks, 
 
TU 
 
 while laying stress upon the documents at London and Paris to prove the 
 good faith of Vergennes and Montmorin, purposely concealed from his readers 
 the incontrovertible proofs afforded by our own State papers, which abso- 
 lutely overthrow his theory. 
 
 In his Life of Franklin, (see note, vol. 1., p. 498,) after a rash attempt to 
 prove that Jay was wrong in not allowing the French Court to control the 
 negooiation, Mr. Sparks permitted himself to remark that " the author " of 
 Jay's Life, the late honourable William Jay, " appears to have acquired but a 
 limited knowledge of the negociation." 
 
 It would have been impossible for Dr. S^oarks to have indulged in such a 
 suggestion, in regard to one whose opportunities for learning the entire his- 
 tory of the Treaty of Paris were excelled by none, had he actually been 
 aware that my father's memoirs of the negociation, and of the part borne in 
 it by the ministers of Prance — endorsed as they have since been for ac- 
 curacy and completeness by Lord St. Helens, of the British Court — had 
 been confirmed in advance as regards the correctness of their facts, the 
 soundness of their reasoning, and the historic truth of their conclusions, by 
 the testimony of Vergennes and Montmorin themselves, wrested from the 
 recesses of the French archives by the jealousy of the French Directory. 
 
 I ireely acquit him of the profound injustice of which he would have been 
 guilty had he penned his defence of the French ministers and his derogatory 
 comments upon the cool-headed, watchful sagacity of Jay and Adams, after 
 having read the letter to Pinckney, the instructions to G-enet, or the official 
 documents communicated by the Directory, all showing that it was their sa- 
 gacity that penetrated and defeated the unfriendly designs of our French ally, 
 and not simply saved our Republic from the disgrace of treating in a subordi- 
 nate capacity for the satisfaction of England and of Europe, but that it se- 
 cured by one masterly move — albeit, in disobedience to the commands of 
 Congress — the domain of our Western States and Northwestern Territory, the 
 navio-ation of the Mississippi, and the Fisheries, which, as France and Spain 
 rightly anticipated, and perhaps reasonably feared, have proved " a nursery 
 for our seamen." 
 
 The incidents of the negociation of the Treaty of Paris, and the recollection 
 of the humiliation and dangers we escaped, and the glory and strength which 
 we won by turning a deaf ear to the courtly assurances of France, and re- 
 fusing to accept an European monarchy as the arbiter of our destiny, may 
 teach a useful lesson to those who, in this second war for American Inde- 
 pendence, are now charged with the diplomacy of the American people. The 
 inevitable hostility of European aristocrats to the progress of our Free In- 
 stitutions, in whose success they read the presage of their own decay — a 
 hostility which, but for the sagacity and resolution of our negociators, would 
 have checked us in the onset, has not been modified by the unmistakable 
 signs which have since marked the westward course of the Star of Empire ; 
 and to-day, whatever their differences and jealousies among themselves, the 
 great powers of Europe, with the exception of Eussia, entertain a common 
 desire, if not a common resolve, to assist in the dissolution of our Eepublio ; and 
 
VIU 
 
 if they can persuade us to listen with credulity to their diplomatic assur- 
 ances, they may easily convert us into tools for accomplishing our destruction. 
 The British Cabinet demand our admiration, if not our gratitude, for having 
 inaugurated, under the name of " neutrality," a system of Piracy that is 
 lighting the ocean vfith the flames of our ships, and transferring our commerce 
 to British vessels; and France has called forth expressions of " eminent satis- 
 faction" from Washington by such emphatic declarations of the Emperor as 
 these. " It is contrary to my interest, my origin, and my principles, to im- 
 pose any kind of Government whatever on the Mesioan people — they may 
 freely choose that which suits them best, &c." 
 
 That same Prance now asks, and seems to expect us to believe, that 
 the subversion of the Mexican Eepublio, the establishment of a Mexican 
 Empire, and the election of an Austrian to represent, as Emperor of Mexico, 
 the policy of Prance, was not at all the act of Napoleon, but was done of 
 their own accord, by the Mexican people. 
 
 Every American diplomatist, of course, who judges of the disposition and 
 policy of a foreign Government by its acts, and not by its professions, and 
 who looks at those acts with American eyes, and not through the rosy spec- 
 tacles politely preferred him by the perpetrators, will be compelled to meet 
 the charge from imbecile credulity of taking a narrow view and indulging in 
 unjust and unworthy suspicions ; but the recollection of the treaty of Paris, 
 and of the subsequent disclosures by the French Directory, and a thought of 
 the untold advantages then secured for our country, by a simple devotion to 
 her rights and her honour, urjjeguiled and undiluted by the ofBcious friendli- ' 
 ness and pressing assurances of our courtly ally, may well encourage the 
 exhibition by our diplomatists of a true national spirit, which, while render- 
 ing to other nations their just rights and a proper courtesy, will not allow 
 diplomatic assurances to stultify their judgment or blind their vision. 
 
 However convenient and charming in social life may be the habit of 
 gracefully acquiescing in the conventionalities of society, that have occasion- 
 ally more of courtesy than of truth, expressing no doubts, entering no caveat, 
 venturing no contradiction, it is a habit — the adoption of which, as a rule of 
 thought and action, as well as of manner and expression — is apt to prove in- 
 convient aUke for individuals and for nations. 
 
 Painful as it may be to the sensibihties of amiable optimists, it is neverthe- 
 less a stern truth, that our Republic has still to contend in her foreign 
 diplomacy with those "Machiavellian principles" — and that hereditary 
 " dupHcity," which, with less resolute negociators of the Treaty of Peace, 
 would have miserably betrayed us in our infancy; and which now, after 
 seventy years, unhappily for our commerce, our honour and our prestige, 
 flaunt their triumph over our innocent credulity; illustrating, by the exploits 
 of British iron clads, the sort of neutrality that England regards as good 
 enough towards a Republic, and blazoning upon the historic record of Mexico 
 the Napoleonic ideas of good faith, of Non-intervention, and of Popular 
 Freedom, 
 
Price 40 cents. See pages 36, 37. 
 
 CURRENT FICTIONS 
 
 TESTKP BY 
 
 UNCURRENT FACTS: 
 
 A SERIES OF TRACTS, PERSOiSfAL, POLITICAL AND 
 HISTORICAL; DECLARATORY, ARGUMENTA- 
 TIVE AND DOCUMENTARY. 
 
 BY HENRY B. DAWSON. 
 
 NuUius nddictns jurare in verba magietri. 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 
 PRINTED BY J. M. BEADSTREET A SON. 
 
 1864 
 
IN PRESS. 
 
 Current Fictions tested by Uncurrent Facts, No. II. 
 The Fcederalist and its Traducers, in which will appear, in 
 extenso, that portion of the Introduction to The Fasderalist 
 •which has called forth the letters of Messrs. Jay and Hamilton, 
 and the slanders of their satellites, with some of the authorities 
 on which it rests ; notices of the Traducers of that work — 
 " Historicus," John Jay, James A. Hamilton, the editor of 
 Harper's Weekly and Henry T. Tuckerman, — together with an 
 examination of their objections to the work and of their re- 
 marks on its editor, and a notice of the life and political 
 opinions of the elder John Jay, prior to 1768. 
 
 ^^ Orders may be sent to 
 
 J. M. BRADSTREET <t SON, 
 
 247 Broftdwiiy, N. Y., or to 
 
 HENRY B. DAWSON, 
 
 Mcirrisiinia. M. Y. 
 

 '■uCy 61 C C^ -z-«-»^^ ^--iya^-^^i^i^ 
 
 
 e^FJ^^wA^ '{^s/)^J{^ 
 
CORRESPONDENCE 
 
 ,1 ij'i 
 JOHN JAY AND HENRY E.^DAWSON, 
 
 AND BETWEEN 
 
 JAMES A: HAMILTON AND HENRY B. DAWSON, 
 
 OONCEKNING 
 
 THE FOEDERALIST. 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 
 PRINTED BY J. M. B RAD STREET 4 SON. 
 
 1864. 
 
 4L 
 
z/^^^'^- 
 
 y/cORNELL\ 
 UNIVERSITYj 
 LI BRARY^ 
 
PREFATORY NOTE. 
 
 Two reasons have led to the re-publieation of the following letters : the first, 
 to gratify those who, in vain, haye attempted to obtain copies of the newspapers 
 which contained them ; the second, to enable the public to understand more 
 readily the motives which have influenced Mr. John Jay in his continued and 
 covert attacks on my character as a man and as a writer. 
 
 The letters of my opponents have been printed exactly as they appeared in 
 The Evening Post, both in punctuation and spelling. My replies, also, have 
 been exactly re-produced, except in those very few oases in which sHght typo- 
 graphical errors have occurred. 
 
 Sy The note on page 26 will pakticulaely interest the keadeb. 
 
 HiNKY B. Dawson. 
 Mot-risania, N. Y., December 7th. 1864. 
 
MR. jlrS LEHER TO MR. DAWSON. 
 
 [Fbom "The Eteninq Post," Tdesdat, Fedrdast 16, 1864.] 
 
 Mr. Henry B. Dawson : 
 
 Sir : — I have your second note, asking me to give you, as 
 soon as possible, for your second edition, any suggestions 
 that have occurred to me in reading your introduction to 
 the "Federalist." 
 
 I regret that a press of engagements has unavoidably inter- 
 fered with the completion of an elaborate review of parts of 
 your introduction which strike me as exhibiting grave errors 
 of judgment, taste and fact, and as violating the truth of history 
 and dishonoring the memory of the statesmen whose immor- 
 tal work you have assumed to edit for the benefit of " the 
 " student and the scholar." 
 
 Not having leisure at this time to do justice to the subject, 
 and deeming it possible that you may so amend your intro- 
 duction as to render the publication of an elaborate review 
 unnecessary, I will state to you briefly and frankly the prin- 
 cipal points upon which I think you have fallen into errors 
 that make your new edition of the TederaList an historic 
 
 1 
 
libel, and convert it from a monument of the fame of its 
 authors into an insult to their memory. 
 
 No more fitting time than the present could have been 
 found, since the adoption of the Constitution, for the intro- 
 duction of the "Federalist" as a text book into our schools 
 and colleges. No previous generation could appreciate, as we 
 can, the profound statesmanship of those essays whose influ- 
 ence extended through the newspaper press, secured, above all 
 other influence, the adoption by the American people of the 
 Constitution that rescued lis from the imbecility of a con- 
 federacy, and constituted us one nation. 
 
 Our countrymen, however enthusiastic they may have 
 seemed for Union in the past, are but just beginning to 
 estimate aright the inestimable value of that Constitution as 
 the guardian of American freedom, and the pillar of our 
 national greatness. 
 
 The far-sighted wisdom of the federal leaders in warning 
 their countrymen against the dangers that lurked in what 
 Washington with prophetic vision was inclined to stigma- 
 tize as " that monster" state sovereignty, has been illustrated, 
 as state theories have seldom been illustrated before, by 
 events which have verified with marvellous power the utter- 
 ances of the men who, nearly eighty years ago, expounded 
 the constitutional principles and bearings of the government 
 of which they were chief among the founders. 
 
 It might, I think, have been fairly presumed that at such 
 a moment an editor assuming to put forth a standard edition 
 of the "Federalist," professing, in the words of Selden, a 
 desire that "truth and justice may moderate in all," would, 
 in an introduction professedly historical, have exhibited a 
 careful remembrance of familiar facts of American History 
 a respectful appreciation of the work itself, and a decent re- 
 
gard for the fame of the departed statesmen whose ■writings 
 he had voluntarily assumed to edit. 
 
 This reasonable assumption your introduction in my opinion 
 fails to verify, and not simply in compliance with your re- 
 quest, but from a sense of what is due to myself, from the 
 manner in which my name has been associated with your 
 work, I will specify the points on which I regard it as open 
 to severe — not to say indignant — criticism. 
 
 In the first place, I disapprove more strongly than I like to 
 express, the deprecatory and patronizing tone in which you 
 are pleased to discuss (pp. 22 and 23) the "Federalist," damn- 
 ing it with faint praise, apologizing for the '' confusion" which 
 in your opinion marks its pages, and for the " imperfect illus- 
 " trations by which it is disfigured," kindly attributing these 
 misfortunes to the fact that its distinguished authors were 
 " hampered" by their unhappy " training in British schools," 
 and by their " imperfectly acquired knowledge of the ancient 
 " Republics." 
 
 The most astute publicists of America and of Europe have 
 failed to discover in the " Federalist " the imperfections by 
 which its new editor regards it as disfigured, and for three 
 quarters of a century it has challenged the admiration of the 
 world for the clearness of its style, the force of its historic 
 illustrations, and the deep and thorough acquaintance it 
 exhibits with the elementary principles of governmental 
 science in their practical application. The tone of your 
 criticisms, grateful as it might have been to the anti-federal- 
 ists of the last century, or to the ultra states rights party of 
 our own day, to whom we are indebted for this rebellion, 
 will I think jar upon the feelings of the American people 
 who recur with increasing affection and admiration to the 
 men whose writings you thus criticise and whose states- 
 
mansliip you decry. I think your intelligent readers will 
 regret that you had not approached the subject in the spirit 
 of "Webster when he said, "I confess I love to linger around 
 " these original fountains and to drink deep of their waters. 
 "I love to imbibe in as full measure as I may, the spirit 
 « of those who laid the .foundations of the government, and 
 " so wisely and skillfully balanced and adjusted its bearings 
 " and proportions." 
 
 In the next place, I disapprove — and without violating the 
 truth I might intensify the expression — of your singular mis- 
 conception or misrepresentation of Hamilton's magnificent 
 logic and broad patriotism, when, in writing as you do for 
 the youth of America, you attempt to belittle his grand and 
 successful efforts to array the people on the one side of the 
 constitution, by representing it as an " appeal to the cupidity 
 " of the commercial classes." page 20. 
 
 Thirdly, I regard as a singular violation of historic truth 
 your several charges and allegations in reference to the cha- 
 racter, reputation, views, sentiments and conduct of my 
 grandfather. In regard to these, I am prepared to show 
 that your statement, p. 8, that Jay " found in the constitu- 
 " tion little that he could approve and nothing for which he 
 " could labor," and your intimation on page 21, that ke was 
 "lukewarm" in his sympathy for the constitution, are abso- 
 lutely at variance with the truth, and that they have not 
 simply no foundation in fact, but not even the shadow of an 
 apology. 
 
 Your allegation on page 17 that "some portion of his" 
 (Jay's) " earlier political action was remembered (in 1787-8,) 
 " to his disadvantage, and impaired his influence and his use- 
 " fulness," is one of so grave a character that I need not enlarge 
 on the propriety of your quoting what authority you can ad- 
 
5 
 
 auce in justification of the charge, and of stating distinctly 
 what portion of Jay's earlier political action had impaired 
 the regard and confidence of his fellow-citizens. 
 
 Your averment on pages 17 and 18 that in the discus- 
 sion of the great question of the day which attracted the at- 
 tention of the people of the state of New York at the period 
 referred to the people did not appear to have looked to Jay 
 for counsel or personal leadership, strike one with surprise 
 when they are compared with the well-known fact that of 
 twenty-eight hundred and thirty-three votes given in the city 
 of New York in the election of members to the State Conven- 
 tion to act upon the constitution, Jay received all but nine I y- 
 eight, and you will, perhaps, be good enough to state in your 
 new edition whether that remarkable expression of public 
 confidence in Jay, that vote of more than twenty-nine to one, 
 is the proof upon which you rely for the statement, that the 
 people did not look to him for guidance, or for the further 
 statement upon which you boldly venture, that at that time 
 "the greater number of his fellow-citizens considered him 
 " selfish, unpracticable, and aristocratic." 
 
 I would recommend you also to explain how you reconcile 
 your statement that " Jay's inclination does not seem to have 
 " led him to take any part whatever" in those discussions, with 
 his elaborate and thoughtful correspondence with Washing- 
 ton, with the fact that on his recovery from the injuries he 
 received in the doctor's mob, which occurred soon after his 
 contribution of the sixty-fourth number of the Federalist, 
 he published an address to the people of New York in 
 behalf of the constitution which was eulogized by Washing- 
 ton, Hamilton and Franklin; and with the further fact that 
 in the New York convention, it was Jay, the author of the 
 constitution of the state of New York, and at that time 
 
the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, who at the close of the de- 
 bates in which he had participated with Hamilton and Living- 
 ston moved the adoption of the constitution which, on the 
 final question, was ratified by a majority of three votes, al- 
 though of the fifty-seven delegates forty-six at the opening 
 of the session were ranked as anti-federalists ; that Jay was 
 selected to draft the circular letter to the states touching the 
 desired amendments, and that Jay executed this task delicate 
 as it was in view of the diflBculty of meeting the views of 
 men who differed so widely with such tact and discretion, 
 that the letter reported by him commanded the unanimous 
 approval of the Convention. 
 
 It will not be amiss for you to state also whether you regard 
 his course in that Convention, prominent and triumphant as 
 it was, as illustrating your declaration that Jay was accus- 
 tomed to "push forward to the front for the establishment of 
 " his own principles without swerving either to the right or to 
 " the left, irrespective of the movements of his associates and 
 " of the prejudices and sympathies and personal or local in- 
 " terests of those whom they led ;" and whether you regard a 
 blundering and stolid obstinacy, such as your language im- 
 plies, was a leading feature in Jay's temperament, unfitting 
 him for the position of a leader, as a chief element in the 
 character of what you acknowledge him to have been, "an 
 " acute and singularly successful diplomatist." 
 
 As to another matter of historic fact, you state, without 
 reservation, on page 21, that Jay, " notwithstanding the luke- 
 " warmness of his sympathy, was induced to undertake those 
 " portions of the discussion which related to the importance of 
 " the Union in connection with the foreign relations of the 
 " states and to the treaty making authority of the Senate, both 
 " of them being subjects which his position enabled him to 
 
" discuss witli Tiiiusual ability, without compromising in the 
 " least his general political sentiments and without obliging 
 " him necessarily to assent even by implication to any portion 
 " of the proposed constitution." You here distinctly intimate 
 that Jay's general political sentiments were such as to render 
 him unwilling to assent even by implication to any portion 
 of the constitution, and unwilling to assist in its establish- 
 ment, but that he was induced by others to undertake certain 
 subjects which he could perform (you do not explain how), 
 without committing himself " to any portion." I ask again 
 for your authority for this monstrous libel upon Jay, the 
 deliberate utterance of which seems to show that you have 
 never read the life or letters of the statesman whose views 
 you profess to portray, nor his address to the people of the 
 state of New York, in behalf of the constitution, nor even 
 the second, third, loxirth, and fifth numbers of the "Federal- 
 " ist," in which Jay bases the argument for the constitution 
 and one national government, on the safety and welfare of the 
 people, showing that the rejection of the constitution would 
 put the continuance of the Union in the greatest jeopardy, 
 and declaring,- " I sincerely wish that it may be as clearly 
 " foreseen by every good citizen, that whenever the dissolution 
 " of the Union arrives, America will have reason to exclaim in 
 " the words of the poet, ' Farewell, a long farewell to all my 
 " greatness ! ' " 
 
 I have never been called upon, and I never expected 
 to be called upon to defend the fame of my ancestor from 
 such charges as those which in the guise of editorial impar- 
 tiality you have insinuated and expressed in what purports to 
 be an historical introduction to the " Federalist." I shall not 
 trouble myself to inquire whether these charges have origin- 
 ated in ignorance or in malice, whether they result from the 
 
8 
 
 prejudices of education as a states right democrat, or deeper 
 yet, from your native British instincts, if, as I have heard you 
 are by birth an Englishman, or whether they are in any way 
 connected with the design announced in your prospectus to 
 revive the anti-federal publications of " Cato," " Brutus," " Cin- 
 ciNNATQs" and "Centinel," from whose strenuous efforts to 
 prevent the adoption of the constitution the country was so 
 happily rescued by the earnest patriotism of the federalists. 
 It would be my right, under any circumstances, to defend the 
 fame of my grandfather from misrepresentation, and that 
 right is in this case converted into a duty by the erroneous 
 and unwarrantable impressions conveyed by the language of 
 your "prospectus" and your "advertisement." In the pros- 
 pectus you said : " In the preparation of this edition of the 
 " Federalist the subscriber has been favored with copies of the 
 " family papers relative thereto of General Hamilton and Chief 
 " Justice Jay, and has also the pleasure to announce, through 
 "the further courtesy of Hon. James A. Hamilton and that of 
 "John Jay, Esq., original portraits of Messrs. Hamilton and 
 " Jay for the illustration of the work." 
 
 The latter clause touching the portraits is true ; but what 
 family papers of Jay or of Hamilton, toiiching the "Federal- 
 ist" had you when you wrote the "prospectus," or have you 
 now? I gave you none such, for the reason that I had 
 none to give. (I did not chance upon Jay's drafts of the 
 numbers written by him until your volume was printed), and 
 the sons of Hamilton know of no such papers of their father. 
 Produce the copies of "the family papers of General Hamilton 
 " and of Chief Justice Jay relative to the Federalist," which 
 your published thanks to Mr. Hamilton and myself in your 
 advertisement may naturally induce the public to sup- 
 pose were respectively contributed by us. Some stranger 
 
may, perhaps, suppose that I have furnished you with family 
 documents which justified your assaults upon the character 
 of my ancestor, and any reader might infer from your " grate- 
 "ful acknowledgments" to me, for "kind assistance," and 
 "friendly suggestions," and the rendition of your "heartfelt 
 " thanks," that if I had not suggested, I had at least acquiesced 
 in the truth of your statements, so inconsistent with the 
 record of his life, and so derogatory to his fame. 
 
 How far the courtesy I extended to you to assist in making 
 your edition a worthy one, entitled me to anticipate an intro- 
 duction disparaging the "Federalist" and caricaturing Jay, is 
 a question of no sort of moment to me, however suggestive it 
 may be to others. I refer to it simply as showing that you 
 have yourself placed me in a position where self-respect alone 
 would compel me to expose the injustice you have done to 
 my grandfather. 
 
 One other matter I must allude to, for although it may seem 
 trifling, after those that I have been considering, it is yet 
 one that concerns the living as well as the dead. In reference 
 to Jay it is perhaps not to be wondered at, that having 
 assumed the right to mis-read his charactei', you should 
 deem yourself entitled to mis-spell his name. In shewing 
 me the volume you remarked that as Jay had written his 
 name with an accent on the a and as you observed I followed 
 his example, you saw no reason why you should not point it 
 in the same manner. It is true that some of Jay's earlier sig- 
 natures, though none of his later ones have a dash over the a, 
 and that habit rather than reason has perpetuated it in my 
 own autograph. But Jay had occasion to print his name as 
 well as to write it, and as he never printed it with an acute 
 accent nor with any accent whatever, nor his ancestors before 
 him, nor his children nor grandchildren after him it strikes 
 
 2 
 
10 
 
 me that your voluntary translation of the dash into an acute 
 accent, and your transformation of it into print, without one 
 word of consultation with the family, exhibits an independ- 
 ence alike of the rules of propriety and of orthography, 
 which almost parallels the originality of your discovery as an 
 historical editor that Jay found in the Constitution "little 
 " that he could approve and nothing for which he could 
 "labor." 
 
 Were it not for your personal explanation which is mar- 
 vellously lame, especially when you jump to the conclusion 
 as to the meaning of the dash, as an acute and not a cir- 
 cumflex accent, — were it not for that limping explanation, 
 of which, however, not a word appears in your volume to 
 account for the extraordinary change, one might suppose 
 that the alteration had been suggested to you by some idea 
 of fitness and harmony, that, having attempted to fasten 
 grave charges on Jay's character you proposed to balance 
 them by fixing an acute accent upon his name, and that 
 after painting a portrait of him, which no well-informed 
 American could recognise, you thought it but fair to give it 
 a cognomen which his own family would disown. 
 
 In brief, sir, I would suggest that you shorten your intro- 
 duction to the "Federalist" by striking out all your comments 
 upon the work, all your strictures upon its authors, all, in 
 short, that claims to be either critical or historical, and that 
 you make what amends you may for the singular injustice 
 which, whatever the motive or the cause, you have done to 
 the authors of the "Federalist," and especially to my ancestor. 
 
 I am, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 John Jay. 
 119 Madison avenue, New York, February 13th, 1864. 
 
^ 
 
 MR. DAWSON'S REPLY TO ME. JAY. 
 
 [Feou "The Etzning Post.'" Tdebdat, March 8, 1864.J 
 
 Morrisania, N. Y., February 22, 1864. 
 Mr. John Jay: 
 
 Sir : — The Evening Post of the 16th inst., containing a letter 
 which you have been pleased to address to me through the 
 columns of that paper, reached me on Saturday evening, and 
 the same mail also brought what appears to be a copy of the 
 same letter, in manuscript, over your own signature, and post- 
 marked "New York City, February 17," — the day after the 
 publication in The Evening Post to which I first referred. 
 
 Although I may reasonably question the " taste" which 
 prompted you to reply to a private letter, containing a portion 
 only of the correspondence on a subject of no interest to the 
 public, through the columns of a public newspaper, I cannot 
 do less than return to you my thanks for your careful atten- 
 tion to my expressed wish to correct any errors into which I 
 may have fallen in my volume, which I communicated to you 
 in the notes to which you have referred; and I promise 
 myself much pleasure in giving to the several "suggestions" 
 
12 
 
 witli whicli you have publicly responded to my private invita- 
 tions, all the consideration to which the unsupported word of 
 their author and the character of the "suggestions" them- 
 selves may justly demand. When I shall do so, however, I 
 may not (as I do not now) see the propriety of conducting my 
 examination of the merits of your " suggestions" through the 
 columns of the public press ; and I may also see fit (as I now 
 think I shall) to follow my own judgment rather than yours, 
 not only in the process of such examination, but in the mode 
 of communicating the result to the world. 
 
 I am gratified to learn, also, that you are sensible of the 
 " duty" which you owe to " the fame of your grandfather :" I 
 regret that you are not equally sensible of the " duty" which 
 you owe to yourself. It is, indeed, proper that you should 
 remember with gratitude the grandfather through whose 
 bounty you eat your daily bread in busy idleness ; nor is it 
 strange that you should be jealous of that other portion of 
 your inheritance — " the fame of your grandfather" — ^your own 
 best title to distinction. But it is to be regretted that the 
 greatness of the "grandfather" is chiefly illustrated by the 
 grandson in senseless imitations of his autograph, in frequent 
 public announcements of the virtues and services of "my 
 ancestor," and in an unseemly parade, at every opportunity, 
 of illustrious descent. The fact that the Jay family is not yet 
 extinct may, to you, possess so much importance that the 
 public press must needs be called on to bear your name, at 
 short intervals, into every corner of the Union, as it has done, 
 in connection with a great variety of subjects, for several years 
 past; to me and to the public generally that fact is of far less 
 consequence ; and, perhaps when the last of the race shall 
 have been sent to his reward, the world will survive the shock 
 produced by his exit, and will continue to move as it moved 
 
13 
 
 before the first of the Jays emerged from his original ohscu- 
 rity on the domain of the Baron de Tilley. You will pardon 
 me, therefore, if for the present, at least, I decline to engage 
 in any public controversy whatever, unless it shall be for the 
 protection of my own character as a writer and a man. 
 
 In thus declining, at present, to neglect my daily business 
 as well as my literary labors, for the purpose of engaging in a 
 newspaper discussion of useless questions, I beg you to be- 
 lieve that I have not lost sight of the main subject of your 
 letter — "my grandfather," John Jay. For the discussion of 
 that subject, when you shall have become acquainted with the 
 " familiar facts of American history " to which you so famil- 
 iarly allude, but, as your letter in the Evening Post sufficiently 
 proves, of which you personally know so little — a common 
 occurrence among those who assume to be what they are not ; 
 when you shall have read and ascertained the meaning of the 
 life and letters of Joiln Jay and the second, third, fourth and 
 fifth numbers of " The Fcederalist," to all of which you have 
 so politely referred me ; and when the political history of 
 New York, even in its most condensed form, shall have been 
 read and understood by you — by which time I will have more 
 leisure than I now have to attend to the discussion — ^you will 
 not find me backward in meeting you, either in private or 
 through the public press, whenever and as often as your in- 
 clination may prompt you to the undertaking. Indeed, as far 
 as my existing business and literary engagements will permit, 
 I hold myself in constant readiness to meef you, as one man 
 should meet another, with my documents against your docu- 
 ments. In the course of that discussion, when it shall take 
 place, it will be your "duty" and mine to examine your 
 " grandfather" both as a man, a professor of religion, and a 
 politician ; as a British subject and as a citizen of an inde- 
 
14 
 
 pendent republic; as a friend and supporter of the Eoyal 
 Colonial government in New York, and as an open and un- 
 tiring opponent of popular rights in America ; as a member of 
 " Popular Committees," of Provincial Congresses, of State Con- 
 ventions, and of Continental Congresses; as an active oppo- 
 nent of " Independence " in the Continental Congress of 1776, 
 and as its spasmodic supporter, after twelve of the thirteen 
 Colonies had become " Free and Independent States," in the 
 Provincial Congress of New York ; as the secret opponent of 
 Franklin in the formation of the treaty of 1783, as the 
 nominal friend and supporter of that treaty at the time of its 
 execution, and as the first of those who had signed it, subse- 
 quently to repudiate its terms ; as " Publius," and as the open 
 opponent of " Publius's " sentiments ; as one of the authors of 
 " The Fcederalist," and yet not an advocate of the proposed 
 Constitution ; in short, as the earnest and consistent advocate 
 of a concentration of political power in the few, of ivhom he 
 should always be one, and the equally earnest and consistent 
 opponent of the political equality of the many, of whom he 
 sJiould never be one : the result of that examination will show 
 which of the two, my " Introduction " to " Tlie Fcederalist " or 
 your letter in Tlie Euening Post, has most truly described his 
 character ; and the public shall then determine which of the 
 two, you or I, is the caricaturist and the libeler. 
 
 I defer this discussion because I am a workingman — one of 
 the '' many" whom the Jays have continued to despise : your 
 grandfathers fortune makes you master of your time ; my 
 grandfather's poverty — as honorable, to say the least of it, as 
 the wealth of the other — has given me no such advantage. 
 
 I shall also require you, as you will have perceived, in the 
 discussion to which you have invited me, to produce stronger 
 evidence than your own statements or the traditions of your 
 
15 
 
 family. Your letter proves that the naked word of a professed 
 gentleman is worth no more than his who makes no preten- 
 sions to that "idle trade," and assumes no superiority on 
 account of it. The fact that an American Chief-Justice was 
 your "grandfather" does not invest your unsupported asser- 
 tion with any greater authority than it would have been 
 entitled to had he been, as my grandfather was, an honest 
 English laborer; and I propose to give all I demand from 
 you, undoubted contemporary evidence of the entire truth of 
 what I assert. 
 
 There is one portion of your letter, however, which demands 
 an immediate reply. 
 
 You have been pleased to introduce to the notice of your 
 readers a "Prospectus" for a small and special edition of two 
 hundred and fifty copies of " The Federalist" which was 
 printed and, to a small number of my friends and acquaint- 
 ances, was sent out in letter form nearly two years ago. In 
 that "Prospectus" I used the following language: "In the 
 "preparation of this edition of The Fosderalist' the subscriber 
 " has been favored with copies of the family papers relative 
 " thereto of General Hamilton and Chief Justice Jay ;" and 
 against the truth of that language you take exceptions. In 
 allusion to it you ask : " What family papers of Jay or Hamil- 
 " TON, touching ' The Federalist,' had you, when you wrote the 
 " ' Prospectus,' or have you now ?" adding, by way of gravamen 
 to that which you intend for an imjjeachment of my integrity 
 as the editor of the work : " I gave you none such, for the 
 " reason that I had none to give, and the sons of Hamilton know 
 " of no such papers of their father." You then arrogantly order 
 me to " produce the copies of the family papers of General 
 " Hamilton and Chief-Justice Jay relative to ' The Federalist ' 
 " which your published thanks to Mr. Hamilton and myself in 
 
16 
 
 "your 'Advertisement' may naturally induce the public to 
 " suppose were respectively contributed by us ;" insinuating, 
 meanwhile, what you dare not say openly, that I never had 
 any such papers from any person whatever, and charging me, 
 by inuendo at least, with falsehood and deceit. 
 
 As " Mr. Hamilton," the respected second son of General 
 Hamilton, to whom you refer, read that portion of the " Adver- 
 "tisement" to which you have alluded, in the proof-sheets, 
 without suggesting any change whatever in the portion to 
 which you have objected; and as he has subsequently been 
 pleased to approve, in the kindest and most gratifying terms, 
 my entire volume as it has been given to the public and my 
 whole course as its editor, without the least exception, I 
 respectfully suggest that you shall seek some other person 
 with whom you can associate yourself in the prosecution of 
 your charges, allowing me, meanwhile, to consider you, for 
 the purposes of this letter, my sole accuser. 
 
 You say, concerning the family papers of Jay, relative to 
 " The Fwderalist," " I [you] gave you [vie] none such ;" and on 
 that slight foundation you assume that I have had no such 
 " family papers of Jay " at any time, past or present, from any 
 other person ; and, by inuendo, you accuse me of falsehood 
 and deceit. If it will gratify you, I will admit, as I do admit, 
 that I have not received from you, at any time, any papers 
 whatever " relative to ' The Fwderalist,' " per se, except the 
 original drafts of "Number LXIII " ; but you must admit that 
 I never said, even in the " Prospectus " which you have quoted 
 from, that you had given any such papers to me at any time ; 
 and you must also admit, if you are not a willing slanderer, 
 that the only foundation for your insinuation has been your own 
 disordered imagination. Indeed, I challange you to produce 
 a single specimen of "Prospectus," "Advertisement," or any 
 
17 
 
 other publication, either by myself or my publisher, wherein 
 it is stated, either by me or for me, that you had given to me 
 any such " family papers of Jay " as you have described, or 
 any others. 
 
 You say, concerning the family papers of General Hamilton, 
 "relative to ' The Feeder alisV " ; "The sons of Hamilton know 
 " of no such papers of their father;" and, on that slight founda- 
 tion, also, you seek to fasten on me the guilt of falsehood and 
 false pretence. The ignorance of "The sons of Hamilton" on 
 the subject referred to, or on any other subject, certainly is 
 not a crime in me. It is their misfortune, not my fault ; and 
 neither you nor they nor the public can justly censure me 
 for their ignorance. " The sons of Hamilton" will not say that 
 " the family papers " of their father have not embraced, at any 
 time, any such papers as you have described ; and they are 
 too well acquainted with the history of those " family papers," 
 subsequent to the lamented fall of their father, to deny that 
 my opportunity to know their contents, and to obtain copies 
 of any or all of them, has been quite as good as their own. 
 Whether or not they know of any such "family papers of 
 "Hamilton," is quite immaterial to me. / know there were and 
 a^e such papers, and that I possessed copies of them at the 
 period to which you allude in your letter. 
 
 Without noticing in detail your perversion of the language 
 of my " Prospectus " — in which case the " copies of the family 
 "papers " to which I have referred were described by you as the 
 " family papers " themselves — I submit that I have met your 
 insinuations, and that I might reasonably rest my case. I 
 trust, however, that the editor of The Evening Post will pardon 
 me if I advance still further in the examination of your 
 letter. 
 
 Although, in my " Prospectus," for a privately printed edi- 
 
 S 
 
18 
 
 tion of " The Fader alisV'—oi which only a few copies were 
 issued, in letter form, nearly two years ago — I stated : " In the 
 preparation of this edition of The Fmderalist' [to which were 
 to be added ayi historical introduction and foot notes] " the suh- 
 " scriber has been favored with copies of the family papers, 
 " relative thereto, of General Hamilton and Chief Justice Jay," 
 without indicating the source of that favor, I might have done 
 so by using your name, had I been disposed, without having 
 seriously compromised the truth. 
 
 In answer to a note which I had addressed to you, at the 
 instance of one of your most intimate friends and a connec- 
 tion of your family, concerning the family papers of Jay 
 relative to " The Federalist," I received from you in the early 
 part of March, 1862, a letter covering sixteen pages of note- 
 paper, dated " The Jay Homestead, Bedford, Katonah P. O., 
 " February 18, 1862," and post-marked " Washington, D. C, 
 " March — , 1862," in which you discussed, with much minute- 
 ness and apparent good will, the authorship and publication 
 of " The Federalist," adding that, " As I am leaving home 
 " to-morrow for Washington, I am unable immediately to ex- 
 " amine my grandfather's papers in reference to your inquiry," 
 and promising, "If on my return from Washington I shall find 
 " any I will send you coj)ies of them." You also offered in that 
 letter one of those " friendly suggestions" to which you have 
 so politely referred — that " to include in the introduction or 
 " foot-notes memoranda of the views of the authors as expressed 
 " in their correspondence :" and you enforced it by a careful 
 reference to " an interesting correspondence [by your grand- 
 father] " with General Washington and Mr. Jefferson, on the 
 " subject of the inefficiency of the Confederacy, the necessity of 
 " a Convention to form a more stable government, and the gen- 
 " eral features which should characterize its Constitution." 
 
19 
 
 On the seventeenth of March, 1862, in reply to a second note 
 from me on the same subject, you addressed to me a four-page 
 letter, in which you stated that you had looked through the 
 papers of Jay during the close of 1787, and the greater part 
 of 1788, without finding anything bearing upon the subject of 
 " The Fwderalist ;" although you subsequently stated in the 
 same letter, " I enclose brief extracts from letters of Jay to 
 " Adams, dated the 3d and 16th October, 1787, referring to the 
 "Constitution [the subject of both my proposed 'Introduction^ and 
 ' The Fmderalist ' itself] , " and one from Washington to Jay, 
 " March 3, 1788. I believe that none of these have been pub- 
 " lished." Although in your search among " the family papers" 
 of Jay which are in your possession, you found nothing con- 
 cerning " The Faderalist" itself, you did find some papers 
 relating to the subject on which " The Federalist" treated — 
 " The Constitution ;" and from the fact that you sent " copies" 
 of those papers to me in response to my inquiry for papers 
 relative to " The Faederalist" it is very evident that you sup- 
 posed, at that time, the three papers which you enclosed 
 in your letter answered the description. Whether or not I 
 concurred with you in that supposition is not evident from 
 any of my papers, as your name, in connection with "the 
 " copies of the family papers of Jay and of Hamilton,'' which I 
 proposed to employ, does not appear in any of them. Had I 
 concurred with you, and referred to you as the source from 
 whence I had received a portion of my " copies of the family 
 "papers of Chief- Justice Jay," which I did not do, I maintain 
 that your letter of the 17th of March, 1862, would have afibrded 
 a sufficient warrant ; and I could have gone before the world 
 with that letter as my justification, and by it have been 
 acquitted. 
 
 As my facilities for acquiring information concerning " The 
 
20 
 
 Paederalist " were increased from titne to time, I liedaiiie niy- 
 self satisfied of the comparative unim;portance of the family- 
 papers of Jay and Hamilton " relative to " The Fcederalist," per 
 se, and I discontinued my references to them as deserving 
 special notice. As far as my recollection serves me at this 
 moment, I know of no instance in which the " copies of the 
 " family papers of General Hamilton and Chief Justice Jay," 
 have been publicly referred to, either by my publishers or 
 myself, in connection with even the privately printed edition 
 of " The Federalist," much less with that which you have 
 criticised, to which the much talked of " Prospectus" had no 
 reference — the trade edition of my book ; nor vsrould they have 
 merited particular notice at this time, had not you thought it 
 proper to fit them to your invention of a charge of falsehood 
 against me, more ingenious than ingenuous. 
 
 It is proper for me to state, however, that the " copies of 
 " family papers of Jay and Hamilton," which I possess, includ- 
 ing those which you have sent to me, are not without great va^ 
 lue in the illustration of the subject on which " The Faederalist " 
 treats, and of the causes which produced that invaluable work; 
 and that in my own time and in the mode which I shall 
 prefer, more or less of them will be given to the world. 
 Whether " the fame of your grandfather" shall be promoted 
 by such publication, or the reverse, is a matter which concerns 
 me less than the truth of history ; and whether you shall main- 
 tain the airs of superiority which you have assumed with equal 
 arrogance and injustice, or act in a manner consistent with 
 your social pretensions, will not in the least disturb my 
 quiet. 
 
 Having confronted you, my accuser, before the tribunal to 
 which you have called me, I believe I may appeal with confi- 
 dence to our country and to the world to judge between us. 
 
"21 
 
 If langUEtge may be attributed to me which I have tteVer 
 employed, if that which I have said may be perverted and 
 mutilated with impunity, if the " ignorance" of third parties, 
 concerning their family affairs, may be imputed to me as a 
 crime, if your own conclusions concerning the character of 
 certain papers — whether concurred in by me or not — are to be 
 considered as my acts, if your assumption of dignity and your 
 regard for " the fame of your grandfather" may be considered 
 a warrant for the removal of the landmarks of our country's 
 history — as a license for the justification of the prostitution of 
 her laws and the overthrow of her distinctive form of govern- 
 ment, you may consistently convict me of falsehood and 
 deceit on the subjects referred to in your letter and on the 
 evidence adduced therein. If I know my country and the 
 world aright — and I trust I do — the shallowness of your pre- 
 tensions and the insolence of your demands will be clearly 
 perceived, and the blow which was intended for my destruc- 
 tion will recoil on your own head with a lasting effect. 
 
 One subject more, in your letter, demands my attention. 
 You allude to my " native British instincts," to the fact of my 
 foreign birth, and to my '' education as a States'-rights demo- 
 " crat." 
 
 Even the Jays have not escaped criticism for their " British 
 " instincts" — in some instances severe criticism ; and it is said 
 that you, yourself, have not been without your yearnings for 
 the flesh-pots of that British Egypt — the Court of St. James — 
 and your chagrin at the greater success in the struggle to 
 reach them of the distinguished son of Massachusetts whom 
 you attempted to rival. Cannot the occupant of the "Jay 
 "Homestead" allow me to possess even an instinct in common 
 with his family ; or does he desire to monopolize ■ all -that is 
 " British" for his own special benefit ? 
 
22 
 
 1 was bom in England nearly forty-three years ago, but I 
 have yet to learn that that was any fault of mine, or may rea- 
 sonably be brought against me at this time as a subject of 
 censure. Thirty years of my life, within a few months, have 
 been spent in New York ; and to her common schools and to 
 her institutions am I mainly indebted for the little amount of 
 knowledge which I possess. I was withdrawn from the Public 
 Schools in the city of New York to labor in the fields when I 
 was only fourteen years of age ; and, with the exception of a 
 single winter which I subsequently spent in school, I have 
 labored steadily since that time — as I still labor, day by day — 
 for my daily bread ; while that which many others call 
 " leisure" has been spent, and is still regularly spent, by me 
 in honest attempts to be useful to myself and my country. 
 Their results are not unknown even to you; and they have 
 not been without their rewards: the generous respect which I 
 have enjoyed, and still enjoy, from those whose friendship I 
 may justly esteem is the recompense of my earnest efforts to 
 deserve it. Even the Jays have not considered me beneath 
 their notice ; and several years since, when the foundations of 
 the great Eepublican party were to be laid, you, my accuser, 
 as the Chairman of its founders, considered me worthy to be 
 at the head of a committee, with two distinguished democrats 
 as my associates, to whom was confided the important duty of 
 preparing its " platform," the original of which, in my hand- 
 writing, and bearing the signatures, among others, of my 
 fellow members John Jay and the venerable William Jay, is 
 in my possession. I am an Englishman by birth ; by choice I 
 am a citizen of New York, and " if that is treason, make the 
 "most of it!" 
 
 I am, also, " a States'-rights democrat." This no one knows 
 better than you, since at one time, with your honoured father, 
 
23 
 
 you were my associate in that profession ; and while I was 
 only the Vice-President, you were the active President of the 
 only party organization which puhlicly recognized the sov- 
 ereignty of the States as a " plank " in its " platform." The 
 only difference between us at that time was this : I was " a 
 States'-rights democrat" from a well-grounded conviction of 
 the general correctness of the doctrines of that party, derived 
 from a careful study of the history and Constitutions of the 
 country; while you were one onl}* because you supposed 
 that you might thereby the sooner establish yourself politi- 
 cally among the Germans and other European Republicans, 
 and, as it has since appeared, the sooner obtain your transla- 
 tion to London. You failed in your aspirations ; and, filled 
 with chagrin, you now consider your former platform "a 
 monster." / sought nothing ; was not disappointed ; and am 
 still " a States'-rights democrat" — ijust such an one, too, as your 
 "ancestor" was when, on the 26th of July, 1788, he voted in 
 the affirmative, in the Convention of this State, on " the Bill 
 "of Rights and form of the ratification of the Constitution 
 " for the United States," and two days later, when he penned 
 that "Circular Letter to the States touching the desired 
 "Amendments" to that Constitution, to which you have so 
 unwittingly alluded. • • 
 
 Tn conclusion, allow me to inquire, if you are so " rigidly 
 " righteous " as you assume to be, why you have allowed two 
 years to elapse since the issue of the "Prospectus" to which 
 you have referred, without having noticed, either publicly or 
 privately, until the publication of your letter in The Evening- 
 Post of the 16th inst., the falsehood which you have been 
 pleased to contrive out of it ; and why, notwithstanding the 
 alleged deceit which it conveyed,' have you continued to 
 extend to me, during those two years, all the courtesies which 
 
24 
 
 I could reasonably desire? Be kind enough to inform me 
 if the two splendid specimens from the " family papers of Jay 
 " relative to the ' Federalist,' " with which you favored me less 
 than three months ago — two original drafts of number LXIIL, 
 in different stages of its composition, by your " grandfather" — 
 were intended as evidences of your disapproval of the terms of 
 my two years old " Prospectus ;" and if, in your opiniog, the 
 " ignorance " concerning those two papers, as well as that of the 
 subject of their authorship, which "the sons of Ha^hlton," 
 and even General Hamilton himself, have displayed, has not 
 rendered them as valueless as a similar "ignorance" on the 
 part of the former has done in the case of my copies of other 
 " family papers," referred to in my " Prospectus ?" Have you, 
 since the publication of my volume in December last, received 
 new light concerning your "duty" to "the fame of your 
 " grandfather ;" or is your newly-fledged zeal only the result of 
 an alliance which you have formed within the past few weeks 
 for other and less hallowed purposes than " duty" and justice? 
 Is it not the simple truth that you never saw in that '' Pros- 
 pectus" anything to which you could object until you had 
 been visited, at a very recent date, by a well-known literary 
 adventurer who assumes to be my rival, and aspires to the 
 honor of editing " The Federalist ;" and is it not equally true 
 that, in the publication of your letter in The Evening Post 
 you have been pushed forward to reconnoitre my position and 
 to draw a fire which he was too much of a coward to receive 
 in person ? 
 
 I am sensible of the true reasons which have actuated you, 
 as well as those which have influenced your ally, " Historicus," 
 in his timid support of your movement, by his letter "To the 
 " editor of The Times," which appeared on the morning of the 
 17th instant ; and I am equally sensible of the sadness of the 
 
25 
 
 spectacle which is presented by the association, in the grace- 
 less task of defamation, of a descendant of " the young West- 
 " Indian" and a grandson of him who was one of the objects of 
 that young stranger's first and most withering denunciations. 
 It may be explained by the fact that both alike bear the names 
 of noted men; that both alike are jealous of that which each 
 considers the " fame of his ancestor ;" that both alike fear the 
 result of an honest, earnest and independent exposition of the 
 truth. Each of you is more or less a pretender ; each has 
 endeavored, in his own way, to envelope his family with a 
 "glory" which shall rival that which is said to surround the 
 heads of the saints ; each, like another sorcerer, has succeeded 
 only in raising a smoke, with which he hopes to deceive the 
 spectators and secure for himself and his family the venera- 
 tion of the world. It has become my duty to examine 
 minutely, and to set forth publicly, the exact tridh concerning 
 the political opinions and actions of those on whose names 
 you chiefly rely for attention. The mystery with which each 
 of you has attempted to conceal the history of your respective 
 ancestors, the purity of their opinions, and the privacy of their 
 writings, you suppose, are about to be looked into ; and, as 
 you and he fear the falsehoods which have been asserted by 
 each of you in their names, and the errors which have 
 been propagated by each of you under the unauthorized war- 
 rant of their unquestioned greatness, are about to be exposed 
 in all their naked deformity, you shrink from the expected 
 exposure ; and, assuming an air of virtuous indignation that 
 even a truth has been told concerning your "ancestor," to 
 which the Jays have not previously given currency or 
 stamped as genuine, you appeal to the public to sustain your 
 pretensions, and you seek to destroy that which you know 
 you cannot silence. It is well for me, and it is well for 
 
 4 
 
26 
 
 the tnith of histoiy, that you are not unknown either in 
 Church or State ; and, in view of that knowledge, I may ask, 
 and the public may ask, as was asked concerning the pre- 
 tenders in Eome in the days of Juvenal : 
 
 — " quis enim generosum dixerit huno, qui 
 Indignus genere, et proeelaro nomine tantum, 
 Insignia ? " 
 
 I am, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 Henry B. Dawson. 
 
 [For reasons which, no doubt, were satisfactory to himself, Mr. Jay did not 
 continue his correspondence with Mr. Dawson ; and the " Reply" of the latter, 
 therefore, closed the discnssion between those gentlemen. At a subsequent date 
 [April 28, 1864], however, Mr. Jat eaueed to be printed, in pamphlet form, 
 and addressed " To the Editor of the Evening Post ■" a " Second Letter on 
 " Dawson's Introduction to The Federalist ;" but, before the close of the day on 
 which it was issued, so grossly libellous was its character, the respectable house 
 through which it was published removed it from its counters and steadily refused 
 to circulate it under any circumstances. That Mr. Jay himself soon after con- 
 curred in that view of the character of his pamphlet, and that, in person, he 
 assisted in a still further removal of it from the public eye, is shown in the fol- 
 lowing letter from Mr. Bunce, Mr. Gkegoey's business manager — the gentleman 
 through whom the pamphlet referred to was originally introduced to the public. 
 
 " Jambs G. Gregory, Publisher, 
 " No. 540 Broadway, 
 
 " New York, May 28, 1864. 
 
 " H. B. Dawsou, Esq. : 
 
 " Dear Sir : — I have to inform you that on Monday of last week (the 16th), 
 " the entire edition of the pamphlet, entitled ' Mr. Jay's Second Letter on 
 " Dawson's Introduction to the Federalist,'' in our hands, was in my presence 
 " thrown into a furnace by Mr. Jay, and all the copies entirely burned and 
 " consumed. The number so destroyed was something over eight hundred 
 " copies, and included all received by Mr. Gregory from Mr. Jay, excepting 
 
27 
 
 " those distributed to the New York press, and some twenty or thirty copies 
 " sold. 
 
 " Yours respectfully, 
 
 " Oliver B. Bukoe. " 
 Addressed "Henry B. Dawson, Esq." 
 
 From an article which appeared in the columns of " The Statesman,'' a 
 weekly newspaper printed at Yonkers, N. Y., on Thursday, November 24, 1864, 
 and from other information, it appears that Mr. Jay has been engaged during 
 the summer in circulating, covertly, copies of his "Second Letter" for the 
 purpose of effecting sarreptitioushj what he failed to accomplish in an open and 
 manly contest, in which Mr. Dawson eould see his opponent and provide for his 
 defence. 
 
 From Mr. Jay's own action in the premises, as set forth in Mr. Bunce's letter,, 
 the public may understand not only the merits of his charges against Mr. Dawson's 
 character, but the exact value of his own claims to gentility ; and it may learn, 
 also, therefrom how sadly the race has degenerated since Mr. Jay's name was 
 borne by a Chief Justice of the United States.] 
 
MR. HAMILTON'S LETTER TO MR. DAWSON. 
 
 [Feom "The Etenino Post," N. T., Wednesdat, Afeil 6, 1864.] 
 
 To THE Editors of the Evening Post : 
 
 Mr. Dawson, in a letter to Mr. John Jay, of tlie 23d Febru- 
 ary last, says: "Mr. Hamilton" (alluding to me) "read that 
 " portion of the advertisement to which you allude, in the 
 " proof sheets, without suggesting any change whatever in the 
 "portion to which you have oljected, and as he has subsequently 
 " been pleased to approve my entire volume as it has been 
 " given to the public, and my whole course as its editor with- 
 " out the least exception, I respectfully suggest," &c. &c. 
 
 That part of the proof sheets objected to by Mr. Jay was as 
 follows : 
 
 " It remains only for me to acknowledge gratefully the kind 
 "assistance, often accompanied with friendly suggestions, 
 " which I have received from time to time from J. A. EUmil- 
 " ton and John Jay, and to return my heartfelt thanks." 
 
 This advertisement is dated July 13, 1863. On the 31st 
 July, 1863, Mr. Dawson wrote to me, enclosing the proofs as 
 follows : " I send herewith for your perusal rough proofs of 
 " the opening pages of," &c., &c. 
 
29 
 
 This letter was received on tlie 1st August, and on the same 
 day the proofs were returned, with a letter in which I said : 
 
 "Having read them (the proofs) with all the care my feehle 
 " health permits, the only change I have made is to strike 
 " my name from the number of those from whom you have re- 
 " ceived advice or assistance in your work ; I have done so 
 "under a conviction that I have not rendered you any; cer- 
 " tainly not such advice or assistance as permits such a notice, 
 "much less calls for it; and because I do not choose to be 
 " considered in any respect responsible for the work I have not 
 " examined. * * * I observe with regret, that your introduc- 
 " tion bears hardly upon Mr. Duane, and that others whose 
 " conduct was really censurable are not noticed. 
 
 " When you returned the papers I loaned to you, with the 
 " assurance that you had not and did not intend to use them, 
 " I was cut off from the privilege of offering advice in con- 
 " nection with the work. A part of those papers referred ' to 
 " ' the part which each took in its execution,' and contained 
 " important facts, some of which I am quite sure you cannot 
 " get elsewhere." 
 
 The reference in the foregoing letter to papers loaned by 
 and returned to me by Mr. Dawson was not to " family papers," 
 for none such existed, at least to the knowledge of General 
 Hamilton's family, but to extracts from reviews and memo- 
 randa in relation to the authorship of the numbers of the 
 "Federalist" which I had obtained from time to time. 
 
 It appears thus clearly that I had requested my name to be 
 stricken out of the advertisement (this was not done), and had 
 also objected to the introduction in other respects, imme- 
 diately upon seeing the " rough proofs of its opening pages," 
 and yet Mr. Dawson, in his letter to Mr. Jay, makes the asser- 
 
30 
 
 tion I liave quoted above in regard to my approval of his whole 
 course, and not suggesting any change whatever. 
 
 Subsequently, when Mr. Dawson sent to me a copy of his 
 work, I addressed to him the following note, January 2, 1864 : 
 
 "I received, on the 27th ult, your first volume of the 
 " ' Federalist,' for which receive my thanks. As I have not had 
 " time to read your introduction, I can only say that it is pub- 
 " lished in a most accomplished manner, indeed nothing could 
 " be better. I sincerely hope you may be requited by a rapid 
 " sale, which I will do all in my power to promote." 
 
 I understand this note has been published, omitting that 
 part in which I say I have not had time to read the introduc- 
 tion. 
 
 Afterwards, on the 9th January, I addressed him a note, in 
 which I stated that his introduction was " highly interesting," 
 or to that effect — meaning to refer to his account of the various 
 editions of the " Federalist " published in this country and in 
 France. 
 
 My attention was not called, however, to that part of it 
 criticising Mr. Jay and referring to Mr. ELamilton's strategy to 
 affect his object, until after the publication of Mr. John Jay's 
 letter of February 13, 1864. 
 
 It is hardly necessary for me to add, that those portions of 
 the introduction are as objectionable to me as that part relat- 
 ing to Mr. Duanb, of which I have already expressed my 
 opinion. 
 
 The only other point personal to myself, to which I shall 
 allude, refers to " copies of family papers" Mr, Dawson, in 
 September, 1862, enclosed a printed prospectus containing the 
 following paragraph : 
 
 " In the preparation of this edition of the 'Federalist' the 
 " subscriber has been favored with copies of the family papers 
 
81 
 
 " relative thereto, of General Hamilton and Chief Justice Jay, 
 " and he has also the pleasure to announce that, through the 
 " further courtesy of Hon. James A. Hamilton and that of John 
 " Jay, Esq., original portraits of Messrs. Hamilton and Jay will 
 " be used for the illustration of this work." 
 
 I assumed, of course, that the words " further courtesy " 
 referred to me, as the person who had favored the editor with 
 " copies of the family papers," and wrote to Mr. Dawson on 
 the 20th September as follows: "Your prospectus is received. 
 " I regret to find in it this statement ; ' In the preparation of 
 " 'this edition of the "Federalist" the subscriber has been fa- 
 "'vored with copies of the family papers relative thereto of 
 " ' General Hamilton.' I have no knowledge of any family papers 
 " of General Hamilton, and did not favor you with copies of 
 " such papers ; my brothers and friends know such papers do 
 " not exist. You therefore place me in a false position of haviug 
 " made a false representation to you. Be so good as to inform 
 " me of the papers to which you refer as having been given to 
 "you by me which justify this assertion. I shall be driven to 
 " make a public denial of your statement." 
 
 To this letter Mr. Dawson replied on the 24th September. 
 In his note, after stating that he did not perceive the force of 
 my exception, he says : " I have no desire, nor have I the time, 
 " to engage in an unpleasant controversy, either privately or 
 " through the press. I prefer rather, out of respect to you and 
 " out of respect to myself, to announce to the very few who 
 " have received my circular, as I will do immediately and fully, 
 " that they need not expect any use by me of papers or informa- 
 " tion which have been received from you, or for which you are 
 " responsible, except those which have appeared elsewhere over 
 "your own signature. P.S. I return with thanks the enclosed 
 
32 
 
 "letters, &c., of wMcli I have reserved no copy or portion of a 
 " copy, notwithstanding the interest they possess to me." 
 
 It will he remarked that my note, to which the ahove was 
 a reply, hrings distinctly to Mr. Dawson's notice that I inferred 
 that I was referred to as the person who had favored him with 
 copies of the family papers, and calls upon him to justify the 
 assertion. 
 
 His reply is an admission that such was the true interpre- 
 tation of his letters. If it had not been he would have said 
 80 ; but on the contrary he admits it by his promise to an- 
 nounce to the very few, &c. 
 
 As this note did not contain a frank avowal that I had not 
 furnished " copies of the family papers, &c.," which I certainly 
 did not, and did not know that any such existed — and I must 
 add that I do not now believe any such exist — I wrote again 
 to Mr. Dawson, enumerating particularly the papers I had 
 loaned to him, and which he had returned to me, and reiter- 
 ated my statement that I had not furnished him with such 
 papers as in his circular he alleged I had. But I was again 
 unable to obtain from him an admission that the statement 
 in the circular as to family papers was, so far as I was con- 
 cerned, wholly unfounded. 
 
 At my advanced age, I should not have been induced to 
 comment on Mr. Dawson's assertions, had it not been that one 
 of them placed me in the position of making a false represen- 
 tation to him, and through him to the public ; and the other 
 as approving a criticism on my father in which he is repre- 
 sented in the language of an intelligent correspondent " as a 
 " mere politician, deliberately uttering conscious sophisms and 
 " absolute untruths for the purpose of cheating the people into 
 " a course of action that should serve his selfish ends and those 
 " of his party." 
 
33 
 
 That this is a just view of that part of his introduction 
 referring to General Hamilton will be apparent to any one 
 who will read it attentively, and yet Mr. Dawson asserts that 
 I approve of this with the rest of his entire volume. 
 
 Surely even the slightest respect for a father's memory 
 would not permit such an assertion to pass uncontradicted. 
 
 As to Chief Justice Jay, " whose wisdom, foresight, firmness 
 "and patriotism always distinguished him," and who enjoyed 
 in an eminent degree the confidence of Washington as well as 
 of his most distinguished contemporaries, it is imppssihle that 
 I could have approved the groundless strictures upon his con- 
 duct and character. 
 
 A " literary detective " with a taste for calumny who will go 
 mousing about the scurrilous publications of the country 
 during the period of out ferocious party conflicts, will find that 
 the, wisest, purest and most patriotic men of those times on 
 the one side and the other were the subjects of most atrocious 
 libels ; and among others he will find that James Thompson 
 Callendee, an English hired calumniator, in a work published 
 in 1800, wrote thus of Washington : 
 
 " By his own account, therefore, Washington has been twice 
 " a traitor. He first renounced the King of England and there- 
 " after the confederacy." Again : " The extravagant popularity 
 " possessed by this citizen" (WAsmNGTON) "reflects the utmost 
 " ridicule on the discernment of Americans. He approved of 
 " the funding system, the assumption and the national bank ; 
 " and in addition to his own solemn promise he authorized 
 " the robbery and ruin of the remnant of his army." 
 
 At this day it cannot be necessaiy to vindicate the " Fed- 
 "eralist" or its authors from Mr. Dawson's criticisms. 
 
 For over three quarters of a century it has been studied and 
 admired wherever constitutional liberty has been valued, and 
 
 5 
 
34 
 
 will endure for the solid merit it possesses. M. Guizot, who 
 is respected in Europe as among the most learned and pro- 
 found of living statesmen, refers to it in the following lan- 
 guage : 
 
 "In the discussions of the numbers" (The "Federalist"), 
 " for all that combines a profound knowledge of the great ele- 
 " mentary principles of human government with the wisest 
 " maxims of practical administration, I do not know in the 
 "whole compass of my reading, whether from ancient or 
 " modern authors, so able a work." 
 
 The Edinburgh Review sajs: "'The Federalist ' is a publi- 
 " cation that exhibits an extent and precision of information, 
 " a profundity of research, and an acuteness of undterstanding, 
 " which would have done honor to the most illustrious states- 
 " men of ancient or modern times." 
 
 Jambs A. Hamilton. 
 April 4, 1864. 
 
MR. DAWSON'S REPLY TO MR. HAMILTON. 
 
 [Feom "Tbe EvEifiHO Post," Friday, Apeil 29, 1864.] 
 
 Morrisania, N. Y., April 8, 1864. 
 To THE Editors of The Evening Post: 
 
 A few weeks since I was constrained to ask your indulgence 
 while I defended myself, through your columns, against an 
 assault which had been made on my character by John Jay. 
 I am compelled, a second time, to appeal to your kindness 
 while I notice, as briefly as possible, a letter, over the signa- 
 ture of James A. Hamilton, which appeared in your columns 
 on Wednesday last, the sixth instant. 
 
 Mr. Hamilton is an aged gentleman, retired from the bustle 
 of life, with abundant leisure to follow the bent of his inclina- 
 tion whithersoever it may lead him. My personal acquaint- 
 ance with him is of many years' standing ; and, notwithstand- 
 ing we have crossed lances before, the animosities of the 
 moment have steadily passed away, leaving no ill-feeling be- 
 hind them to mar the general harmony of our intercourse. 
 He has rendered services to me for which I shall never cease 
 to be grateful ; and not even the letter to which this is a reply 
 can impair the high respect which I have long entertained for 
 
BG 
 
 himself and for the members of his own immediate family— 
 the living as well as the departed. 
 
 Mr. Hamilton's letter consists of what he wishes to be con- 
 sidered a denial that " he has been pleased to approve my en- 
 " tire volume [' The Foederalist '] as it has been given to the 
 " public, and my whole course as its editor, without the least 
 " exception ;" of his denial that he has furnishedme with " family 
 " papers relative to ' The Foederalist,' " of which he denies the 
 very existence ; of his disapprobation of an assumed insult, in 
 my volume, to the memory of his father ; of an endorsement 
 by him of the character of Chief-Justice Jay ; and of a couple 
 of commendatory notices of " The Foederalist" itself. 
 
 Concerning " The Feeder alist" and Chief- Justice Jay, Mr. 
 Hamilton's opinions will pass for what they are worth, and no 
 more ; nor can the name he bears add an iota to the value of 
 his endorsement, either of the Chief-Justice or of " The Foed- 
 " eralist." 
 
 Concerning his indirect denial of what I claim to be his ap- 
 proval of my editorial labors, I have a few words to say. 
 
 Mr. Hamilton has referred to the " rough proof-sheets " 
 which, on the thirty-first of July, 1863, 1 sent to him for ex- 
 amination and correction ; which were returned by him to me 
 on the following day with only one proposed correction ; and 
 which were corrected, in part, to meet his expressed wish. 
 Now, Messrs. Editors, Mr. Hamilton has not only not quoted 
 from " the rough proof-sheets," as he pretends in his letter to 
 you, but, by omissions and interpolations, he has misrepresented 
 the language of the corrected proofs and of the printed 
 volume ; and he is welcome to the laurels which, unopposed, 
 he has won on so questionable a field. 
 
 I have referred to a limited compliance, on my part, with 
 his expressed wish, concerning the language of those " rough 
 
87 
 
 "proof-sheets" — to my refusal to strike his name from a long 
 list of gentlemen who, from time to time, had rendered me 
 assistance, often accompanied with friendly suggestions, for 
 the purpose of adding to the interest and value of my volume ; 
 and Mr. Hamilton's subsequent correspondence shall prove 
 whether or not he did not subsequently waive even that ob- 
 jection to my editorial labors. 
 
 My reason for refusing to gratify Mr. Hamilton by striking 
 his name from my list was this : He had furnished for my use 
 the portrait from which I copied that which I have since used 
 in my volume ; and he had personally visited the library of 
 The New York Historical Society, where I principally labored, 
 for the very purposes for which I rendered the thanks which, 
 even now, I have no disposition to withdraw. The principal 
 object of Mr. Hamilton's call was to examine the original 
 portraits of General Hamilton which hang in the Society's' 
 gallery, and to offer such suggestions concerning them, for my 
 use, as he might consider necessary. The result of that call, - 
 on the subject referred to, was his reiterated disapproval of 
 all other portraits of his father than the Talleyrand miniature 
 of which he had furnished me with a copy which I still own ; 
 and he also favored me, while at the library, with a careful 
 examination of my plan for editing the work ; he compared 
 my corrected copy of the text of " The Fmderalist" with the 
 original edition, and with the current mutilated copies of that 
 text — both of which are to be found only in that library ; he 
 expressed his indignation at the liberties which had been 
 taken with the original text by modern, so called, editors ; he 
 read, or listened while I read to him, every line of the illus- 
 trative notes to Number I. which were then before me, and 
 which will be printed without any alteration, except one which 
 he has since suggested, in my next volume ; and he approved — 
 
if I understand tlie term aright — and even applauded, my 
 efforts to do justice to the work; closing the interview by 
 renewing a previous warning of the opposition to my work 
 which one of his brothers might possibly interpose ; by urging 
 me to disregard that animosity, should his brother show any ; 
 and by promising to me his own support and assistance. I 
 conceived, therefore, that my thanks were justly due to him, 
 and I refused, while I publicly thanked any one by name, to 
 strike his name from the list. I have not yet changed my 
 opinion on that subj ect ; and your readers shall decide between 
 us whether I acted properly in thus disregarding his wish in 
 the correction of my "proof-sheets;" while his own cor- 
 respondence, subsequent to the expression of that wish, shall 
 serve as evidence of Mr. Hamilton's own opinion on the 
 subject. 
 
 There is one subject in connection with these " rough proof- 
 " sheets," however, which Mr. Hamilton has not alluded to in 
 his letter to you. Is this the result of mere forgetfulness, or 
 was it inconvenient for the purposes of those who have 
 managed this subject, " over Hamilton's signature," to let the 
 matter see the light ? 
 
 The " proof-sheets " of the " Advertisement," to which he 
 has alluded in his letter to you, were accompanied in the same 
 wrapper with similar "proof-sheets"' of all those portions of 
 the "Introduction" wherein Chief-Justice Jay and General 
 Hamilton were alluded to : and Mr. Hamilton returned these 
 also, with no other suggestion than : " I observe with regret that 
 "your Introduction bears hardly upon Mr. Duane, and that 
 "others whose conduct was really censurable are not noticed;" 
 and, consequently, the forms were sent to press, just as he re- 
 turned them, without alteration. 
 
 If a " literary detective with a taste for calumny, who will 
 
39 
 
 " go mousing about the scurrilous publications of the country 
 " during the period of our ferocious party conflicts " is not an 
 enviable character, as Mr. Hamilton suggests in the latter part 
 of his letter, why, in his letter of August 1, 1863, did he 
 " observe with regret " that other " mousings " had not been 
 made beside that concerning Mr. Duane? Why, also, if 
 General Hamilton and Mr. Jay had been improperly treated 
 in those " proof-sheets," were not tliey referred to when the 
 " proof-sheets " were returned ; and why were not their cases 
 "regretted" in the accompanying note, as much as Mr. 
 Duanb's ? Was his sympathy for Mr. Duane greater than that 
 for his father and Mr. Jay ; or has the offence become more 
 heinous, since the matter is no longer in " proof-sheets " but 
 in printed volumes ? 
 
 Nor has Mr. Hamilton's memory served him better concern- 
 ing his correspondence of a still later date. 
 
 The lamented death of his eldest daughter having occurred 
 within a few days of the publication of my volume, I did not 
 send a copy of the work to Mr. Hamilton until the close of De- 
 cember; and five days after he received it, (January 2d, 1864), 
 " with his best wishes " he sent to me the note which he has 
 copied in his letter to you : " I sincerely hope your labors may 
 " be requited by a rapid and extended sale," he remarked there- 
 in, " which I will do all in my power to promote." 
 
 Again : On the 9tli of January, 1864, in a note in which he 
 returned the original of President Quincy's letter addressed 
 to me in commendation of my volume, Mr. Hjvmilton defended 
 the portrait of General Hamilton which illustrates my work, 
 from a criticism on its character as a likeness which Mr. 
 QuiNCY had made, and added : " I beg to renew my thanks for 
 " your most valuable edition of that great work. Your Introduction 
 "is most interesting f and, in support of my views concerning 
 
40 
 
 the authorship of the work, and in opposition to those of his 
 brother, he added: "The question as to the authorship of 
 '"No. LXIV.' is put at rest by the discovery of the manuscript 
 " in Jay's handwriting." 
 
 A few days later I addressed a note to Mr. Hamilton, inquir- 
 ing the addresses of his brothers Alexander and Philip S., and 
 enclosing a notice of my volume and of its principal author, 
 which had been published in the Boston Traveller. On the 
 twenty-first of January he answered that note, giving the 
 addresses of his two brothers, and adding : " I hope your work 
 " is going off so rapidly as to permit you to make all these 
 " presents, for which receive my thanks in advance ;" — a sug- 
 gestion which I was prevented from following only because 
 the edition had been exhausted, when, a few days afterwards, 
 I called at my publisher's for copies. At the same time he 
 advised me of a fact which he had learned from one of his 
 neighbors — that another edition of the work was in progress 
 in Philadelphia — and evinced considerable solicitude on the 
 subject; and he closed by referring to the notice of my 
 volume in the Traveller, which I had sent to him, in these 
 words : " The notice of your ivork in the newspaper you sent to 
 " me is a just tribute to you and to my father. I thank you for it" 
 
 As the rival edition to which he alluded is that which is to 
 be issued by the brother against whose opposition he had 
 warned me, and is designed to defend and perpetuate the 
 very corruptions in the text which he had noticed in such 
 indignant terms at the library of The New York Historical 
 Sociaty, while the original and the corrupted texts were both 
 before him, on the table at which he sat, his solicitude on the 
 subject of the information which his neighbor had given to 
 him can be easily accounted for ; and it is not dif&cult to 
 understand why he sj promptly advised me of what he him- 
 
41 
 
 self styled "a competitor in the market," when you shall 
 remember the promise of his support and assistance, at the 
 close of his interview with me in the library before referred to. 
 
 You may readily ascertain also, what, as recently as the 
 twenty-first of January last, Mr. Hamilton considered "a just 
 " tribute to you and to my father," from the following extracts 
 from the article in the Boston Traveller of January 2d, 1864, 
 to which he, himself, applied this remark : " Mr. Dawson has 
 " done a noble work, and deserves the highest praise of his 
 " countrymen, in preparing this beautiful edition of The Feeder- 
 " alist," etc. " This edition is the best that has appeared, and so 
 " far superior to all others, that comparison with any of its pre- 
 "decessors is entirely out of the question. He enumerates 
 "twenty different editions of the work .... but all these 
 " editions must give way to the twenty-first, which leaves 
 " nothing more to be desired, so thoroughly has Mr. Dawson 
 " discharged his well-assumed duty." " The Introduction, which 
 " extends to some eighty pages, is a history of ' The Federalist,' 
 "complete in all its parts and speaking forcibly, in behalf of 
 " Mr. Dawson's ability as a historian, an inquirer, and a critic, 
 " and showing how conscientiously, industriously, and impar- 
 " tially he has labored in the performance of a great task, one 
 " of the worth of which it is impossible to speak too highly." 
 Surely if these remarks, with others which are not lees grati- 
 fying to me, nor less honorable to my character as an Editor, 
 were only "a just tribute" to me, on the twenty-first of Janu- 
 ary, 1864, they cannot have been less so on the fourth of the 
 present month, when he wrote his letter to you. I leave it to 
 Mr. Hamilton and your readers to reconcile this difference of 
 opinion. 
 
 Again : On the eighth of February, 1864, in acknowledging 
 the receipt of a copy of the work on large paper, Mr. Hamh^ton 
 
 6 
 
42 
 
 remarked : " I pray you to receive my grateful thanks for this 
 "renewed evidence of your kindness and attention," without 
 alluding, even by inuendo, to his suspicion, if he entertained 
 any, that he had received a libel on his father, or a misrepre- 
 sentation of himself, or a falsification of the truth of history. 
 
 I need say little more on this subject. If my volume was 
 so untrustworthy, or if my editorial labors had not been 
 approved by Mr. Hamilton, as I have stated in my letter to 
 John Jay, why, on the 2d of January, 1864 — five days after his 
 receipt of the perfected volume — did he extend to me " his 
 " best wishes," both generally and for " a rapid and extended 
 « sale" of the work, with his promise to " do all in his power 
 "to promote" such a sale? If the memory of his father, or 
 that of his father's friends had been unjustly referred to in my 
 volume, why did Mr. Hamilton, in the month of January, 
 1864, without any reservation or condition whatever, "beg to 
 " return his thanks for your most valuable edition of that great 
 " work ;" and why declare, at the same time, with equal empha- 
 sis, "your 'Introduction' is most interesting?" If my entire 
 course had not been satisfactory to him, why, on the 21st of 
 January, 1864, twenty-four days after the perfect volume had 
 been placed in his hands, did he pronounce the elaborate and 
 highly complimentary notice of the Boston Traveller "a just 
 " tribute to you and to my father ?" Why, indeed, on the 
 eighth of February, was he still " grateful " for a more elegant 
 copy of the same work, than that which he had previously 
 received ? Is it not incredible, Messrs. Editors, if any such 
 insult really existed, that during all the period while Mr. 
 Hamilton was thus writing, he never alluded to nor even 
 hinted at what he now affects, or others affect for him, to con- 
 sider grevious insults to the memory of General Hamilton 
 and Chief-Justice Jay; that during the six weeks which 
 
43 
 
 elapsed from liis receipt of my completed volume, until his 
 "grateful" acknowledgment of a second copy of it, he never 
 even discovered them ; and tliat it remained for the magnifying 
 powers of John Jay, the younger, to make them perceptible 
 to his less vigilant faculties ? 
 
 The only subject of Mr. Hamilton's letter which remains to 
 be noticed is the stale one of "family papers," concerning 
 which / never pretended, and do not now pretend, that a single 
 line was furnished by him for my use. He appears to grieve 
 because " the deceived public," as he has termed it, may sup- 
 pose he supplied " the family papers of General Hamilton re- 
 " lative to ' The Fcederalist,' " which I propose to use in my work ; 
 but why should he grieve ? Has he forgotten, or does he sup- 
 pose " the deceived public " has forgotten, that the " family 
 " papers of General Hmilton," on all subjects, have been made 
 matters of merchandise, and that for several years past, as the 
 property of the United States of America, those " papers " have 
 been accessible to every respectable person who has desired to 
 examine and make copies of them ? At any rate, I would sug- 
 gest that the son of General Hamilton should be the last per- 
 son to raise any question concerning his father's "family 
 " papers ;" last of all should he he the person to agitate the ques- 
 tion of the history of those papers, or the opportunity which 
 others, besides himself, have enjoyed to know and use their 
 contents. 
 
 There is one other subject, in connection with those 
 " family papers," which Mr. Hamilton has glanced at in his 
 letter to you — he has more than glanced at it elsewhere ; and 
 John Jay, in a letter to me, which has appeared in your co- 
 lumns, has more elaborately discussed it. 
 
 Mr. Hamilton states "I have no knowledge of any [such] 
 " family papers of General HLvmilton ; * * * * my brothers 
 
44 
 
 « and friends know sucli papers do not exist," as those of which 
 I have stated, and still state, I have copies which I intend 
 to use. 
 
 Mr. Hamilton professes to be an ardent admirer of the 
 truth ; he even claims to be an honorable man. In view of 
 these professions, how does he reconcile this statement with 
 the petition and description of those papers, by Elizabeth 
 Hamilton, his mother, to the Congress of the United States, 
 presented in the Senate on the 12th of January, 1846, and 
 printed in Senate Documents, 29th Cong., First session. No. 52 ? 
 While this claim was on his lips or under his pen, how dared 
 he deny his own personal knowledge of the existence of any 
 such " family papers " as I have described, in the face of his 
 own assurance to the contrary, when, in January last, he was 
 applied to by some other person, through one of his neighbors, 
 for the use of such papers ; and in the teeth of his letter to 
 me, on the 21st of January last, in which he voluntarily com- 
 municated to me the particulars both of that application by 
 his neighbor and of his answer thereto, how dare he repeat 
 that denial in his letter to you ? When he penned that letter 
 to you, quite as well as at the date of his answer to "Mr. 
 " Williams," and at that of his letter to me, notwithstanding his 
 assertions to the contrary, he well knew that " family papers 
 " of General Hamilton relative to ' The Fcederalist ' " really ex- 
 isted, and that some of them had been published by his 
 mother in the edition of Hamilton's works which she caused 
 to be printed under her contract with the United States. 
 [Vide Congressional Globe, 29th Cong., 2d Sess., page 88; 
 Statutes at Large of the United States, Volume IX., page 284.] 
 How then dare he look you in the face and ask space in your 
 columns for the publication of such a denial ? Did he tell a 
 falsehood to his neighbor when he referred him to certain 
 
45 
 
 printed copies of " family papers " of that description ? Did 
 he volunteer a lie when, without solicitation, in January last, 
 he communicated to me that reference to printed copies of 
 such papers, and the occasion which had produced it ? . . . 
 "I answered," were his words, "I have no such papers, and 
 " have never seen any. There are two or three letters written by 
 "my father in 1787, referring to it, which are published in his 
 "works." If not, how shall I characterize his denial, in his 
 letter to you and elsewhere, of the existence of " any " such 
 "family papers," and of the knowledge of his "brothers and 
 " friends " concerning them ? 
 
 One subject more and I will close. Like a "high minded" 
 man, as he ever has been, Mr. Hamilton warned me of the 
 approach of a great catastrophe ; and in a note dated on the 
 6th of March, 1864, he proposed terms on which " the great 
 " impending injury to my character," as he subsequently termed 
 it, could be averted — " your true course is to adopt Mr. Jay's 
 " suggestion in the last paragraph of his published letter of the 
 " 13th February last," were his terms ; and he hoped, "by adopt- 
 " ing that course and informing him [J. A. H.] that I had de- 
 " cided to do so, I would release him from a very painful duty." 
 
 The character of the terms on which Mr. Hamilton's silence 
 could have been obtained will be seen — as the motive of his 
 offer will be seen also — when the paragraph of John Jay's 
 letter, to which he alluded, shall be read. " I would suggest," 
 was the very modest proposition, " that you shorten your ' In- 
 " 'troduction' to the ' Federalist' by striking out all your com- 
 " ments on the work, all your strictures upon its authors, all, in 
 
 " SHORT, THAT CLAIMS TO BE EITHER CRITICAL OR HISTORICAL, and that 
 
 " you make what amends you may for the singular injustice which, 
 " whatever the motive or the cause, you have done to the authors of 
 ''the 'Federalist,' and especially to my [John Jay's] ancestors." 
 
46 
 
 More amused than alarmed at the intimation of danger from 
 Mr. Hamilton, on the twelfth of March, 1864, 1 replied to his 
 proposition to become accessory to my wrong-doing, by in- 
 forming him that " I respectfully declined to comply with his 
 "request." The subsequent correspondence on this subject, 
 which is not inconsistent with the above, when Mr. Hamu^ton 
 shall remove the ban of privacy which he has interposed, will 
 further illustrate the subject. 
 
 Arrogantly assuming that his word can either create or 
 destroy such an individual as I am, and indignant that I had 
 rejected his proffered terms, Mr. Hamilton has not considered 
 it necessary even to attempt to prove the existence of any such 
 error or misrepresentation as that which he has affected to 
 discover in my volume ; but, more indiscreetly as I conceive, 
 he has adopted what he has supposed will be a shorter 
 remedy — he has rushed into print. He could not have done 
 more than this, had I, as in the case of John Jay, referred 
 unsatisfactorily to his grandfather, whom I have not even 
 mentioned. By reference to my volume, which is on your 
 shelf, you will perceive that I have not been guilty of any 
 such impropriety — ^I have not even insinuated that General 
 Hamilton was a traitor to his party ; and I shall consider my- 
 self fortunate, and my children may so consider me, if I ever 
 deserve and receive as good a character as I have given to 
 Alexander Hamilton, as he was in 1787, in my "Introduction" 
 to " Tlie Fcederalistr 
 
 Notwithstanding all that has been wr-itten against my work 
 and myself, Messrs. Editors, it is a notable fact that its great 
 peculiarity remains unimpeached, even by Messrs. 3k^ and 
 Hamilton ; while the narrative of the causes which led to the 
 preparation and original publication of the work stands un- 
 contradicted even by iny most malignant enemies. Why, 
 
47 
 
 tllen, this acrimonious feeling wliicli has been developed since 
 my volume has been before the world ? I challenge John 
 Jay and James A. Hamilton to indicate, with competent evidence 
 to prove it, that I have fallen into any material error in that 
 narrative. I invite them, and I invite all their friends, to 
 produce competent testimony to shake b sentence of that 
 " Introduction." I pledge myself, as I have done from the 
 beginning, to correct any error into which I may have fallen, 
 whenever competent testimony shall be offered, in any quarter, 
 to prove that any such error really exists. 
 
 But the great peculiarity of the volume no one has dared 
 to assail ; and no one dare assail it, even by inuendo. The 
 purity of the text of " The Fcederalist " is the feature which 
 most concerns the reader of that work ; and, as the original 
 edition, which the distinguished authors wrote and corrected 
 and published in the newspapers of the day, and which " The 
 " People of the State of New York," to whom it was addressed, 
 read and discussed and acted on at the polls, is in the city 
 of New York, and may be examined and compared with my 
 reprint by any respectable person who shall ask for permission 
 to do so, the fidelity with which I have discharged my duties 
 as its editor may be easily ascertained. I invite such an ex- 
 amination. It would please me greatly even if the Jay and 
 the Hamilton should condescend to become the examiners. 
 What other editor of " The Fcederalist " dare make a similar 
 offer ; or, concerning what other edition than mine can this 
 be said and adhered to ? 
 
 In conclusion, let me, through you, respectfully suggest to 
 those who are engaged in seeking to stifle historical inquiry, 
 that the day has passed when the actions and opinions of 
 public men, on public questions, are to be treated as too 
 sacred in their characte* for the inspection and criticism of 
 
48 
 
 " the vulgar throngs " who compose the sovereign people ; 
 and the sooner such pretenders shall adapt themselves to the 
 new order of things the better will it be for themselves, for their 
 posterity, and in many cases for the memory of their an- 
 cestors. 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 Henry B. Dawson. 
 
THE FEDERALIST, 
 
 WITH BIBLIOGRAPHICAL AND HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION AND NOTES. 
 BY HENRY B. DAWSON. 
 
 Printed at the Riverside Press, on tinted paper. With Portrait. 1 vol. octavo, 740 pages, in 
 cloth. Price, $3.75; law sheep, $5.00 ; half calf, $6.00. On large paper— in paper, stitched, 
 $10.00 ; in muslin, $12.00. Copies sent by mail or ex^tvess, prepaid, on receipt of price. 
 
 A new and carefully prepared edition of THE FCEDERALIST, printed from the original 
 teat, to which have been added a Historical and BiLliographical Introduction, a synoptical 
 Table of Contents, and elaborate Notes, in which are introduced the manuscript memoranda 
 which are found in the copies formerly owned by Mr. Madison, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Ames, Chan- 
 cellor Kent, Mr. Rush — the latter in Mr. Madison's handwriting — and other friends of the author. 
 
 The following extracts , from the large number of letters which have been receivedfrom 
 distinguished statesmen and scholars, will indicate the great favor with which Mr. Daw- 
 Mon's edition of THE FCEDERALIST has been received : 
 
 From Hon. Jamis A. Hamilton, son of Gen. HAHiLTOif, the principal author of The 
 
 Fcederalist. 
 
 "DoBBs' Ferry, Jan. 2, 1864. 
 *' As I have not had time to read your Introduction, I can only say that it is published in a 
 most accomplished manner : indeed, nothing could be better. I sincerely hope your labor will 
 be requited by a rapid and extended sale, which I will do all in my power to promote.^'' 
 
 From the same gentleman, Jan. 9, 1864: 
 
 " I beg to renew ray thanks for yowr moat valuable edition of that great work. Your 
 Introduction is most interesting." 
 
 From Judge Vfu. D. Shipman, U. S. Court. 
 
 " No other edition of this great work can at all compare with yours, either in typographical 
 beauty or accuracy and fullness of matter, and it will be diflQcult, hereafter, for any to surpass it, 
 for you seem to have exhausted the materials which can shed light on its origin and the history of 
 tts publication." 
 
 From. Hon. E. Bates, Attorney-General, United States. 
 
 "It comes out, just now, very opportunely. For if it be true, as Cicero says, that ' In all- civil 
 wars, success on either side is dangerous, because it always produces, in the victors, arrogance 
 and a disregard of the principles of the Government,' it is now, more than ever, important that 
 the minds of men should be attracted to the contemplation of the constituent elements of the 
 nation, and to the principles of the Government, upon which alone it can safely rest. 
 
 " And the Federalist, I believe, is admitted, on all hands, to be the wisest instructor of our 
 ■tatesmen, and the surest guide to national prosperity and permanence." 
 
 From Hon. Robbrt C. Winthrop, President of the Massachusetts Historical Society, 
 
 "Boston, Dec. 29, 1863. 
 " Mt Dear Sir : I thank you sincerely for sending me the first volume of your noble edition of 
 the Federalist. Your historical preface is full of interest and value, and the great writings of 
 the immortal trio will have a fresh relish in so authentic and admirable a form." 
 
 From Hon. William B. 'Rm'D, formerly United States Minister to China. 
 
 " Philadelphia, Dec. 26, 1863. 
 " My Dear Sir : Many thanks for your book. I have devoured, though hardly yet digested 
 Tour Introduction, which seems to me admirable, temperate, judicial, decided." 
 ■* „ * * * A * 
 
 From the venerable Josiah Quingt, LL.D., late President of Harvard University. 
 " I cannot sufficiently express to you my gratification for the beautiful new edition of th« 
 Federalist, with which you have favored me. A work long desired by me, for I recognize its 
 value in all times, present, past and future. It deserves to be immortal not only from the good 
 it effected, but from that powerful light which it will forever throw on the hiitory of our .Con- 
 stitution, and on the principles which lay at its foundation. 
 
" Seeing it reproduced in a style, and with accompaniments so truly worthy of it, reTives In 
 my mind long forgotten pleasures, when I read it in the course of its issuing from the press, when 
 I read its numbers with the enthusiam of youth, and though ignorant of its authors, full of joy 
 and approbation at its power and success in demolishing those Anti-Federal doctrines with which 
 the new Constitution was assailed in every stage of its formation, and in that of the earliest 
 period of its existence. Your work brings up memories grateful and rejuvinating." * * * 
 
 0PIN-I02SrS OF THE PRESS. 
 
 "The time has clearly come for a fresh edition of this memorable work. It was time, too, to 
 gather up, digest and present the array of illustration, and commentary furnished by the gains 
 and losses, the glories and disgraces, of three-quarters of a century. This laborious task has 
 been undertaken with a most creditable zeal and pursued with a most painful industry by Mr. 
 Dawson^and we are indebted to him for the anxious care witfi which he has disinterred the 
 original Federalist. In closing this notice, we are glad to acknowledge the author's un- 
 wearied labors in behalf of a work which deserves and will rewa,rd all his care." — North 
 American Review. 
 
 " It is a matter of gratification that an edition has at last appeared, edited by one so thor- 
 oughly conversant with the history of the peri 4, so painstaking, accurate, and critical. It is 
 the only edition to stand on the shelf of a choice library, and is one that few libraries can 
 dispense with.^ No work more timely than this.'''' — New York Historical Magazine. 
 
 " A most elaborate edition — as haudsome as paper and type can make it, and enriched with a 
 preface which discusses at vast length, and with every appearance of great research, every point 
 conuected with the authorship of the work, and with the particulars of the editions through 
 which it hasj-un." — London Saturday Revievf. 
 
 " It will be seen that Mr. Dawson has aimed to furnish the public with an edition which shall 
 be perfectly satisfactory ; and it is evident that he has spared no pains to illustrate in the most 
 Buitable manner this series of political papers, the most able ever given to the public. This edi- 
 tion will now undoubtedly be accepted as of standard authority, at least as far as the text 
 itself of The Federalist is concerned." — New Englander. ^ 
 
 "This must henceforth rank as the edition of a work indispensable to every Btud.jnt of our 
 history and government," — American Theological Review. 
 
 " Kare gobd sense and editorial fidelity are shown in giving the essays in the original text of 
 the authors, without addition, abridgment, correction, or any alteration. These vicious varia- 
 tions had become very numerous, and at vast labor Mr. Dawson has restored the original. This 
 is believed^ therefore, to be the first correct edition in this respect." — Boston Review. 
 
 "This edition is the best that ever has appeared, and so far superior to all others that com- 
 parison with any of its predecessors is entirely out of the question. All other editions must give 
 way to this, which leaves nothing more to be desired, so thorougly has Mr. Dawson dischai-ged 
 his well-assumed duty. The text which has been adopted is that lohich the distinguished 
 authors themselves originally gave to the world, without addition or abridgment." — Boston 
 E.vening Traveller. 
 
 ■ "Mr. Dawson has gathered together in his elaborate Introduction a great variety of curious 
 details with regard to the original camposition of the work — the authorship of the respective 
 papers, and the history and the characters of the successive editions. He has performed the 
 task with evident zealous interest in the subject, with a pains-taking and minute thoroughness of 
 research, which is as uncommon as it is commendable, and with unmistakable explicitness in the 
 statement of its results." — New York Tribune. 
 
 " Now, fur the fii'st time. The Federalist is presented in the exact form, and from copies of the 
 same papers, in which the work was transmitted by Gen. Hamilton to Gen. Washington, in I78T. 
 Altogether, this stands as the best edition of The Federalist ever issued, in all its par 
 ticulars." — Boston Post. 
 
 "Mr. Dawson's edition is the best that has been published ; among- its other merits, he has 
 conscientiously restored the original text to the work."—Neio York Independent. 
 
 " This edition is sure to find its way into every valuable library, and to be accepted as the 
 standard." — Hartford Evening Press. 
 
 " Mr. Dawson has discharged his duty with raarked ability, and with an amount ofresearch 
 truly wonderful. It is claimed with great truth that it is the most correct, as it certainly is 
 the most elegant edition yet issued."— Buffalo Commercial. 
 
 " A new issue of these able state papers, which, by careful editing, a complete table and index, 
 and an attractive typography, is marked as the standard edition."— Rev. J. Thompson, D.D., 
 {notice in the London Patriot.) 
 
 "The country needed a new edition of this celebrated historical work, and here is out that 
 should satisfy the most ctitical. The editor has done his work thoroughly, and he had 
 ample store in hand to render this a most perfect edition."— Philadelphia Presbyterian 
 Standard. 
 
 C. SCRIBNER, Publisher, 
 
 124 Grand Street, New York. 
 
/7^ 
 
 ''**-• -V- 
 
 ^. ^' 
 
 ^\f| 
 
 '^y^- .; 
 
 /X ; 
 
 
 ^v^:-