'"V.

^*

* ^ '

i

n

.•J-

' -V

. . '^'-'ij»' ,/i^ «<iSfe

4ft'!'w Vrf^ '','*'¦'•! ',.i,'i ."T J '

.,5. . ¦ .(fi-T,.^,-

" ,, i ) , J ,i. ' . 11.'
1. i '- . r ^ , 5 ¦" 1 'i ' , ; ' ^1
-. .1. 't t M »8-i 1 ^
. -'> Itl-. •..At'l'i*' < J- , - »
' " . . J . " ?^- (1 -. -.

_*; *jsu-'

i^'.^i-^^'--'

r^-^SiE:-.

^»-!.tl;

. -* ,fc "' *

(W-

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

Purchased from the income
of the fund established by
JAMES LYMAN WHITNEY
(B.A. 1856)
for books
in the field of science

WILLIAM BRANCH GILES: A STUDY IN
THE POLITICS OF VIRGINIA AND
THE NATION FROM 1790 TO 1830

To
ADA ASH ANDERSON,
Faithful Co-laborer

jWilHam Branch Giles: A Study in
the Politics of Virginia and the
Nation from 1790 to 1830

DICE ROBINS ANDERSON, B.A., M.A., Ph.D.
Professor and Head of the Department of History and
Political Science
Richmond College, Richmond, Virginia.

GEORGE BANTA PUBLISHING CO.
MENASHA, WIS.
1914

COPTKIQHT, 1914, By
Geobge Banta Puelishins Company
publishbks
Ck33, i-sa

PREFACE
A life of William Branch Giles has long been a desideratum.
His active labors in the formation of the Democratic-Republican
Party, his long service in legislative bodies — the General Assem
bly of Virginia and the House of Representatives and Senate of
the United States ;—— and his leadership in eajch of these bodies ;
his dramatic career as Governor ; his spectacular appearance in
newspaper and pamphlet literature as well as his reputation
for marvellous forensic abilities ; indeed the variety of his ani
mosities and the conspicuousness of his many enemies — these
things and others point him out as a figure worth studying.
He was a friend of Jefferson and an enemy of Hamilton. He
became a foe of Gallatin and Monroe. He finally espoused the
cause of Andrew Jackson and developed into the bitterest of
the enemies of John Quincy Adams. Like all men he went
through cycles of political opinions. In the days of Jefferson
he shared the idealism and enthusiasm of small farmers and
artisans, of the Baptists, Presbyterians, and Methodists who
crowded one another in trying to touch the hem of free-thinking
Jefferson's garment ; he fought against the National Bank, pro
tective tariff, and the American Navy; he struggled against
usurpations of power by the General Government. He came,
however, to write drastic laws based on a broad construction
of the Constitution and deplored lack of energy on the part
of the Federal Government; he even cooperated in Federalist
attacks on Republican administrators. He ended his career
with the same ardor for State Rights and strict construction
which had characterized his youth, but adopted a most un- Jef-
fersonian hostility to Democratic change in the Constitution of
Virginia. He closed his days as an apostle of unyielding con
servatism and as a prophet of secession.
The life of this remarkable Virginian has greatly interested
the writer. If the story has been well told, it will interest the
reader. It is a story difficult to put together because the mater
ials have been extensive on those phases of the life which are
least interesting, and scattered and few on those phases that

would prove most entertaining. Giles was a most generous
public writer and copious speaker but apparently a very stingy
letter writer. No effort has been omitted to discover material;
or to study it. Interpretation has likewise been no easy task.
Although little work has heretofore been done on Giles's hfe, ye .
every writer of history for the period 1790-1830 has thought
it his duty to give an estimate of this remarkable Virginian.,
A characteristic opinion is that of Henry Cabot Lodge who has
spoken of him as a "coarse political ruffian" and "a rough,]
brazen, loud-voiced Virginian, fit for every bad work, no matteK
how desperate." The history of the time in which Giles Hvecfl
has been written very largely by the descendants and partisans!
of his enemies — and their opinions of him have been unusuallyj
bad. It has been difficult to avoid accepting the views of the;
talented New England historians on the one hand or on the;
other, in a reaction from them, to avoid taking opinions!
from another school, equally as partisan. The task has been|
rendered the harder by the limitations of space the writer felt;
it necessary to obey.
The work has been made easier and more pleasant by the
kind assistance of many generous friends. To Professors Dodd
and McLaughlin of the University of Chicago, I owe a large
debt of gratitude for years of kindness. Mr. Hunt and his staff
at the Congressional Library ; Dr. Mcllwaine and his assistants^
at the Virginia State Library; Mr. Stanard and the Virginia
Historical Society ; Mr. Henry Adams, the famous historian of
the administration of Jefferson and Madison; Mr. T. P. Giles
and the members of the interested family ; Dr. H. J. Eckenrode,
my distinguished colleague in the Department of History at
Richmond College ; and many others in various parts of the
country have helped when called upon. ,
I wish to acknowledge with particular gratitude the persis-|
tent kindness of Mr. Earl G. Swem, the immensely capable^
Assistant Librarian of the Virginia State Library who has
several times read both the manuscript and the proof, and to
Mr. E. J. Woodhouse, Instructor in History at Yale Univer
sity, who gave unstintedly of his valuable time in token of a
cordial friendship of many years' standing .

To my wife, more than to all others, I must make acknowl
edgment of never failing aid given in countless ways during the
five years that this study has been around the house, and of
many sacrifices which she has cheerfully made in behalf of
my labor.
It is certainly only fair for me to express here my appreci
ation of the painstaking care, the unfailing courtesy and even
the generosity of Mr. George Banta and his staff, the publishers
of this book. They thoroughly know their craft, and yet are
patient with young authors, who know neither the printer's
craft nor their own.
I wish also to express here my appreciation of the action of
the Illinois Division of the Daughters of the Confederacy in
conferring upon the writer of these pages their prize for 1914.
Whether their judgment as to this particular piece of work is
correct or not, certain it is that their endeavor to encourage
attempts at genuine scholarship in Southern History is worthy
of emulation. Richmond College, Richmond, Va.,
Sept. 2, 1914.

CONTENTS Page
Chaptek I
Early Years  1
Chapter II
Fighting the Federalists  10
Chapter III
The Jay Treaty  36
Chapter IV
The Retirement of Washington and the French War. ... 51
Chapter V
The Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and the Election of
1800  61
Chapter VI
Republican Reformation : War on the Courts  76
Chapter VII
Monroe's Treaty and the Burr Trial  101
Chapter VIII
The Chesapeake Outrage and the Treason Bill  112
Chapter IX
The Campaign of 1808 : Repeal of the Embargo  122
Chapter X
The Smith Faction  146
Chapter XI
The War of 1812: Triumphant Insurgency  171
Chapter XII
"Putting Claws on GaUatin"  185
Chapter XIII
Closing the War : Retirement of Senator Giles  196
Chapter XIV
State Rights in Virginia after the War of 1812  207
Chapter XV
The Convention of 1829-30  229
Bibliography  238
Appendix —
Index —

WILLIAM BRANCH GILES: A STUDY IN THE POL
ITICS OF VIRGINIA AND THE NATION, 1790-1830
D. R. Anderson
CHAPTER I
EARLY YEARS
If legend could be accepted as truth the biographer of
William Branch Giles would be compelled to go back at least
as far as Roman days. For Caius Licinius Stolo, author of
the Licinian rogations, also discovered "the best method of
clearing away" "useless suckers" from trees and furnished to
his family occasion to place the "verdant branch" upon their
coat of arms. All the Branches, Brancos, Braunches, Branshes
and the rest, whether found in Spain, France, Italy, England,
or America, according to the story, owe the origin of their
name to the horticultural genius of the ancient patriot. It
may, as says the family genealogist, to whom the present writer
is much indebted, be "a deal more easy to shrug aside the Licin
ian origin of the Branches than it is to disprove it."^ But
this writer will attempt to do neither, and will pass on therefore,
to the next items in the list. The reliable history of that por
tion of the Branch family in which we are interested, begins
with Richard Branch who moved to Abingdon in Berkshire
County, England, in the latter part of the fifteenth century.
This Richard was a woolen draper by trade and likewise master
of the important guild entitled, the Fraternity of the Holy
Cross. His second son was William Branch, mayor of Abing
don, who married into the ancient family of Bostock. Lionel,
third son of the aforesaid William, was an "unthrifty and dis
obedient son" and left his son Christopher with such small sup
port that at the age of seventeen years Christopher and wife
set sail for the new land of promise — the land of the Virgin
Queen. They settled at "Arrowhattocks" in that part of Henrico
County subsequently to be called the County of Chesterfield.
'James Branch Cabell, — "Branch of Abingdon." To this book and its
companion, "Branchiana", I am indebted for some genealogical matter.

2 William Branch Giles
Christopher Branch's son and grandson bore the same Christian
name as himself. The third of that prenomen had a son Henry
by name, to whom was given in the providence of God a
daughter, Ann. Ann Branch married William Giles, father of
the subject of our biography.
William Giles, the father of William Branch Giles, was the
son of John Giles, who was the son of William Giles and
Bethenia Knowles, the only child of Captain John Knowles
who left any issue. William Branch Giles, born August 12,
1762, was the youngest child of WiUiam Giles and Ann Branch.
There was an older brother, John, who served in the Revolution
ary war and received bounty lands in Kentucky which on his
eariy death he is said to have left to his younger brother.'
Of John an interesting story is told by Colonel William Fon
taine in a letter dated October 26, 1781, seven days after the
surrender at Yorktown of which he writes: "All property
taken from the inhabitants by the British is liable to be claimed
by them. In consequence Master Tarleton met with a most
severe mortification yesterday. The hero was prancing through
the streets of York on a very fiery, elegant horse, and was met
by a spirited young fellow of the country, who stopped him,
challenged the horse and ordered him instantly to dismount.
Tarleton halted and paused a while through confusion, then
told the lad if it was his horse, he supposed he must be given
up, but insisted to ride him some distance out of town to dine
with a French officer. This was more, however, than Mr. Giles
was disposed to indulge him in, having been forced when he and
his horse were taken to travel good part of the night on foot
at the point of the bayonet ; he therefore refused to trust him
out of sight, and made him dismount in the midst of the street
crowded with spectators. Many such instances have since
happened on the road."^
"MS. Memoirs of Mrs. William Overton, a granddau^ter of WUliam
B. GUes.
'Memoirs of a Huguenot FamUy. Translated and compUed from the
original autobiography of the Rev. James Fontaine, etc., by Ann Maury,
N. Y. 1853, pp. 444-447.

Early Years 3
The father of the statesman was a man of influence in the
county of Amelia and vestryman of the parish church.* When
he died his son William Branch became executor under a bond
of 5000 pounds and on the death of the widow, William B. was
to receive her five hundred and seventy-six of the nine hundred
and seventy-six acres belonging to the home place.^ To these
five hundred and seventy-six acres Congressman Giles — for the
father died in 1793 — ^was to add many hundred more.
To understand the life of Giles one must understand the
section and county of Virginia in which he and his people for
two generations before him had lived. Amelia county is one of
the eastern counties of the great Piedmont section of Virginia.
Set off from Prince George in 1734, it bore during the youth of
Giles some of the characteristics of a semifrontier region. It
was sparsely settled, its roads were bad, and though rich in
gentle blood and distinguished citizens, gave to the traveler no
very pleasant impression. According to a neighboring clergy
man writing in 1776 "it had for many years been notorious for
carelessness, profaneness, and immoralities of all kinds. Gam
ing, swearing, drunkenness, and the like, were their delight,
while things sacred were their scorn and contempt."* Francis
Asbury, however, writing in 1804 speaks of "solitary Amelia,
with its worn out fields of hundreds of acres, and old houses
falling into ruins."^ Into Amelia as into the rest of the Pied
mont and western portions of the state dissenting sects and
preachers found their way. The wave of Scotch-Irish Presby
terians passing from Hanover west and the wave from the val
ley passing east made their contribution to the population of
the circle of counties within which Amelia lay.' In 1771, also,
the separatist Baptists of Virginia had in this county their
largest congregation.* And in May 1780, dissenters from Amelia
sent a petition to the legislature desiring that the vestries in
' See Order Book of Amelia County 1780-1783, 36. Meade's Old Churches,
Ministers, and FamUies, u, 33.
"WUl Book of Amelia Comity 6:107.
' Asbury's Journal, vol. i, 311 (3 volume edition, N. Y., 18S3).
'Ibid, vol. iii, 169.
'Meade, u, 30.
"Semple, Virginia Baptists (Beale's revision), 70.

4 William B. Giles
the several parishes be dissolved and hereafter be freely elected
by the people ; further also, that marriages by dissenting minis
ters be declared lawful." The established church of which
William Giles was vestryman had fallen into a bad way. From
1773 to 1776, the minister in Raleigh parish was Rev. John
Brunskill — and to his unpopularity is attributed some of the
misfortunes of the established church in the county. Brunskill
was a loyalist — an imprudent loyalist. He is alleged to have
declared from his pulpit that to take part in the Revolution
was rebellion. The Archers, the Tabbs, the Egglestons, and
probably the Gileses arose on this occasion and walked deliber
ately from the building threatening bodily chastisement on the
"execrable parricide."^^ What Episcopalians remained faithful
no doubt, were not far removed in faith and practice from the
dissenting sects. The soil of Amelia, therefore, was suitable
for a gospel of discontent and democracy. Amelia county was
fated to follow Jefferson and Giles.
In such an environment was Giles born and brought up,
Nothing whatever of his youth has come down to us. His
father was anxious that his youngest son should receive an
education and therefore sent him to the newly-established col
lege of Hampden-Sidney. Hampden-Sidney College, located in
Prince Edward county, the next county southwest from Ameha,
was established by the Presbyterian Scotch-Irish of Virginia
and was liberally patronized by ambitious young men of the
Piedmont section of the state. At Hampden-Sidney, Giles was
under the immediate care of President Samuel Stanhope Smith,
an eloquent preacher as well as able administrator. When
President Smith resigned in 1779 to accept the chair of Moral
Philosophy in another Presbyterian College dear to the hearts
of Piedmonters, the college of New Jersey, he took along with
him a number of Virginians and Hampden-Sidney students.
Indeed it was no unusual occurrence for sprightly young men
from the regions of the south to make their educational pilgri
mages to the famous Presbyterian College at the north. James
" See Copy in James's Struggle for Religious Liberty in Virginia, 70
"Meade, Old Churches, Ministers, and Families of Virginia, ii, 21,

Early Years 6
Madison and Henry Lee both had done so, and many of Giles's
associates in Virginia were Princeton men. He and his negro^^
under the especial care of Professor Smith went along with the
rest. Giles's most cherished friend, Abraham B. Venable, his
predecessor in the Senate of the United States, and a victim
of the horrible theatre fire in Richmond in 1811, was a fellow
student as were the two other Venable boys, Samuel and Rich
ard N. Also many of his associates in national politics were
fellow students during a part of his course. The most dis
tinguished of his classmates in 1781 was Edward Livingston,
afterwards member of Congress, Secretary of State, and Minis
ter to France.^^ Livingston and Giles, with four others received
the degree of Bachelor of Arts at the Commencement of 1781.
From Princeton, Giles went to William and Mary, following
another precedent established by eminent men— to study under
the great legal teacher. Chancellor Wythe. In the Amelia
County Order Book under date of December 22, 1785, occurs
the following item: "On motion of William B. Giles Gent this
court doth recommend the said William B. Giles to the Exam
iners appointed by law as a Person of Probity Honesty and
Grand Demesne." On the twenty-third of March, 1786, the
said "William B. Giles Gent." produced his license, and was ad
mitted to practice in the Court.^* Launching into the prac
tice of the law, he qualified in the courts of Petersburg and
the neighboring counties.
Petersburg, where by 1790 Giles had a "house,"^^ "was a
tolerably neat little town, built along the riverside, only two
streets deep, and a mile and a half in extent, on a hill of
pretty rapid elevation." Its society was "polite, obliging, and
hospitable." Its principal business was the tobacco trade.
Wagons bearing hogsheads of this product came in from the
"The wealthier Virginians took negroes with them when they went off
to school. For instance in 1754 eight of the students at WUIieim and Mary
had negroes to wait on them.
" See Samuel Davies Alexander' — "Princeton during the Eighteenth
Century," N. Y., 1873. This gives a list of the graduating classes and very
brief biographical sketches.
"Amelia Coimty Order Book.
"Letter of Edward Bland, May 37, 1790. Ms. Va. Historical Society.

6 William Branch Giles
surrounding counties of Virginia, but especially from North
Carolina for which Petersburg served as an emporium. As at
Richmond, flour mills were in abundance, and churches scarce."
But this deficiency bothered young Giles no whit for he had
in early days no great reputation for piety — ^however much the
court of Amelia may have found him to be a "Person of Probity
Honesty and Grand Demesne." "Giles's career at the bar,"
says a friend, "was rapid and successful beyond precedent."
In opposition to Patrick Henry in a case, he won the praise
of the great orator for his manner of conducting his side of
the controversy.^^ Frequently he was called upon to plead
the cases of British creditors.
It has proved impossible to find details of Giles's profes
sional career ; it is known that his career at the bar was notable.
He continued the practice of the law during his congressional
life, and was called by Jefferson a lawyer of eminence.^^ Accord
ing to Giles himself, by 1792 he had been employed in at least
one hundred British debt cases, and was "as successful in collect
ing monies under judgments as is usually the case with citizens
of the state of Virginia." It is interesting to note his remark
that "in all cases within my recollection in which the debts
were established by competent testimony, judgments were ren
dered for the plaintiff."^' This was also the opinion of Monroe,
who says that it was always the contention of ablest counsel
at the bar that there was no state law in the way of the col
lection of debts due British creditors, and that if there had
been the Treaty would control it. However, Monroe admits
that British merchants declined bringing suits before the for
mation of the National Government, but claims that since the
peace of 1783 they had been progressing with great success in
amicable settlements.^"
"The Journal of Latrobe, 107-110. See also description by Schoepf
in his Travels (translation by Morrison), vol. 2, 73.
"Am. State Papers, Foreign, I, 334.
"Richmond Enquirer, December 16, 1830.
" Letter to Jefferson, May 6, 1793. Jefferson MSS. Library of Congress.
See also Am. St. Papers, For. I, 334.
''"Am. State Papers, For. I, 334. Monroe was in a position to know, as
he went aU over the State pleading for the creditors.

Early Years 7
Because of the prominence of these cases in Giles's law prac
tice it will be desirable to give some account of the question at
issue. Before the Revolution Virginia planters sent their to
bacco to England in payment for British goods brought up
to their very doors by British ships. The balance, however,
was generally against the planter, and when the Revolution
came, Virginians owed much to creditors in the old country.''^
An act of the General Assembly in 1777^^ allowed the debtor
to pay his debt into the loan office of the state. Another act
of 1779^^ vested British property in the Commonwealth by
escheat and forfeiture. The Treaty of 1783, however, stip
ulated that creditors on neither side should meet with lawful
impediment to the recovery of their bona fide debts. But de
spite the treaty, the British failed to surrender the western
posts which they held or to make payment for negroes which
they had carried off. Resolutions adopted by the General As
sembly in June, 1784, declared that "so soon as reparation
is made for the aforesaid infraction [carrying off negroes], or
Congress shall judge it indispensably necessary such acts of
the legislature passed during the late war, as inhibit the re
covery of British debts, ought to be repealed, and payment
made thereof in such time and manner as shall consist with
the exhausted situation of this commonwealth."^* An act of
December 12, 1787, repeals all laws preventing the recovery
of debts due British subjects but suspends this repeal until the
posts have been surrendered and negroes paid for;^^ another
act left to the courts the determination as to whether debts
paid into the loan office were discharged.^^ In the meantime
the Constitution and laws of the United States 'and treaties
made under the authority of the United States had become the
supreme law of the land. The cases in which Giles was inter
ested probably all fell after 1787.
»The British claimed the amount was £3,000,000. The Complete Anas
of Jefferson, 78.
=^Hening 9: 377.
^'Hening 10: 66.
"Journal House of Delegates, May Session, 1784, 74.
==Act of Dec. 13, 1787. Hening vol. 13: 538.
=» Act, January 3, 1788.

8 William B. Giles
The argument which Giles offered was probably that known
to have been offered in other cases. The laws of Virginia
passed during the Revolution, said British creditors, did not
confiscate debts, for debts are in international law not subject
to confiscation. But in any case the Treaty of 1783 was su
perior to the laws of the States and the Treaty had not been
abrogated by violations committed by Englishmen. The cases
were probably the most valuable which Giles could have argued
— they necessitated a study of the statutes and history of
Virginia, a reading of Vattel and all the great authorities on
international law; and an interpretation of the Federal Con
stitution. They offered him an education, useful in his public
career. But the nationalistic inclination which he immediately
received was to be very quickly outgrown.
Although a faithful lawyer and little of a politician down
to 1790, Giles was an interested observer of all that was going
on. During the sessions of the convention of 1788 when the
great struggle between the giants was taking place over the
question of the ratification by Virginia of the Federal Con
stitution, William B. Giles was among the young men who
crowded to Richmond to be spectators of the wonderful con
test.^' George Mason heard him discuss the merits of the great
question at a hotel, and later in the day is said to have reported :
"there was a stripling of a lawyer at the Hotel this morning
who has as much sense as one-half of us, though he is on the
wrong side."^* Giles was an enthusiastic supporter of the new
Constitution, and as is well-known. Mason was one of its lead
ing opponents.
The Constitution was ratified, the government organized,
Giles continued to practice law. However, in 1790 a vacancy
occurred in the representation in Congress from his district
through the death of Theodorick Bland. Entering the race
for the vacant seat the young lawyer found himself opposed by
Colonel Edmunds, a wounded veteran of the Revolutionary war,
and very popular. Vigorously espousing the cause of the new
" CoUections of the Va. Hist. Society, New Series, vols. IX, X. Grigsby's
History of the Virginia Convention of 1788 edited by R. A. Brock.
=* Enquirer, Dec. 16, 1830.

Early Years 9
Constitution, disdaining to ask for a vote or adopt any ques
tionable means to secure the victory, he won by virtue of his
cause and his ability.^* He entered the national service at
the early age of twenty-eight and was to remain in it almost
continuously for a quarter of a century. He was to play one
of the most prominent roles in the history of our national
legislature. =» Enquirer, Dec. 18, 1830.

CHAPTER II
FIGHTING THE FEDERALISTS
To anyone who has followed the subsequent career of Giles
it is diverting to learn that he bore with him to Philadelphia a
letter of introduction to Madison written by John Marshall
who calls the young Petersburg attorney "my friend."^" The
future chief justice, however, must have been very cautious in
recommending his friends, if this letter is a fair sample of his
recommendations: "My friend Mr. Giles," he says, "will
present you this. He is particularly desirous of being known
to you. I should not presume so far on the degree of your
acquaintance with which I have been honored as to introduce
a gentleman to your attention if I did not persuade myself that
you will never regret or change any favorable opinion you may
form of him." If Giles took the liberty of reading this letter
of recommendation, one will have to admit he had good reason
for his almost lifelong and bitter enmity to the great Federalist
lawyer. All men of prominence were not as reticent about
Giles's qualifications as was John Marshall. For a letter from
Edward Carrington to Madison follows him to Philadelphia,
and is interesting enough to quote in full:
"It was my intention to have committed to Mr. Giles the
successor of Colo. Bland for the district*^ in which I reside,
a letter of introduction to you, but his recovering from a spell
of sickness and setting out for Philadelphia earlier than I
expected prevented my doing so. You must before this have
formed some acquaintance with him yet I cannot forbear to
recommend him as my valuable friend to your particular at
tention — though yet a very young man he has acquired high
reputation in both the superior and inferior Courts of this
State — you will find him upon trial to possess real genius,
'"Madison MSS. Library of Congress.
''The District was composed of the foUowing counties: Brunswick, Sus
sex, GreensviUe, Prince George, Dinwiddie, Mecklenburg, Limenburg,
Amelia, Cumberland and Powhatan. See Act of Virginia Legislature passed
November 30, 1788— Acts 1788, 4.

Fighting the Federalists 11
acquired knowledge, and solid honesty such as will make him a
valuable coadjutor'^ in our representation.""
Although Giles entered Congress as a staunch supporter of
the new government, he did not favor a government strong at
the expense of the states nor a government dependent on stock
jobbers and speculators. Coming from the upcountry hills of
a state predominantly rural, chaperoned by James Madison, he
would find no difficulty in convincing himself that the cause of
the Constitution and the new government was not the same as
the cause of Hamilton's policies. He was ready to accept all
the ideas of Jefferson, to throw himself eagerly into the struggle
against the "fearful monarchical" danger, and to stand guard
over Republican principles. He reached the seat of the
National Legislature too late to take part in the first fight
on Assumption, bitterly opposed in his state, but he found
ample opportunity to show his principles and powers in the
third session of the First Congress,"* which he entered De-\
cember 7, 1790.
Placed on the Committee on Military Affairs'' at the be
ginning of his Congressional service, he was for many years in
House and in Senate to hold a position of influence in the dis
cussion of military policies. On December 16, he opposed an
amendment to the militia bill on the ground of "improper inter
ference with the authority of the state Government." Thus
he sounded the keynote of much of his career — defence of State
Rights. Though departing, as we shall see, from this principle
at times, he stood by it with more than the usual consistency of
a politician. For it he was to make his last tragic struggle,
when Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams were forming an
other party, which was to inherit Federalist conceptions of
statesmanship. ^The word is repeated in the original.
=* Madison MSS. Library of Congress.
"* However, in the Second Congress he fought Hamilton's recommen
dations for "an immediate general assumption." Annals, 3nd Cong., 1st
Sess., 495. '"^
'^Annals, First Congress, vol. ii, 1971.

12 William B. Giles
The most important matters, however, engaging the atten
tion of this session of Congress were the excise and the National
Bank. On December 13, 1790, Hamilton sent to Congress two
reports, one recommending an excise on the manufacture of
spirituous liquors, the other recommending the establishment
of a National Bank. On the first bill Giles seemed much more
vacillating than was to be characteristic of him ; he had as yet
not found himself. At first seeming to favor the excise on the
ground of necessity, he soon urged the recommitment of the biU
in order that its defects might be remedied. He favored a motion
to limit the period of the excise and declared he was afraid there
was too much sympathy in the House with public creditors.
Finally he swung over into oppositon to the measure,'" and had
committed himself against the policies of Alexander Hamilton.
However, the bill became a law on March 3, 1791. Southern
members resisted its passage as long as possible ; it would, they
declared, be a heavier burden on the south than on the other sec
tions of the country. North Carolina, they claimed, would
have to pay ten times as much as Connecticut, and Virginia and
Georgia would suffer in like degree.
At the same time that the excise biU was under discussion,
the Bank bill was also before Congress. Against it the Anti-
Federalists threw their strength. Admitting that the proposed
bank would do all that Hamilton claimed for it — increase the
"active capital," afford the Federal Government greater facil
ities in the management of its financial operations, and provide
a medium of exchange for the public, one must concede that
there were grave dangers to be expected from its establishment."
A combination of government and individuals in a large finan
cial corporation, however expedient otherwise, was certainly
open to serious abuses. Large opportunities were offered for
the promotion of the interests of legislators of a financial turn
of mind or their friends, and the concentration of the moneyed
resources of the country at one center would not improbably
be a drain on the resources of remote districts. There might,
""Annals of Congress, First Cong., 3rd Sess., 1851, 1875, 1881, 1883,
1884, 1971. Madison voted for it.
" Schouler, History of the United States, vol. i, 175.

Fighting the Federalists 13
from the point of view of a Virginia farmer, be unlimited op
portunity for the northern interests to expand at the expense
of their less shrewd and less favorably situated brethern of the
south. New York and New England, the proteges of Hamil
ton's various financial enterprises, naturally favored the Bank
bill; the farmers of the South who had already suffered from
the scheming beneficiaries of these policies could but view this
project with alarm.'" Then, too, banks at the South were an
unusual spectacle and in the West, the ally of the South, they
were known only by reputation. Southern and western peopled
felt no need for financial institutions, and least of all for an
institution which enjoyed special privileges and could maintain
a monopoly. When they did discover a use for banks, they
wished local banks, representing their own interests, responding
to their control,'* and not subject to the restraining influence
of a great moneyed corporation. To his dying day Giles
viewed with suspicion any kind of bank and looked with bitter
hostility on a central flnancial corporation.*" The opposition
" See attitude of Patrick Henry who controUed Virginia at this time.
He saw in Hamilton's policies a subordination of southern to northern
interests. Henry's Henry, ii, 460.
See an interesting article by C. A. Beard on "Economic Origins of
Jeffersonian Democracy" in American Historical Review, XIX, 382.
Beard says (p. 394) "The major portion [of Virginia certificates funded]
had been bought up by brokers and speculators in Virginia towns and in
Baltimore, New York, Philadelphia, and other financial centers"- Vir
ginians received in 1795 from the Federal Government $63,300, whUe citizens
of Massachusetts received $309,500.
"^ There is no careful study of banking in Virginia. The only book on
the subject is "A History of Banks and Banking Prior to the CivU War"
by William L. Royall, N. Y. and Washington, 1907. Prior to 1804, accord
ing to Royall, there was no banking in Virginia carried on in the modern
way. There were, as there had been in Colonial and Revolutionary days,
unchartered banks. In 1793, with apologetic preambles, the Bank of
Alexandria (Act of Nov. 33) and the Bank of Richmond (Act of Dec.
33) were chartered. The latter does not seem to have been established or
must have been short-lived, and the first chartered bank to be permanently
established in Richmond was the Bank of Virginia chartered January 30,
1804. See Christian, W. A.— "Richmond, her Past, Present, and Future"
59. However, by act of December 10, 1795, the Bank of the United States
was authorized to estabUsh branches in Virginia.
"GUes was made director of the Bank of Virginia. He soon retired.
This bank was presided over by his closest friend, A. B. Venable.

14 William Branch Giles
of the Anti-Federalists was, therefore, not a mere artificial and
partisan opposition designed for factional advantage or based
on mere political theory; it was perfectly conscientious, per
fectly logical, and perfectly in harmony with the desires of their
constituents. The great difficulty was their inability to devise
a system which could be offered as an adequate substitute for
the banking system.
On the subject of the Bank, Giles spoke February 7, 1791.
As the Bank was to be the theme of many of his subsequent.
speeches and essays, an examination of his views on this occa
sion is desirable. He attacked both the constitutionality of the
measure and its expediency. It was, he said, authorized neither
directly nor indirectly by the Constitution. Inference from no
specific clause would allow it, nor would a proper interpretation
of the preamble, or the general welfare, or the elastic clause
allow it. The word, "necessary," as it appears in the eighteenth
of the clauses enumerating the powers of Congress, meant only
"without which the end could not be produced." It was true
that the context of the Constitution included all the ends of
government, but the execution of these purposes was distributed
between state and nation. This was, he thought, a Federal, not
a consolidated government/ Constitutionality did not grow
out of "incidentality to the mere creation and existence of
government," nor did it grow out of expediency. Such doc
trines, if accepted, he feared would have evil effects on the po
sition of the states, for "their dignity and consequence will not
only be prostrated by it, but their very existence radically sub
verted." If it were claimed that Congress had been in the habit
of doing unconstitutional things, it was high time to make a
correction. This act, he declared, was an unprovoked advance
in the scramble for authority between the United States and
the individual states. A continuance in such a policy would in
crease the jealousies of the people and would result either in
the abandonment of the policy or in a radical change in the
government.** - : •
" Annals of Congress, under date, Feb. 7, 1791.

Fighting the Federalists 16
The Bank was established and the controversies shifted to
other policies. Meanwhile, however, Jefferson had begun to
organize his followers into a party. It was not sufficient to
fight against individual measures proposed by Hamilton. The
men who were generally found on the side opposite the financial
dictator must be fused into a body, with one soul and one spirit,
ready to combat whatever purposes the Secretary of Treasury
might choose to assert, and looking ultimately to the time when
they themselves should be able to dictate the policies of govern
ment and fill the offices. To weld together the forces of opposi
tion was a work for which the Secretary of State was wonder
fully endowed. Possessed of tact and patience, of magnetism
and kindly tolerance, of unusual facility in smoothing away
partjj^ differences and jealousies, and withal endowed with gen
uine conviction and devotion to high idealism, Jefferson was the
one man to found a great national party. Ignorant of the com
plex and effective party machinery and weapons of our own day,
by skillful use of tongue and pen in the quietest of ways he
brought others to do his will and to fight the men and the
evils he hated. In Virginia he had effectively marshalled his up-
country farmers, his Baptists and Presbyterians, and abolished
entails and primogeniture and established freedom of religion.
Piedmont and western Virginia in 1776 was but a prototype
of the Piedmont and Transmontane regions of the United States
in 1791. Why not bind the rest of the nation together to fight
the battle of Democracy, as the west of Virginia had been bound ,
together to fight in a smaller field that same battle? The same
men who hated primogeniture and entails and wished absolute
equality for all religious sects, suffered when northern and
eastern speculators cheated them out of their securities, when
excises were placed on their liquor, and when a great moneyed
corporaton was created to control credit. And just as they had
hated the councellors and bigwigs who, assembled at state Cap
itols, refused to grant representation fair to the western sec
tion, so they hated executive influence in the nation — and Presi
dential levees. Seething with discontent over one measure after
another proposed by the new government, which many of them

16 William B. Giles
had wished never to see established, they were ready to flock to
the standard of one who believed as they did and who knew how
to battle for their rights. The basis of Jefferson's new party
was the discontent of men who had already fought against po
litical and religious monopoly at home — who now thought they
felt the choking hand of political and flnancial monopoly stran
gling the nation. Jefferson found ready to help in the labor of
making this discontent effective for the accomplishment of
practical results James Madison, Albert Gallatin, Nathaniel
Macon, and by no means least, William B. Giles — the best
practical politician of them all.*^ To the cause of Jefferson,
GUes gave a resourcefulness and boldness unsurpassed by the
greatest of them, and a talent for effective speech unequalled
by any other man in the Congress of his day.
Giles's first experience in Congress was evidently satisfactory
to his constituents, for he returned without difficulty to the
.Second Congress. On his return to Congress in October, he
launched into the debates with vigor, fearlessness and at times,
ferocity. The bitter tongue and biting words of William B.
Giles have often been described by historians, particularly
by those residing in the northeastern corner of the country.
Few of the men, it must be admitted, whose oratory has re
sounded in legislative halls have so frequently and unreserved
ly spoken exactly what they thought with such entire disregard
of consequences or of the feelings of opponents. Few men
have made more bitter enemies or had less charity shown them
by critics and historical writers than this same outspoken
Virginia statesman. Washington, Hamilton, Monroe, Gallatin,
Madison, Henry Clay, and John Quincy Adams among the
greater characters in American history were at one time or
another the recipients of his taunts and denunciations. Before
the Second Congress had adjourned he had found subjects and
characters worthy of his forceful vocabulary. But in studying
the career of this vigorous, erratic, and often uncharitable
debater, one must be ever on guard not to be misled by his
"This is the opinion of Timothy Pickering given in a letter to John
MarshaU, January 34, 1836. Mass. Hist. Society, Pickermg MSS.

Fighting the Federalists 17
manner of speech. He was not always wrong when his tongue
was sharp. It often was his hatred of what he considered fraud
and his devotion to what he considered the fundamental rights
of the states and the people that made him overzealous in their
cause. In this character he was to figure in the session now
to begin.
Congress opened October 24, 1791, and Giles was present at
the beginning. The chief party conflict of the first session was
the struggle over the reapportionment of representation. The
Constitution had arbitrarily fixed the representation for the
time being as was necessary in the absence of a census of the
population. But a census was to be taken within three years
after the first meeting of Congress, and thereafter representa
tion should not exceed one for every thirty thousand of popula
tion.*' Such a census had been taken in 1790, and now the prob
lem of apportionment gave trouble; the followers of Jefferson
in the House desired to enlarge their body in order to improve
the condition of their party and to increase the influence of the
House as compared with other departments of government.
They favored, therefore, an apportionment on the basis of
30,000, a ratio which would permit a House of 113 members
as against the present house of sixty-nine, and would produce
a result favorable to the South.** On such a question there
could be but one position for Giles ; on November 14 he delivered
a speech in favor of one representative for every thirty thousand
people, and returned to the same subject on April 9, 1792.
To him the adoption of a ratio of apportionment was a vital
matter. Involved in it was nothing less than the fight of the
people against plutocracy and of pure republicanism against
its present betrayers. "The revolutions in property in this
country," he asserted, "have created a prodigious inequality of
circumstances. Government has contributed to this inequality ;
the Bank of the United States is a most important machine in
promoting the objects of this moneyed interest. The Bank will
be the most powerful engine to corrupt this House. Some of
" The United States Constitution, Art. I, sect. 2, par. 3.
** Schouler, i, 306.

18 Willla.m Branch Giles
the members are directors of this institution;*^ and it wiU only
be by increasing the representation that an adequate barrier
can be opposed to this moneyed interest." Also he declared:
"The strong executive of this Government ought to be balanced
by a full representation in this House."*^ On April 9, he as
serted that the natural tendency of all representative govern
ment was, through the inequalities in the distribution of wealth,
to move from republicanism to monarchy ; and the government
through the manipulation of the public debt, the assumption
of state debts ; the creation of a sinking fund had stimulated
"this growing inequality in the distribution of wealth." He
openly espoused the cause of the "agricultural or equalizing
interest." He contended that it was a question whether the
"simplicity, chastity, and purity" of republicanism be pre
served or whether the Government would "prostitute herself to
the venal and borrowed artifices and corruptions of a stale
and pampered monarchy," and that "whatever his own opinions
or suspicions may be respecting the tendency of the present
administration," he hoped that increased representation "will
favor an effective resistance to the pressure of the whole vices
of the administration, and may yet establish the government
upon a broad, permanent, and republican basis." In true
Jeffersonian fashion, studying the desires of the people, he en
deavored to show that they expected the ratio of one to 30,000.
In answer to the charge that such a ratio would work a disad
vantage to some of the states, he pointed out that representa
tion in the Senate had been to their advantage. On account of
the manner of representation in the Senate a minority of con
stituents might give the law to the majority; this had happened
in almost every important measure.*' How just was this argu
ment made by Giles may be seen by reference to the census of
1790 wherein Virginia is shown to have a population of 747,610,
nearly twice as large as that of any other state and twelve times
as large as the state of Delaware, and yet each had two votes
in the upper house. A bill passed the House in the form the
"This was, of course, true.
"Annals, Second Cong., 1st Sess., 178-179. (November 14, 1791).
"Annals, Second Cong., 1st Sess., 543-548,

Fighting the Federalists 19
Republicans desired — the Senate changed the ratio to that of
1 to 33,000. On a disagreement of the two houses the bill was
lost. A second bill was vetoed by the President — his first ex
ercise of that power — and a third bill providing a ratio of 1 to
33,000 became law.*' According to this law the membership
of the House became 105 instead of 113, as the House desired,
and the representation of Virginia was increased from ten to
nineteen. Another bill became law during this session, the discussion
of which gave Giles an opportunity to display his customary
antipathy to favoritism by government. This bill was one for
the encouragement of the bank and cod fisheries, proposing to
substitute for the drawback on salt used in canning fish for
exportation a bounty on ships engaged in the fisheries. Giles,
though not inclined to push his opposition too far, found dif
ficulty in seeing the constitutionality of bounties. Besides he
considered them economically bad and very truly said if an
occupation was productive it needed no bounty, and that giving
it an artificial advantage lessened the wealth of the country. In
the minds of those who have seen the experience which the
country has had since the Civil War and now view the present
uprising against special privileges to particular industries, the
following sentence, though a little strong, must strike a re
sponsive chord: "Bounties," he says, "in all countries and at
all times, have been the effect of favoritism; they have only
served to direct the current of industry from its natural chan
nel, into one less advantageous or productive ; and in fact, they
are nothing more than governmental thefts committed upon the
rights of one part of the community, and an urvmerited govern
mental mwnificence to the other. In this country, and under
this Government, they present an aspect peculiarly dreadfvl
and deformed."*'
If Giles was opposed to bounties and privileges for others,
he wished none for himself. When an act relating to the postal
system of the country was under consideration, he opposed
« Schouler, i, 306.
"Annals, Second Cong., 1st Session, 397-400. Feb. 8, 1792.

20 William B. Giles
granting the franking privilege to members of Congress. He
saw in it "an exemption from a pecuniary obligation" — and the
principle he considered as "dangerous." Congressmen were
not to be subject to the same duty that was imposed on their
constituents, and this was what struck him as "highly dan
gerous."^" The climax of the attacks on Hamilton and his policies came
in the second session of the Second Congress, and Giles led the
fight. In a discussion of the question whether the Secretary of
the Treasury should be asked to frame a plan for the reduction
of the debt, he declared "some of the measures recommended
by the Secretary of the Treasury discovered a princely
ignorance of the country, for the wants and wishes of one part
had been sacrificed to the interest of the other. "^^ When a biU
was presented in accordance with the recommendation of Ham
ilton, providing for the negotiation of a new loan for the pay
ment of the debt of $2,000,000 due by the Government to the
Bank of the United States, Giles proclaimed himself averse to
increasing our debt by any new loans and advocated the sale of
the government stock in the bank in order to raise the money. °^
The result of the opposition was the failure of the bill and
the substitution of one providing for only $200,000 for the in
stallment of the debt then due.^' But the most conspicuous part
played by the Virginia member was his presentation of the two
famous sets of resolutions of January and February 1793 di
rectly and formally attacking the Secretary's conduct of the
business of his department. It was doubtless an effort to drive
Hamilton from the cabinet.^* On December 27, 1792, while the
bill was under consideration authorizing the President to bor
row $2,000,000 for the reimbursement of the Bank of the
United States, Giles had offered a resolution calling on the
President to send to the House a statement in regard to the
loans made by his authority and the manner in which they had
™ Annals, 398.
"Annals, Second Cong., 3nd Sess., 706.
"^Ibid, 763.
"Act, March 3, 1793.
"Bassett, Federalist System, 104.

Fighting the Federalists 21
been expended.^^ In answer to this and other resolutions Ham
ilton had sent down a report. Not satisfied with it Giles came
forward on January 23 with a series of five resolutions.^'
Copies of the papers authorizing certain loans were called for,
the names of persons by whom and to whom the French, Span
ish, and Dutch debts had been paid were asked with dates of
drafts and payments, a statement of semimonthly balances
between the United States and the Bank down to the end of
1792 was demanded, and an account of the sinking fund and
the balance of unapplied revenues through 1792 was required.
In explanation of the presentation of these resolutions, he
announced what everybody certainly knew by this time that
"impressions resulting from my inquiries into this subject,
have been made upon my mind, by no means favorable to the
arrangements made by the gentleman at the head of the Treas
ury department." Congress had been legislating for some years
"without competent official knowledge of the state of the Treas
ury," and despite this "have engaged in the most important
fiscal arrangements." He stood in the attitude of an inquirer
and was open to conviction.^'
These resolutions of January 23, 1793, are now generally
attributed to the suggestion of Jefferson and to the pen of
Madison, and Giles is represented as their tool in presenting
them. It is doubtless true that Jefferson was behind them and
Madison made a draft of them. But the assumption that Giles
was a mere automaton responding to the pull of these men or of
any others cannot be held for a moment by any man who has
studied the career of the very able and self-confident politician
"* Annals, Second Cong., 3nd Sess., 761. A succession of resolutions of
inquiry were offered — one by Parker of Virginia on December 34, directing
the Secretary of the Treasury "to lay before the House an account of the
application of the moneys borrowed in Antwerp and Amsterdam for the
United States, during the present year;" on Dec. 37, that referred to
above ; on Dec. 31, directing the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary
of War to lay before the House lists of persons employed by them with
salaries of each officer.
^Annals of Congress.
"Annals, Second Cong., 3nd Sess., 840.

22 WiLLLAM Branch Giles
who introduced these resolutions.^' Giles was on intimate terms
with Jefferson and Madison and seemed to have one element
of superiority over either, and that was an unflinching courage.
The resolutions and those that followed were, as we shall see,
disastrous for the proposers. Giles deserves to share the blame
equally with Jefferson and Madison for a mistaken and un
timely partisan move.
In answer to these resolutions came three letters" from Ham
ilton purporting to answer the questions asked and justifying
his conduct. Not confining himself, however, to the presenta
tion of information he imprudently gave rein to his temper,
declaring the resolutions "were not moved without a pretty
copious display of the reasons on which they were founded",
which "were of a nature to excite attention, to beget alarm, to
inspire doubts." He claimed that he had acted for the good
of the country but admitted a technical violation of the laws
authorizing the loans. He thought, however, that to have acted
otherwise than he did would have been at the sacrifice of pub
lic advantage.
Giles returned to the attack on February 27 with a series of
nine resolutions drawing from the reports of the Secretary in
ferences unfavorable to that official.'" The first declares that
it is essential to proper administration that laws making specific
appropriation be strictly obeyed; the second that a violation
«»Ford, P. L., Nation, Sept. 5, 1895; HamUton, Republic, v, 181, 304;
Schouler, United States, i, 316-320; McMaster, United States, ii, 115-119;
Gay, Madison, 197-199; Lodge, Works of HamUton, ii, 343, note, where
Giles is caUed "tool" of Jefferson and Madison.
«• Reports dated Feb. 4, Feb. 13, Feb. 14.
™A draft of these resolutions is found in Ford's Writings of Jefferson,
vi, 168; they differ in certain important details from the resolutions as
actually presented by GUes, Feb. 37. See Annals under dates given in
the text. But the inference drawn by Ford as to GUes's inabiliiy to draw
them is ludicrous. He says "Giles has been more often abused than praised,
but neither critics nor apologists have ever questioned if he had ability
to frame what he moved, or have searched for a more likely author of
them. A rough draft of the resolutions in the handwriting of Thomas
Jefferson furnishes a suggestion too strong to be disregarded." GUes during
his Ufe drew hundreds of documents requiring more ability than did these.
Hamilton in Republic v, 304 (note) says Giles told Ruftis King that
Madison wrote these resolutions. However, HamUton gives no authority.

Fighting the Federalists 23
of such a law is a violation of the constitutional provision
that no money should be drawn from the Treasury except by
Congressional appropriation. The third declares that Hamil
ton had violated a law authorizing a loan for the payment of
the foreign debt by using a portion of it in the payment of
the interest on the loan itself and by drawing a portion of it
into this country without instructions from the President. The
fourth asserted he had exceeded the instructions of the Presi
dent in making the loans. The other resolutions declared that
the Secretary failed to give proper information to Congress of
drafts of money from abroad, and in so doing omitted an es
sential duty of his office, that he had wrongfully negotiated a
loan with the Bank of the United States when there was a
greater sum in the Bank to the Credit of the Government, that
the Secretary had been guilty of indecorum in judging of the
motives of the House in calling for information. A final reso
lution ordered a copy of these resolutions to be transmitted
to the President. A debate on these propositions occurred the
next day. The first fight was on the manner of their considera
tion. Giles desired a reference to the Committee of the whole
House. The Federalists opposed this for lack of time and de
nounced the proceeding as "unhandsome" and the mode "tyran
nical.""^ Finally all but the first and second resolutions which
dealt with abstract questions, and the ninth which proposed to
send the resolutions to the President were referred to the Com
mittee of the whole House. Some of their leading defenders
were Giles, Madison, and Findley of Pennsylvania.
The speech of Giles made on the first day of the debate is
not given in the Annals.'^ Speakers defending Hamilton were
Ames of Massachusetts, who later was to immortalize himself
by his defence of the Jay Treaty, and two Federalist members
from South Carolina, Barnwell and William Smith." Smith
was an able man, but he did not on occasion, however, think it
unworthy to deliver verbatim a speech written by Alexander
Hamilton, and, according to Jefferson, he had made a fortune
"Speech of Vans Murray.
"^It is referred to next day.
"Ames and Smith were both directors of the Bank, Schouler, i, 198.

24 William B. Giles
by means of "tips" from Hamilton during the debates o|n the
assumption of state debts.'* On March 1, the votes were taken;
overwhelming defeat met each resolution. When the third had
been defeated, a desire was expressed to withdraw the others.
This request was not allowed, and so the painful process contin
ued, becoming more and more painful until the eighth resolution
was rejected by a vote of 34 to 7. Only five men in the House
voted for all the resolutions. Counting every man who voted for
any one of them, there were only seventeen supporters of the
proceedings and seven of these were from Virginia.'^ These reso
lutions were popular in Gile's own state; meetings held at the
time attest the sympathy there felt for the attack made on the
Secretary. Virginia, even good Federalists could not fail to
observe, was seething with discontent. But the triumph of
Hamilton was complete — a triumph thrown into the faces of his
assailants when at the next session, on the ground that insuffi
cient time had been given for the investigation, he asked for a
repetition of the inquiry. The attack of Giles was unfortunate
and the discomfiture of the assailants undoubted. It is also no
doubt true that the assault was partly due to other motives
besides patriotic devotion to the interests of the country. It
was ill-timed and the fight was not well managed. But to one
"¦"He bought up a quantity of state notes and told his friends that
money could be made by speculation in them. Phillips in Amer. Hist.
Review, xiv, 733, note.
"^Jefferson comments on the result, March 3, 1793, in a letter to Thomas
Mann Randolph, Writings (Ford) vi, 194 — "Mr. Giles and one or two
others were sanguine enough to believe that the palpableness of the truths
rendered a negative of them impossible, and therefore forced them on.
Others contemplating the character of the present house, one third of which
is understood to be made up of bank directors and stock jobbers who would
be voting on the case of their chief: and another third of persons blindly
devoted to that party, of persons comprehending them but too indulgent
to pass a vote of censure, foresaw that the resolutions would be negatived
by a majority of two to one. StiU they thought tliat the negative of
palpable truth would be of service, as it would let the pubUc see how
desperate and abandoned were the hands in which their interests were
placed. The vote turned out to be what was expected, not more than 3 or 4
varying from what had been conceived of them." Jefferson thought the
decision would be revised at the next session. Note that Jefferson says tliese
resolutions were "prepared" by GUes and intimates that Giles against his
(Jefferson's) better judgment brought them forward.

Fighting the Federalists 26
who will view the matter impartially, the conduct of the Secre
tary was not such as to allay suspicion. He did not make
"orderly and serviceable records of the progress and condition
of the debt ;" "he was impatient of restraints and preferred to
make reports in his own way and season ;"" in carrying out his
plans he did violate the letter of the law; he had been irritable
in his answers to Congress ; confident of his own devotion to the
public welfare and seeing no reason for paying too close heed to
the representatives of the people, for whom he had little respect,
he had too little regard for their opinion ; there was a close and
unsavory connection between him and the "interests;" he was
not averse at times to using his influence and his knowledge of
public finance for the advantage of his friends;'^ and men
representing the farmers of the South, victims already of his
beneficiaries, were not unnaturally distrustful of his actions.
However unwise .at times the particular attacks made on
Hamilton, and however unfounded some of the suspicions
against his integrity, nevertheless the hostility of Jefferson,
Madison, Giles, and the Republicans was healthful. Careless of
the rights of the states, distrustful of our form of government
and of the people whom it recoginized as sovereign, admiring too
greatly the British Constitution to be perfectly obedient to his
own, too self-confident, too little regardful of the means by
which a righteous end was to be accomplished, seeing too plainly
the advantage of the favor of the rich without divining the
dangers of too close a reliance on the wealthy," Hamilton stood
for conservation versus idealism, business versus human rights,
and for the commercial centers versus rural communities. He
had built up ai congressional party composed of those who
profited by his financial schemes and who were not unwilling to
legislate in their own interest. The fight against him, though
sometimes inopportune, was at bottom the never ending fight of
the people and the interests.
" Dewey, Financial History of the United States, 116-116.
" Schouler, i, 317-318. Beard in "An Economic Interpretation of the Con
stitution of the United States", attempts to exonerate Hamilton (100-114).
But the admissions of Mr. Beard and the facts given by him seem to me
to lead to an opposite conclusion from that drawn by him.
""See the characterization of Schouler cited above.

26 WiLLLA.M Branch Giles
In one other investigation during this second Congress, Giles
played an important part. That was the investigation of the
causes of the defeat of St. Clair by the Indians. In the first
session Giles had offered the resolution for the investigation
and had been placed on the committee though not as chairman.'"
The first report exonerated St. Clair entirely, and threw the
blame on Knox and Hamilton, Secretaries of War and Treas
ury respectively. Concluding with a statement of the principal
causes of the failure of the expedition, the Committee found
them in the delay with which materials were furnished, the
"mismanagement" of the Quartermaster's and Contractor's-
Departments, and in the "lateness of the season at which the
expedition was undertaken." They "conceive it but justice to
the Commander in Chief, to say, that in their opinion, the
failure of the late expedition can in no respect be imputed to
his conduct, either at anytime before or during the action ; but
that as his conduct in all preparatory arrangements, was
marked with peculiar ability and zeal, so his conduct during
the action furnished strong testimony of his coolness and
intrepidity." The report was severely criticized and referred
again to the committee of which Giles was now made chairman.
An ambiguous supplementary report made such changes as to
calm the indignation of the friends of Knox and Hamilton.'"
During the spring and summer after the adjournment of
Congress, Giles visited a few days at a time at that Mecca of
Virginia Republicanism, Port Royal, the home of John Taylor
of Caroline, recently appointed successor to Richard Henry
Lee in the Senate of the United States. With Giles were
Hawkins, Senator from North Carolina, Nathaniel Macon, and
on his second visit, his closest friend, Venable of Virginia.'"^
Taylor was a strict constructionist of the deepest dye, who had
opposed Hamilton's financial schemes, and favored the resolu
tions of investigation and censure.
™Annals, Second Cong., 1st Sess., 490-494.
" State Papers, Military Affairs, i, 36-38 and 41-44.
"See Letters of Taylor to Madison. Branch Historical Papers of
Randolph-Macon CoUege, 1908, 254-358. The same issue has a valuable
sketch of Taylor's career by Professor W. E. Dodd.

Fighting the Federalists 27
The opening of the Third Congress, December 2, found Giles
in his seat prepared for action. The questions at issue were
to be different from those of the preceding two Congresses. No
opportunity, it is true, to harass the arch-enemy, Alexander
Hamilton, was to be neglected even though the great work of
the Secretary of the Treasury had been done and the current
of thought was turning from domestic mainly to foreign re
lations. But the difficulty we now found in adopting a firm
national policy was to be discovered in the system which Ham
ilton had built up. The French Revolution had advanced head
long until the King had been beheaded, a republic declared, and
a war with England assumed. The French remembered their
treaty of alliance made with the United States in 1778 when
we were at war with the same power with which they were now
at war — a treaty which had not been abrogated — and they
forgot neither our debt to them nor our beautiful expressions
on liberty when we were conducting our revolution. Genet,
the French Minister, loaded with commissions for privateers,
eager to take advantage of our factional contests and demo
cratic enthusiasm, landed at Charleston and made a triumphal
advance to Philadelphia only to be met by a repudiation of
the treaty of 1778 as interpreted by the French, a refusal to
pay money before it was due, a declaration of neutrality in
the conflict, and finally a rejection of the Minister himself.
England, on the other hand, had only tardily sent us a minister ;
had captured our seamen, had violated the neutrality of our
ships, and had rejected proposals of our government for a
treaty of commerce. In the discussions that were to take place
in Congress on the subject of our international relations, Giles
was to avow openly his friendship with France, was to favor
all means of resisting England and to lament the decline of
national spirit, and was to lose no opportunity to saUy forth
against the character and policies of the administration. The
President's message did not attempt to conceal the evil conduct
of the British Government and a report from Jefferson afforded
detailed information of the restrictions on our commerce and

28 William B. Giles
made recommendations of retaliatory duties against such
nations as treated us unfairly.'^
To carry out the intention of these recommendations, Madi
son came forward on January 3, 1794 with resolutions pro
viding for increased duties against countries having no com
mercial treaty with us." Against the adoption of these resolu
tions appeared William Smith of South Carolina,^* Ames,
Tracy, Vans Murray, Hillhouse, and the rest of the prominent
Federalists ; for them spoke Samuel Smith of Maryland, Find-
ley and Smilie of Pennsylvania, and the Virginians. Giles spoke
early in the debate, before new revelations of British orders
had lashed the anti-British feeling into fury.'^ Defending Jef
ferson's report, denouncing Great Britain, praising France, he
at the same time seized occasion to strike at Hamilton and to
point out again the connection of the moneyed interest with
the Government. "Some say," he declares, "that the adoption
of this policy of retaliation will mean a tax on our con
stituents, others that it will mean a diminution of our revenue."
But "this," he continued, "was not the language of America
at the time of the Declaration of Independence. Whence, then
this change of American sentiment? Has America less ability
than she then had.'' Is she less prepared for a national trial
than she then was .J" This cannot be pretended. There has
been, it is true, one great change in the political situation.
America has now a funded debt; she had no funded debt
at those glorious epochs. May not this change of sentiment
therefore, be looked for in the change of situation in this re
spect? May it not be looked for in the imitative, sympathetic
organization of our funds with the British funds? May it not
be looked for in the indiscriminate participation of citizens
and foreigners in the emoluments of the funds? May it not be
looked for in the wishes of some to assimilate the Government
'^ Report dated December 16, made in pursuance of resolutions of the
House, Feb. 33, 1791.
'"Text in Annals, Third Cong., 1st Sess., 155. Petition from Virginia
in favor of the resolutions. Annals, 484.
"In a speech written by HamUton, Hamilton, J. C, Republic, v, 450.
'" Schouler, i, 283.

Fighting the Federalists 29
of the United States to that of Great Britain, or at leaJst
in the wishes of some for a more intimate connection?
"If these causes exist, it is not difficult to see that the in
terests of the few who receive and disburse the public contri
butions, are more respected than the interests of the great
majority of the society who furnish the contributions. It is
not difficult to see that the Government, instead of legislating
for a few millions, is legislating for a few thousands and that
the sacredness of their rights is the great obstacle to a great
national exertion.'"^ This language was the language of Giles's
constituents as well as of himself — they hated Great Britain,
would not have objected to a war with her. For France they
had a corresponding sympathy.'^
In addition to the other reasons for resentment against Great
Britain, another appeared in the renewed depredations on our
commerce by Algerian corsairs released from the Mediterranean
through a truce made with Algiers by the British Consul
General." A bill for the creation of an American navy, suf
ficient to cope with the dangers to which our commerce was
exposed by this new alarm, was with some inconsistency op
posed by the erratic Virginia statesman. He placed the blame
for the Algerian difficulties on Great Britain, when he declared,
"the cheapest mode of getting peace will certainly be by em
bracing commercial regulations." He forgot the highly patri
otic words he had uttered on January 23, and was innocent of
what the future was to bring forth, when he now objected to the
establishment of a navy on the ground that it would facilitate
the enlargement of expense and taxation, "The system
"Annals, Third Cong., 1st Sess,, 374-390.
" See letter of J. G. Jefferson to Thomas Jefferson, dated Amelia (Giles's
home county), March 33, 1794:— "Mr. Madison's resolutions have rendered
him, in this part of the country, more popular than any measure he could
have taken. I believe the people in this and the adjoining counties might
be easily reconcUed to a war with Great Britain; and, so great is their
sympathy for the French, that I have heard some of the leading characters
declare, that, even if there was a rupture between France and their own
country, that they would refuse to bear arms." Quoted in J. C. Hamilton's
Republic, v, 530. Jefferson, April 3, to Madison wrote that the people
of Virginia were ready for war. Randall, ii, 337.
™ Schouler, i, 381.

30 William Branch Giles
of governing by debts he conceived the most refined system of
tyranny . . . devised by politicians to succeed the old
system of feudal tenures." "He should value his liberty at
a lower price than he did now, if the policy of a permanent
naval establishment should obtain in the United States."^" The
bill, however, was passed and the beginning of the navy of the
United States provided for.
Excitement grew. Extreme measures against England were
considered by Republicans ; Federalists talked disunion,'" Day
ton of New Jersey not hitherto known for radical positions came
forward on March 27 with resolutions providing for the seques
tration of all debts due by American citizens to British
creditors as a pledge of indemnification to Americans suffering
for British spoliations. The foUowing day Giles arose in the
defense of these resolutions. Reprisal was within our power,
he thought ; all other means of redress without our power. "In
such a state of things reprisal is a right — reprisal is a duty."
Coming to the defence of France, he was "extremely hurt that
the conduct of France should be unnecessarily and unoppor-
tunley arraigned in that (this) House;" "why," he asked,
"irritate the only > nation in the world who could afford them
(the U. S.) any substantial assistance?" The conduct of
France was, according to him, a result of necessity and would
probably be explained.'^ Besides we had sufficient means of
indemnification against France — the debt we owed her. He
could not sit down without some remarks on our past policy.
What had been the effect of neutrality? It had produced in
stead of peace new aggressions. But even if this conduct had
been heretofore wise and pacific, experience had taught us that
it was no longer so; nothing could be expected from the in
justice, the honor, or the moderation of a court, which had
proved itself equally a stranger to them aU ; but, before such a
"For these quotations see Annals, Third Cong., 1st Sess., 436, 447,
486, 493, 497 (Feb. 6 and Mar. 10).
™See "A Confidential Memorandum", hitherto unpublished, written by
John Taylor of CaroUne, Senator from Virginia, for James Madison. Edited
with an introduction by GaiUard Hunt, Washington, 1905.
"^McMaster, ii, 168, says the "French were equally culpable."

Fighting the Federalists 31
tribunal, acquiescence would beget injuries, injuries would be
get insults, and insults would beget contempt and degradation,
and war.'^ Giles also voted for the resolutions of Mr. Clark
of New Jersey providing that until proper restitution should
be made to American citizens and the western posts should
be given up "all commercial intercourse between citizens of
the United States and the subjects of the King of Great Britain,
so far as the same respects articles of the growth or manufac
ture of Great Britain or Ireland, shall be prohibited." The
resolutions much amended passed the House only to be rejected
by the Senate by the casting vote of the Vice-President.
Such measures as proposed by Dayton and Clark would have
meant war. This the administration did not desire, whatever
might be the feeling of the country. Eastern Federalists of
the type of Cabot, Strong, Ellsworth, and King agreed on a
mission to England, and, despite the utter inappropriateness
of selecting the detested leader of a great party whose work
could not command the respect of a large section of people,
and of sending abroad at this period the recognized friend of
Great Britain and the enemy of France, chose as the envoy,
Hamilton who was soon to retire into private life.'* Protests
from Republicans poured in upon Washington'^ and forced him,
if he had ever had the serious intention of proposing the name
of the Secretary of the Treasury," to give up the intention
and substitute the Chief Justice of the United States. Less
obnoxious than would have been the appointment of Hamil
ton, the selection of the Chief Justice was not without serious
objection. That the head of our greatest court could be
allowed an extended absence in a foreign country might be only
a testimony to the paucity of litigation in those unsophisticated
days; but that the same hand should write our treaties which
might, before the ink was dry, be compelled to apply them in
«¦ Annals, 544, 547.
» Annals, April 7 (introduced), AprU 31 (passed).
« Schouler, i, 384.
"McMaster, n, 187.
"Lodge, Washington, i, 177 says he was first choice and HamUton
withdrew at the outcry. But see Bassett, Fed. System, 134 and King's,
King i, 518.

32 WiLLLiM B. Giles
adjudication was certainly not in accord with American ideas of
the separation of the legislative and judiciary departments. The
nomination was confirmed by the Senate on the nineteenth of
April. The House had nothing to do with the nomination;
but that did not prevent expressions of opinion — and Giles did
not delay announcing his disgust at the procedure. On the
ninth of May he gave his opinion of the mission. He "had
heard much about negotiation. This was the universal cry of
a certain description of people. An envoy had been appointed
to the Court of London to negotiate, and this measure seemed
to imply an appeal to the generosity and magnanimity of the
British nation"; but it seemed to him "a perfect burlesque of
common sense to draw any conclusions of British generosity"."'
Having renewed his touch with the pure principles of Re
publicanism by frequent visits to Jefferson during the summer
of 1794," Giles was in Congress again on November 7, 1794.
The most interesting subject on which he spoke at this session
was the Democratic societies which had been active during the
summer. One such society in Virginia had been particularly
violent — the Democratic Society of Wythe County. Meeting
on the fourth of July at the Court House, they denounced the
late Congress for cowardliness in the presence of insults and
injuries and arrayed themselves against the despotism involved
in the union of executive, legislative, and judicial powers in the
hands of the envoy to Great Britain, the Chief Justice of the
United States.'" "Shall we Americans," they ask, "who have
kindled the spark of liberty, stand aloof and see it extinguished,
when burning a bright flame in France, which hath caught it
from us ! If a despot prevails, we must have a despot like the
rest of the nations. If all tyrants unite against free people,
should not all free people unite against tyrants? Yes, let us
unite with France and stand or fall together." They also
»' Annals, May 9, 1794 (669).
" The Life of Thomas Jefferson by George Tucker, London, 1837, 3 vols.,
i, 470. ™ Peter Porcupine— A little Plain English Addressed to the People of
the United States on the Treaty. (PhUa., 1795) 104-105. McMaster, ii, 177,
American Daily Advertiser, August 3, 1794.

Fighting the Federalists 33
proposed "so to amend the Constitution as to incapacitate any
man to serve as President for more than eight years succes
sively." Societies throughout the country were equally as
radical. When the President delivered his address at the open
ing of Congress, telling the story of the famous Whiskey Re
bellion in Pennsylvania and the measures adopted during the
. recess of Congress for the suppression of the movement, he
reproached certain "combinations of men" for the manner in
which they had conducted themselves."" A motion to condemn
these societies — self-created societies as they were called — was
offered in the House, during the consideration of the reply to
be made the President, and Giles took upon himself the task
of opposing such a measure."^ Every individual in the United
States, according to him, was a member of a self-created so
ciety. Religious organizations, for instance, deserved the name,
"self-created" society. If the intention was to censure Dem
ocratic societies, whj' not, he asked, do the same by the Cin
cinnati Society? Congress had no right to attempt to check
public opinion ; if these societies violated the law then bring the
charge against them. If something must be censured, why not
censure landjobbing, paper money, etc. Denouncing them in
Congress could do no good — it would give these societies more
importance than they deserved. He had nothing to do with
them and was not even acquainted with the persons concerned
with their original formation. Returning to the contest, he
found it necessary to enter into his own defence. "He had
been," he said, "an object of calumny, misrepresentation and
abuse." He would go on and do his duty, preserve dignity of
conduct, and "treat abuse with silent contempt." Accused of
continued criticisms of the measures of the Government, he
replied: "Pay off the public debt, and I assure you that my
"" Richardson, Messages and Papers, I, 166. Washington was much alarmed
by the Democratic societies. He said if they were not counteracted or did
not fall into disesteem, "they would shake the government to its foundation."
Letter to Henry Lee, August 36, 1794. Writings of Washington, (Ford)
xii, 455.
"The expression "self-created societies" was used by the Senate in their
answer to the President, Nov. 34, 1794. Annals, Third Cong., 3nd Sess., 899-
901. Again 915-919.

34 William Branch Giles
censures of Government shall be at an end." Others followed
Giles in the defence of the societies, and in the end killed the
clause of censure which the enemies of the societies desired
placed in the answer. But neither Giles nor anyone else could
preserve them longer. Unable to stand the reproof of Wash
ington and the end of the Terror in France, they lost their
influence and died.
The only other business in which Giles took much interest
during the Third Congress was an amendment offered by him
self to the naturalization laws requiring titled foreigners to
renounce their titles before being allowed the rights of citizen
ship. In the disturbed condition of Europe, crowds of for
eigners, many bearing titles, had come for refuge to this coun
try. In Europe a revolution was going on, "to which there
was nothing similar in history." A large portion of Europe
had already declared against titles, and where the innovations
were to stop no man could presume to guess. These things
we know and so Giles knew them. But as he pointed out there
was nothing in this "land of the free" to prevent titled for
eigners who came here from voting or even coming into the
House with the full glamour of titled diginity."^ At first the
Federalists were inclined to treat this amendment as trifling"
and provoked Giles so much by their ridicule that he withdrew
it only to offer it again the following day."* However, it soon
dawned upon them that political capital could be made of the
opportunity, so Dexter of Massachusetts offered a further
amendment providing for a renunciation of slaves by foreigners
as a condition of naturalization."^ A debate then occurred on
the effect this proposal would have upon southern slave prop
erty. "It was calculated," says Giles, "to injure the property
of gentlemen." Proceeding he gave his opinion of slavery at
this time, the opinion generally held in Virginia as to slavery.
He "lamented and detested it; but, from the existing state of
¦" Annals, Tliird Cong., 3nd Sess., 1034.
" Madison's opinions given in a letter to Pendleton, January 8, 1795, and
to Jefferson. Madison, Works (Cong. Ed.) II, 30, 33.
" Annals, Third Cong., 3nd Sess., 1031, 1033, 1034.
" Ibid, 1039.

Fighting the Federalists 35
the country, it was impossible at present to help it. He him
self owned slaves. He regretted that he did so, and if any
member could point out a way in which he could be properly
freed from that situation, he should rejoice in it. The thing
was reducing as fast as could be prudently done. He believed
that slavery was infinitely more deprecated in countries, where
it actually existed, and consequently where its evils were known,
than in other countries where it was only an object of con
versation.""' The anti-slavery amendment was thrown out, the
amendment of Giles was passed, and in the act of January 29,
1795, it was required of an alien, in addition to other quali
fications that he renounce any title of nobility he might
possess. "Annals, January 1, 1795, 1039.
" Section I (clause 4) of that act.

CHAPTER III
THE JAY TREATY
While the events recorded in the preceding chapter were
taking place, the Chief Justice had departed for England and
was negotiating a treaty. Arriving at the British capital in
June, 1794, he had been favorably received but had found the
British ministry obdurate as to the main demands of the United
States. By the end of November, however, a treaty had been
arranged which, reaching this country four days after Congress
had adj ourned, was on June 8 submitted by the President to an
extra session of the Senate. Ratified by that body, with the
exception of the famous twelfth article, by only the required
majority, it was returned on June 24 to Washington for his
acceptance or rejection. The sessions of the Senate were of
course secret, but the contents of the instrument were soon made
public. Guesses as to its contents and erroneous statements
were made, until finally the entire document was revealed by
Senator Mason of Virginia."' The gravest fears of the people
were found to be well-grounded. The western posts were to be
surrendered by Great Britain but not until June 1, 1796; no
remuneration was given to Americans for negroes carried off
in violation of the supposed meaning of the treaty of 1783;""
no pledge was made by Great Britain to abstain in the future
from impressment of American seamen; the Mississippi River
was to be opened fco British trade; the United States should
compensate Great Britain for confiscated debts of the American
Revolution and for the captures made by Genet's privateers
in 1793. The West Indian trade, which Jay had been instructed
to secure, was granted only to American ships of seventy tons
burden, on the condition that the West Indian trade of the
United States should be entirely free to British vessels and
that American vessels should not carry to any port in the whole
" Mason and Tazewell had voted against it. Mason became a hero. For
an interesting sketch of Mason see Grigsby's Convention of 1788.
»» On the relation of the Treaty to Slavery, see Am. Hist Assoc. Report,
1901, 375.

The Jay Treaty 37
world except their own molasses, sugar, coffee, cocoa, and cot
ton.^"" In return for the East Indian trade, opened to the United
States under certain conditions, we opened all our ports and
gave up any right to lay further restrictions on English com
merce. Citizens of both countries as well as Indians were to be
allowed to pass fre,ely across the international boundary line
and to carry on trade and commerce. No duties were to be
levied by either party on peltries carried across the line and In
dians going in either direction were to pay no imposts on "their
own proper goods and effects of whatever nature."
The principle that free ships make free goods was not main
tained. The list of contraband articles was extended to in
clude tar, pitch, turpentine and even provisions upon certain
conditions ; the sequestration of debts was prohibited.
What had our government secured? Payment for recent
captures of our vessels, the promise that compensation in the
future would be given for provisions seized as contraband of
war, peace and friendship with Great Britain. ^"^ Had the
British written the treaty without the presence of an American
negotiator, they would have asked, it seemed to good Republi
cans, for little more or given little less than was written in the
treaty negotiated by Jay. On account of the concessions
granted by the United States to English vessels capturing
prizes, the treaty could not, even if it were otherwise satisfac
tory, please France or her friends in America. It was not even
pleasing to Jay himself nor to Hamilton — it was acceptable
only in lieu of war, which to us would have been little less than
disastrous. As soon as the contents of the treaty were known, the people;
of the country rose in indignation. Many had not waited for
a detailed knowledge of the document. Every act of Jay's
from the time of his setting out to the exposure of the result
of his work was subject to abuse. The secrecy in which the
articles were held was regarded as an insult to the people. And
™ The stipulations analyzed in this sentence were contained in the famous
twelfth article struck out by the Senate.
'"See the analysis made by Schouler, i, 305-308. Text in Senate, Doc,
357, Sixtieth Cong., 3nd Sess., 590.

William Branch Giles
now that Mason had actually made known what it contained
the people grew wild. Meetings were held in all the important
cities and the treaty and its framer denounced. Jay was burned
in effigy and Hamilton, attempting the treaty's defence, was
stoned at a public meeting. Resolutions from all over the
country pleaded with the President to refuse his signature.^"^
.Virginia was not behind the other states in her popular out
burst. A meeting in Richmond July 29, 1795, over which pre-
! sided the eminent lawyer and teacher. Chancellor Wythe,
adopted resolutions denouncing the treaty as "insulting to the
dignity, injurious to the interest, dangerous to the security,
and repugnant to the Constitution of the United States."^"'
They declared that one hundred to one the people were opposed
to the treaty, and believed that the Constitution meant to re
quire ratification by two-thirds of the citizens of the United
States rather than by a bare two-thirds of the Senate.^"* Reso
lutions also came from Norfolk, Powhatan,'^"^ Caroline, and
Giles's home county, Amelia.^"' Giles, on October 29, 1795, in
Petersburg, saw a memorial against the treaty being circulated
by handbills and in the newspapers, for the purpose of being
signed in the neighboring counties as well as in the city itself.^"^
The elections of 1795 refiected the spirit of the people. Vir
ginians pointed out the unconstitutionality of the treaty, and
deprecated the invasion made by it into the domain of legis
lative authority. But we may be sure practical questions were
closer to the hearts of our Virginians than mere matters of
constitutional law. They were indignant that our seamen were
still left at the mercy of the British press gang. They saw
with indignation the provision made for the payment of debts
owed by our citizens to British creditors and did not, on the
'°^See the dramatic account by McMaster of these meetings, vol. ii, 213,
seq. "' Richmond and Manchester Advertiser, July 30, 1795. Magruder's Mar
shall, 98. Lodge, Washington, ii, 191. McMaster, ii, 326. At a subsequent
meeting in Richmond, Marshall spoke.
"'Richmond and Manchester Advertiser, Aug. 6, 1795.
"'McMaster, ii, 236. Annals, Fourth Cong., 1st Sess., 161-171.
'" Richmond and Manchester Advertiser, Aug. 15 and Sept. 15.
'"Letter of Giles of Oct. 39, 1795. Jefferson MSS., Library of Congress.

The Jay Treaty 39
other hand, fail to note the omission of any stipulation requir
ing payment by the British for slaves carried off at the end of
the Revolution. They thought it unreasonable that the Missis
sippi should be freely open to our neighbors, that these should
be allowed to continue their fur trade with the Indians across
the international boundary, and saw only danger for our fron
tiers in the opportunity allowed the British for tampering with
the American redskins. They found no good reason for the
delay in surrendering British posts in the western regions. They
resented a sacrifice of their West Indian trade. Virginians
were opposed to the Jay Treaty because it sacrificed Virginia
and southern and western interests.
Some of these questions were of real importance to Giles's
state, particularly the negro question. The state of Virginia
had suffered desperately during the Revolution. Property had
been destroyed or carried off and portions of the country dev
astated. If Jefferson be correct it had lost more negroes
than any other state. ^"' In the six months of 1781, Corn
wallis, according to the same authority, carried off 30,000
slaves ; about 27,000 of these, however, died of fever and small
pox. The entire loss to the state for depredations during the
war amounted to 3,000,000 pounds sterling.^"" Many citizens
suffered greviously. A petition from one Miles Wilkinson,
dated November 21, 1782, complains that seventy of his slaves
had been carried off by the British.^^" One Thomas Wishart
states to the legislature that by August, 1779 he had lost the
whole of his negroes. ^^^ A Committee of the House of Delegates,
appointed in 1783 to inquire into the subject of British infrac
tion of the Treaty of 1783, in their report quoted from Wash
ington to the effect that General Carleton under a "false con
struction" of the treaty had sent off "large numbers of the
said slaves to Nova Scotia"."^ The same report presented the
testimony of slave owners from Virginia who had gone in person
'™ Am. St. Pap., For., i, 307.
™ Jefferson, Writings (Washington Edition) II, 437.
"» Petitions of Norfolk County. MSS. in Va. State Library.
"'Journal ot the House of Delegates, Nov. 6, 1789.
^ See letter. May 7, 1783, vol. 7, Writings of Washington (Ford), 341-
344.

40 William B. Giles
to New York in 1783 to demand the surrender of their negroes
only to be refused by the British commander. ^^'
The resentment of Virginia against the British was well
founded. Virginians knew naught about what the international
law of 1901 would say about the matter; they knew that their
property had been carried off in violation of what were under
stood to be the terms of the treaty of 1783 and that the
British showed no disposition to pay for their negroes. How
important an embarrassment to Virginia were the British re
strictions on the West Indian trade of the United States is
not generally understood. Before the Revolution, however, a
close connection between the islands in the Caribbean and the
exporting communities of Virginia was very close. When this
connection was limited after the Revolution by British restric
tions on our trade, the merchants of Virginia suffered and
grumbled. A petition from citizens of Norfolk, dated No
vember 4, 1785, tells the story in heightened colors.^^* They
declare that the present state of trade "is laboring under many
evils and disadvantages in consequence of its being monopo
lized by Foreigners, particularly British Merchants and
Factors." That "in consequence of the total prohibition laid
on the Trade of the United States to the British West India
Islands and other Ports in North America by the British Acts
of Navigation, there is at present not only a rapid decrease
in the number of American Bottoms but a total stop is already
put to that valuable branch of Business, Shipbuilding (so
profitable to this State in General), whereby the great number
of mechanics usually employed in that Branch are reduced to
the greatest distress and we conceive that a total loss of Amer
ican Seamen must also ensue as the American Merchants find
themselves necessitated to lay their vessels by the Walls or
pursue a trade attended with nothing but loss and disgrace.
While the Ships of that Country from whom those restrictions
arise are admitted freely into all our ports with every privilege
of the vessels of our own colonies, except a triffling difference
of Tunnage."
"'Journal of the House of Delegates, June 14, 1784.
"• Petitions of NorfoUt County, MSS. in Va. State Library.

The Jay Treaty 41
These merchants, seamen, and producers of Virginia had
looked forward to a satisfactory commercial treaty with Eng
land. After ten years a treaty had been secured but a treaty
affording little relief. The navigation of the Mississippi and(
the fur trade with the Indians were jealously guarded by that
increasing number of citizens of the region lying beyond the
mountains where the Ohio and its tributaries led to the Mother
of Waters. Many westerners could, therefore, not brook the ¦
concession of these valuable privileges to Englishmen and *
Canadians, nor could they reconcile themselves to the delay
allowed the British in the surrender of western posts.^^^ The
party of Jefferson could not fail to fight with every weapon
against the encroachments on the rights of the Transmontane
frontiersmen. They must be held in loyalty; on them the
party depended. Every step, therefore, in the negotiation and
ratification of the treaty was watched with keen interest south
of the Potomac.
There was another article to which great objection was
raised — an article, as it turned out, vitally interesting to Vir
ginia. I refer to the ninth article which stipulated that British
subjects who held land in the United States and American citi
zens who held land in his majesty's dominions should continue
to hold them and might grant, sell, or devise such lands in the
same way as could natives ; and that neither they nor their
heirs or assigns, should, so far as respects these lands, be
regarded as aliens. On the very day on which the treaty was
signed by the negotiators, papers with regard to various es
tates formerly held by British citizens in America — including
the Fairfax lands — ^were presented by Lord Grenville to Mr.
"° That delay had been already without valid excuse. Although the treaty
of 1783 bound Great Britain to a surrender of the posts, she had even before
the ratification of that treaty determined to hold them. For two years she
was indifferent to our violations of the treaty. After the formation of the
Federal government protection was given her interests in the U. S. courts
and she had no vaUd excuse for the retention of the posts. See McLaughlin
in Am. Hist. Assoc. Report, 1894. The surrender of the posts even under
the conditions stated in the treaty was very pleasing to western New York,
if not to western Virginia. See speeches of N. Y. members. Annals, Fourth
Cong., 1st Sess.

42 William Branch Giles
Jay.^^' According to Mason, the Fairfax purchasers and their
friends, along with British merchants and agents constituted
the Treaty Party in Virginia.^'^^
The significance of the provision was seen at once in the
South. In the resolution offered by Tazewell in the Senate
in 1794 was one objecting to the ninth article "because the
rights of the individual states are, by the ninth article of the
treaty, unconstitutionally invaded. "^^' In the debate in the
House, later to be described, much attention was given to this
article, particularly as it affected, or might affect, the Gren
ville lands in North Carolina and the Fairfax lands in Vir
ginia. Giles referred to it; John Heath from the Northern
Neck wished it might not revive old proprietary rights, with
their long train of tenure, fealty and vassalage. "Perhaps,"
he said, "my fears may ensue from residing in that (part) of
Virginia, where this tenure once prevailed. "^^" It remained,
however, for North Carolinians to use the strongest language.
Macon said he had doubts yet in his mind, respecting the con
struction of the ninth article, relative to the holding of lands,
"and if the construction which some gentlemen thought it would
bear was the true construction, the question would be of greater
importance in the State of North Carolina than the Declara
tion of Independence itself." He thought one-half of the lands
in that state would be affected by that construction.^^" Holland
said an attempt to make good the Grenville claims "would cer
tainly be resisted by force. "^^^
Before many years had passed the ninth article was, as pro
phesied, to be the basis of many suits over land claims, and
particularly the basis for the conflict in Virginia over the Fair
fax lands. The Supreme Court of the United States in Fair
fax Devisee vs. Hunter's Lessee rested their decision, favorable
to the plaintiffs, on the Jay Treaty, declaring "we are well
"« Am. State Papers, For. I, 504-509.
"'Letter of Stevens Thomson Mason to Henry TazeweU Oct. 6, 1795,
in the important TazeweU coUection discovered by Mr. E. J. Woodhouse.
™ Annals, Third Cong., 3nd Sess., June 34, 1794.
"•Annals, Fourth Cong., 1st Sess., 1063.
"» Ibid, 1271.
"¦Ibid, 1290.

The Jay Treaty 43
satisfied that the treaty of 1794: completely protects and con
firms the title of Denny Fairfax. "^^"
There was also considerable fear that the provision in the
treaty for the payments of debts owed by Americans to British
creditors would result in enforced payment from individuals.
The amount of such money owed by all Americans was variously
estimated at from $5,000,000 to $15,000,000. It was generally
argued that Virginians owed more than the residents of any
other state. Men from the North did not fail to press home
their suspicion that many were opposed to the execution of the
treaty because "it compels some of them to pay their just
debts, which they contemplated evading. "^^' Monroe in the third
Congress had proposed in the Senate that the fourth article
in the treaty — the article respecting debts- — should be sus
pended until the United States received assurance that Great
Britain had complied with her obligation to us.^^* Fisher Ames
thereupon wrote "murder will out."^^°
In the elections in Virginia following the negotiation of the
treaty, the Federalists were badly beaten both for the legis
lature and for Congress. A Republican governor was elected
by the Assembly. Resolutions were adopted approving the
conduct of Mason and Tazewell in the Senate, and proposing
an amendment to the Constitution of the United States giving
the House of Representatives part in the treaty making power, '
diminishing the senatorial term by three years and disqualify
ing judges of the supreme court from holding other office. The
Legislature refused to express undiminished confidence in the
President. ^^' Such was the feeling in Virginia when Congress
assembled on December 7.
The Treaty had not been immediately promulgated, for it
had been returned to England in order that she might accept
"' 7 Cranch, 637.
^ Annals, Fourth Cong., Ist Sess., 543.
"* Annals, Third Cong., 1st Sess., 93-94.
^ Works (1809) p. 478.
^ Randall, Jefferson, ii, 370. Ambler, SectionaUsm in Virginia, 65. See
Acts of session 1795, 54, 55. Although refusing to express undiminished
confidence, they did "entertain the highest sense of the integrity, patriotism,
and wisdom of the President of the United States."

44 William B. Giles
the Senate amendment striking out the twelfth article, and
might also revoke an order, now renewed, authorizing the seiz
ure of provisions bound for France in the vessels of neutrals.
The Senate had already accepted the treaty as we have seen;
but an appropriation of money for its execution depended on
the House of Representatives, and this body seemed disposed
to have something to do with it. The first question arose as
to the form of the answer to the President's message. An
answer had been drawn by the select committee consisting of
Madison, Sedgwick, and Sitgreaves, a section of which answer,
"Theodore's last-effort-at-the sublime and beautiful," contained
words expressive of undiminished confidence in the President.
These words, implying as they would have done, an approval
of his signature to the treaty were not adopted.^^^ On Feb
ruary 29, the treaty was formally proclaimed, and on March
2, the following resolution was offered by Edward Livingston:
"Resolved, that the President of the United States be requested
to lay before this House a copy of the instructions to the
Minister of the United States, who negotiated the treaty with
the King of Great Britain, communicated by his message of the
first of March, together with the correspondence and other
documents relative to the said treaty."^^' This resolution gave
rise to an extended debate on "the constitutional rights of the
House of Representatives in checking the treaty making power.
The parties on both sides came forward and placed the fate
of the proposition on that constitutional ground." In Giles's.
opinion, "the opposers of the resolution in their first onset,
assumed a most authoritative tone, and without equivocation
"'See Giles to Jefferson, Dec. 9 and 15. GUes thought the message
concUiatory. It made "a considerable impression upon the House of Repre
sentatives." He did not approve of the "studyed silence respecting France,"
however. He said the manner in which the treaty was mentioned in the
speech had embarrassed its opposers as to the answer. If an attempt were
made to bring the Treaty in, it would be said that it was not before the
House, and if they did not bring it in, it would later be said when the
Treaty was attacked that it was uncandid not to have notified the President
at once. He himself was in favor of condemning it now, but in a manner
respectful to the other departments.
'^ Annals, Fourth Cong., 1st Sess., 426. The resolution was subsequently
amended.

The Jay Treaty 46
enthroned the treaty making power in a despotism complete.
They declared that the treaty making power was undefined in
its nature, unlimited in its extent, and paramount in its author
ity. They then proceeded to denounce those who would not
yield an assent to this doctrine, as rebels and traitors against
the constituted authorities." For this doctrine and language
Giles thought "we are probably indebted to some degree to the
mockery displayed on the President's last birthday." In his
opinion their doctrine discarded "the utility of checks, and by
means of the treaty makeing power completely checkmates the
whole constitution."^""
The views of Giles outlined in the preceding paragraph had
been more elaborately set forth in a speech of March 11. Gen
tlemen claimed, he said, that the treaty making power is un
limited. The doctrine was alarming. "Never, I will venture
to say, was there an instance of a more complete rout of so
complete a system of checks, within the term of six years, in
any government on earth; and if the doctrine now contended
for be agreed to, then I do declare that the triumph of evasion
of checks is complete indeed, and little will be left hereafter to
be evaded." He denies that the clause in the Constitution
making the Constitution, treaties, and laws of the United
States supreme law of the land makes treaties supreme over
laws. "The right of annulling treaties is essential to national
sovereignity." There are two kinds of checks over treaties
provided in our Constitution; one is the enumerated powers —
so far as treaties encroach on these powers they must be sub
mitted to Congress ; the other is the power to make appropria
tions. And in the exercise of their discretion in this matter,
their duty is not perfunctory. Their opinions must be "ma
tured by deliberation," "their conduct must rest on the opera
tions of their own minds." To admit that the House has "to
^ Giles to Jefferson, March 36, 1796. Jefferson MSS., Lib. Cong. Jeffer
son's opinion of the Treaty was that it was an "execrable thing," an "infamous
act, which is really nothing more than a treaty of alUance between England
and the Anglomen of this country against the Legislature and people of the
United States" — ^letter to Edward Rutledge, November 30, 1795. Writings
of Jefferson (Ford) vii, 40.

46 WiLLLVM Branch Giles
make the requisite provisions for carrying" into effect treaties
is to confer on the President the power to legislate and "neces
sarily destroys their right to the exercise of discretion."^'"
The debate continued on this resolution -until March 24 when
it was carried by a vote of sixty-two to thirty-seven, all the
members from Virginia voting in the affirmative,^'^ and nearly
all the representatives from the South except those from South
Carolina voting the same way.
The President had already armed himself. Consulting Ham
ilton, and sustained by the whole cabinet, on March 30, he
sent down a message declining to comply with the request of the
House on the ground that their concurrence was not necessary
to give validity to the treaty making power and because of
the necessity of maintaining the bounds of authority assigned
by the Constitution to the different departments.^'^ Uncon
vinced by the President's reasoning the House thereupon
adopted resolutions disclaiming an agency in making or rati
fying treaties but asserting their right when a treaty is made,
which requires a law or laws passed to carry it into effect, to
deliberate and determine the propriety or impropriety of pass
ing such laws, and their right also to ask for information with
out stating the purpose for which it was asked.^"
In the meantime treaties with the Indians, Spain, and Algiers
had been ratified and came before the House in order that
provision might be made for their execution. Seeing their
opportunity the Federalists intended grouping all four of the
treaties together and so forcing on all who desired the execu
tion of the other three treaties provision for the execution of
the British.'^'* Some of them had in mind also holding up cer
tain legislation of an entirely different character.^'^ Giles,^"
""Annals, Fourth Cong., 1st Sess., 500-514.
"'Ibid, 7-59.
'^ Richardson, Messages, i, 194.
"= Annals, Fourth Cong., 1st Sess., 771, 783, 783. See also Giles to Jeffer
son, Apr. 6, 1796.
"'Gibbs, Administration, etc., i, 331-331. Letters of prominent Federal
ists. See also Randall, ii, 293, note. See Sedgwick's resolution of April 13.
'"" Gibbs, i, 331. Goodrich hopes the Senate will "arrest the whole gov
ernment, and let the people decide."
"« Annals, Fourth Cong., 1st Sess., 942, 943, 965, 968.

The Jay Treaty 47
with the other Republicans, insisted on considering the treaties
separately, and finally gained his point. The British treaty
came up for discussion on April 14, and was discussed for six
teen days. Madison and Gallatin and all the leading Republi
cans addressed the House in opposition to the execution of
the instrument. Giles arose on April 18, and delivered a speech
covering twenty-eight columns in the Annals. He divided his
discussion into two portions. First an examination of the
treaty, article by article, and second a consideration of the
probable consequences of refusing to accept it. He criticised
our abandonment of the claim for compensation for property
carried off, the delay in the surrender of the western posts,
the assumption by our Government of debts due by American
citizens to British citizens before the Revolution and the in
crease in the debt of the United States which that would in
volve, the prohibition of sequestration of debts during war as
prohibiting the United States from resorting to the best means
not only of preventing war, but of the most efficacious means
of supporting it, the concession to Great Britain of the most
favored nation privilege as respects customs duties, the aban
donment of the principle that free ships make free goods. On
the subject of the failure of the treaty to provide compensation
for negroes carried off by the British, he was speaking of a
matter close at home and spoke shrewdly and to the point. It
sounded strange to him to hear it declared that the seventh
article of the treaty of 1783 in which the British promised to
withdraw their armies "without carrying away any negroes
or other property of the American inhabitants" did not apply
to property seized during the war. At the end of the war the
British army was in New York, the negroes in the South, "so
that if the article did not include that species of property
taken in the course of the war, and in the possession of the
British at the end of it, it was worse than nonsense. It never
could have been supposed that, upon the first dawn of peace,
the British would have left New York and invaded the Southern
country, for the purpose of plundering the inhabitants of their
negroes." "Having examined the treaty at large, with candor.

48 William B. Giles
and with the best judgment he possessed, he found in it
so much to condemn, and so little to applaud, and some of the
objectionable parts were so formidable in themselves, that it
was wonderful to him that the treaty should have found an
advocate, upon its mere merits, in the United States. Viewing
the subject as he did, and believing it his duty to exercise his
discretion upon it, nothing contained in it could justify him in
giving his vote for the necessary provisions to give it effi-
cacy."^'^ The contents of the treaty proved the former con
tentions of those who have charged British influence in our af
fairs. As for the consequences that would flow from a failure to
execute the treaty, he denied that such action would result in a
total dissolution of the Government itself. The House had
already decided that it had discretion constitutionally to con
sider the expediency of the expenditure for the execution of
treaties and the ways of raising money. It was true also that in
this contest the House had not been the aggressor. Nor would a
refusal to carry out the treaty result in war with Great Britain.
Great Britain like all other nations was led by her interests;
and her present military situation and dependence on trade
with the United States all went to show that it was not to her
interests to have war with us.
In conclusion he declared, "upon the whole, he conscien
tiously believed the treaty to be a bad one. He believed it
contained the most complete evidence of British interference in
our national affairs, and had laid the foundation for the further
extension of British influence. It has restricted the exercise
of some of the most important rights of national sovereignty.
It has voluntarily hazarded the neutrality of the United States
in the present European war, and destroyed all pretensions
to its character of impartiality. It has not afforded protection
to our neutral rights, which was amongst its great objects;
and in the adjustment of the differences resulting from the in-
execution of the Treaty of Peace, it is unequal and unjust.
All these important circumstances considered, and when it is
also considered that the British persevere in impressing our
'" Annals, Fourth Cong., 1st Sess., 1044.

The Jay Treaty 49
seamen and seizing our vessels, in violation of the clearest rights
of neutral nations, even since the signing of the treaty, he could
not consent to be the instrument of giving it efficacy. He
believed that it was one of those extraordinary cases which
justified strong and extraordinary measures."^"
But the efforts of the Republicans were of no avail. Giles
himself had from the first thought the treaty party would suc
ceed.^'" On April 6 he wrote Jefferson, "the weight of the Pres
ident, twenty senators, funded gentry — British gentry — land
gentry, aristocratic gentry, military gentry and besides these a
gregarious tribe of sycophants and runmad speculators, will be
found to be as much as the shoulders of the majority of the
House will be able to bear ; particularly when their activity and
ingenuity in making divisions amongst the well meaning part
of the community are taken into consideration."^*" But senti
ment was changing among the people. Petitions came in urg
ing the execution of tlie treaty^*^ and among these were some
from Virginia herself.^*^ Finally in the House was delivered
an epoch making speech, reasonable, eloquent, entrancing, by
one already marked fur the grave, Fisher Ames of Massa
chusetts. The next day came the vote. For declaring the treaty
"highly objectionable" forty-eight votes were cast against
forty-eight and the speaker voted in the negative. Fifty
against forty-nine refused to describe it as "objectionable,"
and at last fifty-one to forty-eight voted in favor of carrying
the treaty into effect,^*' every member from Virginia but George^
Hancock voting in the negative.^** The vote was strictly sec
tional; only four votes from south of Mason and Dixon's line
"" For the entire speech, see Annals, Fourth Cong., 1st Sess., 1025-1053.
'""Letter to Jefferson, March 26, 1796. Jefferson MSS.
'« Jeff. MSS., Lib. of Cong.
'"Annals, Fourth Cong., 1st Sess., 1114, 1264, 1328. McMaster, ii, 281
and following.
'¦" Bassett, Federalist System, 135. King, Life and Correspondence
of King, ii, 59. They were from Winchester, Alexandria, Richmond, Staun
ton. See Richmond and Manchester Advertiser, Jan. 27, April 27, May 18,
1796. '" April 30.
'" Randall, Jefferson, ii, 395. Annals, 1391. Hancock was from Botetourt
County in the valley, which has been traditionally Federalist.

50 William Branch Giles
were cast for the treaty and two of them were from South
Carolina ; thirteen from the North were given against it. New
England and the middle states carried the day.
Although Giles chafed at being detained. Congress remained
in session another month. Besides opposing the building of
frigates,^*^ the creation of a standing army,^*' and favoring
the appointment of government agents abroad and the equip
ment of our seamen with certificates of citizenship,^*'^ his
service seems at this meeting to have been confined to the
unsuccessful fight against the Jay Treaty.
'« Annals, Fourth Congress, 1st Sess., 885, 893.
'"Ibid, 908, 913.
'" Ibid, 391, 394.

CHAPTER IV
THE RETIREMENT OF WASHINGTON AND THE
FRENCH WAR
Before another session of Congress, the electors had been
chosen for a third time to choose a President. Washington's
declining to accept another term gave an opportunity for the
first national party contest at an election. The Republicans
had no difficulty in making a selection of their candidates,
Jefferson and Burr. But the Federalists were troubled as to
the men whom they should put before the country. Finally
John Adams and Thomas Pinckney were settled on. A cam
paign characterized by intense bitterness on the part of po
litical pamphleteers, by some fraud as well as by political
intrigue came to an end February, 1797, when the count of
electors by Congress showed John Adams returned as Presi
dent and Thomas Jefferson as Vice-President. In the mean
time Congress had met in its second session, December 5, and
the last message of Washington was heard. The congenial
task of writing the answer was assigned to the orator of the
Jay treaty defence, Fisher Ames, ardent in his Federalism and
effusive in his rhetoric. It expressed "anxiety and deep re
gret . . . that any interruption of our harmony with
the French Republic has occurred." "Your endeavors," it
went on to say, "to fulfill that wish . . . cannot fail,
therefore, to interest our attention . . . We cherish the
pleasing hope," the address continued, "that a spirit of justice
and moderation will ensure the success of your perseverance."
Proceeding, it contrasted our tranquil prosperity "with the
calamities in which the state of war stiU involves several of the
European nations." The administration of Washington was
called "wise, firm, and patriotic," and "signally conducive to
the success of the present form of government." Regret was
expressed at the President's coming retirement and an eloquent
eulogy of his character and services pronounced.

52 WiLLLA.M B. Giles
With the sentiments expressed in Ames's document more
radical Republicans could not agree. Giles wished the whole
document to be recommitted and, objecting to the tone of that
paragraph in the address having reference to France, he se
cured an amendment more expressive of friendly feelings to
that Republic. On reflection, also, he could see a want of
wisdom and firmness in the administration for the last six
years — "If we took a view of our foreign relations, we should,"
he said, "see no reason to exult in the wisdom or firmness of
our administration." "If we take," he continued, "a view into
our internal situation and behold the ruined state of public and
private credit, ... he never could recollect it so de
ranged. If we survey this city, what a shameful scene it alone
exhibits, owing, as he supposed, to the immense quantity of
paper issued." Surely this could afford no ground for ad
miration of the Administration that caused it. He confessed to
thinking less of the President than did some others. If others
regretted the retirement of the Father of his Country, Giles
wished him to retire at once and thought the country would
not suffer, and that the President would be happier than he
then was. Thousands of men in the United States could fill
the office and many could fill it with "credit and advantage."
Gentlemen who had opposed prominent measures of the ad
ministration could not be expected now to come forward and
approve of them. Let gentlemen compliment the President as
individuals but let not adulation pervade the House.^*' When
the vote on the answer was taken, Giles, Andrew Jackson,
Edward Livingston, Nathaniel Macon, Abraham Venable, and
seven others voted nay.^*"And were they committing any offence
'"Annals, Fourth Cong., 3nd Sess., 1615-1618. GUes said he believed in
the President's good intentions, and did not deny his patriotism. Thought
him a well meaning man but misled, (p. 1622) Later, in 1812, Giles admitted
his erroneous judgment of Washington, and came to admire him in compar
ison with Gallatin, etc. In 1828, during the Jackson campaign, Giles ex
plained his refusal in 1797 to favor the answer to the President's speech.
As he had opposed most of Washington's important measures he could not
wish his example might be the guide for his successors. U. S. Telegraph
Extra, July 5, 1838.
'"Annals, 1667.

Washington and the French War 53
against morals or etiquette by so doing? Should men who had
made themselves famous for their opposition to each of the
measures of the first President's administration declare that
they now wished the record which they had condemned to be
the guide of succeeding Presidents? Did courtesy require that
they should condemn themselves in order to fiatter the Father
of his Country? If Giles was wrong he erred in good company ;
and withal his constituents were with him. But were Madison
and the majority of the Republicans stultifying themselves by
voting with the Federalists? In all probability they regarded
their votes as harmless and acted in a perfunctory manner.
But Giles was anything but perfunctory — to him every act was
significant — ^was worth a fight. Repulsed on this occasion, he
did not speak on the following days as frequently as usual and
seemed to have absented himself much more than was his cus
tom in preceding sessions.
Congress adjourned on March 3, 1797. Giles hastened back
to Virginia to attend to most interesting business. During the
month of March he led to the altar Miss Martha Peyton Tabb.
In those days marriage was a more formidable ceremony than
it is at present. In the records of Amelia County is Giles's
marriage bond of $150 and a quaint note signed by John Tabb
and addressed to the clerk of the court reading as follows:
"Sir:Be pleased to grant a license to Mr. William Giles to be
intermarried with my daughter Martha Peyton Tabb." Mr.
William Giles made a good bargain with his $150 bond. By
this marriage he allied himself with two of the most aristocratic
families of Virginia, the Peytons and the Tabbs, and, through
the intermarriage of his wife's sisters and relatives, with other
influential families — the Bannisters, Archers, etc. In addition
to this widening of social relations so important in those years
in Virginia polities', he improved also his material welfare, for
Mr. John Tabb, his wife's father, formerly a burgess and a
member of the Committee of Safety, left a personal estate of
£31,879.^^° On a spot three miles from the Appomattox,
'"WUliam and Mary Quarterly, XIII, 136.

54 William Branch Giles
and in a pleasant and retired situation he built the famous
residence in Amelia called "Wigwam," a spacious frame house
of twenty-eight rooms, "prettily and neatly built," "surrounded
by a grove of mammoth trees."^^^ There he dispensed hos
pitality and charity, talked politics with his friends, collected
plants and raised flowers, exchanged seeds and ideas with
Thomas Jefferson, in short conducted a flne old Virginia plan
tation with its thousands of acres of lands, many negroes, and
ruinous waste.
On March 4, 1797, John Adams was inaugurated President.
The attitude of Giles to Adams prior to the inauguration was
not unkindly. In a letter to his wife dated December 12, 1796,
Adams quotes him as saying "the point is settled. The V. P.
will be President. He is undoubtedly chosen. The old man will
make a good President, too ! . . . But we shall have to
check him a little now and then. That will be all."^°^ In this
as usual during the early part of his career, Giles, though in
dependent enough, was in accord with the attitude of Jefferson.
Indeed the turning of the Republicans to Adams, whom they re
spected more than they did the other Federalist leaders and
whom they possibly hoped to convert into a semi-Republican,
is very interesting.^^' But the conciliatory plans of both Jef
ferson and Adams seemed to have been frustrated by the Ham-
iltonian cabinet which the new President retained. No sooner
had the extra session of the fifth Congress convened than the
effort to "check" the President a bit began. The circumstances
necessitating the gathering of the extra session grew out of the
strained relations with France which had arisen by 1797.
Smarting at our failure to carry out the treaties of 1778 as
they interpreted them, objecting to the Jay Treaty and the
apparent betrayal of French interests involved in it as well as
the seeming deception practiced toward the French government
in regard to the objects of the negotiations with Great Britain,
and resenting the recall of Monroe by the Washington adminis-
'"' Mrs. Overton, Martin's Gazetteer of Virginia, CharlottesviUe, 1835, 128.
"^^ The Life and Works of John Adams, i, 495.
'" Ibid, 496. Writings of Jefferson, vii, 103.

Washington and the French War 55
tration,^^* the French had refused to accept our next minister,
C. C. Pinckney, or even to allow him to remain on French soil;
also in order to punish us for our conduct, they issued an
order authorizing French ships to treat neutral vessels as
these neutrals aUowed themselves to be treated. To the as
sembled Congress Adams transmitted a message reciting the
treatment received by our minister, and calling for prompt
measures of defence.^°^ The friends of the administration de
sired in the answer to the President to express the confidence of
Congress in the administration and their approval of his con
duct; the opposition contended that a removal of the inequal
ities produced by the Jay treaty would be all that would be
necessary to produce an accommodation with France. For in
stance, Giles asserted that France was not on the same foot
ing with reference to us as other powers and the question was
that of approving all the President had done and putting
France on an equality with other nations. All the steps taken
by the Executive seemed to Giles to have had in view an
eventual appeal to arms, which he wished to avoid. He could
not agree to be "either silly or insolent" in showing our ul
timatum; when strife came, however, he would stand by his
country."' He was one of those who felt "a strong appre
hension of a war." He would, however, "stand by his country,
in the storm and share its fate."
On the twenty-fifth Giles spoke for three hours on the sub
ject. Going into a history of our relations with France since
the beginning of the war with England, he declared that there
had been a condition of tranquility until the Jay treaty. This
had been injurious both to France and to us, particularly in
"'A controversy took place between Giles and Harper in May and June
1797 over some charges of improper conduct made by Harper against Mon
roe whUe our Minister in France. Giles demanded explanations and docu
ments, etc. He claims that he had been in "habits of friendship and inti
macy with Colo. Monroe ; from an early period of my political life to the
time of his mission to Prance." See Correspondence in Monroe MSS., Lib.
Cong. !« Annals, Fifth Cong., 1st Sess., SO. Richardson, Messages and Papers,
1, 333. '« Annals, 70, 96, 108.

56 William B. Giles
the matter of neutral ships and contraband of war. Some of
the present French demands were unjust and trifling; these
should be refused. As to the dismissal of Pinckney, he would
not say that this was right, but the French had some justifi
cation and they still wished harmony with the American people.
To deny that we had obligations to France was to contradict
our feelings. That there was in this country such a thing
as a French influence was contradicted by our conduct in the
Genet affair. One gentleman had spoken of the bad effects
of French depredations on our farming interests. How about
the effect of the British Treaty? Since that document was
signed wheat had fallen from three dollars a bushel to seven
shillings, at which price he was then selling it. What would
be the effect of war on both farmer and merchant.'' — greater
taxes and smaller prices on produce. It would mean also a
more intimate connection with Great Britain. The adoption
of the language of the friends of the administration in the
answer to the President would be equivalent to a declaration
of war. One gentleman had said such an answer would be a
second Declaration of Independence. According to Giles we
had been needing a second Declaration of Independence ever
since the British treaty took away so many of our sovereign
rights, but this was not the time for its announcement.^^'
As a result of the discussion, a compromise was agreed upon
and the answer as passed expressed a hope that the United
States would place France "on grounds similar to those of
other countries, in their relation and connection with us, if
any inequalities shall be found to exist.""' For this compro
mise Giles voted though he voted against the final draft of
the answer."" Later he confessed he had little confidence in
the President and asserted that his changed feelings were due
to the President's speech.""
We have seen the attitude of the Petersburg member on the
general French question. It was the attitude of the Republicans
"*' Annals, 138, 143.
«« Ibid, 331
""' Ibid, 333.
'™ Ibid, 364.

Washington and the French War 57
as a party. Nor was his opposition or theirs a theoretical
proposition. They made opposition against an increase of
expenditures and an increase of taxes. When William Smith
in behalf of the administration brought forward resolutions
providing for fortifications, for increases of the army and
navy, and for the raising of money, Giles disapproved of pre
cipitation and wished the matter to rest until the next session.^'^
Our military establishment was already, he thought, too large
by one-half, and yet advantage was taken of tbe present alarm
to increase it.^'^ Our military establishments had not, he de
clared, paid for themselves — they were a bad bargain.^" "Our
great interests lay," in his opinion, "in the soil ; and if ever the
vitals of the country were to be drawn together for the purpose
of protecting our commerce on the sea, he should greatly lament
it." A navy, in his judgment, was a great evil; the despotism
of nations kept pace with the ratio of expense, and yet, he
was convinced that some gentlemen desired to increase the ex
penses of government.^'* Each measure as it came up was
fought by the opposition including Giles. But despite opposi
tion Congress passed acts authorizing the completion of the
"United States," the "Constitution," and the "Constellation,"
and made provision for the employment of 80,000 militia subject
to immediate command. Duties on salt were increased, a stamp
tax provided, and a loan of $800,000 authorized.^'^ And the
Senate ratified the appointment of Pinckney, Marshall, and
Gerry as envoys extraordinary to France.
Whether it was the charms of a new wife, the state of his
health, or the necessary quietness of Congressional proceedings
awaiting the issue of the special mission to France that pre
vented Giles's prompt attendance on the second session of the
Fifth Congress, I do not know, but, at any rate, he did not
appear in Philadelphia until February 7, 1798, although
""Annals, 339.
"" Ibid, 328.
"" Ibid, 346.
"^ Ibid, 383.
'== Schouler, i, 396. See Acts of June 34, July 1, July 8, July 6, 1797.

58 WiLLLAM Branch Giles
Congress assembled on November 13.^" On the nineteenth of
March a message was received from the President declaring
that from a careful examination and consideration of the dis
patches of the envoys to France, he could see "no ground of
expectation that the objects of their mission can be accom
plished on terms compatible with the safety, honor, or the
essential interests of the nation," and urged Congress "to mani
fest a zeal, vigor, and concert in defence of the national rights
proportional to the danger with which they are threatened."^"
Resolutions were offered by Sprigg of Maryland on March 27,
declaring that under the circumstances it was inexpedient to
declare war on France, that arming merchant vessels ought to
be restricted, and that seacoast and internal defence should be
maintained.^" Harper led the debate against the resolutions
and had sharp clashes with Giles, who, in harmony with the
resolutions and the Republican position, had already declared
that defence could not be carried beyond our coast, where it
was always proper. Some in the House, he thought, wished
war. When we had information as to the ground on which our
ministers had been refused audience the House might then be
able to speak. Harper in reply declared it was not unusual
for Giles to display his ignorance. Brooks of New York, in
answer to Giles's sneers at his services in the army "in the
honorable and humane employment of clothier," replied: "If
the gentleman doubts my being a soldier, I am here to answer
him." Otis characterized a statement as a "bold, ungraceful —
disgraceful assertion." — Giles replied that this was a charge
which neither Otis nor any other man dared make in any other
place. Cries of order having been raised the speaker replied
that nearly every member who had spoken had offended.^'" In
the discussion on the Sprigg resolution, Giles asserted that
no nation had a right to go to war except when attacked. He
'*' Though no quorum was present in the Senate till Nov. 32, and the
House had little to do.
'=' Richardson, i, 364.
"^ Annals, 1319.
'<" Annals, 1356-1363. There was talk of a duel at one time; in the
north Otis was reported kiUed by GUes.

Washington and the French War 59
was against war "with any nation upon the earth ;" he regarded
it as the "greatest calamity that could befall any nation."^'"
His enemies, however, were not slow to press upon him his atti
tude in 1794 and charged him with having then stood for war
with Great Britain. Harper indeed read an extract from a
speech of Giles of March 28, 1794, on a motion by Dayton
providing for the sequestration of British debts in order to
show how patriotic the Virginia representative had been at
that time.^'^ On March 30, Giles declared he was not satisfied
with the sincerity of the proceedings of the executive; he
wished the correspondence and instructions of our ministers.
The House accepted the challenge and, on April 2, adopted a
resolution asking for these documents, and thereafter Giles
was no longer seen in the legislative halls. The triumph of the
Federalists seemed so complete that farther resistance appeared
useless, and, besides Giles, during this same month many other
Republican members withdrew.^'^
Before concluding our discussion of this meeting of Congress,
it is necessary to introduce briefly one other interesting topic.
During the course of the session the slavery question came up.
When the question of the erection of a government in the Mis
sissippi Territory was under consideration, an attempt was
made to extend to the government of the territory the pro
vision in the ordinance of 1787 prohibiting slavery or involun
tary servitude except in punishment of crime. "This was the
first debate," says Benton, "on the prohibition of slavery in the
territory which took place under the Federal Constitution, and
it is to be observed that the constitutional power of Congress
to make the prohibition, was not questioned by any speaker.
Expedient objections only were urged."^^' The plea of the
southern members was that argument, heard so frequently in
after years, that an extension of slavery over a larger territory
would ameliorate the condition of the slaves. Giles doubted
whether the restriction as to slavery was "calculated to amelio-
'™ Annals, 1333.
'" Ibid, 1344.
'" Schouler, i, 401.
'" Benton, Abridgement, ii, 334, note.

60 WiLLLiM B. Giles
rate the condition of the class of men aUuded to; he believed
not. On the contrary, it was his opinion, that if the slaves of
the Southern States were permitted to go into this Western
country, by lessening the number in those states, and spreading
them over a large surface of the country, there would be a
greater probability of ameliorating their condition, which could
never be done whilst they were crowded together as they are
now in the Southern States."^'* Nicholas presented the same
idea and asked if such a diffusion should be carried oi;it it
would not be doing such service that in time "it might be safe
to carry into effect the plan which certain philanthropists have
so much at heart, and to which he had no objection, if it could
be affected, viz : the emancipation of this class of men." "And
when this country shall have become sufficiently populous to be
come a State," he added, "and the Legislature wishes to dis
countenance slavery, the increase of slaves may be prevented,
and such means taken to get rid of slavery altogether, perhaps
in conjunction with other parts of the United States, who by
that time may be in such a situation as to admit of it, as shall
appear prudent and proper."^'" Not only was the absence of
constitutional discussion and the views of the southern states
men interesting, but the vote is suggestive — only twelve
Congressmen registered themselves as favorable to the adoption
of the restriction.^^'
'"Annals, Fifth Congress, 2nd Sess., 1309.
"^ Ibid, 1310.
"« Ibid, 1312, (March 23, 1798.)

CHAPTER V
THE VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS OF 1798 AND THE
ELECTION OF 1800
As is usual with a political party in a period of triumph,
the Federalists were overbold. Enjoying a temporary pop
ularity through the publication of the X. Y. Z. correspondence,
they gave themselves up to a policy of revenge against those
who had so severely attacked their policies, and of attempted
destruction, while they had the upper hand, of that mad and
dangerous opposition party to which Giles lent his peculiar
talents. The Alien Act caused innocent Frenchmen to tremble
for their safety; the Sedition act caused Republicans to take
secret measures for protection. ^'^ Even in Virginia there was
"a most respectable part of our State who have been enveloped
in the X. Y. Z. delusion, and who destroy our unanimity for
the present moment. "^^' In Richmond, John Marshall received
an ovation on his return from France"" and the Republicans
seemed on the defensive. However, the passage of the new
Naturalization Act and the Alien and Sedition laws in June and
July, and the coming of the tax gatherer caused a reaction.
Although John Taylor, talking secession,^'" found apparently
little sympathy and from Jefferson even met with a remon
strance,^'^ yet mass meetings in the Piedmont sections and
certain counties in the Tidewater denounced the Alien and
Sedition Acts and petitioned for their repeal. ^'^ One set of
petitions came from Amelia County, not improbably drafted
by Giles's own hand. The summer was exciting. Even college
"' See Moreau de Saint Mery's Voyage Aux fltats — unis, 263. Saint
M6ry says he was given two keys to a retreat for use in case his house was
threatened. "» Jefferson to John Taylor, Nov. 36, 1798. Writings of Jefferson (Ford),
vii, 309.
'™ Norfolk Herald, August 30, 1798. Magruder's Marshall, 129.
""Jefferson, Writings (Ford) vii, 363.
'"Ibid, vii, 364.
"=NorfoU£ Herald, 1798, 1799. Anderson, Va. and Ky. Resolutions,
Amer. Hist. Review, v, 46. Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia, 67. McMas
ter, ii, 418.

62 William Branch Giles
students reflected popular opinions ; at William and Mary, on
Commencement day, July 4, 1798, young enthusiasts paraded
the streets and exhibited a representation of John Adams as
King receiving an address from Congress. John Marshall
on a visit to Fredericksburg Was insulted in the theatre and
all but put out to the tune of the Rogues' march.^" The
Father of his Country during the last of August thought the
crisis so important, and the temper of the people so "violent
and outrageous" as to necessitate a conference between himself,
his nephew, and John Marshall in view of the coming elec
tions.^'* To the Legislature of the state, men looked with ex
pectancy. Long before that body met, prominent Republicans
had begun to plan for its satisfactory action.
On October 11, Jefferson wrote Senator Stevens Thom
son Mason, the notorious statesman who had revealed to his
countrymen the contents of the Jay Treaty: "The X. Y. Z.
fever has considerably abated through the country, as I am
informed, and the Alien and Sedition laws are working hard.
I fancy that some of the state legislatures wiU take strong
ground on this occasion."^" Jefferson's "fancy" in this matter
was perfectly correct. During the same month at MonticeUo,
George and Wilson Cary Nicholas probably discussed with
him^" the proper procedure to be adopted. Thereupon Jeffer
son drafted resolutions which Wilson Nicholas handed, under
"= NorfoUi Herald, July, Sept. 1, 1798. J. A. C. Chandler in address at
Wm. and Mary College, Richmond Dispatch, July 8, 1900.
'"Washington, Writings, (Ford) xiv, 76, (Aug. 37, 1798.)
"= Ford, vii, 383. RandaU, ii, 448. It is interesting to read what foUows.
"For my own part, I consider those laws as merely an experiment on the
American mind, to see how far it wiU bear an avowed violation of the con-
stilution. If this goes down we shall immediately see attempted another
act of Congress, declaring that the President shall continue in office during
life, reserving to another occasion the transfer of the succession to has heirs,
and the establishment of the Senate for life. At least this may be the aim
of the Oliverians, whUe Monk and the Cavaliers (who are perhaps the
strongest) may be playing their game for the restoration of his most
gracious Majesty, George the Third. That these things are in contempla
tion, I have no doubt; nor can I be confident of llieir faUure, after the
dupery of which our countrymen have shown themselves susceptible."
'™ See Ford, vii, 390, (footnote) for a letter of Dec. 11, 1821, to J. C.
Breckenridge. Randall, ii, 448.

Virginia Resolutions of 1798 63
a pledge of secrecy as to their authorship, to John Brecken
ridge of Kentucky, who happened in Albemarle County in
October.^'^ These resolutions, in a modified form, the Legis
lature of Kentucky adopted during the next month. On the
seventeenth,^" Jefferson sent the same resolutions to Madison
saying "we shall distinctly affirm all the important principles
they contain," and on the twenty-sixth wrote John Taylor
"for the present I should be for resolving the Alien and Sedition
laws to be against the constitution & merely void, and for
addressing the other States to obtain similar declarations."^'"
To both Madison and Taylor, Jefferson wrote that Repub
licans should not commit themselves farther but "reserve our
selves to shape our future measures by the events which may
happen." In what should take place, Giles proposed to take
part. Having on October 2, 1798, sent to the Governor his
resignation from the House of Representatives,^"" he was
elected to the General Assembly of Virginia ready to do his
share in promoting the cause of the Republican party and in
carrying out the will of Thomas Jefferson. On December 3, the
Legislature came together. Partisan feeling was at its highest.
Former friends, separated by party barriers, now refused to
speak and dared not stop at the same tavern. A Federalist who
entered a Republican boarding house did not escape without a
fight.^"^ The opposition of the House of Delegates first at
tempted to displace the Republican speaker and clerk; to an
swer back with a bold stroke, John Taylor, on the next day,
asked leave to bring in a bill "to secure the freedom of debate
'" It is sometimes stated that John Breckenridge was present at Monti-
cello. He was, however, probably not in such a conference, if it was held.
The draft made by Jefferson was handed to Breckenridge by WUson Nidi-
olas, apparently without Jefferson's knowledge, and possibly without his
expectation that the resolutions would be proposed in Kentucky. Brecken
ridge was advised by Nicholas not to go to see Jefferson for fear the auth
orship of the resolutions would be suspected. See Letter, W.~C. Nicholas to
Jefferson Oct. 4, 1798. Jeff. MSS., Lib. of Congress.
'" November.
"» Ford, Writmgs of Jefferson, vii, 388, 311. Randall, ii, 453-3.
'"Calendar, Va. State Papers, viii, 519.
'"Chandler above cited.

64 William B. Giles
and proceedings in the Assembly.""^ Giles's name first appears
on December 20 and is added to the Committees of Courts of
Justice, Propositions and Grievances, and Claims.^"' Two days
before, the speaker had read a letter from the Governor of
Kentucky enclosing the resolutions adopted by the Legislature
of that state and "inviting the cooperation of the General As
sembly of this Commonwealth, in obtaining a repeal of certain
acts of the United States, passed in their late session.^"* Reso
lutions written by Madison were offered by John Taylor and
were discussed in the Committee of the Whole. Against the
resolutions arose many distinguished Federalists. George
Keith Taylor, soon to be brother-in-law of John Marshall,
Henry Lee of Westmoreland, father of the distinguished Con
federate leader, and others nearly as notable threw the weight
of their ability, logic, and influence against the dangerous
document. In favor of the resolutions appeared that great
apostle of strict construction and influential Republican leader,
John Taylor of Caroline, who proposed the resolutions, and
Wilson Cary Nicholas, William B. Giles, James Barbour, and
the other leading Republicans. The debate took a wide range.
The Alien and Sedition laws are constitutional, said the Fed
eralists, because they promote the general welfare, because the
General Government must guarantee to each state a Republican
form of government, because aliens are not entitled to all the
rights of citizens, because freedom of speech does not mean
unrestrained utterance. They are unconstitutional, said the
Republicans, because they transcend the powers of Congress,
because they assume to restrict immigration before 1808,
because they deprive aliens of jury trial, because they unite
Legislative, Judicial, and Executive powers. Not only are they
unconstitutional, but they are at war with human rights, they
promote ignorance, they enlarge executive influence, "and ex
ecutive influence would produce a revolution." Without these
"^ Taylor to Jefferson, Richmond, 1798. Branch Historical Papers, June
1908, 278.
'°' Journal, 1798-1799, 39.
'"Journal, House of Delegates, 37.

Virginia Resolutions of 1798 65
laws, feared the opposition, there might be "horrid scenes of
desolation." But the immediate question was soon found to involve much
in history, law, and current politics. The Common Law of
England is the basis of our institutions, declared the one side ;
not so, shouted the other. The Constitution of the United
States is a compact of states, said the followers of Jefferson;
friends of Hamilton answered : the Constitution is an emanation
of the people. The proper tribunal to decide questions of con
stitutionality is the Federal Judiciary alone ; legislators, it
was replied, as well as judges have taken the oath to support
the fundamental compact and are in honor bound to uphold
it — to declare unconstitutional acts that contravene its pro
visions. To Federalists, Frenchmen were very dangerous people
— they intrigued everywhere they went; and the government
must have power to deal with them ; only two such men, it was
answered, have been shown by any evidence to be dangerous,
and they, it is admitted, have sneaked out of the country. Is
it necessary "to make the President absolute tyrant over per
haps a million people, to get rid of two?" "Finally," said the
Federalists, "the result of adopting the resolutions proposed
would be insurrection, confusion, anarchy." Insurrection is
certainly not our intention, said the Republicans. We are
making a pacific overture to sister states for cooperation in
securing a repeal of unconstitutional laws. We are trying
to maintain the integrity of our institutions, and that will be
productive of peace. Of Giles's efforts in this debate we have
only an abstract of one speech. That he spoke on other oc
casions and had, indeed, exerted much influence on the course
of the proceedings we have, however, certain evidence. "When
Taylor," says Grigsby in his History of the Convention of
1788,^"° "finished his speech there was a solemn pause for a
few moments in the proceedings of the House, when a member
rose in his place, who seemed to be in the prime of manhood,
and who, elegantly dressed in blue and buff, booted and spurred,
'"Grigsby, Convention of 1788, II, 338. Grigsby got his account from
TaaeweU, though he was personaUy a friend of Giles.

66 William Branch Giles
and with a riding whip in his hand, had entered the house just
as Taylor rose to speak. He placed his hat upon his knee,
and would now and then use the top of it as a resting place
for a small slip of paper, on which he would scribble a note
Though his fame was diffused throughout the
Union, he had never spoken on a great public question in
his native state. But on this, as on all subsequent occasions
to the end of a long life, when he was called upon to address
a public body, his simple and sensible narrative, his clear and
plausible reasoning, the tact with which he either spiked the
artillery of his opponents or turned its thunders against them,
and his familiar knowledge of life and manners in Virginia,
from which he mainly drew his illustrations, produced a great
sensation in the House, and abated at once and as if by magic
the grave argument and impressive declamation of Keith Tay
lor." In the one speech of his that is preserved, Giles said
he had for several years been observing the systems pursued
by the central government and the state governments. The
Virginia system was the best and mildest; it had done little
mischief and much good. There was no complaint against it
of injury to personal property, and yet it possessed less energy
than any other government. Energy was despotism, it had
produced party distinctions, the bank, the sedition law; the
object of the sedition law was the suppression of a certain
party. If it be said that the passage of these resolutions pro
posed would produce evil consequences, these evil consequences
would be due not to the resolutions but to the laws. The mem
bers of the Assembly were under oath to support the constitu
tion and hence could not throw their responsibility on the people
or on the courts. It was their right to speak. For the efforts of
the present government tended to monarchy.
Taking up the Adams administration, he declared that its
exertions were devoted to inspiring in the minds of the people
the notion of energy. He denounced the measures of the ad
ministration as to the army and navy and declared the last
Congress had left nothing undone to carry us into monarchy
— opposition to a foreign power was always "pretence" for

Virginia. Resolutions of 1798 67
the purpose of usurpation. The resolutions now offered were
charged with containing invective. It was not, however, terms
that were unpleasant; it was truth. He would be willing to
use simpler language if it could be found. "But, he doubted
whether should even the Lord's prayer be introduced before
them, and undergo a criticism, they could be brought to agree
to it." As to the Alien law he claimed that a "stranger coming
into a country had a right to protection," and was entitled to
trial by jury. For this law there was no cause, either foreign
or domestic. If these laws were repealed, "the Government would
be as firm as now. The administration . . . was not the
Government. The Government could subsist without it." The
Constitution was the source of power for the government, not
reason and the nature of things. These acts should be de
clared unconstitutional. Indeed, if members thought they were
unconstitutional, it was their duty so to declare them. They
had taken the same oath to support the Constitution as had
the judiciary. He concluded by moving to omit the word
"alone" in the third paragraph; for the national government
was both a federal and a social compact.^"'
The resolutions discussed were adopted by the House on
December 21, by a vote of 100 to 63, and Giles's name appeared
among the 100. Their contents are familiar to aU students
of history. Having professed a "firm resolution" to defend
the Constitutions of the United States and of Virginia, and
expressing a "warm attachment to the union of the states,"
they declared the Constitution a compact and the Federal gov
ernment a government only of delegated powers. When the
bounds of those powers were overstepped, the Constitution was
violated. "In case," to quote the resolutions, "of a deliberate,
palpable and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted
by the said compact, the states, who are parties thereto, have
the right, and are in duty bound to interpose for arresting
the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their re
spective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining
"" Resolutions of Virginia and Kentucky — and "Debates and Proceed
ings," etc Richmond (Robert I. Smith), 1833.

68 WiLLLAM B. Giles
to them." They regretted that "a spirit has in sundry in
stances, been manifested by the Federal Government, to enlarge
its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional chap
ter which defines them," and to expand certain general phrases
so as to destroy the meaning and effect of the par
ticular enumeration explaining them "and so as to consoli
date the states by degrees into one sovereignty, the obvious
tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be to trans
form the present republican system of the United States into
an absolute, or, at best a mixed monarchy." The Alien and
Sedition Acts were denounced as "palpable and alarming in
fractions of the Constitution" and the other states were called
upon to concur in declaring these acts unconstitutional and to
take "the necessary and proper measures . . . for co
operating with this state, in maintaining unimpaired the
authorities, rights, and liberties reserved to the states respec
tively, or to the people." To accompany these resolutions an
address to the people was adopted, setting forth the arguments
for the doctrines enunciated. The minority also adopted a
statement of their contentions against the resolutions. Having
finished the business of the session, the two parties in Virginia
went before the people in a campaign for the next session
of the legislature on the issue of the repeal of the resolutions
of 1798 and for the choice of members of Congress.
Nothing about "nullification," it wiU be noted, was said in
the resolutions described; a phrase in the original draft de
claring the obnoxious acts "null, void, and of no effect" was
explicitly rejected; there was nothing about interposition by a
single state ; and the only practical actions urged were a trans
mission of the resolutions to the other states and to the Virginia
representation in Congress. It is doubtful whether any argu
ment whatever can be deduced from these resolutions in favor
of secession. And any use of them to support the doctrines
of South Carolina in 1828-32, with little doubt, proceeds from
an uncertain interpretation. The recollection of a man as able
and honest as Madison is worth much, and he earnestly

Virginia Resolutions of 1798 69
combatted the theory that they intended nullification.^"'' The
correspondence of leaders and the debates of the session seem
to indicate that the object was to direct attention to the un
warranted character of the acts condemned, and to effect co
operation on the part of several states in securing the repeal
of the iniquitous laws. The measures of redress actually pro
posed were certanly harmless enough, and there is little evidence
that any respectable number of Republicans believed in 1798
that a state could remain in the Union and disobey the nation
al laws, however much legislatures and citizens might give it as
their opinion that these laws were unconstitutional.
However, there are some circumstances which seem to indicate
that Virginia was not sure that she might not need to do more
than resolve and plead with Congress. A paragraph from
a speech of Governor Giles in 1827 is suggestive of the feeling
of the day. "In 1798-1799," he says in the House of Dele
gates, "under much more discouraging circumstances than at
present, Virginia was again threatened for daring to assert
her rights — for daring to resist the Alien and Sedition laws.
Her representatives on the floor were threatened with arms —
with incarceration. Did they then meanly, and timidly yield to
these alarms? No sir! They determined again to regain their
rights or perish in their attempt. They went earnestly and
systematically to work. The first measure they then adopted
was to pass a law to protect them in freedom of debate;
requiring the State Judges, in the event of any member being
'" Letters of 1839-33. Madison, Writings, Congress ed. IV, 304, 357, 358,
etc. Madison's opinion at the time is found in Works (Cong, ed.), ii, 149-150.
He says because the state is judge of infractions, it does not necessarily
foUow that the Legislature is. "This was a reason of great weight for
using general expressions that would leave to other States a choice of
all the modes possible of concurring in the substance, and would shield
the General Assembly against the charge of usurpation in the very
act of protesting against the usurpations of Congress." Letter to Jeffer
son, December 39, 1798. John Taylor in the debate said his object was to
call forth public opinion. For valuable study of the resolutions see
Warfield, E. D., Kentucky Resolutions. McLaughlin, A. C, Social Com
pact and Constitutional Construction (Am. Hist. Review, v, 467) is
valuable as an interpretation of the phUosophy of the whole Particularistic
movement.

70 William Branch Giles
imprisoned for words used in debate, to issue a writ of habeas
corpus; and to replace the incarcerated member in his place
on this fioor.^"' They then determined to arm the militia, and
to make provision to purchase 5,000 stands of arms. Then it
was sir, that the foundation for the regular supply of arms to
the militia was laid in the establishment of your armory.^"" To
defray the expenses of these measures, they raised the whole
taxes of the state twenty-five per cent,^°" with the single scrape
of the pen. Backed by these measures, they entered a solemn
protest against the offensive laws. These were measures truly
worthy of Virginia.
"Did they eventuate in war, in disunion? No sir. They
saved the Union — they saved the nation. These measures re
gained our liberties; and once more, we were free. These
measures well deserved success ; and they were successful."""^
Giles himself was among the most radical of the Republicans.
Disunion to him did not appear so serious a prospect as it
did to Jefferson. In a public letter of February 21, 1799, he
expressed himself in the following way :
"As the measures proposed were to be adopted as permanent
systems, I would rather see a separation of the Union upon
proper and pacific arrangements, than be perpetually subject
to all the pernicious consequences, which in my opinion would
necessarily fiow from them — I considered disunion as a de
plorable event but less deplorable, than a perpetuation of ex
pensive armies, perpetuity of expensive navies, perpetuity of
excessive taxes, and all the other oppressive consequences
resulting therefrom." At a dinner, according to reliable
'»*Act of December 28, 1798. Acts of 1798, 9. Note Jefferson's letter
to Rowan, September 26, in which he says; "The habeas corpus secures
every man here, alien or citizen, against everything which is not law, what
ever shape it may assume." — That is, in Virginia. Ford, Writings of
Jefferson, vii, 281.
'"Act, January 23, 1798. Randolph in 1817 said: "There is no longer
any cause for concealing the fact that the grand armory at Richmond
was built to enable the State of Virginia to resist by force the encroach
ments of the then administration upon her indisputable rights." Adams's
Randolph, 28.
™ Acts, January 23, 1799.
^'" Giles, PoHtical MisceUanies— speech in answer to General Taylor, 146.

Virginia Resolutions of 1798 71
witnesses, he declared he was "clearly for separation" and
hoped it would take place. Another Republican present
replied : "I am damn glad old fellow, to hear you say so ; it has
been my wish for three or four years past. To which answered
Giles that belief in the desirability of a separation was a late
opinion of his, but he hoped a separation would occur. ^"^
Giles, it goes without saying, was a candidate for reelection
to the Assembly, his place in the House having been taken in
December, 1798, by Joseph Eggleston, a neighbor and friend.
The campaign of 1799 was a memorable one in Virginia politics.
Marshall was the leader of the Federalists and a candidate for
Congress against John Clopton. Washington himself was un
able to keep hands off. Writing to Henry on January 15, 1799,
he called attention to "the endeavors of a certain party among
us to disquiet the public mind with unfounded alarms; to ar
raign every act of the administration; to set the people at
variance with their government; and to embarrass all its
measures," and lamented the leadership of the state of Vir
ginia in the enterprise.^"'. At the earnest appeal of his
friends,^"* Henry came forward to throw into the fight his
"weight of character and influence" and gave his last public
efforts to the support of an expanding government whose for
mation he had seen with such apprehensions of evil.^"^ The
Federalists in this campaign usually placed their chief reliance
not on the merits of the Alien and Sedition laws, but on the
sacredness of the Constitution and on the erroneous and un
wholesome character of the compact theory of government.^"'
The Republicans, in pamphlets and speeches, stood on the Reso
lutions of 1798, and denied any desire for the dismemberment
of the Union. The veteran Pendleton wrote a series of letters
"^ The dinner took place at Lewis Burwell's, Richmond. Federalists
gloated over Giles's confession. See Pickering, MSS., Ma5s. Hist. Soc.
CoUections. ''"'Henry's Henry, ii, 601.
""'Washington in the letter quoted urges him. See also Henry's Henry,
iU, 427.
"^ Henry, speech, Henry's Henry, u, 607-610.
^""See tiieir pamphlets and Marshall's answer to questions of a free
holder. Ambler, 76. Lodge, Washington, ii, 293.

72 William B. Giles
under the caption "Patriarchal Address," published in Re^
publican papers, and Jefferson urged him to prepare a shorter
and simpler edition for the common mind.^"^ The most promi
nent men in the whole state were urged to stand for the legis
lature. Spencer Roane, March 28, 1799, urged Monroe and
Madison to run. This letter to Monroe is interesting because
Roane was Henry's son-in-law : "I am," he said, "credibly in
formed that P. Henry, Esq., has offered himself a delegate
from the county of Charlotte, and that there is little or no
doubt of his being elected. He has avowed, in a public speech,
his design to arrest the progress of the State Legislature in
opposing the measures of the general government; which is,
as I conceive, to attack the republican cause in its last citadel.
You may judge, from my connection with that gentleman, how
I am chagrined and hurt by the present aspect of his political
opinions : But that regret has given place to an ardent desire
on my part, to counteract him, by every means tending to
defeat his schemes."^"'
When the election came great interest was exhibited. Wash
ington rode ten miles to cast his vote.^"" Riots took place in
Richmond.^^" Returns showed that out of nineteen represen
tatives to Congress, the Federalists had elected five, and had
also elected more than a third of the members of the Legis
lature. Marshall had won in the Richmond district,^^^ Lee in
Westmoreland — both by small majorities. Madison, GUes,
Taylor and other leading Republicans were, of course, returned
to the Assembly.
That body assembled on December second. In the mean
time, following the adoption of the Virginia resolutions of the
preceding December, a number of the states to which they had
™ Writings of Jefferson (Ford) vii, 337.
""See Roane Correspondence, Branch Historical Papers, June 1905, 123.
=°» RandaU, U, 495.
™ Debates, Virginia Convention, 1839-30, 435.
'"The election is attributed by William Wirt Henry to Patrick Henry's
influence. Henry was reported to be for Clopton. Archibald Blair wrote
him, and in answer received a letter favorable to MarshaU. This letter
was handed around and a Republican district was redeemed. Henry's
Henry, u, 590-594. Henry also wrote a letter for Henry Lee.

Virginia Resolutions of 1798 73
been sent adopted resolutions condemning the Virginia doc
trines. The day after the Assembly convened came the Govern
or's message transmitting the replies. They were thereupon re
ferred to a committee composed of Madison, John Taylor, Wise,
Giles, George Keith Taylor, Mercer and Daniel.^^^ On the sev
enth, Madison made his famous report,^^' which, after vigorous
debate, was adopted in the House by a vote of 100 to 63. An
other very important paper was adopted at this session. This
was a set of resolutions offered by Giles instructing the Vii^
ginia senators in Congress to urge a repeal of the obnoxious
laws. A long preamble expressed "the solicitude of the Vir
ginia Assembly for disbanding the army and reinstating the
great constitutional principle of national defence" — that is the
employment of militia. The act suspending commercial inter
course with the French dominions was denounced as cutting off
an important market for Virginia tobacco and in consequence
lowering the price of that production of the Old Dominion.
Condemnation was bestowed upon the use of "enormous sums
appropriated for supporting the army and navy." The crea
tion of a navy was regarded as of delusive value: "a navy has
ever," say the resolutions, "in practice been known more as an
instrument of power, a source of expense, an occasion of col
lisions and wars with other nations than as an instrument of
defence, of ecopomy, or of protection to commerce. "^^* The
Alien and Sedition laws had already, in the opinion of the leg
islature, been shown to be unconstitutional and mischievous in
their operation. The senators were therefore instructed not
only to secure a repeal of these laiws but also to procure a
reduction of the army,^^° to prevent any augmentation of
the navy, and to promote any proposition reducing it.^^'
^ Journal, 6. Jefferson had taken pains to see that such a report woidd
be presented. He had Madison at his house, and wrote letters to
Nicholas outUning the contents of such a paper. Randall, ii, 509-510.
""Note Jefferson's draft of ideas to go in this Report in which he re
served Uie right of secession for the future. RandaU, ii, 509-510.
"* Compare this with Giles's opinion in 1813.
'"An exception was made by an amendment adding the words: "unless
such a measure shall be forbidden by information not known to the public."
"•Journal of the House of Delegates, 77.

74 William Branch Giles
An analysis of this paper is given at length in order to make
clear the philosophy of Giles a;nd Virginia in this period of
opposition. On these resolutions also there was a fierce fight. They
passed the House, January 11, 1800, by a vote of 102 to 49.^"
Although few of his words during these years have come down
to us, we know enough to realize that Giles was playing an
important part in the Legislature and in Virginia politics.^^'
The results of the contest in the General Assembly of Virginia
were prophetic of the national victory which the party of Jef
ferson was soon to win.
Before the year 1800 had passed into history, the first po
litical revolution since 1789 had taken place. Republicanism did
not rest on its oars because of the victories of preceding years.
The victory must be as nearly complete as possible. Giles's
name was among the Republican electors in 1800;^"
whether he took any active part in the campaign cannot be
shown, but the presumption is that he did whatever he could to
promote the general cause. He, no doubt, lost no opportunity
to defend his friend and leader against the various unfound
ed charges brought against him ; he also probably deserved some
of the credit for the fact that Amelia County cast all of her
votes for Republican electors. Only eight counties in Virginia
remained Federalist, three in the Tidewater, one in the northern
corner of the state, and four west of the Blue Ridge. Norfolk
borough held loyally to the faith of John Adams. ''^° In the
country at large Jefferson and Burr had each received seventy-
three votes for the Presidency, eight more than were received by
John Adams. The Republicans had won. After a disgraceful
effort in the House on the part of the more unprincipled enemies
to decide the tie between Jefferson and Burr favorably to Burr,
™ Journal of the House of Delegates, 83.
"* For example. The Examiner, August 13, 1803, says the "Assembly
of '98 and '99 — ^the names of Taylor, Giles, and Madison, wiU long be
revered by every genuine friend of liberty." Also Enquirer, Dec. 16, 1830.
""Virginia Calendar of State Papers, ix, 75.
ao Virginia Argus, December 3, 1800.

/ Virginia Resolutions of 1798 75
on the seventeenth of February, Jefferson was chosen head of
the nation. The farmers of the West and the South, with their
middle state allies, had defeated the shipbuilders of New Eng
land. And the money power of the nation, monocrats and
aristocrats and plutocrats yielded to Democrats and reformers.

CHAPTER VI
REPUBLICAN REFORMATION : WAR ON THE COURTS
On March 4, 1801, Giles saw his distinguished friend inau
gurated President of the United States. The day for which
chief and follower had been working for ten years had now
come. At last Giles stood in the position as counsellor and
supporter of an administration of his own faith. Prepared
to praise the new President for his achievements and to con
gratulate him on his success, he nevertheless desired him to
walk in the straight and narrow way of Republicanism. And
particularly did he desire him to turn out all "obnoxious men"
and to save the offices for reliable Republicans, among whom
were some of Giles's own friends who deserved recognition. To
set forth his views and desires on the subject it is thought well
to give in full a letter addressed by him to Jefferson on March
16, 1801 :''" "Amelia, Virginia,
March 16 1801.
"The President of the United States
Sir
"I sincerely congratulate you on your late election to the
Presidential chair; not because personal aggrandizement was
ever your object, or is desirable in itself; but because in the
most critical period, you have been solemnly called upon by the
suffrages of your fellow citizens, to reestablish American prin
ciples, to correct the manifold deviations of your predecessors,
and to administer the government according to the original in
tent and meaning of the Constitution ; you have thus become the
principal depository of the dearest rights of your fellow citi
zens and to be instrumental in their preservation and security,
must afford the highest of all gratifications ; my congratula
tions therefore result from a sense of the important services,
which you can, and which I have no doubt you will render to
the Public, and the happiness, which you will necessarily derive
frora that circumstance.
=» Origmal in Jeff. MSS., Lib. Congress.

Republican Reformation: War on the Courts 77
"I have seen your Inauguration Speech, and am highly grati-
fyed with its contents. I think the principles proposed for the
administration, correct in themselves, happily enforced, and
peculiarly adapted to the present state of public opinion. In
fact it contains the only American language, I ever heard from
the Presidential chair — This I believe to be a very general opin
ion; But I am still of opinion, that the success of the adminis
tration, will depend very much upon the manner, in which those
principles are carried into effect. Many of your best and
firmest friends already suggest apprehensions, that the prin
ciple of moderation adopted by the administration, although
correct in itself, may by too much indulgence, degenerate into
feebleness and inefficiency. This in my judgment would be a
most unfortunate circumstance, which could be attached to
the administration, and ought to be more guarded against, than
any other. It would produce general and lasting disgust in its
best friends, and revive the hopes and enterprises of its en
emies, for they are not dead — they only sleep — a pretty general
purgation of office, has been one of the benefits expected by the
friends of the new order of things — and although an indiscrimi
nate privation of office, merely for a difference in political senti
ment, might not be expected ; yet it is expected, and confidently
expected, that obnoxious men will be ousted. It can never be
unpopular, to turn out a vicious man and put a virtuous one
in his room; and I am persuaded from the prevalence of the
vicious principles of the late administration, and the universal
loyalty of its adherents in office, it would be hardly possible
to err in exclusions ; at the same time I heartily approve of
that part of your speech, which recognizes justice, as the right
of the minority, as well as the majority. But I believe that
justice, would be the most formidable of all terrors, to the
description of persons, to whom I allude. It appears to me,
that the only check upon the Judiciary system as it is now
organized and filled, is the removal of all its executive officers
indiscriminately. The judges have been the most unblushing
violators of constitutional restrictions and their officers have
been the humble echoes of all their vicious schemes, to retain

78 William Branch Giles
them in office would be to sanction the pollution of the very
fountain of justice, taking it for granted, therefore, that this
salutary check will be applyed, and particularly in this state
where there has been as gross a violation of the most sacred
principles in the administration as can possibly occur, I take
the liberty of mentioning to you a neighbor of mine, as properly
qualified to fill the office of marshall for this district of Vir
ginia, when the same shall be vacated.
"This gentleman, to whom I allude, is Wm Davis Meade.
a Gentleman, who has been firm and uniform in his principles,
in the worst of times, of amiable and delicate mind and man
ners, and who is universally respected by his acquaintances.
He is connected to the sister of the present marshall, a lady
extremely amiable and universally respected, and permit me to
urge the recommendation by one more observation; that the
emoluments of the office would be a material aid to Mr. Meade's
pecuniary situation.
"I have taken the liberty, when suddenly called on by Mr.
Meade, to make this frank communication to you, in the con
fidence that it will be well received, and duly appreciated.
My sole view has been to give some intimation with candor,
which I thought it material for you to receive, and I rely with
perfect confidence that your desicions respecting them wiU be
correct. "Be pleased to accept the most ardent wishes for the success
of your administration, and assurances of my most affectionate
regards for your person. Wm B. Giles."
The desires of Giles somewhat boldly expressed in this
letter were perfectly natural. The Federalists, during the ad
ministrations of Washington and Adams, had secured posses
sion of nearly all offices. Capable and patriotic Republicans
found themselves uniformly excluded under the principle that
any other policy would be "political suicide" for the adminis
tration. Republicans had particular right to complain of the
appointments made by Adams during his last days of office,
appointments of judicial officers made apparently for the pur-

Republican Reformation: War on the Courts 79
pose of entrenching the Federalists in power.^^^ This conduct
good Republicans, working faithfully without reward for many
years and looking forward patiently to the time of their vic
tory, could not countenance. Many desired a complete over
turning. On March 23, Jefferson answered Giles's letter of the
sixteenth and laid down his principles in regard to the matter
of appointments.^^' "All appointments to civil office during
pleasure, made after the event of the election was certainly
known," all office holders guilty of misconduct, and marshals
and attorneys of the Federal courts were to be removed. But
he hoped by a generous policy in other cases to bring back into
the fold those who deserted in the year of X. Y. Z., and by
these means to restore "harmony and union" to the country.
In response to the President's request for further views came
a letter from Giles dated June 1. He had delayed a reply partly
because the contents of Jefferson's letter "so fully explained
the principles which would govern your administration, and
which were so completely in unison with my opinions on that
subject that I had no additional observations to make at that
time." However, in order to keep the President up to the mark
from which it was feared he might depart, as indeed he had
already done, Giles proceeded, "I find the soundest Republicans
in this place [Richmond] and throughout the country are
rising considerably in the tone which they think ought to be
observed by the administration; The ejected party is now al
most universally considered, as having been employed in con
junction with G. B., in a scheme for the total destruction of the
liberties of the people it is therefore sunk or is fast sinking
into utter hatred and contempt. The compleat distress of the
party therefore, is the object which all would approve, and
many will demand; the only difficulty consists in the choice of
the means to effect this object. It is generally believed here
that any countenance given to the leaders of that party in any
department would tend to improve its execution" and, "under
"'^Bassett, Federalist System, 394. For contrary view see Farrand in
in Am. Hist. Review, v, 683.
"^ Writings of Jefferson (Ford), vni, 25. See also letter to Wm. Findley,
36.

80 William B. Giles
that idea," Giles objected to "the continuation of Mr. King in
London" and said the nomination of Mr. Pinckney to Spain "is
regretted by some of the soundest friends of the administra
tion." What concerned "the thinking Republicans" most was
"the situation of judiciary as now organized." "It is constant
ly asserted that the revolution is incomplete, so long as that
strong fortress is in possession of the enemy ; and it is surely a
most singular circumstance, that the public sentiment should
have forced itself into the Legislative and Executive depart
ments, and that the Judiciary should not only acknowledge its
influence, but should pride itself in resisting its will under the
misapplyed idea of 'Independence'." "No remedy," in his judg
ment, was "competent to redress the evil, but an absolute repeal
of the whole judiciary system, terminating the present offices,
and creating an entire new system defining the common law
doctrine, and restraining to the proper Constitutional extent
the jurisdiction of the courts." In a few days he expected to be
in "the federal city" and would be pleased to hear the Presi
dent's refiections on this subject. ^^* The truth seemed to be that
Jefferson was too moderate entirely to please the radical sec
tion of his party.
Giles, while expressing his harmony with the President in the
letter quoted, was, as we have seen, very emphatic about "the
compleat distress of the Federalist Party." He did not approve
of the continuance of King and the appointment of Pinckney,
though he must have delighted in the undermining of his old
opponents. Vans Murray and William Smith, and the overthrow
of John Adams's son, John Quincy, by the abolition of the mis
sions to Holland, Portugal, and Prussia. ^^° He wished also the
"absolute repeal of the whole judiciary system." He was, no
doubt, among those who had looked forward to a "pretty gen
eral purgation of office."
''"Jefferson MSS., Library of Congress.
GUes had hoped that the Spanish mission would be "dispensed with
especially , as the Republican party has caUed attention with particular
emphasis to the diplomatic department." Letter of June 1.
=™ John Quincy Adams, however, had already been recaUed by his father,
Schouler, ii, 13.

Republican Reformation: War on the Courts 81
Jefferson realized the situation and wrote to Doctor Rush as
early as March 24, 1801, "I know that in stopping thus short
in the career of removal, I shall give great offence to many of
my friends. That torrent has been pressing me heavily, &
wiU require all my force to stand up against ; but my maxim is
'fiat justitia, ruat coelum.' After the first unfavorable impres
sions of doing too much in the opinion of some, too little in that
of others, shall be got over, I should hope a steady line of con
ciliation very practicable, and that without yielding a single
Republican principle."^^' Jefferson "behaved," says one of his
biographers, "with a liberality toward his opponents which has
never been rivalled by any of his successors, save only John
Quincy Adams, and which since the days of Andrew Jackson
would be regarded as nothing less than quixotic. "^^' Jefferson's
plan was wiser than that of such enthusiasts as his friend Giles.
"If we can," he said, "but avoid shocking their feelings by un
necessary acts of severity against their late friends, they wiU in
a little time cement & form one mass with us, & by these
means harmony & union be restored to our country, which
would be the greatest good of all.'"^^' That policy, in the main,
Jefferson carried out. On March 4, 1801, according to Chan-
ning, there were 385 officials subject to presidential removal;
183 of them were in office March 4, 1805. When it fell to his
lot "to appoint a full set of commissioners of bankruptcy under
the act of 1801, he distributed them impartially between Repub
licans and Federalists."^^" The President's policy proved right
— the Federalists were absorbed, though in the process, their
principles were absorbed with them. Finally, however, the old
Republicans like Giles and John Randolph, and even Jefferson
himself saw what had happened and looked upon the situation
with alarm.
Thus were matters proceeding when Congress assembled on
December 7, 1801, for its first session under the new regime.
Many old faces which Giles had seen in Congress in 1798 were
=» Works (Ford), viii, 30.
"" Morse, 194.
="¦ Letter, August 36, 1801. Works (Ford), vUi, 35.
""Channing, Jeffersonian System, 17.

82 William Branch Giles
no longer present in the basement which now served as tempo
rary quarters. Some of his most prominent friends had been
raised by Jefferson to executive position, and his most promi
nent enemies had been engulfed in the waves of Republican suc
cess. In both Senate and House the dominant party now
boasted of a maj ority — in the House of two to one. The Speak
er was Nathaniel Macon of North Carolina ; the Chairman of
the Ways and Means Committee, despite Giles's superior claims,
was John Randolph of Roanoke, loved companion of the great
North Carolinian and orator in the famous election of 1799 in
Virginia. But the leader of the majority on the floor of the
House was Giles and his chief opposer, James A. Bayard of
Delaware.^'" The message which on December 8 Jefferson sent to Congress,
instead of reading it in person as had been the practice with for
mer Presidents, was conspicuous because of its moderation.
It was written, not in the language of a violent revolutionist, but
in the words of a cautious and thoughtful reformer. Also sig
nificant was its avoidance of anything having the tone of com
mand. He did not order Congress, but in a large way he
suggested for their consideration certain broad themes which
they doubtless had already in mind. It was in this cahn and
seductive manner, careful to avoid all appearance of being a
master, that he had drawn around him his great party, had held
it together, year after year, until he had marched with it to
victory; And it was this spirit which was to give him such
marked success in directing the work of his administration.
Such methods only could succeed in handling followers like Giles,
Randolph, and Macon, men often responding readily to sugges
tion and capable of loyalty but perfectly independent and ready
to resent too free a use of the party lash. Announcing that
peace had been restored to sister nations and thanking God for
the preservation of our own, the President proceeded to describe
the insults inflicted on us by the Barbary powers and to ask Con
gress to consider "whether, by authorizing measures of offense
also, they will place our force on an equal footing with that of
™ Schouler, U, 20-21.

Republican Reformation: War on the Courts 83
its adversaries." He recommended economy and retrenchment
in army, navy, and civil service," to the end that internal taxes
might be abolished. He further recommended a consideration
of the judiciary system, "and especially that portion of it re
cently erected." "A revisal of the laws on the subject of natur
alization", so that the number of years requisite for citizenship
might be reduced, he thought should be made as an act of justice
to "unhappy fugitives" and "oppressed humanity. "^'^
Postponing for the present a consideration of all other mat
ters, I will proceed at once to a discussion of that measure in
which Giles was most interested. The letters which he had writ
ten Jefferson just after the inauguration had, as we have seen,
expressed a desire for "an absolute repeal of the whole judiciary
system, terminating the present offices." The beginning of that
work took place in the Senate, January 6, 1802, when John
Breckenridge of Kentucky moved a repeal of the act of Febru
ary 13, 1801. The Senate on February 3, passed a bill to carry
that resolution into effect by the vote of 16 to 15. The Bill
came down to the House and Giles became its sponsor. The
opposition was defeated in its attempt to postpone the con
sideration of the subject and the House went into Committee of
the Whole. Discussion began on February 16, and continued
for a month. Giles's principal speech was delivered on Febru
ary 18, the strongest, clearest, and most logical of all his argu
ments in the House of Representatives. Taking a wide range he
went back to the origin of parties, and attempted to show the
monarchical tendencies of the Federalists. Particularly favored
by the circumstances under which they conducted the govern
ment, "a vast excitement of Federal fervor" at the beginning of
our history as a country, and the fact that during the first two
terms of office the "Chief Executive Magistrate possessed a
greater degree of popularity and the confidence of the people
than ever was, or perhaps ever will be again attached to the per
son occupying that dignified station," they had built up a sys
tem of patronage, a system of dependence on the influence of the
wealthy, new forms of taxation and other reprehensible arrange-
"^ Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1, 326 (Dec. 8,
1801).

84 William B. Giles
ments. He accused them, after knowing that their period of
rule was over, of attempting to intrench themselves in some part
of the government — the judiciary. Hence their bill of 1801.
The past administration, which needed an unconstitutional sedi
tion act and arbitrary imprisonment to protect itself against
unpalatable criticism, he contrasted with the present executive
who needed not such aid but invited inquiry. Taking up the
constitutionality of the repeal of the judiciary act, and quoting
the clause in the constitution saying judges "shall, at stated
times, receive for their services a compensation which shall not
be diminished during their continuance in office," he contended
that the office was not the vested property of a judge but was
held in trust for the people. The framers of the Constitution
did not intend to establish sinecures but expected services from
the judges and, the value of these services they left Congress
to determine. Furthermore, the power to "unordain or abolish"
was a necessary inference from the power to "ordain and estab
lish." He pointed out the consequences of the doctrine that
such a law as that now attacked could not be repealed, showed
that other attempts like the one now condemned could be made,
in a period of party rage, and that a party in power might bul
wark itself in new judicial offices to a perpetual increase of
judges and salaries. This doctrine that judges could not be
removed by destroying their offices would erect the judges "into
a body politic and corporate, in perpetual succession, with cen
sorial and controlling powers over the other departments." By
claiming to be judges in the last resort on the constitutionality
of laws the court had already made unlimited claims to power.
The doctrine of the great power of the judges was a doctrine
of irresponsibility and despotism, and was an "express avowal,
that the people were incompetent to govern themselves." Be
sides, the judiciary system involved an enormous expense and
the extra expense entailed by the act of 1801 was unnecessary.
In Virginia when the business had been largest he had never
heard the smallest complaint of the inadequacy of the former
courts. And it was not to be forgotten that the new system of
the Federalists had a tendency "to produce a gradual demolition

Republican Reformation: War on the Courts 85
of the State courts, by multiplying the number of courts, in
creasing their jurisdiction . . . bringing federal justice
to every man's door."^'^
This speech called down upon Giles the wrath of the opposing
party. Bayard, a favorite antagonist, answered in high temper,
taking particular offense at Giles's introductory contrast be
tween the two parties.^" Giles protested he was misrepresented,
but though unable to defend himself on account of illness was
defended in his absence by John Randolph of Roanoke,^'* who
regretted Giles's absence as "he had today lost the triumph
which, yesterday, he could not have failed to enjoy; that of
seeing his opponents reduced to the wretched expedient
of perverting and mutilating his arguments through in
ability to meet and answer them." This debate throws some
light on the position which Giles now had gained in party coun
sels. One member called him the "premier or prime minister of
the day."^'^ There was discussion as to whether members were
not unduly influenced by the gentleman from Virginia.^" Bay
ard himself spoke of the line of conduct that might have been
expected "from that sentiment of magnanimity which ought to
have been inspired by a sense of the high ground he holds on the
floor of this House, as from the professions of a desire to con
ciliate, which he had so repeatedly made during the session.^"
From the course of this debate, it is plain that Giles had become
the House leader for the administration. The older leader,
Madison, was now Secretary of State.
"^Annals, Seventh Cong., 1st session, February 18, 1803. This speech
of Giles called forth an essay by Alexander Hamilton. See Hamilton's
Works, ed. by H. C. Lodge, vii, 304 and note. In Virginia the speech
was circulated in many counties. Particular pains were taken by Feder
alists to answer it. See Va. Gazette, July 3, 1803.
'^ For an account of this debate unfavorable to Giles and complimen
tary to Bayard, see Adams's History of the United States, i, ch. xi. It
should be noticed that Giles was not the member responsible for the
introduction of strong language. See Annals, Seventh Cong., 1st Sess.,
530 et seq., 595, and compare Adams.
^'* Annals, Seventh Cong., 1st Sess., 650.
=»»Ibid, 666.
=="=Ibid, 887.
•"'Ibid, 603.

86 William Branch Giles
As to the merits of the question discussed in this debate, there
seems opportunity for only one opinion. The Act of 1801 had
been passed, February 13, 1801, at a time when the result of the
election of 1800 was known, when John Adams had but nine
teen more days in office, when the contest between Jefferson and
Burr was going on in the House. To say that the establishment
of new offices on the eve of the first great party change in our
history was solely for purposes of efficiency is to be guilty of
amazing credulity. Senator Gunn of Georgia had revealed the
motive of the Federalists when he said to Hamilton: "If neg
lected by the Federalists, the ground will be occupied by the
enemy the very next session of Congress, and sir, we shall see
. . . and many other scoundrels placed on the seat of
justice."^" They likewise provided for the reduction of the
Supreme Court at the next vacancy from five to four associates,
and created an opportunity to fill the office of Chief Justice by a
distinguished member of their own party. The claim that the
new court and its attendant offices were necessary for the trans
action of the judicial business of the country was met and re
futed in the debates ;¦'" it also is refuted by the additional fact
that the arrangement provided by the Republicans in 1802 was
sufficient for the legal business of the country till after the Civil
War. The Constitutional question seems equally clear — ^the con
tention that a court once created cannot be abolished because
the judicial officers to whom it gives employment will be dis
placed, if carried into practical operation, might mean the
preservation of a system useless and burdensome to the country,
would assume that in this peculiar instance an act once passed
by an infallible Congress could never be repealed.
But to the Federalists of the day the conduct of the Republi
cans meant the wiping away of old landmarks, the ushering in
of a horrible era of destruction. It was an evidence of "that
spirit of innovation" which had "prostrated before it a great
part of the old world — every institution which the wisdom and
experience of ages had reared up for the benefit of man." It
^Hamilton, Works (Hamilton ed.), vi, 483.
^"Contrast Adams, History of the U. S., i, 397 and Farrand in Ameri
can in Hist. Review, v, 683. See Annals, Seventh Cong., 601.

Republican Reformation: War on the Courts 87
was this spirit which in Europe had "swept before it every ves
tige of law, religion, morality, and rational government." It
made its appearance in Congress on the seventh of December;
and behold courts were rooted up ; taxes were abolished, the mint
destroyed, and the doors of the country thrown open to "out
casts of society."'*" Reformers of all ages have been known by
their opponents as "outcasts of society," "desperate innova
tors" and the like, and the Jeffersons and the Gileses did not
escape the usual fate of "forward looking" men.
Interest is added to this controversy from the point of view
of a student of Virginia history because several times in the
history of Virginia a similar question has arisen. In 1788 the
act constituting the High Court of Appeals was repealed and
. a new court was created. It is true the old judges were re
elected but only in regular competition with other candidates
for their position. ^*^ Two men who were present in the General
Assembly in 1788, Stevens Thomson Mason and Wilson Cary
Nicholas, were members of the Senate of the United States in
1802 and introduced into the debate the precedent to which I
have referred.^*^ Many years later, in 1829-1830, the same
question was to be fought over in a Virginia Constitutional
Convention ; Giles and John Marshall were to participate in an
animated discussion ; and the controversy of 1801-1802 was to
be reviewed in their arguments.
Another act was passed later in the session rearranging the
circuit courts and postponing the next session of the Supreme
Court until February, 1803.^*' The postponement may have
been for the purpose of preventing the Supreme Court from
declaring the act of repeal unconstitutional. The other admin
istration bills received support from Giles. He spoke in defence
of the resolution to authorize the President more effectually to
protect our commerce against the Barbary powers. Realizing
that he had previously been one of the bitterest critics of the
policy of founding a navy, he took the position that an emer-
^^° Speech of Henderson, Annals, 530,
"'Grigsby, Convention of 1788, ii, 192-193.
""Annals of Congress, Seventh Cong., 1st Sess., 64.
"" Act of April 39, 1803.

88 William B. Giles
gency had now occurred and the augmentation of the navy was
defensible.^** He supported the resolution for an inquiry into
the accounts of the late Secretary of State, Timothy Picker
ing.^*' He offered on January 29, the resolution for the aboli
tion of the mint,^*' and on the eighth of February he made a
speech in defence of the resolution. He said that he had always
been opposed to the mint on the ground that it was not self-sup
porting. "There is a difference," he proceeded, "between this
and other countries. Other nations need to coin their own
money; it is not with them the general, but the partial good; it
is aggrandizement of individuals, the trappings of royalty.
Here, it is true, you established a Mint ; you have raised armies
and fleets, etc., to create an Executive influence ; but what do the
people say now? They send men here to govern, who shall not
govern for themselves, but for the people."^*' This bill was
passed in the House on April 26 but was rejected by the Senate.
Giles voted for the fugitive slave bill reported on December 18,
imposing a fine of $500 for employing a strange negro without
advertising a description of the fugitive in two papers.^' Al
though he moved a resolution that the apportionment of Repre
sentatives under the new census should be on the basis of one
member for every thirty-three thousand people, the ratio in
effect since 1791, he soon shifted to his old position and sup
ported the ratio of one to thirty thousand, on the ground of a
desire to protect the small states and maintain the confidence of
the people.^*" The ratio of one to thirty-three thousand
became the law.^'"
One of the most important acts which Giles supported was
that of April 30, 1802, allowing Ohio to organize preparatory.
to admission into the Union as a state. On January 29, he had
offered a resolution for the consideration of the propriety of
enabling the territory to form a state government and was the
''"Annals, Seventh Cong., 1st Sess., 327-329, 998.
^Ibid, 320.
"°Ibid, 472, 484, 1237. On the latter page the biU is given.
=«'Ibid, 489.
"= Ibid, Jan. 18.
''"Ibid, 325, 334, 338.
™Ibid, Appendix, 1301.

Republican Reformation: War on the Courts 89
chairman of the committee to whom the matter was referred.
Taking counsel with Gallatin in regard to the contents of the
bill, he made a report March 31, 1802.^" To Gallatin was due
the provision in the act of admission, which set apart one
thirty-sixth of the land for the use of schools and provided that
one-twentieth of the proceeds of the sale of national land in the
state should be devoted, under authority of Congress and with
the consent of the states through which they shall pass, to the
laying out of turnpikes or other roads from the east to the
Ohio River and of roads within Ohio itself.^'^ In strange con
trast with Giles's later position on internal improvements was
that now taken in defence of that policy by this — in days gone
by and in days to come— ardent adherent of the doctrines of
narrow constitutional construction. "Where measures were de
vised whose great object was the general benefit, though they
might be attended with local advantages, he had no objection to
them." He considered the circumstances of connecting the
different parts of the Union by every tie as well of liberal policy
as of facility of communication highly desirable."^^' The
country was placed in a peculiar situation. "We have waters
running to the East — they to the West; and the Committee
thought it was desirable to connect these by good roads. With
the Committee state principles or interests had no infiuence.
They were governed by general principles and the common in
terest." Federalists, such as Griswold of Connecticut, opposed
the provision for internal communication on the pretext that
they saw in it a scheme to benefit Virginia and Pennsylvania, and
particularly Albert Gallatin, Secretary of Treasury, who had
an estate in the western part of Pennsylvania.^'* However, the
measure was passed and the name of Giles is honorably asso
ciated both with the admission of the first of the states of the
great northwest and with the adoption of the policy of internal
'"'Report in Annals, Seventh Cong., 1097.
^'' Adams, Writings of Gallatin, i, 76. GaUatin proposed one-tenth of
the proceeds for roads; Congress cut this down to one-twentieth.
'"Annals, Seventh Cong., 1st Sess., 1124.
=" Ibid, 1134.

90 William Branch Giles
improvements by the national government — a policy against
which he devoted the strength of his later years.
The administration party made a successful record, in the
first session of their control, in the passage of legislation. They
reduced the burden of taxation by an abolition of the excise ;^"
they effected the retrenchment of many thousands of dollars
by a reduction of army and navy;^''' they provided a sinking
fund for the payment of the national debt;^^' they planned a
military academy;^" abolished unnecessary offices and reduced
excessive emoluments even at the expense of diminishing volun
tarily executive patronage ;^^" passed new judiciary laws whose
expediency was to be proved by a half century's success ;^'" en
acted a reasonable and yet sufficiently stringent naturalization
law;^'^ placed among the statutes a copyright act^'^ and other
acts of minor importance.^" The Republicans had kept their
promises to the people and had shown themselves capable of an
efficiency for which the party of Jefferson, up to very recent
events, has not had a conspicuous reputation — though they de
served a better. In the enactment of all these measures, Giles
had taken part; with this session was to end his service in the
House of Representatives.
On July 3, 1802, there appeared in the Examiner, an adminis
tration paper in Richmond, a letter of John W. Eppes to the
people of Powhatan, Amelia, Chesterfield, and Goochland, Giles's
district, announcing Eppes's candidacy for the House of Repre
sentatives. Taking occasion to express his opinion of Giles's
ability and position, he says "the distinguished station at pres
ent held by Mr. Giles among the republicans of his country, the
confidence he has justly acquired by his exertions for years, and
™Act, AprU 6, 1803.
""Army Act, May 1, 1803. Navy Act, May 1, 1803.
""'Act of AprU 39, 1803.
'"''Act of March 16, 1802, Sections 37 and 28.
'*»For example: Act, AprU 30, 1802, an act as to compensation of
collectors. '^Acts, March 8, 1802, and AprU 29, 1803.
'^Act of AprU 14, 1803.
¦"'Act of April 39, 1803.
"' See for a similar review, Schouler, ii, 33-38.

Republican Reformation: War on the Courts 91
particularly during the last session of Congress, render his
retirement a subject of regret, not only to the republicans of
his district, but to the friends of that principle, throughout the
United States." Coming as this does from the son-in-law of the
President, it may be considered as a statement of Jefferson's
own opinion. That Giles was missed from Congress is further
confirmed by a letter of Monroe to John Taylor dated March 6,
1803, in which he says: "To be candid if I co'd see you and
Giles (added to the talents we already have in the H. of R.,
cooperating with the executive in the wise system of policy
which is adopted, T sho'd think we were completely secure."^'*
The reason for Giles's retirement from the House was ill
health: Jefferson, for instance, in a letter of February 13,
1803, to Benjamin Hawkins, wrote, "Mr. Giles is in a state
of health found to be irrevocable, although he may hold on
for some time, and perhaps be reestablished."^'® The op
position organs in Richmond, however, attributed it to. his and
Jefferson's desire that he might succeed Monroe as Governor,
and they kept up a running fire of attack on him and the admin
istration during the years 1802 and 1803. Two editors in
Richmond had reason for hostility: one was the editor of the
Virginia Gazette and General Advertiser, Augustine Davis, a
Federalist postmaster under Adams who had been dismissed by
the incoming administration. The other was James T. Callen-
der, at one time a protege of Jefferson. He had been condemned
under the Sedition Act to suffer the penalty of a fine and
imprisonment, from both of which he was relieved by the
new President: he had become candidate for the position of
postmaster at Richmond, only to be refused by Jefferson be
cause of obvious unfitness. The venom in which he had
dipped his pen while denouncing John Adams and the
Federalists he now used to poison the slanderous editorials
of the Recorder against his former benefactor. For Giles,
Callender had also peculiar reasons for hatred. That
Giles should be made Governor, these men regarded as "giving
the office to Jefferson himself." They accused the President
""Mass. Hist. Soc, Proceedings, vol. 43, 336.
""Jefferson, Writings (Ford), viii, 216. See also GUes to Madison, Jan.
6, 1803, quoted bdow and one of March 10, 1803, to Daniel Cafl.

92 William B. Giles
of having removed Colonel Wm. Heth from the office of Col
lector in order to make room for Mr. Page, Giles's rival for
the position of Governor.^" At any rate. Page was elected
Governor and succeeded Monroe on December 1, 1802.
Although doomed to idleness for a time, the restless mind
of the fiery politician was busy ; he watched the political move
ments with satisfaction and chafed at the fate which prevented
his active participation in national affairs. The foUowing letter
to Madison gives a picture of his physical and mental con
dition in January, 1803.^" "Amelia
January 6th 1803
"Dear Sir
"I do myself the honor of enclosing to you a letter of Colo
Worthington of the State of Ohio, addressed to me, my object
in doing so, is, that the President may be apprised through
you of the observations contained therein, respecting the ap
pointment of a district Judge for the State ; to which I have,
no doubt he will pay due consideration. I regret very much
that my state of health should incapacitate me for the dis
charge of my public duties in Congress during the present ses
sion. I had always intended to proceed to the Federal city
upon the first relaxation of my complicated complaints ; But
the infiexible perseverance of the Rheumatic affliction, with
which I have been, and still am afflicted, has now put an end
to every expectation of that sort. In other respects, however,
I think my health somewhat improved.
"But whilst I am sustaining in great pain a reluctant ab
sence from the scene of my public duties; I cannot help con
gratulating yourself and the President upon the prosperous
state of our public affairs in general, resulting from a wise
and just administration; and it is matter of real consolation
to me, to observe, that the path for Congress to pursue during
the present session, is so clearly marked out by the President's
message, that no occasion can exist, for any services it would
be in my power to render. Amongst the Republicans in this
'^Virginia Gazette, July 38 and August 18, 1803, also June 39, 1803.
'"Madison MSS., Lib. Cong.

<5'
Republican Reformation: War on the Courts 93
quarter ; the message gives universal pleasure ; and even the few
Federalists I have seen, appear much at a loss, what points to
select, for the commencement of their criticisms.
"Be pleased to present my best wishes and most affectionate
regards to the President of the United States & Believe me to
be, with every sentiment of the most sincere affection. Your
*"""*^ ^^"^ "Wm B. Giles"
By the summer of 1804, Giles's health had evidently been
reestablished, at least to a marked degree, although he still
complained that he was unwell. A place for him in the United
States Senate was conveniently made by the resignation of his
old friend, Abraham Venable, and on August 11 he was ap
pointed by the Governor and council, United States Senator.
In December he was elected by the Legislature for the full
term ending 1811. On November 5, he took his seat and without
delay advanced to the leadership of the Republican forces in
that body.'"
When Giles was last in Congress, his most conspicuous ser
vice was in supporting the act repealing the Judiciary Act of
1801. If there had been reason for Republican attacks on the
Judiciary at that time, there was now in 1804 additional reason
for such hostility — the conduct of John Marshall. Marshall's
appointment by John Adams, when Ellsworth most opportunely
resigned, was a severe blow to Jefferson and his party. They
had themselves looked forward to Ellsworth's death or retire
ment and had slated Judge Spencer Roane of Virginia, an enemy
of MarshaU, and a stalwart Republican, for the office of Chief
Justice. Robbed of this expected opportunity by the fore-
handedness of John Adams, they hoped they might bring about
the removal of the new Federalist judicial dictator or render
him harmless by restricting the powers of the court.^'" As if
to justify their fears and to stimulate their intentions, on Feb-
"" Giles says — Political Miscellanies, 5— he was elected "without the
least intimation of the intention of the CouncU to confer that honor upon
me." For letter of acceptance, see Virginia Calendar of State Papers,
ix, 413.
*" See Am. Hist. Review, xii, 776.

94 William Branch Giles
ruary 24, 1803, MarshaU handed down the decision in the case
of Marbury vs. Madison."^" In this case, despite the court's
acknowledgement of lack of jurisdiction, it first proceeded to
examine the legality of Madison's refusal to transmit to Mar-
bury, one of the midnight appointees of John Adams, the com
mission giving him authority to fill the office of Justice of the
Peace of the District of Columbia, and affirmed that such a pro
cedure by the new administration was "in violation of a vested
right." But the mandamus from the Supreme Court was, the
Court held, not the legal method of redress, for that part of the
act estabhshing the Judiciary which provided that method was
unconstitutional, and when a law is in conflict with the Constitu
tion, the court, they claimed, should uphold the Constitution.
If Jefferson and his supporters had already chafed at the Ju
diciary's preposterous claims of authority, what must be their
attitude after this decision? The President was wrong, the
Secretary of State was wrong, the Supreme Court had gone
out of its path so to declare. Federal judges, following the ex
ample of state judges who had usurped control over state legis
lation, were erecting themselves into a dominating tribunal
superior to the will of the people. And they were making
occasions to do it, and in doing it, were needlessly giving affront
to the other departments. The work of reform might now be
nullified at any time by judicial officers not in harmony with
the needs of the people. Here was a despotic power. Giles was
right in his letters to Jefferson in 1801. The reformation was
incomplete until the Judiciary had been pruned of some of its
presumptuousness. Three weeks before the decision in Marbury vs. Madison,
February 3, 1803, the President had sent to the House com
plaints against the conduct of John Pickering, district judge
of New Hampshire, who, on March 12, 1804, although guilty
of nothing but insanity, had been voted "guilty as charged,"
and removed from office. The same day, decision was made
by the House to impeach Associate Justice Chase of the Su
preme Bench. When Giles returned to Congress in November,
""1 Cranch, 137.

Republican Reformation: War on the Courts 96
1804, preparations were in readiness to proceed with this great
inquest. In the first week of December ,^^^ the House agreed to
the charges to be made, and on the tenth of December, the
Senate adopted the following resolution: "Resolved, that the
Secretary be directed to issue a summons to Samuel Chase, one
of the associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United
States, to answer certain charges of impeachment exhibited
against him by the House of Representatives on Friday last:
That the said summons be returnable the second day of Jan
uary, and be served fifteen days before the return day thereof."
In this impeachment trial, Giles was naturally interested.
Although Jefferson had abstained from bringing it forward by
message as he had done that of Pickering, he did so by letter
to Joseph Nicholson ; and, although before this time John Ran
dolph, manager for the prosecutors, had shown plain signs of
an early break with the regular Republicans, yet the trial was
an administration affair. For that reason, if for no other, Giles
would be zealously interested, and besides he had gone on record
in very strong words as an enemy of the Judiciary. As John
Randolph considered himself responsible in the House, so Giles
looked upon himself as the manager in the Senate. Giles was
chairman of the committee to draw up the rules to be observed
by the Senate in the trial and during the time was in daily
consultation with John Randolph.*'^ The task to which he
particularly devoted himself was that of securing the acceptance
of such a theory of impeachment as would leave the door open
for the easy dismissal of Chief Justice Marshall, or any other
offending justice. In speeches in the Senate and in conversa
tions with the wavering he elaborated the theory that impeach
ment was not a trial ; the Senate was not a court ; impeachment
did not rest on crime or misdemeanors committed by the ac
cused. A man whose opinions were detrimental to the interests
of the country might be removed by this process. "Impeach
ment is nothing more," he said, "than an enquiry, by the two
Houses of Congress whether the office of any public man might
*" December 4.
""J. Q. Adams, Memoirs, i, 318 (1804, Nov. 29).

96 William B. Giles
not be better fiUed by another." There was, according to him,
no such thing as an independent judiciary. "If the Judges
of the Supreme Court should dare, AS THEY HAD DONE,
to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional, or to send a
mandamus to the Secretary of State, AS THEY HAD DONE,
it was the undoubted right of the House of Representatives to
impeach them, and of the Senate to remove them, for giving such
opinions, however honest or sincere they may have been in en
tertaining them. Impeachment was not a criminal prosecution,
it was no projsecution at all. . . . Removal [of a
judge] by impeachment was nothing more than a declaration
by Congress to this effect: You hold dangerous opinions, and
if you are suffered to carry them into effect you will work the
destruction of the nation. We 'want your offices, for the pur
pose of giving them to men who will fiU them better." The
Secretary of the Senate could not, according to this view, ad
minister oaths to witnesses, but a magistrate would have to be
secured for that purpose. As showing what was in mind in the
effort to establish this conception of the non-judicial character
of an impeachment trial, he said : "so the assumption of power
on the part of the Supreme Court in issuing their process to
the office of the Secretary of State, directing the executive
how a law of the United States should be executed, and the rights
which the courts have assumed to themselves of reviewing and
passing upon the Acts of the Legislature in other cases" were
impeachable offenses.'" The influence of this theory on the
proceedings is seen, yet the trial was conducted according to
judicial forms. But, although the theory advanced by the Vir
ginia statesman is questionable from the point of view of con
stitutional interpretation, yet the desirability of some process
ef removal of Federal Judges not chargeable with crime is
hardly questionable. The absence of it leads to absurdities
such as the conviction of an insane man like Judge Pickering,
or the retention in office of some man who obviously, because of
unworthy character or insufficient intelligence, is unsuitable for
'"'See Speech, December 30, 1804. Memoirs of J. Q. Adams, i, 331-
335. Adams's U. S., u, 323.

Republican Reformation: War on the Courts 97
judicial position. According to the British, Constitution and
the constitutions of Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, at that
time, judges were removable by the executive on an address of
both houses of thejegislative body and for other than indictable
offences. In the United States at the present time, state judges
everywhere, except in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and
Rhode Island, are appointed for a term instead of for good
behavior, and are removable, not only by impeachment, but in
many cases by the Governor on an address of the legislature.^'*
And in three states^'' a process of judicial recall has been es
tablished. The tendency of modern thought is increasingly
toward the position of the Jeffersonian Republicans.
In addition to speeches and conversations in regard to the
theory to be pursued, there was other work for the vigorous
Virginian. The Vice-President would be the judge in the trial
and unfortunately the present incumbent was unfriendly to the
prosecutors. An effort was made to win his favor. Relatives
of his wife and his friend, James Wilkinson, were presented by
the President with good offices, and Giles took it upon himself
to circulate a paper among senators petitioning the Governor
of New Jersey to throw out an indictment against Burr in the
county in which the duel against Hamilton had taken place.
These caresses seem to have accomplished their purpose; for
' John Quincy Adams, always on the alert for details of such a
character, reports that the Vice-President was partial to Giles
even to the extent of allowing him once to speak three times. ^''
Giles was no doubt desirous of the conviction of Chase, and
had prejudice against the Judiciarj'; he did have extraordinary
relations with John Randolph, manager, but he did not allow
these things to prevent his judging the case with fairness. If
the prosecutors of the Justice desired success, they had griev
ously erred in the multitude and character of the charges which
they had brought. The incident which had inspired the trial
was the charge made by Chase on May 2, 1803, to the grand
jury at Baltimore. Departing from the dignity of the judge,
""Baldwin, American Judiciary, 341.
"" Oregon, California, and Arizona.
""Memoirs, December 34, 1804, 335.

98 William Branch Giles
though foUowing the practice of the day, he had taken oc
casion, before the jury had retired, to deliver to them a politi
cal harangue, replete with reflections on the administration.
After picturing the free condition of the people "where justice
is impartially and speedily administered," he had proceeded to
say: "where law is uncertain, partial, or arbitrary; where jus
tice is not impartially administered to aU; where property is
insecure, and the person is liable to insult and violence with
out redress by law, the people are not free, whatever may be
their form of government. To this situation, I greatly fear,
we are fast approaching. You know, gentlemen, that our state
and national institutions were framed to secure to every mem
ber of the society equal liberty and equal rights; but the late
alteration of the Federal judiciary by the abolition of the
office of the sixteen circuit judges, and the recent change in the
state constitution by the establishing of universal suffrage,
and the further alteration that is contemplated in our state
judiciary (if adopted) will, in my judgment take away aU
security for property and personal hberty. The independence
of the national judiciary is already shaken to its foundation,
and the virtue of the people can alone restore it."^'' That a
Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States should so
far forget himself or misuse his opportunities, as to denounce
from his high seat the action of the other two coordinate
branches of the Federal Government, the action of the people of
the state of Maryland in changing their constitution, and also
use his influence against an alteration then under consideration
in that state, was reprehensible to a marked degree, and was evi
dence of unfitness for the high dignity which he held. But, not
content with resting their case on this incident, the House mana
gers went back to 1800 to the trials of John Fries and James
Thompson Callender, now an old story, and, besides, dragged
in certain alleged errors in rulings made from the bench.
In the conduct of the trial there was inconsistency and con
tradiction among the managers as to the theory of impeach-
'" Annals, Eighth Cong., 3nd Sess., 674. Trial of Judge Chase, ex
hibit eight.

Republican Reformation : War on the Courts 99
ment, and John Randolph, the chief manager, unprepared and
nervous, could hardly continue his final argument to its legiti
mate conclusion.^" When, on the twenty-eighth of February,
the form of the question to be put was under discussion, Giles,
still upholding his theory of impeachment as described above,
yet on the ground that the actual offenses charged in this
present case were high crimes and misdemeanors, agreed that
the question should read "Is Samuel Chase guilty or not guilty
of a high crime or misdemeanor, as charged in the article" just
read? When the vote was taken he, with the majority of
Senators, voted against the prosecution in four items out of
the eight. Wherever he voted for conviction, except in the
case of the second article, he voted with the majority. One of
the charges, the eighth article, which had reference to the
speech before the grand jury at Baltimore, might have been
sustained by the necessary two-thirds majority, had the mana
gers rested their case exclusively on it and left out charges
whose only effect was to irritate, to weaken, and to alarm as
to the consequences of a favorable vote. When the question of
payment for the witnesses arose, Giles refused to consent to a
distinction between those for the prosecution and those for the
defience, insisting on payment for both by the United States,
and won from Adams the praise of being "firm and correct."^'"
The only other act of this session in which Giles seems to have
been much concerned was an act further providing for the
government of Orleans. This act he presented and carried
through the Senate. It became a law March 2, 1805. By
an act passed during the preceding session,^'" the southern
part of the Louisiana Territory became the territory of
Orleans, under a government similar to that provided in the
ordinance of 1787, as the first territorial stage for the north
west. Fifty thousand people, however, lived in Orleans, where
as the Northwest Territory in 1787 was almost destitute of
inhabitants. Their governor and council were appointed by
'^See Trial of Chase.
'"J. Q. A. Memoirs, i, 373. Also interesting letters in Adams Tran
scripts, vol. ii.
™ U. S. Stat, at Large, u, 383.

100 William B. Giles
the President. These made the laws. The Supreme Court
was also composed of Presidential appointees. On the thirty-
first of December, 1804, Giles had presented a petition from
"planters, merchants and other inhabitants of Louisiana," re
monstrating against certain laws which controverted their
rights. Stating their grievances in stirring language, claim
ing that they were not "incorporated into the United States,"
as was promised in the treaty that they should be, they prayed
that "so much of the law above mentioned, as provides for the
temporary government of this country, as divides it into two
territories, and prohibits the importation of slaves, be repealed.
And that prompt and efficacious measures be taken to incor
porate the inhabitants of Louisiana into the Union of the
United States, and admit them to all the rights, privileges, and
immunities of the citizens thereof."''^ The act of March 2,
1805, conceded to the inhabitants of the territory of Orleans,
the privilege of electing at once a General Assembly to make
their laws. When the population should amount to 60,000,
they should be authorized to form a constitution and to claim
admission into the Union.
™ For the "Remonstrance" see Annals, Eighth Cong., 2nd Sess., 1597.

CHAPTER VII
MONROE'S TREATY AND THE BURR TRIAL
The Eighth Congress ended March 3, 1805. But GUes was
not able to return to the Senate until December, 1806. In ad
dition to the renewed suffering from his rheumatic disease, on
his way to Washington, late in 1805 or early in 1806, he was
thrown from a carriage. His leg was fractured and knee in
jured "to an extreme degree," so much so that he was "reduced
to the use of crutches" and was "scarcely able to hobble in a
miserable manner without them."^'^ He regretted being deprived
of his "share of responsibility in the measures to be adopted
by the Government in the present delicate crisis of our public
affairs."^" To this his distinguished friend replied "we learnt
here with real affliction the terrible calamity which happened
to you. To our feelings for your personal sufferings were
added those for the public want of you here. For the impor
tance of the matters before Congress, & some unfortunate
circumstances, your presence here would have been, & would
still be of incalculable value to the nation."^'* And again he
said to others that Giles's absence had been "a most serious
misfortune."^'" But, in the interval, there was service which the
cripple could render. John Randolph, who as early as De
cember, 1800, had begun to talk of Republican Monocrats, and
a few months after the inauguration of Jefferson, expressed his
disappointment at practical results,^" had now for two years
given signs of a break with the administration. Angered
against Madison because of his connection with the Yazoo
claims, disgusted at the departure of the RepubKcans from their
pure principles of 1798, mortified by the ignominious breakdown
of the Chase trial and at GUes's action in the payment of wit-
"'' Letter to Monroe, March 4, 1807— Monroe MSS., Lib. of Cong.
=^ Jefferson MSS., Lib. of Cong.
^Jefferson to GUes, Feb. 33, 1806, Jefferson MSS., Lib. of Cong.
"^^ Writmgs (Ford) VIII, 435.
"° Correspondence with Joseph Nicholson, Adams Transcripts.

102 William Branch Giles
nesses, he had on March 5, 1806,^" delivered a bitter criticism
of tlie executive and the cabinet. He soon declared hipiself no
longer a Republican but a member of a third party of quids."^"
He followed a policy of denunciation and obstruction until he
had disgusted his supporters and thrown the administration
"into the hands of the northern democrats."^'" Giles had been
as we have seen, on very friendly terms with the eccentric leader ;
but, although himself unsympathetic with the views of the ad
ministration as to the Yazoo claims,^"" yet he felt that an attack
on the administration was an attack on him and he was ready
to be of service to remove Randolph from a position in which
he was an embarrassment. Hunting around, he found an old
enemy of his own in Randolph's district. Creed Taylor, and
proposed him for Congress. And, in order to defeat his former
friend, he exhibited a confidential letter received from Ran
dolph. ^"^ But the disaffected statesman of Roanoke continued
to stand in the graces of his constituents, who returned him to
Congress regularly until 1813. To that body Giles himself
came back in December, 1806.
The Second Session of the Ninth Congress was, according to
Giles, "the most harmonious session in the Senate, that has
taken place since the commencement of the government." Party
was nearly, according to him, at an end in that body ; and sub
jects were generally discussed and considered merely in relation'
to their intrinsic merits unaccompained by any collateral sensi
bilities — the House of Representatives, was occasionally agi
tated by variable squalls and whirlwinds, defying all system and
consistency. This was attributed, however, "more to the capri
cious sensibilities of a few individuals, than to the designs or
views of the general mass."^"^ A consultation of the Annals for
'^Annals, Ninth Cong., 1st Sess., 561, 573. Adams's Randolph, 174-
178. =»» Adams's Randolph, 181.
""•Ibid, 184-189.
'" In a letter to Randolph, Feb., 1806. (Substance given in statement
of Leigh mentioned below).
"*' Letter of John Randolph to Nicholson, Adams's Randolph, 198. Also
Memorandum of Benjamin Watkins I,ei^ in Library of Virginia Hist.
Society. =»" Letter of GUes to Monroe, March 4, 1807.

Monroe's Treaty and the Burr Trial 1()3
the session bears out this statement, certainly as far as the
Senate is concerned. In regard to the character of the debates,
it is impossible to be certain in the absence of full reports of
the speeches delivered, but measures desired by the administra
tion were usually carried through without the necessity of a
division. The President's message regretted delays in securing
satisfaction in our negotiations with Great Britain and Spain,
mentioned in general terms the operations of Burr, and sug
gested measures for the prevention of enterprises prepared by
our citizens against the United States, reported satisfactory
conditions among the Indians, commended the expeditions of
Lewis, Clark, and Pike, an4 offered congratulations "on the ap
proach of the period at which you may interpose your author
ity constitutionally to withdraw the citizens of the United
States from all further participation in those violations of
human rights which have been so long continued on the un
offending inhabitants of Africa," suggested a suppression of
the duties on salt, and recommended a continuation of the
Mediterranean fund, and an extensive system of internal im
provements and national education as being proper objects —
provided that a constitutional amendment authorizing them
should be adopted — for the expenditures of the surplus in the
Treasury.^"' The day after the reception of this message, a
temporary suspension of the act of last session prohibiting cer
tain importations was recommended "on consideration of jus
tice, amity, and the public interests."^"* The particular items
of the message were referred, as usual, to the select committees.
Giles was appointed on the committees on fortifications, non
importation of slaves, and was made chairman of the committee
as to laws respecting insurrections, on the suspension of the
non-importation act, and on the repeal of the duty on salt.
The first of these recommendations to become law was that de
siring the suspension of the non-importation bill. An effort
was made in the House to extend the suspension to December 21,
1807. This failed, and the bill as it came from the House
''°° Richardson, Messages and Papers, i, 405.
¦"Ibid, 411.

104 William B. Giles
suspended the act to July 1. By a Senate amendment, the Pres
ident was, in addition, given authority to suspend it to the
second Monday in December of the next year.""" The duty on
salt was repealed and the Mediterranean fund continued as the
President had requested.^"' The President's recommendations
for the passage of an act forbidding the importation of slaves
provoked such an interesting debate in the House and was
a subject in which Giles was so much interested in later years
that it is much to be regretted that his speeches in the Senate
on this subject are not preserved. It was the Senate bUl, how
ever, which became a law, and at least part of that bill was
written by Giles.
The discussion ranged around three important points in
the House and presumably there was interesting debate on these
same questions in the Senate. What should be done with the
negroes seized from violators of the law? Some southerners,
like Early of Georgia, who reported the House bill, wished them
forfeited to the Government and sold by it. Others wished
them freed. The decision of the matter was to leave the negroes
to the disposition of the states wherein they were captured.
For this provision Giles claimed to be responsible, and of it he
was very proud. For all time, he later asserted, this provision
had placed the control of slavery in the hands of the legisla
tures of the states and territories. Not uninteresting is it
to find him rejoicing that the legislatures of the territories of
the United States had absolute control of this purely domestic
institution.""'' Surely he saw but dimly into the future — in
1858 would he not have held with Jefferson Davis as against
Stephen A. Douglas, and with the Dred Scott decision as
against the Republican platform?
The severity of the penalty to be imposed for violation of the
act was another question at issue. The House was successful
in the substitution of fines and imprisonment for the death
penalty as proposed by the Senate. John Randolph argued
against fines and imprisonment "on the ground that such an
=*= Annals, December 13 (Senate), Act of December 19.
'"Act approved March 3.
=" Proceedings and Debates of Virginia Convention, 1829-1830, 346.

Monroe's Treaty and the Burr Trial 106
excessive penalty could not, in such cases, be constitutionaUy
imposed by a government possessed of the limited power of the
Government of the United States.^"' The third point of dis
pute was the manner in which interstate coastwise trade should
be prohibited. The Senate proposed its entire prohibition.
After disagreement of the two Houses, the conference com
mittee devised a compromise prohibiting the coastwise trans
portation of slaves, with a view to sales, in vessels under forty
tons burden.^"" Even this compromise brought forth the dra
matic efforts of John Randolph, and his tragic declarations
that he had "rather lose the bill, he had rather lose all the bills
of the session, he had rather lose every bill passed since the es
tablishment of the Government, than agree to the provision'""
contained in this slave bill. It went to blow up the Constitu
tion in ruins.'""'' The House, however, accepted the provision
and passed the law. Only five men voted against it — two of
them were from Virginia.'"^ If John Randolph, in the quota
tions given from him in the preceding paragraph, was radical
and violent, yet his expressions carried with them a significance.
There were those who did not wish the slave trade abolished;
indeed, there was a modicum of truth in the assertion of
Early,'"' even at that time, that "a large majority of the people
in the southern states do not consider slavery as even an evil."
Had the law provided for freeing the slaves iUegally imported,
as moderate a man as Macon was ready to declare it could
not be executed.'"* In due time, however, the states passed laws
for the enforcement of the act. Virginia had already directed
slaves imported within her boundaries to be delivered to the
overseers of the poor and sold for cash, and had imposed a
'"' Annals, Ninth Cong., 2nd Sess., 484.
"°° Annals, 636. Schouler, ii, 144. Dubois, Suppression of the Slave
Trade, 102. Act approved March 3, 1807.
'°° The coastwise provision.
»'" Annals, 626.
""Gamett and Trigg. The others were from South Carolina, Vermont,
and New Hampshire. The opposition of each was, however, due to ques
tions of detaU.
«» Annals, 238.
•"Annals, 173-174.

106 William Branch Giles
penalty of $400 for each slave brought in.'"^ But the famous
act of 1807, passed as I have just described by the Congress of
the United States, was very ineffectively enforced.'"'
An act was passed at this session authorizing the President
"in all cases of insurrection, or obstruction to the laws," where
it is lawful to caU out the militia to suppress insurrections, to
employ "such part of the land or naval force of the United
States, as shaU be judged necessary.'""' In the meantime, m
accordance with a resolution of the House of Representatives,
the President sent to the two Houses on January 22, a fuU
statement of the history of the Burr conspiracy, as he under
stood it to be, and of his own conduct in the premises. From
the information received, it appeared to the President that Burr
had two objects "which might be carried on jointly or separ
ately;" one was "the severance of the union of these states by
the AUegheny Mountains; the other an attack on Mexico."
Having narrated the history of events as he knew them, he add
ed that one of Burr's emissaries had been liberated by habeas
corpus and that two others were on their way east and would
be handed dver to the courts for action. That the Supreme
Court Judges would be in Washington in a few days, was a fact
worthy of mention in this connection.'"'
On the following day this message, on motion of GUes, was
referred to a committee composed of himself, John Quincy
Adams, and Samuel Smith, with a view of inquiring into the
expediency of suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus.'"' Before adjournment for the day, a bill was pre
sented by this committee to the Senate, rushed through under
suspended rules, and sent over to the House. The biU pro
vided that "in all cases, where any person or persons, charged
on oath with treason, misprision of treason, or other high crimes
or misdemeanor, endangering the peace, safety, or neutraUty
""Act passed January 26, 1806. Statutes at Large of Virginia (new
series), iii, 351, A mUder act had been passed in 1793.
"^ Dubois, Suppression of the Slave Trade, 160, et seq.
»"Act approved March 3, 1807.
""Richardson, Messages and Papers, 1, 413 (January 33, 1807),
«" Annals, Ninth Cong., 3nd Sess., 44.

Monroe's Treaty and the Burr Trial 107
of the United States, have been or shall be arrested or im
prisoned . . . the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus shall be, and the same hereby is suspended, for
and during the term of three months from and after the passage
of this act, and no longer.'"^" Without the formality of passing
through the ordinary forms of procedure, the bill was rejected
on its first reading in the House on the very day of its reception,
January 26, on the grounds that the emergency contemplated
in the Constitution, a danger to public safety, did not exist, and
further, that it was, so far as it related to persons arrested,
really an ex post facto law. The vote against it was 113 to 19,
one of its strongest opponents being John W. Eppes, the
President's son-in-law.'^^
A few days after this, the Supreme Court, on whom the
President in his message had expressed his reliance, released
on a writ of habeas corpus, Swartwout and BoUman, emissaries
of Burr. So angry was Giles that he threatened to bring
forward a motion taking away aU jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court in criminal cases.'^^
But, before the question of Burr became a matter of history
and before the adjournment of Congress, the President had
received from Monroe, minister to England, and William Pink-
ney, special envoy sent during the spring to aid Monroe, a
treaty which these gentlemen had finally secured from Great
Britain. Instructed to negotiate an instrument which should
bind the British to abandon the impressment of American sea
men, which they had continued to do of late, to restore the
West Indian trade to the position which it occupied when Jef
ferson became President, and to secure indemnities for the cap
tures made under an admiralty decision in 1805,'^' Monroe and
Pinkney, after futile negotiations, had agreed to a treaty
which all but ignored the instructions on the first two points.
'^'' Annals, Ninth Cong., 3nd Sess., 402.
•"Ibid, 403.
•"Adams, Memoirs, i, 459.
"•The latter was not named as absolutely indispensable but refusal of
Great Britain to yield would be "a painful impediment in the negotia
tions." Am. St. Papers, For., Ui, 133.

108 William B. Giles
The West Indian trade was, however, aUowed under certain
conditions. But after the treaty was agreed to, but before
it was signed, a note was presented to them by the British
negotiators stating that promise of resistance to Napoleon's
Berlin decree by our government would be a necessary condi
tion to the English ratification.'^* The treaty was received by
the President on March 3. How it was received by him and
regarded by the Virginia Senator is told in a letter to Monroe
by the latter dated the following day : "The President of the
United States was last evening furnished with a copy of the
treaty lately concluded between the commissioners of U. S. and
G. Britain, together with the declaratory or explanatory
note on the part of the British Commissioners. The contents
I have not seen; but the substance has been informally com
municated by the President without reserve ; and it would give
me great pleasure, to have it in my power to assure you that
they were acceptable to the government and people of this
country. But this is not the fact. The obvious tendency of
the explanatory note, and the silence respecting seamen, have
excited universal disappointment and astonishment. The High
and unabated confidence in our commissioners, foi-bids any con
clusive opinion on this subject, until their own inducements for
consenting to such a measure shall be known ; But without this
information, I can assure you, that the views and opinions re
specting our foreign relations, are extremely different from
those which must have influenced our commissioners. The only
party here in favor of making a common cause with G.
B. or taking any part whatever in the war, until absolute
ly forced to it; is the mere Anglican party, accompained
by a few wildly eccentric men, who have no influence whatever,
and are considered generally as men of disordered imaginations.
They are totally destitute of influence, and destroy every per
son or object they endeavor to support. It is feared that some
of the wild effusions of some of these men, have been mistaken
by our commissioners for indications of the public sentiment."
"* Am. St. Papers, For., in, 162.

Monroe's Treaty and the Burr Trial 109
Although Congress was still in session when the treaty was
received, the President, instead of submitting it to that body,
returned it to the American commissioners.'^® "Take out the
eleventh article," wrote the President, "and the evil of aU the
others so much overweighs the good, that we should be glad to
expunge the whole." Monroe might come home, receive the
governorship of Orleans, "the second office in the United States
in importance," and, unless the treaty could "be put into accep
table form," the negotiation should be allowed "to die away
insensibly.'"" In the meantime the scene of interest had shifted from the
capital of the United States to the capital of Virginia. During
the month of March, Burr arrived in Richmond ready to stand
trial. Entertained at dinner with the chief justice who was to
preside at the trial, lionized by Federalists, so commodiously
imprisoned that he could offer his daughter a parlor and bed
room with three large closets, the recipient of messages, and
delicacies, and visits by "friends and acquaintances of both
sexes," the former vice-president appeared to be rather the hero
of patriotic exploits than the prisoner charged with treason
against the United States. When the grand jury was sum
moned, the names of W. C. Nicholas and WiUiam B. Giles
were found on the list. To them, naturally. Burr objected,
to Nicholas as having entertained a bitter personal animosity
against the prisoner, and to Giles as having been the author of
the bill for the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and
having on other occasions expressed his opinion. Disclaiming
any resentment against Burr and protesting he could receive
without prejudice judicial evidence, Giles expressed a wiUing
ness to withdraw, and, on the advice of the Chief Justice, did
so.'^^ Giles's interest in the case, however, is clearly seen from
the following letter written to Jefferson about ten days after the
'""Jefferson was sharply criticized by some regular Republicans — e. g.
General Samuel Smith, who wanted to go to London himself as envoy
extraordinary, complained that the President had acted with insufficient
delicacy. Smith to W. C. Nicholas, AprU 1, 1806 and March 4, 1807.
Nicholas MSS. (Transcripts by Henry Adams).
¦"RandaU, iii, 301.
•"Proceedings of the Trial, 16 and 16.

110 William Branch Giles
examination of Burr by Judge MarshaU preliminary to his
admission to bail.
"The late enquiry into the charges vs Colo Burr, has
excited a very great degree of sensibility in this part of the
country and probably will have the same effect in all parts of
the United States. The real friends of the administration are
universally anxious for a full and fair judicial investigation
into his conduct, and rely with great confldence upon the execu
tive for taking aU measures necessary for effecting that ob
ject. The new, as well as the old opposers of the administra
tion, are anxious to smother the investigation, and have al
ready suggested doubts respecting the measures heretofore pur
sued in relation to Burr ; and intimate that the executive are
not possessed of evidence to justify those measures, or if they
are, that they have been extremely delinquent in not producing
it at the examination. It is even said that General Wilkinson
will not be ordered to attend the trial. I hope and trust that
this is not the fact ; because I am confident that such an omis
sion would implicate the character of the administration, more
than they can be apprised of. Indeed, I do not see under such
circumstances; upon what ground the administration could be
justified by Its real friends. The necessity of Wilkinson's
presence with the army would not be received as an apology
by any party in this part of the country. Besides, I think
Wilkinson's own character will be seriously affected by his
absence; and of course it would be unjust to him. Probably,
too, measures contemplated in relation to his late military
proceedings would receive considerable impression from that
circumstance. These considerations, I am confident cannot
receive too much of your attention."
Into the story of this trial it is not necessary for my pur
poses to enter. The appointment of John Randolph, bitter
eneniy of the administration, as foreman of the grand jury,
the extraordinary conduct of the presiding justice in issuing
a subpoena duces tecum, requiring the President to appear with
certain documents and letters, the attacks of the defendant's
attorney on the administration, Jefferson's eagerness for the

Monroe's Treaty and the Burr Trial 111
conviction of Burr, the final discharge of the accused — all these
constitute a drama of judicial and semipolitical contest seldom
equalled in America. One result of the proceeding was a further
estrangement of the Supreme Court and the Executive and the
increased desire on the part of the leading Republicans to strike
down this overweening and dangerous usurpation of the
judiciary.

CHAPTER VIII
THE CHESAPEAKE OUTRAGE AND THE
TREASON BILL
While the Burr trial was going on, an event of much im
portance took place, destined to have a bearing on our very
delicate relations with England. On June 22, our ship Chesa
peake, on her way to the Mediterranean, left Hampton Roads.
Out from Lynnhaven Bay, where it had been lying, came the
British ship. Leopard, and, approaching the American vessel,
hailed for the purpose of deUvering dispatches to Commodore
Barron on board the Chesapeake. The dispatches were nothing
less than an order from Vice- Admiral Berkeley at Halifax di
recting the captains and commanders of his majesty's ships and
vessels "in case of meeting the American frigate 'Chesapeake'
at sea" to search it for deserters reported to be on board. Re
ceiving no satisfaction from Barron, the commander of the
Leopard opened fire, killing three men and wounding eight.
Four men were taken from the ship, three of them were com
pelled to reenter British service and the other was executed.
Among all the injuries suffered by American honpr during the
whole shameful period of English and French depredations,
none equalled this in shamefulness, in none had the British
shown such effrontery. Not an ordinary merchantman on the
high seas but an American man of war in sight of our shore
was compelled to submit to the will of a British crew. Intense
feeling immediately flared up. The cities of Norfolk and Ports
mouth passed resolutions discontinuing relations with the British
ships, providing for the appointment of a committee of cor
respondence, for the subscription of a fund for the wounded
and for the families of the killed, pledging their lives and prop
erty to the government in measures of vengeance and retalia
tion.'^' The Governor of Virginia, W. H. Cabell, ordered out
¦^Enquirer, June 37.

Chesapeake Outrage and Treason Bill 113
the mUitia.'" Meetings were held in many places'^" and reso
lutions adopted denouncing the outrage and expressing con
fidence in the executive. At one of these meetings held July 11,
at Amelia Court House, Giles presided and the following reso
lutions were adopted :'^^ "Resolved, unanimously
"That this meeting consider the attack on the Frigate Chesa
peake, as the commencement of a war on the United States
by the British government, and entered into with every circum
stance of perfidy and aggravation which is calculated to ex
cite our feelings, and unite us in resentment against that
nation. That in a government like ours, where no artificial dis
tinctions exist, the murder of one citizen ought to excite the
serious and effectual resentment of the government. That any
farther attempt to negociate with the faithless and corrupt gov
ernment of Britain, previous to her making the most satisfac
tory concessions for her late outrage, would be derogatory to
our national honor and independence. That this meeting has
fuU and entire confidence in the Executive and other constituted
authorities of the United States, and that we are ready and
willing to support them, in any measures they may think proper
to adopt, in this present awful crisis, and to that end, we do
now pledge our lives, and fortunes and our sacred honor.
"That this meeting are greatly pleased at the unanimity
which prevails among every description of citizens in our towns,
and they highly approve the feelings and sentiments expressed
at Norfolk, Richmond, Petersburg, etc. and whilst their ex
posed situation may subject them to greater and more imme
diate calamities than the inhabitants removed from the water,
they consider that their conduct on that account merits and
demands from their fellow-citizens in the interior, every aid
'^°See Enquirer, July 38.
^See Enquirer, July 1-July 34, 1807. The foUowing are some of
the places, where meetings were held: Hampton, Richmond, Fredericks
burg, Petersburg, Manchester, Alexandria, Lynchburg, Bent Creek, Port
Royal and the following Court Houses: Albermarle, Powhatan, Caroline,
Westmoreland, King and Queen, Amelia, Louisa, Fluvanna, Orange,
Cumberland. ¦"' Enquirer, July 31, 1807.

114 William Branch Giles
and comfort which they may require during the progress of
the conflict."
Urged to declare war at once, or at least to call an im
mediate session of Congress,'^^ the President waited and allowed
the warlike disposition of Congress to decline in fervor. Mean
while he dispatched a vessel to England to demand reparation
and on July 2, in a proclamation ordered British ships out of
American waters. New York, New Orleans, and Charleston
were put in a state of defence and preparations were made
for calling out the mihtia. Apology was promptly made by
the British government, but the proclamation of July 2 was
not relished, reparation was not to be conceded until 1811, and
refusal was made to couple the question of the Chesapeake with
the general question of the impressment of our seamen.
Before further developments were known in the country. Con
gress had, on October 26, assembled by special call of the Presi
dent.'^' On the following day, the message was received.'^*
Softened by the moderate suggestions of GaUatin,'^' it recited
the events in our relations with Great Britain since the depar
ture of the extraordinary mission to London. The attack on
the Chesapeake and the President's action as narrated above
were described, and, in addition, mention was made of the order
in council dated January 7, 1807, and the seizures made under
its regulations. Relations with Spain were described as un
settled and a decree of hers in harmony with Napoleon's Berlin
•decree was spoken of as an additional ground of complaint.
^''By W. C. Nicholas in letter of July 7, 1807, Jefferson MSS., Lib.
of Cong. Nicholas said: "I am so deeply impressed with this subject, that
if I directed the affairs of this Country I would instantly employ force
to avenge the injury that has been done us, I would not ask but take
satisfaction ... If we submit to such indignities and injustices, we
should become contemptible in the eyes of the whole world, and what is
much worse in our own. There is no spirit which ought to be cherished
with so much care by those who govern a young country as national pride
and a regard to national honor." See also sentiments of Gallatin and
Robert Smith. Adams's GaUatin, 358. Letter of Smith to Jefferson, July
17, 1807. Adams Transcripts, vol. iii.
"^Richardson, Messages and Papers, 1, 434.
'"'*Ibid, 1, 425.
"^ Adams, Gallatin, 363.

Chesapeake Outrage and Treason Bill 115
On account of the conditions named, the states had been asked
to hold their militia In readiness and the acceptance of volun
teers encouraged. "Whether a regular army is to be raised,
and to what extent, must depend on the Information so shortly
expected." In addition to an account of our foreign relations, the pro
ceedings of the Burr trial were laid before Congress and that
body might "judge whether the defect was in the testimony.
In the law, or in the administration of the law; and wherever
It shall be found, the Legislature alone can supply or originate
the remedy." Finally, the encouraging state of the treasury was
described. Giles did not attend the session of Congress until
January 7, 1808, and before his arrival various acts making
appropriations for defense were passed, and, on December 22,
an act was placed on the statute book with which he was later
to have much to do. A special message of the President com
municated the king's proclamation of October 17, requiring the
complete enforcement of the right of seizure, made known the
decision of Napoleon to enforce against us the Berlin decree,
and recommended an act placing an embargo on our shipping.
Information received, but not officially, of the British order in
council dated November 11, 1807, was the real cause of the
message.'^' Congress was so well in hand that on the day-of the
message the Senate passed an embargo bill and in four days
thereafter it became a law.'^' Before the session ended three
supplementary acts were passed prescribing penalties for viola
tions of the embargo and making evasion more difficult for
coasters. Also discretionary power was given the President
to suspend the laws during the vacation of Congress.'^'
With these matters GUes had little to do. But It was thought
best to make a statement of them at this place preparatory
to a discussion of his relation to the restrictive policy at
the next session. With another portion of the annual message
of the President, he was, however, deeply concerned — that por
tion which had referred to Congress a consideration of the
'" National Intelligencer, December 18.
¦^Act, December 33.
""Acts, Januaiy 9, March 13, April 22, and April 35.

116 William B. Giles
evidence taken in the Burr trial. On the twenty-sixth of Jan
uary, Giles was made chairman of the committee who were
to deal with that part of the message and on February 5, re
ported a bill "for the punishment of treason and other crimes
and offences against the United States." The first section de
clared "that If any persons owing allegiance to the United
States of America, shall levy war against them, by assembling
themselves together with Intent forcibly to overturn or change
the Government of the United States, or anyone of the Terri
tories thereof, or forcibly to dismember the said United States,
or anyone of them, or anyone of the Territories thereof, or
forcibly to resist the general execution of any public law there
of, or forcibly to take possession of, or hold any fort, maga
zine, dock, navyyard, or of any public vessel of the United
States, or to forcibly invade or hold any port of the United
States, or of the Territories thereof, against the authority of
the United States, or if any person or persons shall traitor
ously aid or assist In the doing anyone of the acts aforesaid,
although not personally present when any such act is done or
committed, and being convicted of anyone or more of the afore
said acts, on confession in open court, or on the testimony of
two witnesses to the same overt act of treason, whereof he or
they may stand indicted, such person or persons shall be judged
guilty of treason against the United States and shaU suffer
death.'"'" To say the least, It will be admitted that the terms of this
bill were sufficiently strong and definite for the punishment of
what was thought to be the scheme of Aaron Burr or of the
secessionists of 1860 or of any other body of men guilty of any
thing having the appearance of levying war on the United
States. Giles, in 1828 and 1829, was advocating a plan which his
bill olf 1808 would have fitted perfectly. Opposition to the
measuer at once appeared and rested on the following grounds :
admitting the unsettled condition of the law of treason, to the
courts and not to Congress belonged the business of defining
that crime. The framers of the Constitution Intentionally did
''"Annials, Tenth Congress, 1st session, 108.

Chesapeake Outrage and Treason Bill 117
not assign to the Legislative body the power to define treason.
This was shown by the Federalist and by the debates in the
Virginia Convention, and by the opinion of judges and law
writers. To this dilemma Congress was reduced: "If Congress
proceeds in the manner proposed by the bill to define treason,
and their acts are binding upon the judges, then succeeding
Congresses may multiply the species of those offences to any
number that may suit the purposes of an infuriated majority,
and the courts be compelled to carry those acts into operation,
however mischievous or ruinous; or if statutes which, in the
opinion of the judges, militate against the spirit and letter of
the Constitution, are declared by them to be of no force or
effect, we certainly legislate to no purpose."""
On the eleventh of February, Giles spoke in defence of the
biU. Pointing out the reasons for the growth of the power
of the judiciary In the United States, he questioned if jurists
had not, while rightly endeavoring to protect the Innocent
against the oppression of government, gone too far In multi
plying barriers to the extent of converting them "into shields
for the protection of guilt." We had a theory of the Indepen
dence of the judiciary, but It was a mistake, he thought, to
say that the judiciary department is an Independent depart
ment — only the judges and not the judiciary, are to be re
garded as independent. Proceeding, he attempted to show that
the definition of treason in the Constitution was so general and
the decisions of the courts so conflicting as to make it desirable
that Congress should more clearly define In what treason
against the United States consisted. He criticised the course
of the judges in the Fries case, but more particularly In the
case of Aaron Burr. Clearly having John Marshall in mind,
he contrasted the "honorable and dignified character of an inde
pendent judge," with "a Judge, who, forgetting the nature of
his office Is perpetually aspiring not only to render his depart
ment absolutely independent, but to render it supreme over all
other departments of the Government; In the one case he Is
™ Annals, Tenth Congress, 1st Session, 111. See speeches of MitcheU
and Pope, February 11 and February 24.

118 William Branch Giles
placed in the elevated and dignified attitude of distributing jus
tice ImpartlaUy among his fellow citizens; in the other, he Is
reduced to the miserable political intriguer, scrambling for
power.""^ Undoubtedly too strong and justly to be condemned
for Its disrespect to our highest court, this language was ex
pressive of a well-grounded feeling toward Marshall and the
courts. The immediate translation of an Intense partisan to
the highest judicial position In the land, had not, as the case of
Marbury vs. Madison and the Burr trial convincingly show,
converted the great Virginia Federalist into a calm and impec
cable dispenser of justice, forgetful of the past and of aU party
conflicts. And since Giles's day, many men, not in heated harangue, but
in careful discussion, have concluded that the evils feared by the
Virginia Senator who so ferociously assaulted the court, have
come through the assumption by the Judiciary to Itself of an
unwholesome supremacy over the other departments of govern
ment. One who heard Giles's speech and thoroughly detested his doc
trine and arguments gives us one of the best descriptions to be
found of him at that time: "Bayard, Giles, and Hillhouse are
the first of senatorial champions," says the observer."^ "Giles
exhibits in his appearance no marks of greatness ; he has a
dark complexion and retreating eyes, black hair and robust
form. His dress is remarkably plain, and in the style of Vir
ginia carelessness. Having broken his leg a year or two since,
he uses a crutch, and perhaps this adds somewhat to the indif
ference or doubt with which you contemplate him. But when he
speaks, your opinion immediately changes; not that he is an
orator, for he has neither action nor grace ; nor that he abounds
in rhetoric or metaphor ; but a clear, nervous expression, a weU
digested and powerful condensation of language, give to the
continual flow of his thoughts an uninterrupted Impression. He
holds his subject always before him, and surveys It with untir-
"" Annals, Tenth Congress, 1st Session, February 11, 1808. This speech
is also reprinted in GUes's PoUtical Miscellanies.
^^ Sentences with reference to Bayard, Hillhouse, and Adams are omitted.

Chesapeake Outrage and Treason Bill 119
ing eyes; he points out his objections with calculated force,
and sustains his positions with penetrating and wary argument.
He certainly possesses great natural strength of mind ; and if
he reasons on false principles or with sophistic evasions, he
always brings to his subject a weight of thought, which can be
shaken or disturbed only by the attack of superior wisdom. I
heard him a day or two since In support of a bill, to define
treason, reported by himself. Never did I hear such all-unhing
ing and terrible doctrines. He laid the axe at the root of judi
cial power, and every stroke might be distinctly felt. His ar
gument was very specious and forensic, sustained with many
plausible principles, and adorned with various political axioms,
designed ad captandum. One of Its objects was to prove the
right of the legislature to define treason. My dear friend, look
at the constitution of the United States, and see If any such
construction can possibly be allowed. . . . He attacked
Chief Justice Marshall with insidious warmth. Among
other things he said, 'I have learned that judicial opinions on
this subject are like changeable silks, which vary their colors as
they are held up In political sunshine'.'""
On April 6, Giles's bill passed the Senate by a vote of 18 to
10, but failed in the House. This bill and speech was the cul
mination of the contest which had been going on between the ad
ministration and the judiciary from the beginning of Jefferson's
administration. Incidents in this contest we have seen: the
judiciary law of 1802 with its repeal of the Federalist act of
1801 providing berths for themselves In view of the recent
Republican triumph; the case of Marbury vs. Madison, in
which the court departed from the ordinary arrangement of
judicial inquiry In order to strike a blow at the administration,
the conduct of Associate Justice Chase In making an attack
from the bench on the new Executive and Congress, the Im
peachment of him and the Insane Pickering, in the absence of
any other constitutional method of removal, and, finally, the
""Story, Life and Letters of Joseph Story, i, 158-159. Story must be
mistaken in one point; according to family tradition and to the miniature
reproduced in this volume, GUes's hair was sandy.

120 William Branch Giles
Burr trial, wherein the FederaUst Chief Justice leaned over
much to the enemies of the Republican President and the
Republican President did not conceal IU feeling at the course of
the trial. By 1808, an anti- judiciary movement of considerable
proportions had formed Itself as evidenced by motions in Con
gress and resolutions from legislatures,"* of which that of Vir
ginia was one. Possessed of unlimited courage, but lacking
much in political acumen, Senator Giles, as in 1793 against
HamUton, voluntarUy led the assault in the open, only to meet
inevitable defeat and to bear at the bar of history the burden of
blame, for himself and his brethren who voted with him.
With one other Incident growing out of the Burr conspiracy
Giles was to be connected during this session. The grand jury
at Richmond, at the same time that they had indicted Burr, also
brought in charges of complicity against John Smith, Senator
from Ohio. On Nov. 27, motion was made for an Inquiry into
the question whether It was compatible with the honor and priv
ileges of the Senate that Smith should retain his seat. John
Quincy Adams, chairman of the committee to whom the matter
was referred, reported after viewing the facts, that Smith
should be expelled."" Although Mr. Smith was not a Republi
can and although the Republicans in the Senate were generally
for his expulsion, Giles broke with his party and with great abil
ity opposed the resolution of expulsion. No one detested the
Burr conspiracy more than Giles and no one was more hostile
to senators who became public contractors,'" but he refused to
yield to his prejudice. Without Intemperance of language and
heated personalities in which he often indulged, he gave a care
ful review of the evidence and delivered a masterly defence of
'"See those of Nicholson and John Randolph foUowing the Chase trial.
Senator Tiffin's on November 5, 1807, George W. Campbell's of January 30,
1808. See Ames's proposed amendments to the Constitution in Am.
Hist. Reports, 1896, ii, 149; Resolutions of Legislatures of Tennessee, Ver^
mont, Pennsylvania, etc. Adams, iv, 305. These motions and resolutions
called for a definite term of office for judges, popular election, power
of the executive to dismiss judges on address of two houses.
^Annals, Tenth Congress, 1st Session, 55.
**¦ This was the case 'vrf.th Smith.
"" GUes's Speeches' delivered April 9.

Chesapeake Outrage and Treason Bill 121
the accused Senator."'' In the words of his chief opponent in
the debate and most bitter enemy of the future, he delivered
"one of the most animated and eloquent speeches I ever heard
him make. . . . He argued the case of Mr. Smith with all
his eloquence, and returned to the charge with increasing
warmth until the last moment."'" Smith was not expelled for
lack of a two-thirds vote"" but afterwards withdrew from the
Senate. ™ Adams, Memoirs, I (April 9, 1808).
™ Annals, Tenth Congress, 1st Session, 334.

CHAPTER IX
THE CAMPAIGN OF 1808:
REPEAL OF THE EMBARGO
Before his second inauguration in 1805, Jefferson had deter
mined not to be a candidate for a third term of office. On Jan
uary 6, he wrote to John Taylor of CaroHne a letter giving ex
pression to his views on the subject. He had originaUy be
lieved in a seven years' term for the executive with perpetual
ineligibility thereafter. But his mind had changed. "The ser
vice for 8 years with a power to remove at the end of the
first four, comes nearly to my principle as corrected by exper
ience. And it Is In adherance to that that I determined to with
draw at the end of my second term." Washington had set an
example, he would foUow It, and a few more precedents "will
oppose the obstacle of habit to anyone after iawhile who shall
endeavor to extend his term." There was "but one circum
stance which could engage my acquiescence in another election,
to wit, such a division about a successor as might bring in a
Monarchist.'"*" There was. Indeed, no danger of bringing In a
monarchist, but about a division there could be no doubt. On
the 28th of June, John Randolph had written to Gallatin: "I
regret exceedingly Mr. Jefferson's resolution to retire, and al
most as much the premature announcement of that determin
ation. It almost precludes a revision of his purpose, to say
nothing of the intrigues It will set on foot. If I were sure that
Monroe would succeed him, my regret would be much dimin
ished."'*'^ Fearing intrigues but more especially desiring Mon
roe's selection, Randolph began some intriguing of his own. As
a matter of fact, the history of the campaign of 1808 goes back
to the beginning of 1804 when on account of the Yazoo inves
tigation, in which Madison had participated, Randolph had lost
confidence in the Secretary's integrity. Madison's Yazoo con
nection, and his desertion of the pure Republican doctrines of
'"Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Ford) viu, 339.
"'Adams, John Randolph, 161.

Campaign or 1808 : Repeal oe Embargo 123
1798, had made it Impossible for John Randolph, uncompromis
ing, radical, vaunting in his purity and his untarnished Repub
lican faith handed down from the days of the prophets of that
doctrine, to countenance Madison's successor to Jefferson's
office. By the summer of 1806 he had convinced himself of the
probability of Monroe's success at least in his own state.
Writing June 6, to his friend Nicholson, he asserted "however
we may differ on the subject of the present administration, all
parties here (I speak of the Republicans) unite In support of
Monroe for President. I have heard of but one dissenting
voice, Giles, who is entirely misled :" and again on June 24, "You
ask what are our prospects in Virginia. Depend upon it, a very
large majority of us are decidedly opposed to Madison's pre
tensions; and If the other states leave it to Virginia, he will
never be President.'"*^ At the same time, he was writing Mon
roe urging him to run and describing in heightened colors the
conduct of the administration.'*' But, though loving Monroe
and earnestly working for his success, Randolph's principal
thought was to defeat Madison, and to that end he was wiUing,
In order to prevent a division of the enemies of the secretary, to
throw his forces into the fight for George Clinton,'** the candi
date of the discontented New York Republicans. For the Fed
eralists there was no hope of success. They could only unite
where feasible, with the Monroe and Clinton forces to defeat the
common enemy.
In this contest for the Presidency, not the least important
friend of Madison was William Branch Giles. His hostUity in
1806 to Randolph and his incredulity as to Monroe's success we
have seen above. He was, Indeed, one of the most active lieuten
ants of the Secretary. On the 21st of January, the friends of
Madison in the Virginia General Assembly held, at the Bell
Tavern, a caucus "managed" by GUes and W. C. Nicholas.
One hundred and nineteen members were present, chiefly from
•*" Adams, Randolph, 196-197.
•"Ibid, 199 et seq. Others were aiding in stimulating Monroe's discon
tent. See letters of John Taylor to Monroe, February 37, 1806— Branch
Historical Papers, June 1908, 390.
¦"See Letter to Nicholson, February 30, 1808; Adams, Randolph, 333.

124 William Branch Giles
the counties of the Piedmont and the region west of the Blue
Ridge.'*"' The friends of Monroe also held their caucus, some of
the FederaUsts going with them. On the 23rd in pursuance of a
caU issued by Senator Bradley of Vermont, but thought to have
been inspired by Giles and Nicholas,'*' a Congressional caucus
assembled in Washington. The Monroe and Clinton men re
mained away and no difficulty therefore was experienced by the
managers in securing the nomination of Madison by a vote of
eighty-three out of eighty-nine voting and of Clinton for the
vice-presidency by seventy-nine votes. On motion of Nicholas, a
committee of correspondence and arrangement consisting of
one member from each state was appointed and Giles received
that honor for Virginia. Before adjournment Giles introduced
a resolution recommending Madison and Clinton for the office
of President and Vice-President respectively but stating that
the members of the caucus have adopted this measure "from a
deep conviction of the importance of union to the Republicans
in the present crisis of both our external and
internal affairs."'*^ Against this meeting the friends of Mon
roe issued a formal protest signed by seventeen names,
among which was that of John Randolph. After a preamble
declaring their hostility to a caucus at this time, and the
reasons for their dislike of Madison, they conclude by saying:
"We do therefore In the most solemn manner protest against
the proceedings at the meeting held In the Senate chamber on
the twenty-third of January last because we consider them
"As being in direct hostility to the principles of the con
stitution :
"As a gross assumption of power not delegated by the
people, and not justified or extenuated by any actual necessity:
"As an attempt to produce an undue bias in the ensuing
election of President and Vice-President, and virtually to trans
fer the appointment of those officers from the people, to a
majority of the two Houses of Congress.
¦^Enquirer, January 33, 1808.
''^ Adams, Memoirs, i, 505-508.
'"National InteUigencer, January 35, 1808,

Campaign oe 1808: Repeal oe Embargo 125
"And we do In the same manner protest against the nom
ination of James Madison, as we believe him to be unfit to fill
the office of President in the present juncture of our affairs."'*'
The war against King caucus which Andrew Jackson immor
talized was, then, declared by John Randolph in February,
1808. In Virginia, "one of the people," William Wirt, answered
the protest and "one of the Protesters," John Randolph, made
bold reply.'*"
Appointed manager for Virginia, Giles was not Inactive. By
conversation, and by correspondence, and not improbably by
newspaper articles If one might judge by his later frequent
indulgence In newspaper controversy, he used his best endeavors
to forward the cause. His energies were evidently not wasted,
for one of his letters attracted the attention of Monroe.'^" The
letter in question was written to Chancellor Taylor on March
27, 1808, In answer to one by Taylor.'^^ It is a very long letter,
covering two columns in the Richmond Enquirer when printed
in 1826, and cannot therefore be reproduced here except in sub
stance. In this letter Giles regretted the political divisions —
though he had foreseen them — and claimed that he was making
one more attempt to moderate the irritations arising from them.
His own conduct had been so exemplary that he wished Monroe
to be fully informed. From the time he reached Washington, he
had not mentioned the subject of the Presidency unless the sub
ject were mentioned to him — except to Virginians. And when
he had spoken of the matter, it had been invariably, not to make
charges against Monroe, but to defend the administration
against charges brought by friends of that gentleman. These
charges he then recited and gave the answer which he had made
in each case. Charge number one was that Jefferson and Madi
son were in favor of war with Great Britain, whereas Monroe
was for peace. To this he had replied that both the President
""National Intelligencer, March 7, 1808.
""Enquirer, March 18, 331-339, AprU 36, 1808.
'='° Monroe, Writings (Hamilton), v, 75-78, note.
'"Taylor's letter was probably one that appeared in the Enquirer
March 33, 1808, under the pseudonym "Casca", in which Giles is invited
to specify his charges against Monroe,

126 William Branch Giles
and the Secretary were so peacefully inclined that they could
not be brought to look "with sufficient attention at the opposite
picture." The second charge was that the administration had
rejected a treaty made by Monroe and Pinkney and on hon
orable terms for the United States. In answer Giles vouch
safed to affirm that the treaty was not of the character de
scribed, that It was accompanied by a declaration made by the
British Commissioners which rendered its ratification inadmis
sible, and it was, besides, made on terms contrary to Instructions
given by the American negotiators. Charge number three was
that the administration had added Pinkney to Monroe "to de
prive Monroe of the eclat of that negotiation" In order that he
might not be elected to the Presidency. This was not true ; as
a matter of fact, Jefferson's partiality for Monroe had excited
unpleasant feelings. But why should he throw his influence for
Monroe ? Even if Virginia were for him, he had no chance. Leav
ing out Madison, Republicans would choose, not Monroe but
George Clinton, who was older than George the Third himself
and, therefore, in his [Giles's] opinion, ineligible. What had in
jured Monroe was not attacks on him but the pro-British and
antiadmlnistratlon attitude of his friends — men who in their
memorials were denouncing the embargo. Those who thought
as did his correspondent that the Secretary's chances were slim
were under misapprehension — these chances were improving
all the time.
As for himself, he had taken part with reluctance and desired
only the public good. On account of his Inflrmltles he took no
pleasure in public life, and would probably be compeUed to
withdraw from its conflicts."^
The newspaper struggle In Virginia over the election had been
going on ever since John Randolph, John Taylor, and Nath
aniel Macon had laid their wires. The Enquirer was an admin
istration organ; it regretted the divisions— wished they could
be settled by a friendly conference — but, having to choose,
favored Madison. '°^' However, in those Innocent days, when aU
""See Enquirer, April 1, 1836. The letter was pubUshed at that thne
to show that Giles had not, in earlier years, been hostUe to Monroe.
'"""See for instance. Enquirer, January 13, April 7, 1807; February 3,
September 30, 1808, etc.

Campaign of 1808: Repeal of Embargo 127
the acts of partisan warfare and newspaper Ingenuity had not
been developed, Trojan and Tyrlan met with equal treatment
when they sought to expound their_views In party periodicals.
William Wirt and John Randolph, Peyton Randolph and Ben
jamin Watkins Leigh, George Hay and John Taylor, and other
lesser men poured forth their eloquence and argument over high
sounding signatures, Hermodeus and Aristides, Opechancan-
ough, and Panurge, TuUius, Hortenslus, and Publlcola. Mon
roe's mission, the treaty, the conduct of the administration, the
respective merits of the candidates, were displayed in terms
glowing with praise or scorching with indignation;"' Federa
lists were charged, and not untruthfully,"* with cooperation
with the partisans of Monroe, and both of the accused hast
ened to make denial. On the other hand, it was asserted, with
truth, that many of the Federalists were favorable to Madison.
Heated and Interesting as the contest was, there was never a
doubt as to Its outcome. Madison received in Virginia, accord
ing to an account of November 22, 1802, 12,451 votes, Monroe
2,770, and Pinckney 435.'^^ The returns showed some other
things besides the choice of Virginia; they showed that the
charge' that the Federalists were supporting the anti-admin
istration Republicans was true,'^' and that Tidewater Virginia
did not believe enthusiastically in the embargo.'"'^ But, from
the country as a whole, the returns were pleasing to the admin
istration and its friends. Madison received 122 out of 176
electoral votes; all but fourteen of the opposition votes had
come from New England and even Vermont had voted properly.
Anti-administration Democrats had to be content with six votes,
'""See Enquirer, 1807 and 1808, almost any number.
°"See for instance an account of a Federalist meeting recommending
Monroe, Enquirer, October 18, 1808.
«=! Argus, November 22, 1808.
™ However, Madison received a number of Federalist votes.
'"Monroe carried only five counties and one city. The vote in Nor
folk borough was 202 for Madison, 248 for Monroe, and 2 for Pinckney;
in Princess Anne 80, 148, 0; Warwick, 17, 39, 0; Loudon 87, 134, 0; North
ampton 9, 31, 0; Accomac, 30, 397, 0; In WiUiamsburg Federalists and
anti-administration together secured 20 and Madison 19. In the western
counties generally the administration received all or almost all of the votes
cast.

128 William Branch Giles
and James Monroe with none.'®' This was a famous victory and
indicated that the majority of American citizens beUeved in the
poUcies of the Republican rule. But there were some things
about the victory to make one pause and reflect. In the first
place, four years before the result had been more triumphant.
Only fourteen electoral votes then fell to the lot of the opposi
tion, now they receive fifty-four. Besides, in 1804, only two
states had gone for the Federalists ; now there were five, four of
them being New England states, whereas in 1804 only one New
England college of electors had voted against Thomas Jeffer
son. Federalist governors, legislators and Congressmen were
also now chosen in eastern states to take the place of the fol
lowers of Jefferson who held those places of distinction. '°" Had
the choice of presidential electors been by the people in aU cases,
the Republican majority for Madison might have been appre
ciably reduced."" Was this the result only of the natural de
cline of Republican popularity, or of the inevitable growth of
dissension.'' Or was there a deep cause for the turning of newly-
converted New England back to Federalism? The cause was,
indeed, not far to seek ; in 1804 there had been no embargo ; no
prohibition of New England trade — now there was embargo
several times reinforced and New England was fiUed with grum
blers. The embargo act passed December 22, 1807, had at first
been popular. On February 8, 1808, the General Court of
Massachusetts, then Republican, resolved that "we consider
the imposing of the Embargo a wise and highly expedient
measure, and from its important nature calculated to secure
to us the blessings of peace.""^ The Legislature of Virginia
on January 13, 1808, declared "it a duty we owe ourselves, to
declare that we submit with pleasure, to the privations arising
358 Schouler, ii. Appendix A.
SE9 Pq]. instance the legislature of Massachusetts in spring, 1808, candi
dates for Congress, in New Hampshire and Rhode Island, the Governor
of Vermont.
""Electors in Vermont, Mass., Conn., N. Y., Del., S. Carolina, Georgia
were chosen by the legislature. See Stanwood, History of Presidential
Elections, 56.
""' Resolves of the General Court of Mass., 1808, 89, 90,

Campaign of 1808: Repeal op Embargo 129
from the energetic measures recently adopted by the consti
tuted authorities In laying an embargo, which meets our warm
approbation," and "Resolved unanimously, that the general
assembly, . . . hereby solemnly pledge the whole energies
of their commonwealth, to the support of such meassures
as may be adopted to further an honorable peace, or
avenge the injured honor, of these states.""^ Virginia held to
her opinion ; but Massachusetts not long afterwards announced
a different one. On March 8, 1808, Madison, viewing the recep
tion of the measure, had written to William Pinkney, "the Em
bargo continues to take deeper root in the public sentiment, and
in the measures of Congress.""' Soon, however, different sen
timents were heard. The operation of the law, the severity of
the supplementary acts, the discretion of the President, which
was exercised in what was considered a most arbitrary manner,
the agitation of politicians anxious to make capital out of
whatever might give opportunity for victory — all contributed
to start a great cry of discontent, of fierce criticism, and of
defiance that to Jefferson seemed to thunder beneath his feet.
Town meetings were held, addresses to the President were adopt
ed, resolutions of legislatures were voted, instructions were sent
to Senators of the United States. Commercial America had
determined on repeal or nullification, or probably secession.
In the summer of 1808, during the recess of Congress, a battle
royal had been fought between the President, determined to
enforce the law, and the merchants and sailors of New England
determined to evade It. When Congress met, however, the
President's spirit had declined. Unwilling to tie the hands of a
successor by policies which he might recommend, he did not
make recommendations as to the embargo.
He expressed himself as gratified at the effects of the law but
let it "rest with the wisdom of Congress to decide on the course
best adapted to such a state of things.""*
In the House, the portion of the message on foreign affairs
was sent to a committee whose chairman was G. W. Campbell.
"^Acts, 1807-1808. 83-84.
"•Writings (Hunt), viii, 19.
•"Message of November 8, 1808, Richardson, i, 453.

130 William Branch Giles
But before this committee could report, a vigorous effort had
been made to secure the adoption of resolutions caUing for the
immediate repeal of the embargo."^ In the Senate, a resolution
was proposed by Hillhouse and a debate began on November 21
and continued through December 2. The position of the Feder
alists as presented by HilUiouse, Lloyd, Adams, and White of
Delaware, was in brief as follows : the purpose of the embargo
had always been different from the reason assigned; It did no
good — France was satisfied with It; England did not suffer
from it ; it was not obeyed by our countrymen ; It was encour
aging, therefore, a spirit of disobedience. It should be repealed
and the merchants be allowed to follow their own ways — that
is, throw themselves into the arms of England. We ought to
have neither war nor non-intercourse in its place. Great Bri
tain was so strong that we could not hurt her and France so
contemptible that she, without our help, could not hurt us.
The Republican position was upheld by Pope of Kentucky,
Smith of Maryland, Moore of Virginia, Crawford of Georgia,
and Mitchell of New York.
On the 24th, Giles arose. Realizing that the burden of the
support of the policy of embargo rested on him, he spoke at
great length, and with great earnestness and ability. Other
Republicans who preceded him, although answering the attacks
of the opposition, had spoken in uncertain tones and given but
poor defence of the merits of the Embargo, admitting it had not
succeeded as was expected, and hinting they would not grieve
over Its repeal. Not so with Mr. Giles — that was not his man
ner of speech. After a preliminary blow at the Federalists,
who, smarting under the defeat of the recent election, would
destroy that "union of mind and action" which our dearest
Interests demand," he entered into an interesting and exceeding
ly Ingenious argument in opposition to the resolution of repeal.
There were two objects, he had always understood, "contem
plated by the embargo laws. The first, precautionary, opera
ting upon ourselves. The second, coercive, operating upon the
agressing belligerents." The first object had been answered
•"Annals, Tenth Congress, 3nd Session, 16.

Campaign of 1808 : Repeal or Embargo 131
beyond his most sanguine expectations. It was admitted by aU
that the embargo laws had saved an enormous amount of prop
erty and a number of seamen, "which, without them, would have
forcibly gone Into the hands of our enemies, to pamper their ar
rogance, stimulate their injustice, and increase their means of
annoyance." "It has," he declared, "preserved our people — it
has saved our honor — it has saved our national independence."
Taking up the objection that the embargo had been injurious
to the merchant and the farmer, he was wiUing to admit that
there were many worthy merchants, of smaU capital, who suf
fered by the suspension of their employments ; and he was sorry
for them; but this suffering was incidental to every coerced
state of things ; and was attributable, not properly to the em
bargo, but to the causes that rendered its adoption indispen
sable. As to the farmer, Giles knew something about that oc
cupation; "The American farmer is," he said, "now enjoying
the fruits of his honest industry, in peace and security, blessed
at the time with every poUtlcal, social, and domestic enjoyment,
perfectly exempt from aU vexations, and I had almost said tax
ations, and with pleasure beholds a surplus of fourteen millions
of dollars in the public Treasury after paying every debt which
could be demanded of the honor of the Government .
I beUeve, and every sensible farmer wiU believe, that he has for
the last ten months obtained more for his surplus plenty under
the embargo, than he could have done In any other state of
things, which was in the choice of the government. . .
Would you tell the farmer that he would get more for his sur
plus produce In time of war, than he has received since the em
bargo?" The farmers would endure war "rather than surrender
their own liberties, and the nation's honor. Independence, and
sovereignty ; let us then for a time, sir, bear our present priva
tions — ^let war be the last experiment." Some advantages, fur
thermore, In the opinion of Giles, accrued to the farmer — he
was compelled to devote more attention at this time to the
improvement of his land and the development of household
manufactures.

132 William Branch Giles
Not only the seaman, the merchant, and the farmer were bet
ter off, said Giles, because of the embargo, but the manufac
turer, the laborer, the mechanic were profiting. Houses were
being built, and the internal improvements stimulated. As far
as the embargo laws had been precautionary, he claimed, there
fore, that their success had been complete, "and while they have
been attended with some privations and sufferings, they had not
been without their beneficent effects on society." What had
been, he asked, the actual effects of these laws on the beUig-
erents, and In so far as they have failed, what were the causes.''
They had, he asserted, lessened inducements of England and
France to war by keeping out of their way the rich spoils of
our commerce, which had invited their cupidity, and which
was saved by these laws ; they enhanced "the prices of aU
American produce, especially articles of the first necessity to
them, to a considerable degree, and. If it be a little longer
persisted in, will either banish our produce (which I believe
indispensible to them) from their markets altogether, or in
crease the prices to an enormous amount." To sustain this
latter point, quotations on grain, cotton, tobacco, lumber were
given by him from the Liverpool Price Current.
And English revenue would be diminished. Why had not
Great Britain, Influenced by these inducements, repealed her
orders in council.'' Because of their information, "that the
people of the United States had become false to themselves;
had refused to bear the necessary privations Imposed by the
Government ; had, in fact, separated themselves from their own
Government." If the embargo laws had not been a complete
success, their failure, he was justified In saying had been owing
"to extraordinary causes, which could neither have been fore
seen nor anticipated at the time of the adoption of the measure,
and, therefore, could not furnish any imputation against its
policy or wisdom."
If not a continuance of the embargo, what.? "There are no
substitutes for the embargo, but war or submission." It was
said, the embargo could not be enforced. The government did,
in Giles's opinion, possess power to enforce laws. The

Campaign of 1808 : Repeal of Embargo 133
majority should govern. The mUitia of Massachusetts would
themselves put down, when called upon lawfully, any insurrec
tion stimulated by "electioneering leaders and partisans."
But he had little fear of these Insurrections. The Interest of
the people of New England, men of property and family, en
joying pecuhar advantages from the operations of the General
Government, had nothing to gain by Insurrection, and not they
but Great Britain would gain by a connection with that power.
He was not, he said, an apologist for France — ^both beUig-
erents Injured us as badly as they were able. But he wished
to denounce "the Idle and ridiculous tale of French influence,
which has so disrespectfully and disgracefuUy to our country
been circulated by newspapers." It was originated by British
influence. Invented by the British cabinet, and probably as had
been suggested to him, transmitted In a letter by the Governor
of Nova Scotia to certain partisans In Boston."' This long and
able speech was concluded by an appeal for unity. We were
fighting, he thought, for the principle of neutrality: "The
eyes of the world are now turned to us." If we submitted.
Great Britain, France, all the world would despise us." "Let
us then, sir," he pleaded, "banish all personal feelings; let us
present to our enemies, the formidable front of an indissoluble
band of brothers, nothing else is necessary to our success."
If no one else was flrm, Giles was ; If others wavered, he did
not ; persist in the restrictive policy unless you wish war. There
is no middle ground. This was at least specific. Such was
not the sentiment of the report made by Campbell to the House
on November 22, written by Gallatin, agreed upon as the
policy of the administration newly elected, and concluding with
these resolutions: "that the United States cannot, without a
sacrifice of their rights, honor, and independence, submit to the
late edicts of Great Britain and France." "That It Is ex
pedient to prohibit, by law, the admission into the ports of the
United States" vessels from countries having In force decrees
"'John Quincy Adams had so informed Giles and otiiers, in March,
1808. Memoirs, i, 518-531. See Giles to Adams, December 17, 1808.
NUes's Register, 35, 191.

134 William Branch Giles
violating our neutral rights, and likewise the Importation of
their products. "That measures ought to be Immediately taken
for placing the country in a more complete state of defence.'""
These resolutions were under discussion at the same time that
the debate in the Senate on the motion of HilUiouse was gomg
on. After earnest debate, they passed the House by a large
vote, the last unanimously, the first by a vote of 118 to 2.'"
That was the programme; a programme to which aU might
agree. But It did not In definite terms Include the continuance
of the embargo. The debate on that subject went on in the
Senate, the speech of GUes being the particular target of Fed
eralists like Pickering and Lloyd. Giles was forced to return
to the subject on December 2.
Some new Ught Is thrown by this speech on his 'views ou
the important question of the embargo. To the assertion of the
Federalists that the embargo was intended to be permanent, he
gave an explicit denial. It was not Intended to be permanent
but "let us wait a little while, before we make ourselves bloody
In the wars of Europe. Let us have a little patience, a little
self-denial." Further on, however, warming up to the British
"extraordinary project of recolonization," he declared, "I
verily believe we shall again have to fight her out of It ; and I am
Inclined to think that now is as good a time for the contest
as we can expect in any future time." One of the British con
tentions reechoed by Federalists like Pickering, Giles was now
able completely to destroy; that was the assertion that the
Orders in Council had no infiuence in producing the embargo.
Admitting that there was no official knowledge of the orders of
November 11, 1807, when the embargo message was received
by Congress, in reference to the House debates on the embargo
bill and by newspaper reports of the day, he proved, that the
knowledge of the British orders was the real occasion for the
adoption of the embargo policy. In addition to a defence of
the embargo. It was the duty of Giles to protect the President
and his absent friends for their part In the adoption of that
"'Annals, Tenth Congress, 3nd Session, 519-531.
"" Annals, 855, 894, 895.

Campaign of 1808: Repeal of Embargo 135
measure. In view of subsequent events, his very earnest de
fence of Mr. Madison's sincerity and of Mr. John Quincy
Adams's "disinterestedness and purity" of motives, reads as a
touch of humor. "As to his [Adams's] exemption from all
views of personal promotion or aggrandizement," Giles con
tinued, "I here assert that fact, upon my own knowledge and
my own responsibility, as far as can be warranted by the most
explicit and unequivocal assurances from the gentleman him
self; given, too, under circumstances which render their sin
cerity unquestionable." In future years, this testimony to Mr.
Adams was to return to harass the memory of the enthusiastic
Virginian, and he was to apologize to the world for every word
now uttered.
When the vote was taken on the Hillhouse resolution, only
six voted for it and twenty-five against It, and the Senate had
committed itself against repeal. The House was to do so on
December twentieth.
Having decided that a repeal of the embargo was not ex
pedient, the Senate, under Giles's leadership, proceeded to adopt
measures for Its more satisfactory enforcement. On July 29,
Gallatin had written Jefferson that "a restrictive measure of
the nature of the embargo applied to a nation under such cir
cumstances as the United States cannot be enforced without
the assistance of means as strong as the measure Itself," and
had then given his ideas of the means necessary to that end.""
In conference with the Secretary of the Treasury,'^" Giles, to
whose committee had been committed the task of bringing In
the necessary bill, prepared a measure suited for that purpose
and reported it to the Senate on December 8 and 12. The
bUl when in the form of law consisted of fourteen sections. The
first punished with forfeiture of the cargo and ships or other
conveyance and with fine and forfeiture of the value of the
cargo, any person loading on "ship, vessel, boat, watercraft,
. . . cart, wagon, sled, or other carriage or vehicle, with
or without wheels, any specie, goods, wares, or merchan-
"' Writings of Gallatin, i, 396.
""GaUatin to GUes, Annals, Tenth Congress, 3nd Session, 333-236.
Adams, Writings of Gallatin, 438.

136 William Branch Giles
disc, with intent to export, transport, or convey the same with
out the United States ;" the second required a permit from the
revenue officers for the loading of vessels, the loading to take
place under Inspection, and a bond of six times the value of
the vessel and cargo to be given as a pledge that the vessel
would not go to a foreign port or violate other provisions of
law. By the next section, the collector was given power to re
quire the discharge of a suspicious cargo. Other sections pro
vided that persons in whose name the license or register of a
vessel read were to be considered the owners untU these papers
were changed; where vessels were required to give bond for
the relanding of their cargo in the harbors of the United States,
"neither capture, distress, or other accident whatever, shall be
pleaded or given in evidence in any such suit" unless it were
proved that the capture was hostile and the accident not due
to negligence ; collectors were authorized to seize articles which
in their judgement were intended for exportation. They were
to act under instructions of the President, these instructions
were to be evidence of justification In suits against the coUec-
tors, and the suits themselves were to be in the United States
courts. For the enforcement of the provisions of the act, the
President might employ the land and naval forces of the United
States and call out the militia; he was authorized further to
hire, arm, and employ thirty vessels and the necessary seamen
for immediate service In enforcing the laws on the seacoast.
There would be no doubt that If this law was necessary, the
restrictive policy could not be "carried Into effect without Im
posing serious inconveniences ;""^ nor that Giles was, as he ex
pressed himself to Josiah Quincy In November, "In favor of
putting to trial what the strength of the Federal arm was, and
If It were not sufficient to enforce its own laws, it might be as
well known now as hereafter.""^ It could hardly be wondered
at that the Federalist members, representing those citizens
whose conduct had given rise to the presentation of this biU
should resist its passage. Goodrich of New Hampshire opened
""Letter of GaUatin to Gilesi above cited.
*" Life of Josiah Quincy by his son, 148.

Campaign of 1808: Repeal op Embargo 137
fire against it on December 17, to be followed by Lloyd of
Massachusetts. The excessive bonds required, the discretion
allowed the President in the Issuance of Instructions, the power
of seizure given the collectors, the provisions as to ownership
of the vessels, the power allowed the deputies of the President
to caU out the military force, were aU described as dangerous,
alarming, and unconstitutional.
On the twenty-first Giles came to the defence of his measure.
The various objections to the bill were taken up and disposed
of. It was charged that excessive bonds were required; the
answer was, no smaller would be effective. Many persons of
small means could not secure them and would be driven from
business; this objection was exaggerated. "Are these appre
hended inconveniences," he asks, "of such a nature as to render
It necessary to abandon a great national object, for the ac
commodation of a few Individuals who are affected by them?" It
was objected that this bill contains new and unconstitutional
features; to this It was replied by Giles with elaborate detail
that no principles In It were unsupported by the precedent of
former or present laws. Mr. Goodrich said this law established
a "military despotism." This was not true in the first place,
said Giles, and In the second, "If we are at all at peace ....
It is a peace like war, and, In my judgment, would authorize
the adoption of any measure, which would be justified In
a state of war." It was actually claimed that the embargo
laws were unconstitutional. After the action of 1794, when all
agreed upon an embargo, "I really should have been surprised,
In entering a boarding school, to have heard that question
propounded, merely to try the skill, or whet the ingenuity of
sprouting boys, or lisping misses."
Were the embargo laws violated.? What was the cause?
British Influence, answered GUes. The British, at the beginning,
offered our citizens protection If they would violate the law;
and it was well known that the British government had agents
in most of our seaport towns for purchasing supplies for
its fleets and armies. There were also, he charged, British mer
chants, and British capital connected with unprincipled Ameri-

138 William Branch Giles
cans engaged in the violation of these laws. Unprincipled
Americans had been invited, through these means, "to engage
In this scandalous traffic." Pickering and Hillhouse made an
swer; Pope spoke In favor of the bill which passed the Senate
December twenty-flrst by a vote of twenty to seven."' A
little after daylight on January 5, the House passed It with
amendments, 71 yeas, 32 nays."* The President gave his ap
proval, January 9, and one of the most stringent measures
ever adopted In time of peace became the law of the land.
No time was lost by the Federalists in expressing their alarm
and Indignation. Town meetings in Massachusetts adopted
threatening remonstrances and secession was whispered about.
Committees of safety were appointed. Citizens announced their
determination not to assist In the execution of the enforcement
act and labelled those who should do so "as enemies to the
Constitution of the United States and of this State, and hostile
to the liberties of this people."'^^ Although the Lieutenant Gov
ernor, Levi Lincoln, now filling the place of Sullivan, deceased,
condemned the action of the town meetings, both Senate and
House of the General Court adopted addresses In answer to
the Governor declaring that Massachusetts "will not wiUingly
become the victims of fruitless experiment." Resolutions fol
lowed condemning the "unjust, oppressive, and unconstitu
tional" act.'^' To the Legislature of Delaware, it appeared to
be "an invasion of the liberty of the people, and the constitution
al sovereignty of the State governments.'"'^
Connecticut and Rhode Island, following the lead of Massa
chusetts, pelted the embargo, and particularly the act of Jan
uary 9, with all imaginable epithets, and agreed to cooperate
with Massachusetts and other states of their way of thinking,
in restoring commerce, relieving the country of the present po
litical evils, and preserving the Union.'" Loyal Virginia sent
""Annals, Tenth Congress, 3rd Session, 398.
"* Annals, 1034.
""Adams, U. S., iv, 13, et seq.
"' Ames, State Documents on Federal Relations, 36, et seq.
"'Ibid, 37.
™ Ibid, 43, 44.

Campaign of 1808 : Repeal of Embargo 139
up word that the course of the administration was entirely
proper. The war would have been justifiable under the worries
and sufferings of our nation; yet the President and Congress
had adopted "the only measure of relief, compatible with our
power, and at the same time with our honor." But they de
fend the embargo not because they fear the other alternative
of war, for they resolve "that we will stand by the government
of our country; and that we will support them with the last
cent of our treasure, and the last drop of our blood. In every
measure, either of defence or offense, which they may deem ex
pedient, to vindicate our Injured honor and our violated
rights.""" The tone of these resolutions, though loyal to the
last word. Is yet expressive of the feeling that a more vigor
ous policy than embargo would be welcome. Giles had inti
mated the same suspicion — Indeed a war party had been formed
which was to fight for more energetic measures until war was
declared. Republican leaders in Virginia, like W. C. Nicholas,
Spencer Roane, and Thomas Ritchie could not restrain their
impatience."" Congress was, of course, not blind to the sentiment of the
country. The resolutions of New England daily found their
way to that body, ,and from other sources the seriousness of the
crisis in that quarter was fully made known. It was apparent
that a retention of the embargo was perilous. John Quincy
Adams kept his friend Giles and others informed of the sit
uation."^ Joseph Story came the latter part of December to
take the place of Jacob Crownlnshield, deceased,"^ and, though
arriving before the passage of the Enforcement Act, was fully
aware of the situation. Story stayed long enough to get hold
of Ezekiel Bacon, who, becoming panic-stricken, "communicated
his panic to his colleagues & they to the majority of the sound
members of Congress.'"" By the beginning of February, Jef-
"™Acts of 1808-1809. Feb. 7, 1809, 99-104.
'^See below— Chapter XI.
»«NUes Register, 35, 190-193.
""Annals, 898.
""Jefferson to Dearborn, July 16, 1810. Writings of Jefferson (Ford),
ix, 277.

140 William Branch Giles
ferson reported that "a sudden and unaccountable revolution
of opinion""* had shown Itself, chiefly among the New York
and New England members. And we may readUy believe this
had occurred despite the "reiterated attempts" made by Jeffer
son through a committee of his particular adherents, Giles,
Nicholas, Campbell, to detach them from their opposition.'"
UnwUling to wait until the extra session to be caUed May 22,
efforts were now made to secure an early date for the repeal
of the offensive laws. Nicholas, who had ceased to be a be
liever In the efficiency of the embargo, offered on January 24,
a resolution that the United States ought not to delay beyond
a blank date to repeal the embargo laws and to adopt measures
of defence."' Some proposed June 1, some March 4, some
February 15. June 1, the date acceptable to the administra
tion leaders failed of adoption;"^ March 4 was agreed upon.'"
The House proceeded to debate the measure suggested to take
the place of the embargo, and despite the agitation of the war-
men like Nicholas, showed, as a body, little stomach for harsh
measures. Something had to be done, or the Republicans would become
utterly disorganized. Caucuses were held, Giles used his en
ergies and something was saved from the wreck. Repeal of the
embargo to go into effect on March 4, and nonintercourse with
Great Britain was to be the programme. On February 8, he
introduced in the Senate a resolution to the foregoing effect
accompanied by another providing that all foreign armed ships
should be excluded from the waters of the United States. Less
than two months after this vigorous defence of the embargo
and his bill for the enforcement, he rose"" to justify the
measures now proposed. However, the speech delivered is not
so much an argument for repeal or for nonintercourse, as for
""^ Jefferson to Thomas Mann Randolph, Feb. 7, 1809. Writings of
Jefferson (Ford), ix, 244.
"^Life and Letters of Joseph Story, i, 186. Story admits that he did
all he could to accomplish the repeal, but gives the chief credit to Bacon.
""Annals, Tenth Cong., 2nd Sess., 1173.
'"Ibid, 1338 (Feb. 3).
""Ibid, 1350 (Feb. 3).
"» Feb. 13, 1809. Annals, 1333.

Campaign of 1808: Repeal of Embargo 141
war. In this way, he saved the appearance of consistency.
The resolution which he now presented was, he said, dictated
by a spirit of conciliation ; It was not that of choice ; "nor the
one by which I could wish that my responsIbUIty could be
tested." In his opinion, war was amply justified by the exist
ing crisis. "If the public sentiment could be brought to sup
port them, wisdom would dictate the combined measures of em
bargo, nonintercourse, and war. . . . The time is not
past, but Is fast approaching, when the whole energy of the
nation must be caUed forth to save what we have left of
our honor, independence, and dearest interests." Embargo
would deprive our enemy of the products, nonintercourse
"would deprive him of our market for his surplus manufac
tures;" "war could be made to retort upon him some of the
evils of his own Injustice." Giles would meet the enemy with
armed ships on the ocean, and would seize his colonial posses
sions upon this continent. If the embargo had to go — and he
had never relied upon its coercive effects as much as have some
others — he would substitute letters of marque and reprisal,
and the Invasion of Canada. The House of Representatives
had rejected'"" that plan of operation and nonintercourse was
the next best for adoption. But must we continue to bear
insult? Must we wait for a greater accumulation of injuries?
This was the burden of the speech and the repeal and noninter
course were dragged in Incidentally and unwIUingly. Eulogiz
ing and defending the retiring President against all criticism,
he did not himself forbear to add that Thomas Jefferson was
not, as charged, seeking to involve us in war ; he was instead a
"lover of peace, and I fear that his amiable and anxious solici
tude to preserve it, may have some tendency toward rendering
war Indispensable."
One of the most Interesting portions of this speech is the
eulogy of commerce which Giles found it desirable to deliver.
Although in later days he became suspicious of every occupa
tion but agriculture, now he thought commerce affected every
interest; It provided the incoriie of the government. It must be
""The Nicholas resolution defeated by the House.

142 William Branch Giles
protected. Former prejudice of the speaker notwithstanding,
the United States must have a navy to protect Its commerce.
And it was as certain, he felt, as any effect produced by ir
resistible causes that the prejudice against commerce would
pass away. The southern people were not, as represented, hos
tile to their eastern fellow citizens. The interests of the two
sections were mutual and reciprocal, and it was to be hoped that
their unfortunate difference of opinion might "eventuate In re
newed acts of reciprocal kindness, confidence, and friendship."
It was such deliverances as this, no doubt, which brought
from Joseph Story the opinion: "the belief that all members
reflect the will of the administration is aU of the same stuff
as the stories about hatred to commerce by Southern gentlemen.
On this subject I find them liberal. Mr. Giles, who Is a host,
is one of the warmest advocates for commerce, that I have
ever known. He is a great friend to the Eastern States, and
said to me the other day, that all the injustice of Great Britain
and France would not affect his mind half as much as the dis
affection of the Eastern States.'""^
The Federalist position on the measures necessary to be
adopted may be found In the speech of Bayard in answer to
Giles: "Place England and France upon the same footing, by
repealing the nonimportation act, rescinding the proclamation,
and repealing the embargo." "Insist upon adequate repara
tion for the affair of the Chesapeake." Sign any treaty as
good as those rejected. "Agree to resist the execution of the
Berlin decree, and If she. Great Britain, persists in her Orders
of Council, declare war against her.'""^ In other words, while
pointing out the failure of the administration, the nonexecution
of the embargo, the dangers to be expected In New England,
the opposition could offer nothing except submission.
Give up our contentions as to impressment, admit that we
have been wholly wrong In most everything, make war
on France, ally ourselves with Great Britain, and If she
then does not at least treat us as neutrals, make war on her.
"" Life and Letters of Joseph Story, I, 176.
'""Annals of Congress, 10th Cong., 3nd Sess., 408.

Campaign of 1808 : Repeal of Embargo 143
If the administration had played a weak, vacillating part, the
Federalists, one might fairly conclude, gave no Indication that
their policy, if they had been In power, would have been other
than an abject surrender to the British navy.
The resolution was agreed upon, immediately after Bayard's
speech, and a bill to carry It Into effect received the favorable
vote of the Senate on February 21, passed the House on
February 27, and became law March 1. The bill as passed by
the Senate, despite Giles's protests against the mildness of the
resolutions on which It had been based, nevertheless gave au
thority to the President, In case either nation withdrew Its
orders and the other refused, to issue letters of marque and
reprisal against the latter. The House had already taken
Its stand against positive measures and struck out this pro
vision. The act forbade, after May 20, ships under the flag
of France and Great Britain to enter our harbors and prohib
ited all importation of goods produced by these nations or their
colonies. If either Great Britain or France should revoke her
orders or edicts, the President was authorized to renew our trade
with that nation so doing. After March 15, all embargo acts,
except as they related to Great Britain and France, were to be
repealed, though ships were still to give bond that they would
not proceed to the ports of Great Britain and France. The em
bargo as a general policy was to be no more. It had occupied
the area of debate long enough. For It, though he afterwards
declared It was never a favorite measure of his, Giles had skill
fully pleaded. He had done what he could to preserve it as
long as possible, though he persisted In disclaiming any desire
to make it permanent. He had gone to the verge of the Con
stitution in his endeavor to assist the administration In its
defence. And when their policy had been doomed, he had saved
what he could of It, as a substitute for what he really desired
— war.A confident opinion on the questions at issue in regard to
the expediency and effect of this policy with which Giles, some
what against his Inclination, was so closely identified, would be
extremely rash. More serious or more impartial investigations

144 William Branch Giles
of the entire subject must be made before judgment can be
given with assurance. Some things seem to stand out as worthy
of acceptance. The choice of evils before the administration
was hazardous. The embargo policy was indeed an experiment
as any other policy would have been, and an experiment less
dangerous than war. It did preserve the peace, and If it pro
duced evils, it is not certain that it did not preserve us from
evils worse than the embargo Itself. Those evils were no doubt
grossly exaggerated by partisans of that day and have been
grossly exaggerated by partisan writers since that time. The
source from which the laws proceeded have placed the dis
cussion of the incident in the midst of the conflict of argument
and passion between the two sections of country; and, al
though it may properly lie there, argument has been winged
more with prejudice than with fact. Southern writers have
gloated in the disloyalty of the New Englanders as justification
for their own later acts, forgetful that the South, too, although
supporting the policy of embargo, by resolution and speech,
violated it when she could;'"' northern writers have been glad
to point out that, in the irony of fate, the South, after all, re
ceived in her own impoverishment, her just punishment for the
iniquitous system forced on the North. The South did suffer,
and suffered severely. For instance, the exportation of cotton
was cut down from a total of $14,232,000 for the year 1806-
1807, to a total of $2,221,000. The exportation of tobacco
feU from $5,476,000 to $838,000.'"* VIrgmla suffered terribly.
""See Annals, Tenth Cong., 2nd Sess., 386 and 1330. Some incidents
given by Hillhouse and John Randolph. See Report of John Howe to
Provost, Aug. 5, 1808, in which a case of evasion of the law by a Norfolk
captain is given. Am. Hist. Review, vol. 17, 99. Ramsay, History of
South Carolina, 441-443.
"*Seybert, Statistical Annals, 147. In addition to the facts cited
here see, for instance, report of John Howe — Am. Hist. Review, 17; 90,
98, 99. Howe says southern cotton fell from 34 cents to 10 after the
embargo; "it would take a great length of time to collect seamen to man
the vessels which are lying ruining by the wharves of Alexandria," etc.
Ramsay, in The History of South CaroUna, 441-443, says the sufferings
were "immense"— the price of commodities feU by one-half. Branch Hist.
Papers, June 1908, 307. Speeches in Congress— 10th, Ilth, and 13th
Congresses.

Campaign of 1808 : Repeal of Embargo 145
Her tobacco, her wheat, her flour, her Indian corn, sought In
vain for a market. Her total exports declined suddenly to one-
ninth of the value which they had had in the year preceding
the imposition of the embargo. When this blight was removed,
although the nonintercourse with Great Britain took its place,
the trade revived. John Randolph, In 1808, told Josiah Quincy
the embargo was ruining Virginia — particularly his county
of Charlotte. In this county, the justices of the county courts
kept open the courts. In other parts of the state — for in
stance, Albemarle — the courts had been closed. The Immediate
pressure of the embargo had, therefore, been checked and had
indeed gained popularity "with all those who, being needy or
embarrassed, were willing to flnd an excuse for delinquency.'""*
But the South, though crippled, was not desolate; her cotton
and tobacco did not necessarily rot. Her society was suf
ficient unto itself for Its ordinary needs. The decline of the
South did not date from the embargo. Virginia, for instance,
had never recovered from the effects of the Revolution.'"' It
Is also impossible to estimate the loss occasioned by British
and French restrictions. Nor was the Injury done by the re
strictive policy comparable to the economic distress occas
ioned by the war when It did come.'"^
A wholesale condemnation of the embargo of 1807-1809 seems
hardly justified by the conditions of the times; but that too
firm a reliance was placed upon it, that insufficient preparation
was made for the war for which It should have been only the
preparation. Is no doubt true. But that the Federalist conduct,
argument, and desires were less American and less enviable than
those of the party In power would seem also to admit of little
dispute. '"^Report of a conversation, Nov. 16, 1808, between Quincy and Ran
dolph. Life of Quincy, 143. "
"° Grigsby says the period of 1783-1814 was a period of poverty in the
tobacco country. See Discourse on the Presidents and Trustees of Hamp
den-Sidney CoUege, 45.
""For instance, the total exports of Virginia in 1813-14 were $17,581
in value against $6,676,976 the year after the war ended and $8,113,060
in 1815-1816. Seybert, 143.

CHAPTER X
THE SMITH FACTION
Jefferson remained in Washington long enough to see his
friend and candidate inaugurated President and then returned
amid the cursings of New England and the blessings of his own
people. An address written In the apt and fluent language of
William Wirt extended to him the thanks of Virginia for "the
model of an administration, conducted on the purest prin
ciples of Republicanism; for pomp and state laid aside; pat
ronage discarded; internal taxes abolished; a host of super
fluous offices disbanded ; the monarchic maxim 'That a national
debt is a national blessing,' renounced; . . . more than
thirty-three millions of our debt discharged" and for other
virtues exhibited in his public service. No evidence of faUure
here; Virginia was "sound;"'"' Virginia was loyal to her
greatest living son. Would she be loyal to his successor?
There were, however, some of the sons of Virginia who had
deserted even the chief of the Republican armies ; others who had
clung to him desired, like John Randolph, to play an inde
pendent role, refusing to obey the word of the new Pharaoh.
Among these Independent spirits, William B. Giles was to be
the most prominent. To this pugilistic, though capable and
patriotic. Republican the eight years of Jefferson's admin
istration were an oasis of constructive statesmanship in a
vast wilderness of opposition and criticism. The Senate
leader for the two administrations of Thomas Jefferson had
been the bitterest opponent of the preceding three, and was
to be an enemy to five that were to come after. The char
acter of the man was such that he could not long remain
within political traces, — only the unexampled leadership and
tact of the sage of MonticeUo could have commanded his
loyal support for eight years; and even with Jefferson, 'there
were, during the last few months of the second term, signs
of a possible break. One could not expect Giles, there
fore, to go eight years more in regular channels, especially if
•"Acts of the General Assembly, 1808-1809, 98, 99.

The Smith Faction 147
other influences should add themselves to the natural inclination
of his character.
Signs were unfavorable for the success of Madison's adminis
tration. Federalists were certainly Increasing in strength and
Republicans had begun to faU into disorganization. To add
to the inevitable troubles proceeding from general and natural
causes, there were already signs of a feud. In January of
1809, sixteen Republican Senators had united with the Federal
ists in forcing through the Senate a bill ordering every armed
vessel belonging to the government into immediate active service.
Giles, whose expressions In favor of a navy for the protection
of commerce we have seen, was one of the sixteen.'"" The House
had forced the Senate to retreat from this position, but a vote
taken on January 10 had shown a surprising number of sup
porters for the Senate programme. The ostensible. If not the
actual purpose, as it well might have been, was the desire of
many members for stronger measures than were being pursued
— to force the hands of the lovers of peace and compel a prep
aration for war.*"" The Secretary of the Treasury, seeing no
good in this sudden display of Republican love for a navy, re
garded it only as an effort to impoverish the Treasury, by
squandering six million dollars on a useless policy and of bring
ing him In this way Into disrepute.*"^
Personal feelings to an extent were certainly back of the
measures proposed by GUes and Nicholas and their Federalist
friends. The Vice-president, Clinton, and his friends, could
not so easily lay aside the ill feelings arising from the defeat
administered by Madison; and he and his destined chief coun
sellor might expect no gratuitous favors. Between Gallatin
and the Smiths, Robert, Secretary of the Navy, and Samuel,
•his brother. Senator from Maryland, there existed an ancient
enmity that time did not heal and circumstances were to em
bitter. Wilson Cary Nicholas was related by marriage to the
Smiths ; and William B. Giles was a bosom friend of Nicholas
as well as a long-time close associate with Samuel Smith. Such
""Annals, Tenth Cong., 3nd Sess., 305.
*» Annals, 1185.
"'See Adams' GaUatin, 387, for Gallatin's analysis of the vote.

148 William Branch Giles
personal elements have large influence, possibly at times the de
termining Influence, on the alignment of individuals and even on
the adoption or rejection of public measures.
Coming disasters cast their shadows forward; the vote on
the navy blU was the shadow, the appointment of Robert Smith,
Secretary of State, the disaster. The selection of Albert Gal
latin for the position of Secretary of State was a natural
reward for his capable services to the party, to the previous
administration, and to the country. But It was not to be.
The Smiths and GUes had determined otherwise, and they were
the "ruling party." Although called by GaUatin the "file
leader"*"^ of the discontents in the House, Nicholas did not
unite with them in this endeavor. Writing in 1811, Nicholas
says, "from the first Mr. Giles disclosed his determination to
vote against Gallatin, I repeatedly urged and entreated him
not to do It; for several days it was a subject of discussion be
tween us. There was no way which our long and Intimate
friendship would justify, consistent with my respect for him,
in which I did not assail him. To all my arguments he re
plied that his duty to his country was to him paramount to any
other consideration, and that he could not justify to himself
permitting Gallatin to be Secretary of State if his vote would
prevent it."*"' Nicholas, understanding that the question hav
ing the most weight with Giles was that Gallatin was a foreigner,
thought that It was too late to make that objection.*"* Next
to Gallatin, the person most deserving by party service, both in
the Senate and in the presidential canvass, was Giles himself.
No one denied, not even his enemies, that he had served the
party long and well, and for his services he had as yet received
no reward except his senatorial seat. That he should not wish
the honor of further advancement, would be to expect of him
more than human self-abasement — surely not one of his quali
ties. But the statement that by temperament he was not en
tirely suited for administrative position of great delicacy would
meet universal acceptance. The endeavor to picture GUes
"'Adams' Gallatin, 387.
'"Ibid, 388-9.
"•That was the reason given by Samuel Smith.

The Smith Factioist 149
writing cool, diplomatic notes. Inflicting the truth but avoiding
imprudence or angry expression, is all that is necessary to settle
the question of his choice for such a responsible and delicate
position as that of Secretary of State. Besides, take away his
readiness and eloquence, and who would there be to uphold the
true cause in the arena of senatorial discussion? Only a news
paper mention or two and Giles's name disappears from the list
of probable cabinet appointees.*"^ Except Gallatin, no other
man seemed available. Giles and the Smiths, however, were
determined to defeat Gallatin and to secure recognition in the
new cabinet as the price of their support.*"' If they could not
secure the office of Secretary of State, they would take that of
Treasury, and they would vote for and accept Gallatin for the
office of State If Madison would give one of them the Treasury
portfolio. Madison agreed to make Robert Smith Secretary
of Treasury, and all went well until Gallatin refused to be a
party to that arrangement, and suggested Smith for the higher
office. And so the matter stood, Giles and Samuel Smith and
their friends accepted Gallatin, Madison appointed Smith with
the secret knowledge that he himself would do the work, and the
factional difference calmed down.
Congress was called in extra session for the fourth of March
in order that the leading appointments of the President might
be ratified. Those for Secretary of State and Treasury we have
seen. Smith's place at the head of the navy department was to
be taken by Paul Hamilton of South Carolina; the Secretary
of War was to be William Eustis, patriotic but old and in
capable of filling the position to which he was assigned. The
Postmaster-General, Gideon Granger, and the Attorney Gen
eral, Caesar A. Rodney, came over from the cabinet of Jefferson.
The one man of capacity was the foreigner whom Giles hated,
and that man's superiority and subsequent leadership in the
cabinet was suggestive of further danger. One appointment
of the President failed of confirmation at this session, that qf
John Quincy Adams to the court of Russia. Giles, probably
"= Enquirer, January 19 and Feb. 3, 1809.
*^ RandaU says Giles presented to Madison seventeen objections to Gal
latin's appointment, III, 357, note.

150 William Branch Giles
on ground of personal friendship to the appointee, as well as
in obedience to the implied terms of the contract with the Presi
dent, voted in favor of Adams.
The first session of the eleventh Congress was, according to
agreement, to meet on May 22, 1809. Before that day could
arrive, the foreign situation had changed much for the better.
David M. Erskine had represented the EngUsh government in
Washington since the recaU of Anthony Merry In 1806 ; beUev-
ing little in the Tory government of Canning and kindly dis
posed to our country because of his marriage to an American
lady, he carried his good Intentions too far, to the extent. In
deed, of producing his own recall and the further complication
of Anglo-American relations. He misunderstood conversations
with Gallatin and received therefrom a wrong Impression of
Madison's attitude on the English question. He drew from
Canning a new set of instructions as a basis of negotiation,
and then proceeded, with the best of intentions, to state them
in such a way as to conceal aU that was offensive in them to our
government and to bring out their good points In bold reUef.
Little trouble was now experienced in negotiating the prelimi
naries of a treaty, whereby the President should proclaim a
suspension of nonintercourse with Great Britain, as he was
allowed to do under the act of March 1809, and England was
to withdraw her Orders In CouncU. The English orders were
to be void on June 10, 1809 and our trade with England was
to begin at once. Rejoicing arose from every American port
when the President's proclamation was read, the administration
was praised by Federalists as weU as by RepubUcans, ships
hurried out to cross the seas.
Congress, therefore, listened on May 23 to the most encourag
ing message it had listened to for many a session. It heard
with pleasure of the "favorable change in our foreign relations,
the critical state of which Induced a session of Congress at
this early period," and proceeded to take under consideration
"the revision of our commercial laws, proper to adapt them
to the arrangement which has taken place with Great

The Smith Faction 161
Britain."*"' The Federalists, though strengthened In numbers,
had no grounds of opposition on which to rest their struggle
and faction was for the tirae being in concealment. Giles still
deigned to lead the administration forces in the Senate, directed
the order of procedure and headed the Committee on Foreign
Affairs.*"' On May 29, he brought in a bill "to amend and con
tinue in force" the Non-Intercourse Act against Great Britain
and France.*"" After re-committment and amendment by the
House, it was passed and became law June 28, 1809. In
tercourse with Great Britain was therein legalized though some
of the provisions of the old act were temporarily kept in force.
Giles had proposed the adoption of an act excluding from our
harbors the armed ships of all nations.*^" But, for fear that It
might hinder the negotiations In progress. Congress postponed
it till next session. *'^^ In a speech on the subject, Giles declared
himself "extremely happy to find the spirit of harmony and con
ciliation which had hitherto characterized the Senate," and
promised that he would "endeavor to preserve and continue it."
Only one principle — a most significant principle for his
future- — he Insisted on in the arrangements that might be made
with foreign nations, that of "strict impartiality toward the
beUigerents, which he could not be induced to depart from under
any circumstances."*^^ The chief interest of Giles, as respects
other measures, was devoted to the passage of an act relieving
from penalties, incurred under the act prohibiting the importa
tion of slaves, those persons who had been forcibly expelled from
the island of Cuba.*^' On account of the favorable prospects
In our foreign relations. Congress passed acts to suspend the
"' Richardson, Messages, i, 469.
""Annals, Eleventh Cong., 1st Sess., 13 and 14. The standing com
mittees of the Senate did not begin until 1816; select committees prior
to that time were designated, to which certain kinds of business were
referred. Giles had to deal with miUtary matters as well as Foreign
Relations. "» Annals.
""Annals, Eleventh Cong., 1st Sess., pt. i, 19.
*" Ibid, 44. See Leib's report on the subject.
"'Ibid, 33.
""Ibid, 34-36. Act of June 38, 1809.

152 William Branch Giles
enlistment of recruits,*^* and authorizing the President to lay
up "such of the' frigates and public armed vessels as, in his judg
ment, a due regard to the public security and Interest will per-
mit."*^^ The date of the next session of Congress was fixed for
the first Monday In November.*^'
But, before the second session could assemble, the face of the
situation had completely changed. News had already been re
ceived, first of a new order in council,*^' hardly consistent with
the promises of Erskine, and finally a repudiation of the agree
ment made by that unfortunate minister.*^' Erskine was re
called and "Copenhagen" Jackson, hero of the English tyranni
cal treatment of Denmark in 1807, was sent to take his place.
Madison issued a proclamation putting the Non-intercourse Act
again in force as to Great Britain,*^" and then awaited the
arrival of Canning's bellicose representative. That individual
forthwith sustained his reputation by charging our Executive
with having tricked Erskine into his violation of instructions,*^"
and, after reiterations of the same offensive insinuations, was
told that our relations with him were at an end.*'^ To Congress
in its second session, on November 9, the President communi
cated these distressing circumstances. Nothing encouraging,
either, could be reported In our negotiations with France ; the
wily Napoleon, after hearing of the British order of April 26,
and Erskine's agreement with our country, had settled on a
policy of seizing every American ship within his power.
Giles took charge of the revelations made as to our foreign
relations, and, on December 5, came forward in loyal manner
with a resolution and a bill. Jackson's conduct was asserted
by the resolutions to have been "Insolent and affronting" and
the President's refusal to receive further communications from^
"*Act of June 38, 1809.
"'Act of June 38, 1809.
"'Act of June 28, 1809.
"'Order of April 26, 1809.
"'Order in Council, May 24, 1809.
^"Messages and Papers, i, 473. Aug. 9, 1809.
"""Letter, Oct. 11. Annals, Eleventh Cong., 2nd Sess., App., 2088.
^' Smith to Jackson, Nov. 8. Annals, Eleventh Cong., 2nd Sess., App.,
2113.

The Smith Faction 153
him as manifesting a just regard for the "dignity and honor"
of the government and for the "character and Interest of the
American people." It also pledged Congress to "call into
action the whole force of the nation if it should be necessary
. . to repel such insults and to assert and maintain the
rights, the honor, and the interests of the United States. "*^^
The bill authorized the President to enforce the departure of
an offending minister.*^'
Speaking on the resolution, December 8, Giles reviewed at
length the conduct of the British minister in justification of
the epithets bestowed upon It by the resolution and the accom
panying bill. No new facts were produced in the speech, but
an earnest and eloquent appeal was made for casting aslda all
party differences in the presence of a national insult. Yet, for
getting not his duty as a constitutional and inevitable critic,
he found the cause of the trouble in "our former manifestations
of indecision as well as in our unfortunate dissensions and
divisions." War, he had little doubt, would come. "American
blood," he said, "must be shed, to repel the hostile spirit of Great
Britain" and to "wash away the stains of our own unfortunate
divisions and dissensions." He begged all to drop their preju
dices and rally around the standard of their own country.
"Sir," he concluded, in a beautiful spirit of patriotism, "I can
not express to you the pleasure I should feel at my heart. If
I could see all Irritations banished, and harmony and mutual
good will universally pervading all political scenes and aU
social intercourse. That the present occasion may be Improved
to this desirable end. Is the most fervent prayer of one, who
in the present delicate interesting crisis of the nation, feels a
devotion for the country beyond everything else on this side
of Heaven."
Accompanying this glowing appeal was a strangely ominous
encomium on the "dignified character, the high sensibility, and
'"Annals, Eleventh Cong., Pt. 1, 481.
™ Ditto. A similar case arose in Jefferson's administration. The
Spanish minister, D'Yrujo, insulted Madison and a bUl was inti;oduced into
the Senate authorizing the President to order the departure of foreign
ministers under some circumstances. It was dropped. See Schouler, u, 133.

154 William Branch Giles
the correct intelligence of the Secretary of State. "*^* The
resolution found no difficulty In passing the Senate on December
11,*^^ and, after encountering all the various forms of oppo
sition within the reach of Josiah Quincy and his brother Fed
eralists, passed that body by a very large vote.*^' After amend
ment, the bill giving to the President power to compel an ob
noxious minister to leave the country passed the Senate,*^^ but
never became a law.
Another message came from the President on January 3,
1810, recommending the enlistment for a short period of a vol
unteer force of twenty thousand men, and throwing upon Con
gress the responsibility of determining "how far further pro
vision may be expedient for putting into actual service, if nec
essary, any part of the naval armament not now employed."
No one knew exactly what the President wanted Congress to
do. Did he wish effective measures for war, or did he desire
little change In the provisions for defence? What light there
was appeared in the concluding paragraph congratulating
Congress on the fact that the public credit was happUy in
such a solid state that reliance might be placed upon it if neces
sary to take any "precautionary measures Involving ex
pense."*^' Had the President no ideas on the subject, or did
he feel a characteristic delicacy in Imposing them on a coor
dinate branch of Government?
Giles, however, was not like the President; he did have Ideas
and these ideas he had no timidity In exposing. It became his
duty in the Senate as chairman of the committee that dealt
with military affairs,*'" to place some construction upon it and
to bring in a bill containing some description of policy. On
January 10, 1810, therefore, he reported in part a blU pro
viding for the filling out, officering and manning our frigates,
and, on the twenty-third, delivered a significant speech defend-
^ Robert Smith.
"°30 to 4 — Goodrich, Hillhouse, Lloyd, and Pickering voting nay.
'" 73 to 41— Jan. 4, 1810.
*"' December 30, 1809.
*® Ridiardson, Messages and Papers, i, 478.
""See Annals, Ilth Congress, Part 1, 479, 530.

i i

The Smith Faction 166
Ing the bill. He declared, as usual, he did not wish war but
feared It might be forced upon us. ' We must, therefore, he
thought, be prepared. He regretted incurring any additional
expense but submission would cost us more. Besides, the people,
whose will seemed always so precious to him, were looking to
Congress for measures of preparation for an apprehended
crisis. Not for the first time, Giles affirmed that, although he
thought "a war purely defensive alone justifiable, yet he
thought it perfectly correct to carry on such a war when under
taken offensively; and that it was perfectly justifiable to seize
a territory, and appropriate it as a just retribution for the
evils of war justly Inflicted by a culpable assailant." In other
words we might pay ourselves back for any war with Great
Britain we might have by seizing and invading Canada. Such
an argument was a few years later to do much to bring on the
war of 1812 — ^which. If Giles had had his way, would have been
the war of 1810.
As a matter of fact, the time had now come for a break with
the administration of James Madison. The policy now pursued
by Giles and the Smiths was exactly the same as that pursued
in the spring of 1809 when they united with the Federalists in
the hated navy coalition. Humored at the outset by the ap
pointment of Robert Smith, they had worked harmoniously
with the administration during the first session of the eleventh
Congress ; but Gallatin had since further offended Robert and
Samuel Smith by his castlgation of their navy deal. The Jack
son crisis had produced a momentary unity, for which Giles
appealed, yet the Gallatin influence was constantly increasing
and the vacUlating policy of the administration failed any
longer to form a natural rallying ground. It was, as I have
intimated, by no means aU the fault of GUes and his friends.
Having as much selflsh ambition and personal resentment as
had other men, they had no less patriotism. A decided policy,
a firm voice could have held them at least In an outward loyalty.
But this decided policy, this firm voice was exactly what was
lacking in the Father of the Constitution, now unfortunately
compelled to rule T^hen only such policies could avaU. From

156 William Branch Giles
1810 to 1815, there was, in consequence, hardly a RepubUcan
leadership. There were factions and cliques, and the consistent
supporters of the administration itself could hardly be called
more than a Gallatin-Madison clique.
Influenced by personal motives Giles undoubtedly was, but
he also, no doubt, expressed his conscientious views in the fol
lowing declaration of war: "The visionary theory of energy
was, therefore, the fatal error of the Federal party ; and that
error deprived it of the power of the nation. The Government
being thus placed in the hands of the Republicans, whilst heated
with the zeal of opposition to the Federal doctrines, and flushed
with their recent triumph. It was natural for them, with the
best Intentions, to run into the opposite extreme ; to go too far
in the relaxations of the powers of the Government, and to
Indulge themselves In the delightful visions of extending the
range of Individual liberty. They were, therefore, in danger
of relaxing the powers of the Government so far as to deprive
it of the means of Its own preservation and execution for
domestic objects, and tp impair or to destroy its efficacy in re
sisting foreign aggressions. The theory, therefore, of the Re
publicans, as opposed to that of the Federalists, was the relax
ation of governmental restraints, or the extension of individual
liberty. It was natural that, in the vibration of the poUtical pen
dulum, it should go from one extreme to another ; and that this
has been too much the case with the Republican Administration,
he regretted to say, he feared, would be demonstrated by a very
superficial review of the events of the last two or three years.
He said it had been his fortune to oppose both of these ex
tremes; that he thought the true policy of the United States
would be found in the medium between these two extremes ; that
he had steadfastly placed his footing on that ground; and
that he should not be driven from It, until he was convinced he
had assumed an unwise position."*'"
To Giles, Crawford made answer, and, though supposed to
represent the attitude of the iadminlstratlon, asserted that the
President's message "in point of obscurity, comes nearer my
*» Annals, Eleventh Cong., Part 1, 535.

The Smith Faction 157
Ideas of a Delphic oracle than any State paper which has come
under my inspection." It is for war, it Is for peace, it is for
a large standing army, It Is for militia, it "means anything or
nothing, at the wUl of the commentator."*'^ However that
might be, he was not for this bill. If the nation should be in
volved in war, it ought to be prosecuted with vigor ; "but, until
this event should happen, he was opposed to measures which
exhausted the Treasury without adding to the real and sub
stantial defence of the nation."*'^ Despite these views coming
as they no doubt did, with the exception of the criticism of the
message, direct from Albert Gallatin, twenty-five senators
agreed with Giles and only five with Crawford.*" Giles, ac
cording to Henry Adams in commenting on this result, "im
pressed the least agreeable qualities of his peculiar character
on this Senate."*'* — a striking testimony from a hostile his
torian to the Influence and power of the man. A man who could
Impress "the least agreeable qualities of his peculiar character"
on all but six members of the United States Senate must have
had certain other qualities and motives that were not disagree
able; and the Republican party which "as a whole" drew un
favorable inferences as to the motives of a fellow senator in
proposing a bill, must have been even worse than the senator
himself If with this belief they supported him by an overwhelm
ing vote.
Giles had now shown his independence of the administration ;
it remained for him to show the same attitude to the faction
to which he was supposed to belong. If mere factiousness
determined his whole conduct, he would probably have supported
the Smiths in their opposition to the so-called Macon BiU num
ber 1, when it came before the Senate. That bill, a cabinet
measure, introduced in the House, December 19, prohibited all
public vessels of Great Britain and France from entering the
harbors of the United States, and all importations from the two
belligerent powers and their colonies to the United States unless
"* Annals, Eleventh Congress, Part I, 544.
""Ibid, 547.
""Ditto."* Adams, United States, V, 181.

158 William Branch Giles
imported directly from them and In American ships.*'^ VJTien,
after passing the House, it came before the Senate, on motion
of Samuel Smith, It was emasculated of everything except the
section excluding the public ships of the two nations.*" Giles
did not vote at all but, when, on March 19, it returned to the
Senate, he voted against the Smiths and for the administra
tion.*'^ On the Macoir Bill number II, his only recorded vote
was on the side of Smith and the Federalists.*" Congress ad
journed on May 1 and with it the system of commercial restric
tions disappeared, except as to the discretion allowed to the
President In case either power should repeal Its decrees.
During the spring, before the adjournment of Congress, an
important domestic event had taken place In Giles's life — a
second marriage. While traveUing in her coach from the
White Sulphur Springs, the first Mrs. GUes had died suddenly
at FIncastle, Virginia. There she was Interred, and a monu
ment erected by her devoted husband still stands, we are told.
In perfect condition.*'" Consolation, however, seems In due time
to have been discovered. In the Enquirer of March 9, 1810,
appeared In the quaint language of that day a letter from
Washington under date of February 22, "Mr. . . . ,"
It said, "Is to be married this evening to a most lovely girl,
with fair skin, auburn hair, elegant form, a fine intelligent
face, and not quite 17 — He is as bold in love as in politics — I
hope he will be equally powerful — The odds may prove against
him — ^but, for youth, beauty, and innocence combined in a
female form, even death Itself may be resigned." Further on
appears an explanatory notice: "Married — In Georgetown on
the 22nd February by the Rev. Dr. Gantt, the Hon. WiUiam
B. Giles, Senator In the Congress of the U. States, to Miss
Frances Ann Gwynn, eldest daughter of the late Thomas Pey
ton Gwynn, of Virginia." The new wife, like his first, was
"'Annals, Eleventh Cong., Part i, 754-755.
"° Ibid, 577, Feb. 31. Smith claimed to do it, however, because he
wished stronger measures.
"'Ibid, 611.
""Annals, Eleventh Cong., Part 1, 678. May 1.
""Mrs. WiUiam Overton. MSS. Memoirs.

The Smith Faction 159
descended from the Peytons; she was, indeed, cousin to Miss
Martha Peyton Tabb, who had in 1797 married Representative
Giles. The final session of the eleventh Congress began on Decem
ber 3, 1810. The message told of Napoleon's withdrawal of
decrees and of the English promise to withdraw theirs when the
French decrees should have actually ceased to operate. The
proclamation for the occupation of West Florida was laid be
fore Congress.**" These two portions of the message were
turned over for report to the Committee on Foreign Affairs,
over which Giles still presided.**^ Without delay, he brought In
a blU extending the boundary and laws of the Territory of
Orleans to the Perdldo River. But, leaving Washington Imme
diately, he did not participate in the discussion of the blU, the
burden of the debate being borne by two senators naturally in
terested in western affairs. Senators Clay and Pope of Ken
tucky. To the Federalists, the whole procedure of the President
had been unconstitutional and arbitrary, and the bill proposed
was unwarranted. Clay and Pope, expressing no doubt the
opinion of Giles as well as themselves, boldly contended that
West Florida had been ours since the treaty of 1803, that the
authority of the President to occupy the region was well
grounded, both In statute and In Constitutional law, and that
occupation, was, at the present time, expedient. The blU, how
ever, by the end of the year had been given up. But the House,
during the same period, was discussing a bill for the annexation
of Louisiana with boundary extending to the Perdldo, the limits
of the President's October Proclamation and of the Senate bill.
However, in order to secure the passage of the enabling act**^
for the admission of Louisiana, the eastern boundary had to
be limited to the Iberville, though at the time of the actual ad
mission in 1812, the boundaries were arranged to include most
of West Florida.**'
""Richardson, Messages and Papers, I, 483-484.
*" See note on page 161 above.
""Act approved Feb. 30, 1811.
""To the Pearl River, Act approved April 14, 1813.

160 William Branch Giles
A measure much more interesting to us and much more im
portant to Giles's career was the bill for the renewal of the
charter of the Bank of the United States. The period for
which this famous institution, parent of many fierce party
confiicts, was Incorporated would expire on March 4, 1811.
Historians are all agreed on the facts of Its success as a finan
cial enterprise and its usefulness as an agent of the government.
But the dangers which had been feared at the date of its Incor
poration had not been forgotten; all the old objections to it
were now recaUed, and, when it sought a renewal of its charter,
were to rise again and others were to appear, provoked by the
financial tendencies of the period.
As early as March 26, 1808, the stockholders had petitioned
for a renewal of their act of incorportion ; the House had, in
April, 1810, discussed several plans for that object but had
adjourned before taking final action. On the 18th of Decem
ber, 1810, a petition was presented by Mr. Leib, one of the sena
tors from Pennsylvania and a member of the anti-administration
faction, signed by the President and Directors of the Bank of
the United States, praying for a renewal of their charter. The
matter was referred to a committee, whose chairman was Wil
liam H. Crawford, and other memorials*** for the same purpose
were handed over to the same committee. Memorials were like
wise received against the proposal in both Senate and House,**'
including one from the Legislature of Virginia. As an illustra
tion of the avowed attitude of certain states and as having, also,
an important relation to important subsequent developments
In Giles's career, it is not without value to quote this memorial
of the General Assembly: "The General Assembly of Virginia
view with the most serious concern the late attempts which have
been made to obtain from Congress a renewal of the charter
incorpor.ating the Bank of the United States:
"This Assembly are deeply impressed with the conviction
that the original grant of that charter was unconstitutional;
that Congress have no power whatever to renew It ; and that the
¦^ Annals, Eleventh Cong., Third Sess., 31, 87, 113.
""Ibid, 118, 706, 828.

The Smith Faction 161
exercise of such a power would be not only unconstitutional,
but a dangerous encroachment on the sovereignty of the states ;
Therefore, Resolved, That the Senators of this State, in the
Congress of the United States, be instructed, and our Repre
sentatives most earnestly requested. In the exercise of their
duties, as the faithful Representatives of their country, to use
their best efforts in opposing, by every means In their power, the
renewal of the charter of the Bank of the United States."**'
It will at once be seen that no accusation of a misuse of its
power, no charge of mismanagement was made, but that the
opposition was placed exclusively on theoretical grounds. The
resolutions of Pennsylvania were of the same character. Was
it then true that opposition to this measure so much desired by
many citizens and deemed so necessary by the able secretary of
the Treasury, was due purely to a love of the Constitution?
As a matter of fact, where men's language is most profuse
in the expression of constitutional scruple, their minds
are usually most Immovably fixed on certain practical concerns.
If Madison, the Father of the Constitution, and the author of
the Resolutions of 1798, was not alarmed for fear of an irre
trievable injury to the great charter of our liberties, it may be
certain that the legislatures of Virginia and Pennsylvania did
jiot feel as grave concern on that subject as they felt on some
thing that touched their interests more closely. The Bank of
the Potomac, the Bank of Alexandria, the Bank of Washington,
and other banks to be established in the District of Columbia,
were, at this session of the Congress, praying for charters. **'^
Hundreds of banks were chartered by state legislatures and
these banks were allowed to Issue bills of credit.**' Numerous
private banking institutions had sprung up in Virginia without
charters and these issued notes. Not only were thousands of
citizens in this way thrown into competition with the Bank of
"° As a further iUustration of Republican feeling in Virginia, see Virginia
Argus, Feb. 8, 1811 — The "temporary, imlawful influences, and tmlawful
practices that have been interposed to bias Congress has not been equalled in
the oldest and most corrupt government of Europe." It asserted that the
renewal of the charter would shaike if not destroy the Republican party.
"' See Annals passim.
""The Bank of Virginia, The Farmers' Bank, ete.

162 William Branch Giles
the United States and, not unnaturally, little desirous of the
recharter of that enterprise, but a number of states Including
Virginia were stockholders in local Banks.**" And where the
states themselves were not directly Interested, members of the
state legislatures were. Who would, therefore, profit If the
United States Government had to turn elsewhere for deposi
tories for the public funds? Very appropriately, therefore, did
Virginia, Pennsylvania and Kentucky protest that an act of
Incorporation of the United States Bank would be an infringe
ment of the sovereignty of the states.*^"
The Legislature of Virginia had spoken, the newspapers took
up the cry. The Enquirer and the Argus of Richmond sounded
the orthodox Republican note, and on February 14, 1811, GUes
arose to express his opinions. He arose, he said, under peculiar
embarrassment arising "from a conviction that the views of the
subject now proposed to be exhibited wIU' dis appoint the expec
tations both of the opposers and the favorers of the biU, and
that they wiU not be acceptable to either." However, he
announced to an audience undoubtedly not surprised to receive
the information, "that he should not depart from his invariable
habit," when urged by duty to participate In debate before this
honorable body, "of disclosing in the most undisguised manner
my real opinions upon the whole subject, free of any con
sideration of political difficulties or Inconveniences which may
consequently affect myself." Proceeding, he entered into a con
fusing labyrinth of constitutional discussion. Intended to prove
that the government of the United States was equipped by the
constitution with sufficient powers for its maintenance and to
justify the adoption of strong measures by the administration
of Jefferson, and, at the same time, to show that it did not
contain authority for the estabhshment of a National Bank.
So far had he advanced from the old strict construction ground
of 1791 or 1798 that he bewaUed the fact that "gentlemen
should be delighted with curtailing the Constitutional powers
of the Government and enfeebUng its necessary energies." And
"° Speech of Fisk in the House, Annals, Eleventh Cong., Third Sess.,
613-613. "" Speech of Crawford, Annals, 143.

The Smith Faction 163
he now was actually afraid that we had swung so far away
from the Federalist tendency to consolidation that "the Govern
ment wiU fall to pieces from the want of due energy in the
administration of its legitimate powers, or that some extraor
dinary means must be resorted to for Its resuscitation." The
present administration was the subject of frequent thrusts
throughout the speech because of "the Inefficacy of our meas
ures to repel foreign aggressions, to assert our rights, and to
do ourselves justice," and because of "Its inactivity and feeble
ness." Not from smj defects of powers in the Constitution did
these things exist, "because In that respect they were unlim
ited," but because the RepubUcan administrations have "theor
ized and criticized themselves Into such fears of the undue
exercise of power, that they will not duly exercise It when
Indispensably necessary to the national character and Inter
ests," because of the unwiUingness of gentlemen "to act up" to
"the fair and candid interpretation of" the meaning of the
Constitution. Then why In the name of the Constitution object
to the legality of the Bank? The answer was ready — in the lan
guage of earlier days, because the power of incorporation "is
not among the common, necessary and proper means of effecting
either of the foregoing enumerated powers," etc.
So much for the constitution, which, to Giles, throughout the
years, had taken on a different character from that which he
attributed to It In the enthusiastic days of a struggling Repub
licanism. Why was a Bank inexpedient? Because "Seven tenths
of the whole stock are held by British capitalists." And Giles
could see "neither the policy nor the expediency of extending
these favors and advantages voluntarily to these foreigners for
twenty years in exclusion of our own citizens." But' further:
"My objection," he says, "arises from the enormous British
Infiuence which notoriously pervades this country ; and I believe,
affects the proceedings of Government so seriously, that it can
hardly be said to be independent. I verUy believe, that this bale
ful influence has already driven the Government from measures
which the best interest of the nation required." All the diver
sified influences from identity of language, legal precedents,

164 William Branch Giles
intermarriages, etc. are given "a body and form for action" by
the interest of British captialists in the National Bank. This
sounds like the speeches againt the Jay Treaty, the opposition
to Alexander Hamilton, and the attack on the administration
of John Adams. The state of Virginia had, as we have seen.
Instructed him to vote against the Bank; this he did. He was
willing to obey — ^because they and he thought alike on the sub
ject of the bank. But, in the speech we are now considering, he
took occasion to give his theories of the right of a state legisla
ture to instruct its representatives. During the progress of the
debate, senators had explained their attitude by reference to
Instructions from their legislatures which they thought required
obedience. Differing no whit from his legislature on the subject
of the Bank, knowing that he would have "to encounter strong
and honorable and perhaps insuperable prepossessions" against
his opinion in the state he had the honor to represent, fearing
nothing, helpless to conceal his views on a constitutional ques
tion whether they would hurt or hinder, were needed or were
even superfluous, he went on to expose to "the people" the
danger, in his opinion, threatening the "due administration of
this Government," regardless of any consequences to himself
upon the political arena. For, whatever the imperfections of
the man — and they were not few — ^he could in leadership repress
his prejudice and peculiar views for the good of the party, but
in opposition he was willing to stand alone against the world.
He denied the mandatory character of instructions :- a senator
was, he thought, not compelled to vote according to the bidding
of his legislature although the state had a right to issue instruc
tions in an advisory capacity and in certain cases might do so
with profit, yet the use of instructions as a frequent thing
was conducive of great evils. It introduced Into the Senate too
large a measure of local feeling and opinion; it tended to
restrain "the free exercise of opinion;" if extensively indulged
in, the result might be the destruction of the Senate's power to
achieve anything. While feeling "the most unbounded con
fidence" In the wisdom and the patriotism of the legislature of
Virginia, "he considered himself the representative of the people

The Smith Faction 165
of the United States, delegated to that character by the Legis
lature of Virginia." He did, indeed, demolish the doctrine of the
mandatory character of legislative instruction for United
States Senators, but he came very near demolishing his own
career as a public servant.
Giles's speech did not, apparently, make a favorable impres
sion. Henry Clay,*'^ who followed him on the same side of the
question, could not resist the temptation to create a laugh by
accusing Giles of proving both sides of the question.*^^ And
John Randolph, who now had good reason to hate the Senator,
although they had been the closest of associates, said in a letter,
"Giles made this morning the most unintelligible speech on the
subject of the Bank of the United States that I ever heard.
He spoke upwards of two hours; seemed never to understand
himself (except upon one commonplace topic of British influ
ence), and consequently excited in his hearers no other senti
ment but pity or disgust. But I shall not be surprised to see
him puffed In all the newspapers of a certain faction."*"'
Whatever our judgment as to the character of the speech,
there can be Uttle criticism of Giles's vote. His state was
against the Bank; his record was against It. However much
his attitude might be attributed to factiousness and to the influ
ence of friendship for Samuel Smith and of enmity for Albert
Gallatin, although he voted as faction would require, he would
undoubtedly have voted the same way had he played to no fac
tion. On the 20th of February, the Senate killed the biU,*'* the
Vice-president casting the deciding vote, and, in defence of his
action, reading a speech written for him by Caesar A-. Rodney of
Delaware.*" The opinion of the Legislature of Virginia was of more sig
nificance to Giles than were the opinions of Henry Clay and
** Clay also acted under instructions.
""See Annals, Eleventh Cong., 3rd Sess., 309.
""John Randolph to Judge Nicholson, Feb. 14, 1811. Adams' GaUatin,
430. ""Annals, 346.
""CivU History of the War of 1813 — National Intelligencer, Aug. 8,
1857.

166 William Branch Giles
John Randolph. Both Senators from Virginia had angered
the legislature: Richard Brent by voting contrary to their
desires,*^' Giles by denying the binding character of the instruc
tions, which, however, he followed. The doctrine of instructions
was precious to Virginia; they had used it before — once even
Senator Giles drafting the resolutions sent by the Legislature
to their senators*'^ — and were often to use it again. It was to
Virginia a bulwark of liberty, a protection against consolidated
government. Whoever touched this sacred ark of freedom was
deserving of death.
The great Democratic organ of Virginia upheld It against
attack,*" and public meetings toasted It as a cardinal right of
the people. Writers took up their pens in its defence. The
legislature could not remain silent in face of the insult inflicted
on itself, and dared not allow such unorthodox opinions to go
unrebuked. In January, John Tyler proposed in the House of
Delegates resolutions of censure against its. rebellious Sena
tors:*'" these gave way to a substitute by Benjamin Watkins
Leigh, which was adopted.*'"
To these resolutions, Giles made answer in an able letter of
defence, dated November 26, 1812, and published for distribu
tion.*'^ Had this disagreement between Senator Giles and the
General Assembly of Virginia occurred before his reelection to
""Annals, 346. Brent also thought instructions on Constitutional ques
tions were not binding, 270.
"'In 1800.
"I* Enquirer, May 17, 1811, etc.
""Tyler's Lives and Times of the Tylers, i, 274-275. Journal of House
of Delegates.
""Journal, House of Delegates, 1811-1812, (155-159) Feb. 19,
1813. Leigh desired to shield Brent and did not wish to "join in trampling
any man [GUes] under foot, however I may dislike him, who is already
prostrate on the earth." The resolutions seem to have been aimed at
Giles not so much for his attitude on the Bank as because of his anti-
administration attitude. Giles's enemies, "not knowing how to get at him
upon the new ground," writes Leigh, in December, 1811, "would willingly
attack him upon the old one, rather than not attack him at all." In such
a case Brent would have to be brought in. See Leigh to Monroe, Dec.
12, 1811. Monroe MSS., Lib. of Cong.
•^^ Letter from Wm. B. Giles, Esq., Senator in Congress, To the Honorable
the Legislature of Virginia, Washington, 1812, p. 39.

The Smith Faction 167
the Senate, that event would doubtless not have taken place.
The Senatorial election had occurred January 2, 1811, and the
Incumbent had received the flattering vote of 123 to 15. But,
from February 14, his popularity in Virginia had dwindled to
nothingness. The people, in their meetings, not only upheld the
doctrine of Instructions, but censured their Senators and threat
ened their continuance in office.*'^ The Enquirer soon took up
the fight against the man who neither represented his state nor
supported James Madison, and the statesman who had been
toasted and praised became In the course of a few months the
most unpopular man In the commonwealth of Virginia.*"
But Giles was not the only official In trouble. By the end of
the eleventh session of Congress, the position of the administra
tion had become acute. It was unable to secure the adoption
of Its cherished measures, and it floundered helplessly among
the rocks of opposition. The rock of offence was the feud of
GaUatin, and the Smiths, and the remedy would have to be the
destruction of one or the other of the beUigerents. Randolph's
diagnosis of the case was correct when he said : "Things as they
are cannot go on much longer . . . Nothing then re
mains but to lighten the ship, which a dead calm has hitherto
kept from going to pieces."*'* The Smiths, Giles and their
friends also thought it necessary to lighten the ship, but their
way of lightening It was to force the sacrifice of GaUatin. As
early as 1809, that distinguished financier had agreed to with
draw but had not been allowed to do so and now he was ready
once more to yield the fight.*"' But that was not to be — Duane
and the Aurora, Ritchie and the Enquirer, Robert and Samuel
Smith, Giles, Leib, and German might pray and intrigue for It,
but it was not to be. Through Senator Brent, Giles's colleague,
Monroe was sounded on his willingness to accept the position of
Secretary of State. Urged by John Taylor,*" his friend and
*"' E'nquirer, June 4, July 11, etc., 1811.
«' Ibid, May 17, 1811, May 32, Nov. 14, 1812, Nov. 36, Dec. 11, 1813, etc.
Leigh said, "Mr. Giles is down-down — lower than it has entered into your
imagination to conceive. He is detested — abominated."
«" Adams, U. S., V, 361.
"' Adams' Gallatin, 434. Letter to Madison.
*™ Branch Historical Papers, June, 1908.

168 William Branch Giles
counsellor, he agreed to take office for the sake. If possible, of
preventing war. All then necessary was to dispose of the
incumbent, who, forthwith, was told that his services and con
duct were unsatisfactory to the administration and that he
could have the mission to Russia If he desired. This offer he
finally declined to accept but his withdrawal from the position
of Secretary of State was effected and Monroe became Secre
tary under his rival of three years before. All of this had been
accomplished before April 2, when the new official began to dis
charge his duties. The administration was saved, the enemy dis
comfited, but the fight on Gallatin was not discontinued.
Not an indifferent observer of these confiicts was the Repub
lican ex-President. In March, 1810, Jefferson had, in a letter to
Doctor Walter Jones, deplored dissensions in the cabinet.*'^ In
letters in March and April, 1811, In stirring terms he appealed
to Duane's party loyalty. The opinion of the people of Vir
ginia, like his, he thought, was with the administration.*"
Ritchie's course also worried him. Although generally loyal to
Madison personally, the great Virginia editor ciould not bear
the Swiss financier. Even after Jefferson's remonstrances
through Wirt,*'" the Enquirer gave its reasons for an opposi
tion to the Secretary. They were his interference In our foreign
relations, and in the measures of Congress, and his support of
the United States Bank. Ritchie would have been glad had
Gallatin and Smith retired at the same time.*'" But ten days
before this editorial, Ritchie had opposed the appointment of
Monroe on the ground of his negotiation of the Treaty of 1806.
To Giles and General Samuel Smith, also, Jefferson's friend,
Nicholas, was to write "very serious and urgent letters
on the course pursued by them."*'^ But, for these
gentlemen, there was to be no cessation until they too should
be compelled to leave the positions of influence they oc
cupied. Equally with Madison and Gallatin they believed
"'Jefferson, Writings (Ford), ix, 273.
""Letters, March 38, and AprU 30, 1811. (Ford), ix.
"'May 3, 1811.
""Enquirer, May 31, 1811.
'"Jefferson, Writings (Ford), ix, 379.

The Smith Faction 169
themselves the victims of intrigue, and as conscientiously they
persuaded themselves that in the course they pursued lay the
path of duty and In the measures they suggested the safety of
the nation. The letter following*'^ Is of Interest in the history
of the imbroglio. It points to Gallatin as the real source of
trouble and exhibits the friendly relations between Secretary
Smith and the Virginia Senator. Wigwam Virginia.
July 5, 1811.
"Dear Sir, In consequence of my absence from home, I did not
receive your friendly and highly valued favor of the 18 ultimo,
till the day before yesterday; and I now embrace the first
opportunity of making a reply. It was then accompanyed with
your public vindication. The rupture between yourself
and Mr. Madison, has been a subject of the most serious regret
to me; but not a surprise. For Mr. Madison I have long felt
the warmest friendship, and the most affectionate regards ; and
since his elevation to the presidential chair; It has been a
subject of the most painful recollection to have been compeUed
to see him the sport and support of the most unprincipled para
sites, and the dupe of the most wretched intrigues. However
lamentable the fact is. It has been too obvious to be denied by
his most partial friends ; and I have for some time Intimated
to some of my confidential friends ; that repubUcanism was not
safe In his hands. But where will the party look for a succes
sor? The spirit of jealousy and rivalship, wIU defy every effort.
The nomination of Colo. Monroe, is the wickedest of all his
contrivances. In this part of the country, it wIU not get him
one friend; and It will cause him many opposers, etc., etc., etc.
I think you have taken the best ground in your vindication, to
tell a plain unvarnished tale ; and leave the public to make the
conclusions. It Is not yet sufficiently In circulation here, to en
able me to form any estimate of Its effects; but I should sup
pose, that they can but be highly injurious to Mr. Madison's
standing, etc. As far as Mr. M's late acts may have been
"'MS. in possession of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

170 William Branch Giles
Intended or calculated to effect myself; it is matter of perfect
indifference to me. If they were Intended to produce my resig
nation ; or to vary my course of public conduct ; or to intimidate
me Into an acquiessence in measures, I disapprove ; they will miss
of their object. Like most other Injudicious expedients, they
may produce an opposite effect. You know that I never would
accept any Executive office; I feel as Independent in my
representative character, as Mr. M. in his presidential one;
and of course he has no inducements to offer, because I have no
wish to accept, etc., etc., I have heretofore withstood many buf-
fettings & do not feel less competent to their repulsion now,
than heretofore. But of this enough. So far as respects myself,
I regret nothing so much as the probable absence of yourself and
Mrs. Smith from the city during the next session of Congress.
Be pleased to present me to Mrs. Smith In terms of the most
respectful regards & believe me to be your most sincere friend,
etc.
Wm. B. GUes"
The Honorable
Mr. Smith

CHAPTER XI
THE WAR OF 1812: TRIUMPHANT INSURGENCY
In the twelfth Congress, one of the first duties which Giles had
to discharge was to oppose the nomination of Monroe for the
position of Secretary of State. He had, at one time, been a most
ardent friend of the Secretary, but had taken active part In the
campaign for Madison in 1808 and industriously endeavored
to discredit the ex-minister to England. His opposition to
Monroe had not grown less as his antipathy to Madison had
sprung up, because Monroe had displaced his friend, was a
peace man, and truckled too much to the administration. The
reason for opposition, however, to the confirmation of his nom
ination was now, according to Monroe, a "supposed favoritism
in the settlement of my account in my late mission to Europe."
The nomination was referred to a committee, of which Giles
was chairman ; a thorough examination of the charges was
made ; and Giles, expressing himself as satisfied, drew up the re
port In exoneration of his fellow Virginian.*'^' This, however, did
not mean a cessation of attack on the Secretary; Monroe was
from this time on to be added to the list of Giles's enemies, a
list almost as long as Mr. John Quincy Adams drew up of his
own favorite antipathies.*^*
Congress met, on the call of the President, a month earlier
than usual. It is a gloomy picture which on November 5, the
Executive unfolded for Congressional examination. Stubbornly
assuming that the French decrees had been repealed by Napo
leon, he lamented the fact that England had not abolished her
own — indeed" had gone so far as to threaten retaliation should
we continue against them nonimportation. "Indemnity and
redress for other wrongs have" he said, "continued to be with
held, and our coasts and the mouths of our harbors have again
witnessed scenes not less derogatory to the dearest of our
national rights than vexatious to the regular course of our
*" Monroe, Writings (Hamilton) v, 194; Mass. Hist. Soc. Proceedings,
3rd Series, vol. ii, (letter to John Taylor, Nov. 30, 1813.)
'"Memoirs, ix, 363.

172 William Branch Giles
trade." Then followed a reference to the affair of the Presi
dent and The Little Belt in the preceding May. Despite the in
sistence that France had repealed her decrees, the relations of
our country with that nation, as the President described them,
were far from satisfactory. She had given no proof "of an inten-
' tion to repair the other wrongs done to the United States," she
had failed to indemnify us for seizures of our property, and
had placed "rigorous and unexpected restrictions" on our trade.
While no friendship was expressed for France, the burden of
the appeal of the message was against the hostile acts of Eng
land and It was with particular reference to her that the foUow
ing warlike paragraph occurred : "With this evidence of hostile
Inflexibility in trampling on rights which no independent nation
can relinquish, Congress will feel the duty of putting the United
States into an armor and an attitude demanded by the crisis,
and corresponding with the national spirit and expectations."
He then recommended provision for "filling the ranks and
prolonging the enlistment of the regular troops," and for the
acceptance of volunteers. Again the paragraph with reference
to naval preparations was vague enough to warrant any inter
pretation one might put upon it.*^°
The message seemed to breathe war against England and
there were those In Congress who rejoiced in their hearts at the
words of the peace-loving president, and who determined they
would permit no retreat from that position. Henry Clay, the
speaker, Peter B. Porter, Chairman of the Committee on For
eign Relations, and the two other members of that committee
most important, John C. Calhoun and Felix Grundy, and a
group of the young and enthusiastic members from the south
and west, Indian fighters, interior men, smaU farmers, had no
Intention of adjourning this session of Congress until they had
heard a declaration of war. They had seen war postponed
from year to year; commercial regulations, embargoes, non-
intercourse, Macon bills, proclamations had come and gone and
a settlement of the troubled foreign relations of the United
States was still in the distance. Ever since the Chesapeake
•"Richardson, Messages and Papers, 1, 491.

War of 1812 : Triumphant Insurgency 173
outrage. Insistent RepubUcans, such as they, had demanded
strong measures against the mother country. But one peace
ful President, admitting that the country had never as in 1807
been so stirred since Lexington, had thought one war enough
for the life of one man and preferred to teach Europe the
effectiveness of commercial retaliation. Another Republican
President had come — a President elected partly by Federalist
votes, praised by them as a national and not a party President,
put In office for the distinct purpose of paying the national
debt and constitutionally opposed to strong measures. A war
party of western men inspired chiefly by their expansionist
feeling, by their resentment of Canadian monopoly of the fur
trade, and by British policies toward the savage tribes, had been
formed as early as 1809, and to it belonged also radical, expan
sionist, malcontent politicians of the east. Clay and his fron
tiersmen found ready response in the hearts of Ritchie, Roane,
Nicholas. To this party, Giles belonged by temperament and
accident. Newspapers had supported them and every new
aggression had given them argument. Now they were in the
saddle. The election, as prophesied, had resulted In the retire
ment of many conservative statesmen, and insurgents had now
their opportunity. Western Tennessee, western New York,
western Pennsylvania, Kentucky, upper South Carolina, Indian
fighters and warhawks, for the first time were to control the na
tion. No time was to be lost. They seized the reins of authority
in the House ; chose Clay speaker on his first day of service In
the House, and Clay placed his biggest warhawks on the Com
mittee on Foreign Affairs.*^' Porter of New York, the chair
man, on November 29, In his report, gave the keynote of the
session when he said, "the period has arrived, when. In the
opinion of your committee, it is the sacred duty of Congress to
call forth the patriotism and resourses of the country," and, in*
the words of the President himself, recommended "that the
United States be put into an armor and attitude demanded by
"'For an account of the rise of this war party, see in Am. Hist. As
sociation Report for 1911, a paper by the present writer on "The Insurgents
of 1811."

174 William Branch Giles
the crisis, and corresponding with the national spirit and expec
tations."*" The House proceeded to discuss the report and resolutions
of the committee. The Senate, in the meantime, had not been idle.
GUes, as usual, had been put at the head of the Foreign Rela
tions Committee,*'' despite his break with the administration.
He had been a warhawk since the passage of his enforcement blU
in 1809. He had been steadily pleading for energy of action
and bemoaning the feebleness of our councils. He demanded
larger preparation for the war, which he believed would come,
than the administration then desired, determined apparently as
were now Clay, Calhoun and Grundy to force the hand of
Madison and Gallatin. He had already glanced with covetous
eyes on the British possessions in the north, deeming them a
proper Indemnity for all our expense and trouble. Now his
time had come and he Intended not to waste the opportunity,
even if he did propose inroads on the cherished financial collec
tions of the Treasury. By December the 9th, his report was
ready, four bills had been prepared and were now read In the
Senate.*'" One bill called for the raising of twenty-five thous
and men for five years' service ; this was fifteen thousand more
men than the President desired. The bill, therefore, met serious
opposition in the Senate on the ground that so many troops
could not be raised In time for the expected Invasion of Canada
in May. The adherents of the administration, therefore, en
deavored to secure an amendment to the bill reducing the num
ber of troops provided for from twenty-five to ten thousand. On
this proposal, Giles spoke December 17 In defence of his biU.
Hurling at the administration its own caU for strong meas
ures, he declared he understood that portion of the message to
mean "that all the inefficient measures, which have been adopted
in relation to the beUigerents for three years past, had not
answered the expectations of their projectors; but, Instead
of the expected recession, had producd, on the part of Great
Britain at least, infiexible hostility." The President now caUed
«' Annals, Twelfth Cong., Part I, 373-377.
""Journal of the Senate, 22.
«" Annals, Twelfth Cong., Part I, 39 and 30.

War oe 1812 : Triumphant Insurgency 176
for adequate measures and properly left the exact number of
the forces required to Congress. The Committee had taken
into consideration the whole situation, both the possible
demands in the southwest and the demands In the north and had
provided for a force no larger than adequate for the purposes
of government. The provision of only ten thousand desired by
friends of the administration would convince England that we
were "joking" about war, would be "as much trifiing with the
energies of the nation, as inefficient commercial restrictions had
heretofore been trifling with the character and Interests of- the
nation, and he feared a war dictated by the same unfortunate
imbecile spirit and policy." Why were men thus feeble? Be
cause of the decrepit state of the Treasury. But that was not
the previous language of the Department; the Secretary had
told us there would be "an economy in furnishing means
sufficient to effect your objects." Doing less meant "prodigal
waste and profusion of economy." This was also Giles's
opinion. Following this shrewd thrust came an attack on the Secre
tary. On the subject of the splendid flnancial talents of that
gentleman, which were so much vaunted, he was not slow to ex
press himself, for he preferred to see facts rather than hear
much rumor and anticipation. But the Secretary, said his
friends, had never had a proper field of activity; then, said
Giles, give him scope for action. As for the past, he believed,
"that all the measures which have dishonored the nation during
the same time (the last three years) are, in a great degree, at
tributable to the indisposition of the late and the present Admin
istration to press on the Treasury Department, and to disturb
the popularity and repose of the gentleman at the head of it."
To him was due the inexecution of the embargo,*'" and the
failure to adopt more energetic measures in its place.
To one other Interesting topic, Giles gave attention in this
speech. Wlien gentlemen Imputed to him a wish to bring about
war, did they think he was "blind to his own interests," or "the
interests of those inhabiting the same scene of country with
"° This, of course, was not a fact. Gallatin had drafted Giles's biU
of January 9, 1809.

176 William Branch Giles
himself?" Peace and commercial freedom was to their Interest.
They exported grain and that article was always in demand In
England and drew high prices. No, he and his people did not
desire war, but they desired "preparation to meet unavoidable
war."*'^ The speech above described wa^ vituperative — was by no
means an admirable production of oratory. But that it de
serves the description accorded to It by Mr. Henry Adams,
whose bete noire Giles appears through every volume of Adams's
works to be, as "unparalleled In American history" for
the "malignity of the human mind,"*'^ cannot be defended. The
oratory of Charles Sumner, for instance, and the Diary of John
Quincy Adams, if not characterized by malignity of the human
mind, are redolent of expressions whose bitterness Giles could
not surpass. Giles was bitter, characteristlcaUy so, and his
bitterness was inexcusable, on this and many other occasions,
but bitterness Is a product of no age or section — It appears In
any vigorous debate and in most family biographies and sec
tional histories.
Giles's bill passed the Senate December 19. Twenty-one
Senators voted against substituting ten thousand for the twen
ty-five thousand soldiers required by the bill.*" The House,
which had now already passed Porter's resolutions, took up on
December 31, Giles's bill. The House Committee cut down the
number of additional troops proposed In the blU from twenty-
five thousand to fifteen thousand. However, in the House, the
sentiment was in accord with Giles that a large army was neces
sary. Clay declared "in measures relating to war It is wisest,
if you err at all, to err on the side of the largest force."*'* Rob
ert Wright of Maryland said "our country was too Important,
and our rights too sacred, to be frittering down measures for
their defence in the manner proposed."*" Troup of Georgia de
clared If we did not want tweny-five thousand men, we did not
'^'For the speech see Annals.
"" Quoting G. W. CampbeU— Adams, U. S., vi, 161.
'«' Annals, 84.
"'Annals, 597.
"= Annals, 608.

War oe 1812 : Triumphant Insurgency 177
want one man.*" Calhoun thought, "We ought to submit, or
make energetic defence. He perceived that the public sentiment
began already to doubt whether Congress was really In earnest,
from the tardiness of their movements."*" The vote taken
January 6 showed ninety-four members of the House for the
large force as against 34 for the less, most of the Virginia dele
gation voting for the larger number. The House had, however,
so amended the bill as to diminish the number of officers immedi
ately to be appointed.*" But, when the Senate Insisted, the
House yielded, and Giles's biU became law.*'"
One measure looking to war had, therefore, been passed. On
December 26, Porter introduced a bUl Into the House author
izing the President "to accept and organize certain volunteer
military corps" not exceeding fifty thousand men to be enlisted
for one year. After much argument on the constitutionality
of authorizing the President to accept volunteers for possible
service out of the country, the House passed the measure. This
time, however, Giles and the young warhawks parted company.
On January 29, 1812, he spoke in the Senate against the bill.
He believed the war would have to be conducted with regular
troops; for that reason, he had carried through Congress the
bill requiring twenty-five thousand additional troops. The
present proposal would involve a useless expense on the Treas
ury, and would place at the disposal of the President an author
ity that was purely nominal. The volunteer laws had not been
successful and there were insuperable obstacles In the way of
raising such a volunteer force as the bill required — one of
militia companies Instead of individuals recruited directly by
officers authorized for the purpose. It is Interesting to see
William B. Giles, once so stem an enemy to anything bearing
resemblance to a regular army, now energetically defending
both the constitutionality and expediency of such a force. It
is also Interesting to see an old RepubUcan, formerly so narrow
in constitutional interpretation and later to be of the same
«" Annals, 616.
"'Annals, 616.
""Annals, 609.
""Annals, 718, 97; Act approved January 11, 1813.

178 William Branch Giles
spirit, defending the constitutionality, though not the desir
ability, of employing the mUitia for service in a foreign state.
Since the Republican victory of 1800, under the pressure of
the measures demanded for the promotion of the policies of
Jefferson, only one trace of the old strict construction spirit
remained in the distinguished Virginia senator, and that was
the Inveterate hosility to a National Bank whenever and how
ever presented. Now with him It was always energy, the use of
the powers of government in meeting Insurrection at home and
aggression abroad, for which he zealously pleaded. Inconsist
ency, however, is the statesman's privilege; James Madison,
James Monroe, Henry Clay, and John C. CaUioun had Ulus-
trated the principle or were to do so In the future.
Not the least entertaining portion of this Interesting speech
Is the citation of a distinguished authority by whom to substan
tiate Giles's views in opposition to volunteer forces and short
enlistments. This authority was no other than George Wash
ington hiraself and the citations were to the famous life by
the distinguished Chief Justice. Giles admitted that in his
youthful political days when he "was surrounded by visionary
theories, and had had little experience" he had doubted the
superiority of Washington as a statesman; but now the Sen
ator confessed that "a more Intimate acquaintance with his
character and his measures; further Information and reflec
tion ; and practical experience of more than twenty years, had
completely convinced him of the superiority of the talent of
this great man as a statesman as well as a soldier," and had
also admonished him of his former errors. While he could not
"subscribe to all the measures of his administration, yet, take
him for all in all," he feared "we shall ne'er see his like again."
With this apology for "former errors," the orator proceeded to
quote at length from Marshall and Washington on the impos
sibility of relying on an "individual patriotism" and "tem
porary armies."*"" There were, however, few to agree with
""The speech is given in full in Annals for the first session, part ii,
Appendix, 1693.

War oe 1812 : Triumphant Insurgency 179
Giles on this occasion, even though George Washington was his
reliance — and the Volunteer bill became a law.*"^
An additional force of regulars had been authorized, author
ity for the enlistment of volunteers given, but the defence on
water remained unprovided for. As early as December 17,
Langdon Cheves of South Carolina, chairman of the Committee
on Naval Affairs and a new order of Republican, had made a
report to the House and presented a blU.*"^ Exactly one month
later, this bill came up for discussion and was defended by him
against the errors and prejudices of his Republican brethren,
who had not forgotten their position in 1798. The committee
called for the building of twelve seventy-fours and twenty frig
ates. The House struck out the provision for the building of
the frigates,*"' and sent the bill over to the Senate. On the 21st
of February, Giles reported the bill with amendments. His
speech on the subject is not given; though, from the speeches
that follow, we know that it was in defence of the navy on the
one hand and of the record of Giles on the other.*"* The Fed
eralists were pleased with the speech; the administration
leaders were not. On the subject of the navy, we have seen on
frequent occasions that, since the Revolution of 1800, Giles had
accepted this portion of the Federalist programme of energy
so heartily condemned in former years. Smith, Giles, and the
Federalists failed in their attempt to incorporate the section,
rejected, as we recall, by the House, providing for the building
of frigates. An act was finally passed authorizing the Presi
dent to repair and put In service only the frigates Chesapeake,
Constellation, and Adams, and giving him only three hundred
thousand dollars for that purpose.*"'
Before the approval of this bill, it became apparent that war
was inevitable. On November 7, 1811, had occurred an event
very significant for westerners and expansionists — ^Harrison's
campaign on the Wabash. By It was afforded just the needed
"'Act of February 6, 1813.
""Annals, 553.
""Annals, 986.
"*See Speeches of Lloyd and Crawford, Annals, 145, 149.
"'Act approved March 30, 1812, 1st section.

180 William Branch Giles
opportunity to emphasize the necessity of the conquest of
Canada for the purpose of securing our frontiers and smooth
ing the way for our westward advance. Events piled one on
another during the spring of 1812. On March 9, the President
submitted to Congress the John Henry correspondence, reveal
ing the activities of a British agent In New England In 1809.*"'
The ever watchful Insurgents failed not to see the connection
between intrigues from Canada in New England and intrigues
with the Indians of the west from the same quarter. An ink
ling of the serious nature of Foster's warlike instructions dated
January 28 soon stirred the capital city.*"^ Two days later
came news confirmatory of all fears as to Napoleon's ignomin
ious duplicity and the days that foUowed brought information
only of an inflammatory nature. Something Indicative of an
Intention to recognize the gravity of the situation must cer
tainly be done ; on March 15, Henry Clay laid before the Pres
ident a warlike programme and let it be understood that Presi
dential action was expected.*"' So on April 1, Madison ad
dressed to Congress a brief message recommending an embargo
of sixty days.*"" In the House a bill providing for an embargo
was passed the same day by a vote of 70 to 41 ;'°° in the Senate,
without division, the period was extended by the Peace men from
sixty to ninety days and the bill was then carried by twenty to
thirteen. Giles, Smith, and the Federalists voted in the neg
ative. The House concurred with the Senate.'"^ The President
could only complain and explain ;'"^ aside from the opportunity
afforded for the return of the New England ships before a
declaration of war, the amendment made little or no difference.
From the middle of April to June, little was done by Con
gress. The Senate actually adopted a joint resolution provid
ing for the adjournment of Congress from the 29th of April
""Annals.
"'Adams, U. S., vi, 191.
""Monroe Papers, Library of Congress.
'""Richardson, Messages and Papers, i, 499.
""Annals, 1598.
""'Ibid, 1614.
""Adams, U. S., vi. 203.

War oe 1812 : Triumphant Insurgency 181
to the Sth of June.*"' Only eight votes more In the House would
have authorized a recess, but these could not be secured.""*
However, members who desired to go home to see their families
did so. Among these was Giles who had voted against the
resolution for adjournment. He seems to have been absent
during the month of May, not, however, without observation.
One, Thomas Ritchie, mighty In Virginia, more than usual,
observant of everything and everybody, had never ceased
to watch the senior senator from Virginia, a free-lance
In Virginia politics. On the 22nd of May, In a series of letters
published under the general title "Letters from the Simple to
the Great," appeared in the Enquirer an article addressed to
"The Honorable WiUiam B. Giles (now at home).'*'"' General
dissatisfaction was expressed by Mr. Ritchie with the career of
Giles during the Madison administration and particular dis
pleasure was shown at his retirement at this crisis in his coun
try's history. Giles was back, however, in time to give his
votes on the important subject to be acted on in June. Was it
more than a coincidence that, during this period of absence, the
Republican caucus met and nominated James Madison as the
Republican candidate for President?'"'
The country, meanwhile, had been expressing itself on the
subject of war. Memorials and petitions had been coming to
Congress for several months; those from the north usually
deprecating that probable event ; those from the south approv
ing the measures of government and caUing for the final arbitra
ment of this tangled question of our foreign relations. Virginia,
as early as January 25, had spoken. Reciting the sufferings
of our injured country, the memorial declared that Great Bri
tain had already made war upon us "of the most aggravated
species," that "a further Indulgence of hope is allied with dis
grace, and forbearance becomes criminal." Resolving that, "the
period has now arrived tvhen peace, as we now have it. Is dis
graceful, and war is honorable," they pledged for the "support
"""Annals, (April 35) 316.
^"Ibid, (April 35) 1343.
'"Enquirer, May 33, 1812.
""May 13.

182 William Branch Giles
of the character and dignity of the Government
our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.'""^ On June 12,
Giles presented a long memorial from many citizens of Rich
mond and Manchester, "deprecating the calamities of war, but
expressing their opinion that, if peace cannot be procured with
honor, and war is Inevitable, It ought to be declared, not against
Great Britain only, but against Great Britain and France.'""'
The opinion of the state had been expressed In the resolutions
above cited, but the Richmond-Manchester resolutions would
Indicate that even Virginia was not a unit as to the course to be
pursued. This Impression is further confirmed by a petition
from Jefferson County, in the northwestern part of the state,
disapproving the measures of government tending to war, and
praying the removal of commercial restrictions." In fact, the
opposition of the interior counties of Virginia to the War of
1812 was excelled only by that of the New England Federal
ists.'""" In Congress, the Tidewater Quids and Valley Federal
ists lent valuable support to the New England opposition.
There was, however, no use to protest, nor could the Presi
dent hope for peace; projects for a new mission would not be
palatable to Clay and his friends, and their support was neces
sary for any successful measure, as well as for the election of a
President in the winter of 1812. On June 1, the President sent
to Congress a long message reciting aU of our grievances and
recommending to the immediate consideration by Congress the
question of declaration of war.''^" In the House, the message
was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations and. In two
days, Calhoun presented a masterly report reciting our griev
ances against Great Britain since 1804 and a blU declaring war.
The bill passed on June 4, 79 to 49 — four Virginians led by
John Randolph voted nay.'^^ In the Senate, the efforts of the
opposition to the administration programme were of two kinds.
'"'Annals, Twelfth Congress, 1st Sess., 112.
'"Ibid, 359. Another Richmond-Manchester petition was presented
June 12, (p. 1482) praying for war against Great Britain.
""Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia, 93-93.
™ Richardson, Messages and Papers, 1, 499.
""Annals, 1637.

War. oe 1812 : Triumphant Insurgency 183
Federalists were opposed to war against either power and en
deavored to postpone action on the subject.*^^ In this effort
they were not assisted by Giles. He was aUied, however, with
the Federalist party in their attempt to secure an amendment
authorizing the issuance of letters of marque and reprisal
against both England and France.'^' When this was defeated,
Giles joined his Republican brethren in the vote for declara
tion of war.'^* The act, as finally approved, declared war,
authorized the use of the whole land and naval force of the
United States to carry It into effect, and gave the President
power to issue letters of marque and reprisal to private armed
ships, "against the vessels, goods, and effects of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the subjects there-
p£_ 55516 Those, who, like Giles, saw no better reason for war
against England than with France, may have- been perfectly
right from the point of view of theory,'^' but Jefferson, too,
was right when he characterized their desire to punish both
nations at the same time as a piece of sublimated Impartiality.
Whip one enemy at a time is a common sense programme for all
nations as well as for individuals ; and it would seem wise to fight
first that one against whom it is easiest to secure support,
against whom we could most easily make war, and from whom.
In case of success, we could exact a precious indemnity.'^'' The
South and West had brought on the war ; the South and West
had chosen war against Great Britain; the South and West
wanted Canada, the fur trade, a free hand with the Indians, as
well as assertion of our national spirit. New England would
have allowed our grievances against England to have gone
unavenged. South of the Potomac and west of the AUeghenies,
men rejoiced at the opportunity to reap "a new harvest of
political and national glory."
"" Annals, 384, 396.
™ Ibid, 397.
"" Ibid, 397.
""Act approved June 18, 1813.
""Madison himself had contemplated war with both powers but decided
that such a course was impracticable. Hunt's Madison, 336.
""John Howe in 1808 heard everybody talking such language. Am. Hist.
Review, 17: 343, 354.

184 William Branch Giles
Congress proceeded, after the declaration of war, to make
financial provision for its efficiency. In this work, the much
despised Senate showed a willingness to cooperate. On the 26th,
it passed the act authorizing the issue of five million dollars in
Treasury notes. '^' For this appropriation, Giles voted, though
he gave his voice against the bill authorizing additional duties
on imports,'^" probably because It failed to reimpose a duty on
salt, in which he claimed to be much interested. Bills provid
ing for defence were passed and Congress, having done Its
work, adjourned July 6th.
"^"Act approved July 1, 1812.
'"Annals, 311.

CHAPTER XII
"PUTTING CLAWS ON GALLATIN"
During the recess of Congress, Important military events
took place. Ru.shing foward with the ardor of Crusaders to
seize the long coveted prize, our ardent westerners had, under
Hull, surrendered American territory. Defeat and failures had
met our young army at almost every step. Van Rennselaer was
defeated at Queenstown Heights, Smyth and Dearborn had
made only feeble efforts to invade Canada from the east. Our
little navy, on which small reliance had been placed by the ad
ministration, had won all the laurels of the campaign. The
biographer of Giles cannot refrain from adding, so great has
been the severity of criticism directed against his conduct in
preceding years, that the five months of war experienced before
Congress met in its second session, had justified his reliance on
regular troops, his antipathy to a militia, and his new belief In
the necessity of a capable navy.
The second session began November 2, six days before
the second election of Madison to the Presidency. In his
message, the President gave a brief recital of military events in
as favorable a manner as possible ; and recommended measures
for the increased efficiency of the army — larger pay for pri
vates, additional general officers, an enlargement of the navy.^^"
The report of the Secretary of the Treasury recommended a
loan of twenty million dollars. The adoption of measures In
harmony with these recommendations was the programme out
lined for Congress ; Congress, more obediently than usual, pro
ceeded to carry out the programme.
Our discussion of the proceedings of this session must be
brief because the Senate debates are not reported. Giles's active
participation in the discussion of the measures considered is
plain from a reading of the Journal of daily proceedings. He
was, however, without much ado, ousted from the Committee on
Foreign Relations, and was given no prominent committee
'"" Richardson, Messages and Papers, 1, 514,

186 William Branch Giles
chairmanship,'^^ though he was responsible for the Initiation of
many prominent acts. Very little but his votes on Important
measures can be given.
The first act to be passed was one for the increase of the
pay of noncommissioned officers and privates. No material
opposition developed against It in the Senate, and GUes voted
with the majority.'^^ No trouble, also, was found over the pas
sage of the act to Increase the navy of the United States. It
provided that, as soon as possible, four ships of seventy-four
guns and six of forty-four should be buUt.'^' Only two Sena
tors, Messrs. Crawford of Georgia and Turner of North
CaroUna, were In opposition.'^* Giles rejoiced to be able
to give it his sanction and to receive by Its enactment a
justification of a number of his previous votes and speeches.
Before the end of the year, however, he had found opportu
nity to thwart the will of the Secretary of Treasury by
securing the passage of the act directing the Secretary to remit
fines, forfeitures, and penalties In the case of those of our
citizens who, between June 23, the day when British orders
were repealed, and September 15th, the day when news of
the declaration of war was given out In England, had set
sail with cargoes from English ports with the expectation that
the repeal of English orders on June 23 would operate to
repeal our non-Intercourse with Great Britain.'^' The ships,
on their arrival, had been seized and, according to law, half
of the proceeds of sale should go to the collectors and half to
the Government.'"' An entire confiscation seemed unjust as
the captain appeared to have acted In good faith. On the
other hand, by the sale of their cargoes, they had gained an
artificial profit resulting from another act of the Government,
the act declaring war; the duties collected were by no means
proportionate to the advantage secured to the Importers ; and,
""» Journals of the Senate, Twelfth Cong., 2nd Sess., 27.
'^December 1. Act approved December 13, 1813.
"^Act approved January 2, 1813.
'"'December 14, 1812.
""'According to our act of March 3, 1811.
'""See Act, March 31, 1809.

"Putting Claws on Gallatin" 187
besides, the Government was in desperate straits for money.'^'
Madison had. In his message, left the matter to Congress with
the exhortation that they consult both "equitable considera
tions" and "public interest,'"^' and Gallatin was in favor
of remitting the half of the forfeitures due to collectors
and a part of the Government's share."^" In the Senate,
the matter had been referred to a select committee, of
which Giles was chairman.®'" On the seventh of December, he
reported a bill remitting all forfeitures and penalties and se
cured its passage on the fourteenth by a large majority. The
House had already, by a close vote, refused to leave the matter
to GaUatin®'^ and, by a vote just as close, pas.sed Giles's bill."^
In the course of the debates in that body, the Treasury was
severely handled, In attacks indeed "hardly less mischievous,"
according to Gallatin's biographer, though, of course, "more
honest and less spiteful.'""
The bill"* providing for twenty more regiments of infantry
to be enlisted for one year's service met with considerable op
position. Giles, true to his principles as announced during the
last session in the debate on the volunteer bill, voted against It,
after Smith, Leib, the P'ederalists, and he, himself, had failed In
their efforts to Increase the term of service to five years, three
years or eighteen months.'" He voted for the bill authorizing
a loan of sixteen million dollars and did not join hands with the
Federalists in their attempt to limit the rate of interest that
might be paid."' He opposed a bill allowing the issuance of
five million dollars in Treasury notes."'^
A very interesting act for the regulation of seamen on
board American ships was passed as an overture to England on
""'Adams, U. S., vi, 440.
"""Richardson, Messages and Papers, i, 519.
"^ Annals, Twelfth Congress, Second Session, 1358.
•"Ibid, 18, 38.
""December 11.
""December 23.
•"Adams, GaUatin, 473.
""Act approved January 39.
"'January 31, January S3.
"*¦ February 4, 1813. Annals, Twelfth Cong., 3nd Sess., 96, 97.
""Act approved February 35, 1813.

188 William Branch Giles
the subject of Impressment. Monroe had, on June 26, 1812,
offered the British government a law prohibiting the employ
ment of British seamen on American ships."' In his message
at the beginning of the session, the President had made mention
of the offer, and the House had finally passed a measure to
carry out the President's desires."" When it came over to the
Senate, it was handed to a committee with GUes at the
head"" and, on the eighteenth, he reported it with an amendment.
It was finally passed 6n the twenty-seventh, the administration
senators giving their support and the Federalists and Smith,
Leib and German standing in determined opposition.'*"^ The
act, as passed, provided that, after the termination of the pres
ent war, no persons, except citizens of the United States or
persons of color native of our country, should be employed on
any public or private ship. Citizenship by naturalization
should be granted only persons who had been in continuous
residence for five years, and such citizens, on seeking employ
ment, were required to produce a certified copy of the act
by which they were naturalized. No seamen of another
nationality were to be allowed as passengers on board
an American ship in a foreign port without written per
mission from the proper authorities of their own country.
However, these provisions were not to apply to the employ
ment of the seamen of any country which should not have
prohibited the employment of native American citizens on
the public or private ships of that country.'*^ This act was, no
doubt, in its operation, as Mr. Adams claims, unfavorable to the
United States.'*' England was to surrender her claim to a
right of employing American citizens and, in return, we agreed
to abide by 'the same rule.
In tlie discussion of the Congress just described, the party
of the Smiths did not apparently act together to harass the
President. Whether It was the chastening finger of a public
'""Am. State Papers, Foreign, ui, 585.
""» February 13.
""Annals, 86.
"«Ibid, 111.
"" See Act approved March 3, 1813.
'"Adams, U. S., vi, 454, et seq.

"Putting Claws on Gallatin" 189
crisis which Infiuenced their minds, or whether the advent of war
had, as usual, increased the political fighting strength of the
administration. In any case, the Senate was unusually harmo
nious, and, on most occasions, gave the required vote without
the call for a division.
A difference, however, was seen when Congress came to
gether again. The Thirteenth Congress met in extra session
May 24, 1813. Federalists had made gains at the Congres
sional elections In New York and New England and now could
muster sixty-eight votes. Some advantage had accrued to the
administration party through the defeat of John Randolph of
Roanoke by John W. Eppes, son-in-law of Thomas Jefferson.'**
However, In point of numbers, the Federalist representation
from Virginia remained unchanged ; Lewis, Sheffey, and Breck
enridge were returned and three new Federalist's were come to
Washington with them.'*' In the Senate, Brent and Giles were
still at hand, one supporting the administration, and the other
frequently acting in cooperation with Federalists. Federalists
in the upper House, although the same in number as in the pre
vious session, had gained In influence through the election of
Jeremiah Mason from New Hampshire and Rufus -King of New
York. Besides Giles, there were still present Smith, Leib, Ger
man and Gilman of the discontented Republicans ; one more sen
ator, now indeed, appeared to strengthen their hands, David
Stone of North Carolina in place of Jesse Franklin. The neces
sities of war, however, would be strength to the administration
in any efforts to carry out a legislative programme.
Since Congress had assembled last, Russia, the friend of the
United States, and now an ally of England, had offered her ser
vices in mediation between the warring powers. Hastening to
accept these kindly offices, the President had, on May 9, hurried
James A. Bayard and Albert Gallatin aboard for Russia, In
which country they were to cooperate with John Quincy Adams,
'"Eppes had moved into Randolph's district before the 13th Congress
and had been voted for in 1811 but was defeated. He had been, however,
able to reduce Randolph's majority. Eppes was an ardent war man and
Randolph one of the most ardent anti-war members.
'"Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia, 93.

190 William Branch Giles
our minister, for the purpose of negotiating treaties with Eng
land and a commercial agreement with Russia.'*' The Senate
proceeded to take under consideration the nomination of these
gentlemen as envoys extraordinary.'*'' Rufus King, advancing
at once to Federalist leadership, offered, on June 2, resolutions
asking the President for the documents connected with the case,
and desiring to know whether Albert GaUatin stiU "retains the
office of Secretary of the Department of the Treasury ;" if so,
under what authority, and who discharged the duties of Secre
tary of the Treasury during his absence.'*' The President, in
reply, answered that the office of Secretary of the Treasury was
not vacated, that In Gallatin's absence the duties were dis
charged by WiUiam Jones, Secretary of the Navy, and that the
proceeding was according to an act of Congress named.'*"
Up to this time, Giles had been absent. On this day, how
ever, he took his seat and "put a claw on GaUatin.""" Two
days later, when Anderson of Tennessee, usually heretofore an
administration man, moved to refer the nomination and the
message to a select committee, Giles "opened his severe thunders
upon poor Albert.""^ A committee, appointed In accordance
with the motion above mentioned, and consisting of Anderson,
King, Giles, Brown, and Bledsoe, reported that they had ad
dressed a letter to the President on the subject and had later
called on him and had received answer that the President did
not recognize their official character under the resolution as
adopted by the Senate. They, therefore, offered for considera
tion a resolution declaring that. In the opinion of the Senate,
"the powers and duties of the Secretary of the Department of
the Treasury, and of those of our Envoy Extraordinary to a
foreign power, are so Incompatible, that they ought not to be,
and remain, united in the same person."""^
""Richardson, I, 526.
""Annals, Thirteenth Cong., i, 83.
'"Ibid, 84.
¦"Annals, June 7.
"" Daniel Webster, June 7, 1813, Van Tyne, Letters of Daniel Webster,
38. •"Ibid, 39.
¦"'Annals, Thirteenth Congress, 1st Sess., 86, June 14.

"Putting Claws on Gallatin" 191
Twenty senators, composed of Federalists and anti-adminis
tration Republicans voted aye on all motions on the subject.
The committee waited on the President informally on the six
teenth of July ; presented the resolution adopted June sixteenth,
and, receiving nothing but regrets that the Senate did not agree
with him on the subject of Gallatin's nomination, withdrew.'"
On hearing the report from their committee, the Senate rejected
the nomination of Gallatin by a majority of one vote and con
firmed those of Adams and Bayard by large majorities."* On
the same day on which the nominations of the three envoys
extraordinary were sent to the Senate, that body received also
the nomination of Jonathan Russell, of Rhode Island, to be Min
ister Plenipotentiary to Sweden. Again the opposition raised
its voice and asked for the "correspondence which may have
passed between the United States and the King of Sweden,
respecting the interchange of public ministers between the said
Governments.'"" Answer was received from the Secretary of State that no
direct correspondence had passed between the two governments
but that letters had been received from other sources showing
the wishes and intention of Sweden."' Again the matter was
referred to a committee, composed of Wells, Giles, and King,
with Instructions to confer with the President."' On July 6, a
message was received from the President declining the proposed
conference on the ground that "the appointment of a committee
of the Senate to confer Immediately with the Executive himself,
appears to lose sight of the coordinate relation between the
Executive and the Senate, which the Constitution has estab
lished, and which ought therefore to be maintained." Most
magnanimously the President added that he was "entirely per
suaded of the purity of the Intentions of the Senate.""' Indis
position of Madison prevented an interview between him and the
"""Anderson's Report, Annals, July 19.
"" July 19. Senate Executive Journals, July 19, 1813. GUes voted against
GaUatin and for Bayard and Adams.
"" Annals, 93, June 3.
""Annals, 93.
""Ibid, 95.
""Richardson, Messages and Papers, I, 530.

192 William Branch Giles
committee; finaUy, after the committee had declined to inter
view the Secretary of State on the subject,"" the Senate re
solved, twenty-two to fourteen, "that It is inexpedient, at this
time, to send a Minister Plenipotentiary to Sweden."""
The proceedings described In the preceding paragraphs
were of course in secret session, and the debates, therefore, are
not published. The prominence of Giles In the deliberations is
seen in his presence on both of the committees appointed to con
fer with the President and by expressions, such as those of
Webster's quoted above. The intensity of feeling In the con
troversy Is apparent and the seriousness of the Issue is easily
comprehended. Webster, writing on June 11, says, "Giles has
no mercy. It is most probable he will stick with King & Co. I
should not be surprised, if they should drive Madison to and
Gallatin from the Treasury.""^ Subtracting much from the
expressions of an enthusiastic young Federalist not unable to
see what he much would desire, we can gather how serious was
the opposition to the administration in the Senate. Monroe
was so excited about the situation that he wrote to Jefferson
asserting that the factions had begun to make calculations and
plans founded on the expected death of the President and Vice-
president and that Giles was being considered, so he was told,
to take the place of President of the Senate."^
Was the opposition purely factious? Were aU the senators
engaged In it doing so merely to cripple the administration in as
serious a situation as that existing in 1813? A statement of the
defence given by the Insurgent Republicans Is only fair. It is
found In "An Address of the Honorable William B. Giles to the
People of Virginia,""' pubUshed In 1813. This address he
""Annals, 97.
'™ Note Mr. Adams's confusion of Minister Plenipotentiary and Minister
resident. Adams, U. S., vol. VII, 63; Sweden was going to send us a
minister resident.
¦"1 Letters of Daniel Webster, Van Tyne, 40.
'""Adams, GaUatin, 484.
""Besides the appointments of RusseU and GaUatin two other subjects
are discussed at length — "The true and factitious meaning of the terms
'SUPPORT THE ADMINISTRATION' " and "The Right of Instructing
Representatives, am, Unalienable right. To be executed 6y Man in his
native, and not in his Representative character." Under the first of these

"Putting Claws on Gallatin" 193
wrote, not only to place himself in a correct attitude before the
present generation, but to protect his reputation before the
tribunal of posterity — for our Senator professes a "love of
future fame." It was far from his intentions, he declared,
"to criminate the administration, . . . still less, the
President of the United States individually." Unrivalled op
portunities for judging the motives of James Madison had as
sured him of "their unsullied purity." Differences of opinion
between him and the President were due to "Infirmities of our
nature." Madison had been unfortunate In the unexampled
difficulties of the circumstances Incident to his period of office
and also In the "intrusions of other self-created advisers."
On the subject of the mission of Russell, Giles rested his
defence for his conduct on the fact that the President proposed
to send to Sweden a Minister Plenipotentiary while Sweden In
tended sending us only an ordinary minister resident. Declar
ing that he had the greatest respect both for the President and
Mr. Russell, he asserted that, if the President had nominated
Mr. RusseU for an appointment of the same grade as that of
the Swedish Minister, there would not have been "one solitary
objection to the measure, nor the person nominated.""* If the
object of the discrimination was to secure Swedish mediation
with England, it could only do harm ; and, if its obj ect was to
accommodate Mr. Russell, it would be sacrificing public to
private Interests.'"
When he came to the nomination of Gallatin, Giles had some
interesting points to make. If precedent were urged In favor
of the appointment to a foreign mission of an important officer
heads Giles defends his attitude on war measures. The biU providing for
twenty-five thousand men — opposition to the volunteer biU — ^the provision
for buUding 35 frigates, etc. To his position now the country had come —
he had voted for the many bills for carrying on the war. — He had, in sup
porting measures, proved to be wise, supported the administration better
than some who got more credit for doing so than he did.
""'This seems hardly reasonable in view of the investigation into Mr.
Russell's conduct while ChargS at Paris, entered into after RusseU's nomi
nation was made. Annals, Thirteenth Cong., i, 91-94.
'" Giles also defends the right of the Senate to appoint a, committee to
confer with the President, which right Madison denied.

194 William Branch Giles
in our government, who was allowed to retain that office in his
absence, he asked: ShaU RepubUcans foUow FederaUst prece
dent which Republicans formerly condemned? No one more
than Madison, GaUatin, and GUes had opposed the appointment
of John Jay in 1794 — and now that appomtment was referred
to by the administration as a precedent making valid another
similar appointment. Very suggestive and very famUIar lan
guage is that which follows : was there no other Republican who
might have performed the foreign service? Why select Mr.
Gallatin, a foreigner, when native-born citizens of equal abUIty
for this service might have been found? Did Giles himself wish
the office? Is a not unnatural query.
Why, it is asked, did the President act so hastily? The ap
pointments were made just a few weeks before the meeting of
the Senate. "The necessity which impeUed this movement, was
not very urgent at the time, and ... a becoming
patience of two or three weeks, would have ennabled the Pres
ident to consult the Senate upon the measure in the usual con
stitutional way, without making so many novel and hazardous
experiments upon fundamental principles, as necessarily accom
panied the proceedings, which did take place. The first of
these consists In the attempt to unite in one person, two incom
patible offices ; the second, to substitute another person to per
form the duties of Secretary of the Treasury during his volun
tary absence from the United States for an Indefinite period."
This, then, was the defence. That it had some force no one
can deny. The objections raised to the appointments seem to
be valid objections, with the exception of that which rested on
GaUatin's foreign birth, in which obj ection of course, there was
no reason. As for the charge of inconsistency, Madison, Giles,
Federalists, and aU the principal actors on the political stage
at the time were In the same category. FederaUsts were talking
and acting like the original Republicans, Republicans used lan
guage that had fallen from the lips of old time FederaUsts. No
man. Indeed, in American political life ever held more contra
dictory opinions than did WiUiam B. GUes; no man, to his
credit be it said, ever made more frequent admissions of former

"Putting Claws on Gallatin" 195
errors. But, admitting that, technicaUy, the opposition could,
on the subjects of the nominations of Gallatin and Russell, offer
a fair defence, had there been no real antipathy produced by
other causes, the votes on these questions would no doubt have
been different. Part of this antipathy was due to a genuine
conviction that the measures of the administration were weak
and faulty and part, so far as Republicans were concerned,
was due to the jealousies Incident to political life.
For the various tax biUs proposed by the administration
Giles voted. Two important acts met with Giles's opposition.
One was the act making trading under British licenses a mis
demeanor punishable with forfeiture and fine."' The aim of the
bjiU was to abolish trade between New England and British
ports through permits issued by the English government. In
the Senate, Giles proposed an amendment striking out the for
feiture provision and, on the rejection of the amendment, voted
with the Federalists against the bUl.^''^ The other was an em
bargo desired fey the President to prevent an Illegitimate trade,
by which England was enabled to secure from our country
"exports essential to their wants, whilst its general commerce
remains unobstructed.""' The Senate kUled the measure
at this session, though It was the first act to be passed In the
December session of Congress.""
¦™Act of Aug. 3, 1813.
¦"Annals, 53, 55.
""Act of July 38, 1813.
""» Act approved Dec. 17, 1813.

CHAPTER XIII
CLOSING THE WAR: RETIREMENT OF
SENATOR GILES
WhUe the members of Congress were resting at their homes,
there had been no rest for anyone else. The army and the ad
ministration had been busy, but there was little to show for their
worry and manceuvers. In general, the summer and faU of
1813 had been marked by failures, redeemed by two very for
tunate occurrences. The campaign In the east had resulted as
usual with no credit to our forces ; in the west, the month in
which Congress had adjourned had witnessed an Indian mas
sacre. The British, too, had been able to blockade the Chesa
peake and Delaware Bays and to bring Increased suffering to
the homes of the loyal southern supporters of the war. But these
southerners and their western friends had wrested sufficient
victory from defeat to give a cheerful note to the President's
message on December 7. The victories of Perry on Lake Erie
September 10, and Harrison's achievement on the Thames
October 5, together with minor engagements, enabled Madison
to conclude that "the war, with all Its vicissitudes, is illustrat
ing the capacity and destiny of the United States to be a great,
a flourishing, and a powerful nation.""" A special message of
December 9 made a request again for an embargo to prevent
supplies from our ports from finding their way to the British
armies and fleets. New England, as she had once angrily
demanded war, had as angrily resisted its declaration and now
sulkily refused to cooperate In conducting It to success. Her
representatives in Congress uniformly voted against aU war
measures ; her governors refused to allow the use of the state
'militia by the Federal government; her money took its flight
across the Canadian line Instead of finding its way Into the
Treasury of the United States ; she stubbornly withheld praise
even for naval victory; she talked secession and prepared for
it; she furnished English forces with supplies with which to
sustain themselves while defeating American armies.
""Richardson, Messages and Papers, I, 534.

Retirement oe Senator Giles 197
But would not an embargo but add to the flame of New
England rebeUion without accomplishing any real advantage to
the Government? However, it was passed; GUes, having re
ceived a light on the subject since his vote at the end of the
last session, voted with the majorlty.'^^ The storm that might
have been expected darkened the horizon in New England.
Other unexpected circumstances also soon arose. Although
Gallatin and his colleagues had found that their trip abroad, so
far as It related to the Russian offer of mediation, was a wild
goose chase, yet It was soon known that their services would be
needed for the negotiation directly with British envoys, and
that Napoleon had apparently been crushed. If peace did not
soon come, England could now use all her forces against unfor
tunate America, and a further alienation of the northeastern
states seemed exceedingly unwise. The President, holding out
and clinging to the precious embargo as long as possible, finally
yielded on March 31, and recommended a repeal of the ob
noxious law on the ground of the defeat of the French and
the inevitable downfall of the continental system.^^^ No time
was lost by a willing Congress. The House, on the seventh of
April, by an overwhelming vote, passed the bill for repeal.'"
In the Senate, without delay and with no appreciable opposi
tion, the bill for repeal also passed.'*^*
Such military measures as were demanded received the ap
proval of Congress — measures in line with previous contentions
made by Giles.'^' In the passage of them there was a surpris
ing unanimity in the Senate. Giles was, at this session, so far
as the public records show, particularly loyal. When a mem
orial of the House of Delegates of Maryland was presented,
setting forth the calamities of war and praying for peace,'"
Giles was one of the leaders in resisting the motion to print.
"^Annals, Thirteenth Cong., 3nd Sess., 661.
"" Richardson, Messages and Papers, 1, 543.
"¦ Annals, 2003, AprU 7.
"' Ibid, 741, AprU 13.
"¦Giles, however, was not Chairman of the Committee on Military Af
fairs. He was on the Committee on MUitia. He played apparently only
a smaU part in this session.
""Annals, Thirteenth Cong., 3nd Sess., 616.

198 William Branch Giles
No practical result, he declared, would come from the memorial.
Once more, as in the days of Jefferson, when GUes was an admin
istration leader, he was now found pleading for harmony and
deprecating the evils "likely to grow out of the heat and ani
mosity of party feeling.'"" The days of the Smith faction
were evidently numbered, when the intellectual leader of the
group was preaching brotherly love. So far as Congress was
concerned, the administration was continuously gaining more
solid ground and nearing the day when the only opposition
it had to contend with was that proceeding from the opposite
party. The breach among the Republicans, which John Ran
dolph had first opened in 1804, which Samuel Smith and Wil
liam B. Giles had been widening since 1809, was fast closing.
Before many months, even the Federalists were to be humiliated
through their own excesses and the fortunate issue of peace,
and Madison was to stand at last supreme.
Congress had decided to meet again on the last Monday In
October but great and weighty matters'" made it necessary to
call them together on September 19. We had, indeed, won
victories ; Brown and Scott had successfully fought at Chip
pewa and Lundy's Lane, though nothing had been gained.
With these exceptions, nothing had occurred which could give
encouragement. The British continued the blockade of our
coast, working distress to the chief supporters of the war — New
England talked even more loudly of defiance' and was now plan
ning for a convention whose outcome none could tell. And,
most Insistent problem of all, the financial situation was dis
tressing to our statesmen. When the proclamation for the
early meeting of Congress was issued, the most humiliating
event of the war had not taken place. For, on August 24, the
capital city itself had been taken and the meeting place of the
national legislature had been destroyed. One happy occurrence
served to brighten men's spirits just before the opening of
the session — the victory of Macdonough at Plattsburg on
September 11. The President called upon Congress to put
'"The substance of Giles's Speech (except the first of his remarks)
is found in the answer of Goldsborough, Annals, 618, 631.
""Madison's Proclamation of August 8th.

Retirement oe Senator Giles 199
forth the greatest efforts to provide for the pecuniary supplies
and military forces.
On the fifth of November, Giles, for the Committee on
Military Affairs,'" reported two biUs. The first authorized
the enlistment of recruits between the ages of 18 and 50 years,
allowed each future recruit three hundred and twenty acres of
land. In lieu of the existing aUowance of one hundred and
sixty, and declared exempted from service in the militia any
person subject to militia duty who should furnish a recruit.
The second authorized the President to caU upon the states
and territories for quotas for two years' service to maintain
the defence of the frontiers of the United States."" These
biUs were drafted after conference with Monroe, now Secre
tary of War,"^ and were offered, not In exact compliance with
his recommendations, but as the strongest measures possible of
enactment. The first, after debate, passed the Senate November
12 without a division. No trouble was found by the able op
ponents of the measure In detecting defects In the second biU
or in finding objections against it both practical and theoret
ical. It was unjust, oppressive, unconstitutional, without pre
cedent. Incapable of execution. It was regarded as the first
step in the direction of conscription, and resistance to It, If
passed, was threatened by Federalist Senators."^ GUes's
speech in its defence Is not at hand. From the other partici
pants in the discussion, we learn that he upheld its constitu
tionality and Its popularity. He appealed for support for the
administration In the present crisis, an administration, which,
"if weak and violent," was, at least, "honest and patriotic."""
Some doubt was cynically expressed as to his credentials to act
as a friend of the administration but, with an elasticity not
"" Which he now headed. Foreign Relations and MUitary Affairs seem to
have been separated in the 13th Congress. GUes seems to have had a tussle
to get the chairmanship of the Committee on MiUtary Affairs instead of
the chairmanship of the Committee on MiUtia.
""Annals, 38.
¦°See Monroe Correspondence, Oct. 1814. Annals, 13th Cong., 3rd
voJ., Appendix, 1503 et seq.
""" See Speech of Gore, Nov. 33, Annals, 13th Cong., 3rd vol., 100.
¦"» Annals, 73, 75, 77, 78, 84.

200 William Branch Giles
pecuhar to himself, he had returned for the time being to the
support of Madison and the Secretary of War. The Senate
seemed to be under good control and passed the mUitia bUl
19 to 12, with the opposition only of Federalists and two Re
pubUcans."* In the House the Militia bill was attacked with
the greatest energy. Some opposed It because it authorized a
draft, some because It did not. Troup, the Chairman of the
House Committee on MUitary Affairs, fought it because he
considered it "inadequate to the object. It proposed to give
you a militia force, when you wanted not a mihtia but a regu
lar force." No one was more heartily in accord with this
principle than was Giles. As strong provision for a regular
army as had any chance of carrying, he had already furnished.
Troup declared the government had "absolute power over the
population of this country for this purpose, and that in the
present state of the country it Is wiser to resort to classifica
tion and draft than, to resort to the bill from the Senate."""
Giles would have foUowed Troup or anyone else to the utmost
limits on that proposition, but, unfortunately, others besides
the Georgian and the Virginian had to be consulted. For
Instance, Cyrus King of Massachusetts declared that the con
scription bill of the House was "still more destructive of our
militia . . . completely annihilating the State sovereign
ties.""' Sheffey of Virginia characterized the measures pro
posed by the administration as "arbitrary and despotic.""^
The bill, however, after mutilation by the House, and refusal
of that body to accept the report of the conference committee,
was, in disgust, indefinitely postponed by the Senate.'" Be
sides the act authorizing the employment of minors and in
creasing the bounty, the only other provision for the army was
an act, inspired by the indisposition of the states to raise vol
unteer forces, authorizing the President to receive such corps,
up to forty thousand men, to be employed only in the states
'"Nov. 22, Anderson and Varnum.
"» Speech, Dec. 3.
""Speech, Dec. 3.
""'Annals, 854.
""December 28.

Retirement or Senator Giles 201
raising the same or in adjoining states, except with the consent
of the respective state executives."" The Military Committee,
during the whole session, however, was an exceedingly busy
committee; under the leadership of Giles, It acted in consistent
harmony with the desires of the President. No member of the
Senate during the session was more active or had a larger hand
In shaping legislation.
Only less fortunate than the Inefficiency of measures for
defence was the financial legislation. Here was the greatest
need ; with money, the government would not suffer. The coun
try was not, indeed, impoverished but the problem of tapping
the inexhaustible resources of a well-to-do people was the prob
lem taxing statesmanship. Loans had not done it; treasury
notes of the kind heretofore authorized had not been successful.
Secretary Campbell, after betraying the straightened circum
stances of the government,'"" had, ill and discouraged, thrown
up the fight and resigned. Andrew J. Dallas had then been
called upon to steer the sinking financial craft. The new Sec
retary thought the Treasury suffering from every kind of em
barrassment,'"^ had little respect for the proposed solution
of the difficulty by the issuance of more treasury notes, and
thought the only solution was the reestablishment of a "nation
al institution operating upon credit combined with capital and
regulated by prudence and good falth."'"^ A bill was there
upon brought forward in the House providing for the estab
lishment of a bank with a capital stock of fifty million dollars.'"'
At the Instance of Calhoun, the measure was totally changed
by the committee of the whole so as to take away from the
government any privilege of holding stock and all control of
the bank operations."* Between the two plans, the House was
unable to accomplish anything. The Senate now took up the
""Act of January 37, 1815.
""See Report, Sept. 33, 1814.
""'American State Papers, Finance, ii, 873.
•'"Ibid, 866.
°" Introduced in House, Nov. 7 — debated Nov. 14 and after.
""Annals, Nov. 16 and 17.

202 William Branch Giles
question'"' and voted in favor of the bank.'"' The House,
after once voting it down, finally, on reconsideration, voted for
it. A vain fight was made in the Senate to retain the pro
visions of their bill providing for a capital of $35,000,000, and
authorizing the suspension of specie payment. Giles, both be
cause of the necessity of concession and on principle,'"' spoke
and voted against insistence on the Senate measure, and the biU
after a sharp contest was passed,'"' only to be vetoed by the
President on the ground that, as constituted by the proposed
law, the bank would not serve the needs of the government.'"" A
vain attempt, supported by Giles, was made by the Federalists
to pass the bill over the veto and failed ; whereupon, another bill
presented by Giles's colleague and friend, James Barbour, more
in accordance with the President's desires, passed the Senate
against the opposition of Giles, only to be killed in the
House.'"" All hope for a National Bank at this session was
destroyed. In financial legislation, Congress confined itself to
provisions for further taxes'"^ and further loans.'"^
Giles was exceedingly active during the whole session. As
Chairman of the MUitary Committee, despite the failure of
one of his principal measures, the militia bill, he was con
stantly engaged and participated in the enactment of a num
ber of important laws. Besides the more important questions
necessary to be considered, the committee were compelled to act
on many minor matters, such as relief for sufferers and in
demnification for losses arising from the progress of war.
Giles's recommendations were In line with the desires of the
administration and the charge of factiousness, so far as it
refers during this session to the conduct of business imme-
'"'Bill reported Dec. 3.
"""Dec. 9. Giles did not vote.
""So says Annals, 174, but he had voted, 167^ to raise the capital from
$30,000,000 to $35,000,000.
'""Jan. 30.
¦""Jan.. 30, Richardson, Messages and Papers, i, 556.
¦"Annals, 231, 1168.
""¦Acts, Dec. 15, 1814; Dec. 31, 33; Jan. 9, 1815; Jan. 18, Feb. 27,
Mar. 3.
"""Acts approved Nov. 15, 1814, authorized loan of $3,000,000; Dec. 26;
Feb. 24.

Retirement of Senator Giles 203
diately under his charge, falls to the ground. As a matter of
fact, the only Important administration measure which he
fought was the Bank measure and this he had fought on every
occasion since his first entrance into Congress.
Two pleasant duties fell to his lot before Congress adjourned.
One was the proposal of resolutions complimentary to General
Jackson and his men "for their uniform gallantry and good
conduct" and directing the President to cause to be struck
and presented to the General a gold medal "emblematical of this
splendid achievement."'"' The other was the drafting of a
report "respecting the relative powers of the General and
State Governments over the militia." For fear that the pre
tensions of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island,'"*if
acquiesced in, might be resumed in the event of a future war,
the committee felt themselves "impelled by a sense of justice
to express a decided approbation of its (the administration's)
conduct, in supporting and preserving the Constitution of the
United States against the effects of the State authorities afore
said, which, after full consideration, the committee beUeve not
warranted by the Constitution, nor deducible from any fair
and just interpretation of Its principles and objects."'"'
The report described was purely for the assertion of ab
stract principle. For, contrary to Giles's mournful prophesies
of ill that would befall the government, the end of the war
had already come, and, with it, the end of contests between
President and Governors on the subject of the miUtia. On
February 21, the Treaty of Peace was laid before the Senate
and, without delay, confirmed. It now remained for Congress
to assist In the establishment of conditions of peace in place
of war. Among other things. Congress put an end to the
system of commercial restrictions by the repeal of the "of
fending remnants of our discrimination and non-intercourse sys-
«»Feb. 13.
""' In claiming that the President had no power to make requisitions
of a State's militia unless the Governor approved the caU; and that such
miUtias when caUed out could not be commanded by officers of the regular
army. ¦"'Appendix, 13th Congress, 1743-1744.

204 William Branch Giles
tem.'""' The act appropriately reported to the Senate by that
Senator who had been closely associated with the whole plan
of restrictive legislation on commerce, repealed all acts shutting
our ports to foreign ships, including the embargo act of July
1812, and the Ucensing act of August, 1813. Thenceforth
the British Orders, French Decrees, and American Embargoes,
and non-intercourse were no longer to interfere with the natural
progress of American trade.'"' In this way, ended a policy,
commenced in 1807, persisted In "as a kind of poUtical faith,"
"to be believed, not examined," for eight years.
With the end of the war, we were to enter on a new era,
and, in our freedom from entangling relations with the two great
European belligerents, we were to have opportunity for larger
concentration on domestic policies. But, in the contests on great
policies on the national arena, Giles was to have no part. He
was, however, on a smaller field, to wield his sword — without
wielding a sword he could not live.
The session ending March 3, 1815, was Giles's last session
In the Congress of the United States. He had seen many years
of participation in national affairs, and, during every year of
it, when not ill, he had played a vigorous part — most of the time
in building up and maintaining a Republican party. In the
last few years, dissatisfied with the measures of the adminis
tration and unfriendly to a distinguished Secretary of the
Treasury — possibly jealous of him — ^he had acquired a repu
tation for factiousness and party disloyalty and had been pun
ished severely by the lash of public denunciation. The last
year of his Senatorial career had been marked, outwardly at
least, by a return to a more complete sympathy with the leaders
of the party and had afforded an opportunity, if not for a glori
ous, at least for a graceful retirement.
Writing, as early as November 20, 1814, to his friend and
future colleague. Governor Barbour, he expressed a definite
intention to resign at the expiration of the session. The let
ter Is weU worth reading and will be given entire:
•"'' Schouler, U. S., II, 491.
"»' Schouler, U. S., II, 491.

Retirement of Senator Giles 205
"Washington
December 20. 1814.
"Dear Sir, ,
I duly received your two friendly favors of the 14th and 16th
Instant ; and felt truely grateful for the kind interests you have
taken in my behalf in repelling the unmerited attacks of de
luded and Infuriated partisans. Protected by conscious recti
tude, they will pass by me, as the idle wind ; which I regard not.
I sincerely congratulate you, upon your election to the Senate
of the U. S. ; and In triumphing over the opposition dictated
by a similar spirit. It would afford me real pleasure
to be associated with you In the discharge of Senatorial duties ;
but I think It probable, that will not be the case ; as I propose
to resign after the fourth of March; If left to myself; but I
may be impelled to serve out the present term by outrage, vio
lence, and Injustice. Indeed I very much regret, that I have
not heretofore been favored with your counsel and assistance;
because I verily believe. In that case, a great portion of the
evils which have befallen our country, might have been averted.
I expect to leave this place for Richmond in two or three days,
and shall therefore leave for a personal interview, a compari
son of opinions upon several topics now In a course of con
sideration here; having the most important tendencies, of any
I have ever witnessed since my entrance into publick life: —
Believe me, as usual, sincerely your friend
His excellency Wm B. Giles"
James Barbour
In accordance with the intention expressed in the letter just
quoted, on November 23, he addressed to the Governor of Vir
ginia a communication in which he declared that, on account
of his long desire to return to private life and the necessity of
attending to private concerns, he would take advantage of the
happy condition of the country to resign the senatorial office.'"'
The judgment of many on this retirement was expressed in an
editorial by Thomas Ritchie, afterwards his earnest coadjutor
In Virginia politics, two days after the resignation : "In parting
«»8 Virginia Calendar of State Papers, x, 435.

206 William Branch Giles
with a man who has lived so long In public and fiUed so large
a space in the eyes of the country, we bid adieu to one of the
first geniuses of this State. Mr. Giles has erred ; — ^private feel
ing has too much mingled with public duty — ^but In point of
talents, he leaves few equals behind him.'""" Whatever our
opinion as to his conduct during the administration of Madison,
we may almost accept an opinion alleged to have been given
by John Randolph, "There never was so great a void occa
sioned in any assembly as that caused by the retirement of
WiUiam B. Giles from the United States Senate."""
"' Enquirer, November 35, 1815.
"'"Ibid, December 16, 1830.

WH.LIAM BRANCH GH^ES
Chester Harding's portrait of Governor William Branch Giles, 1829, in possession ol Virginia Historical Society

CHAPTER XIV
STATE RIGHTS IN VIRGINIA AFTER THE
WAR OF 1812*
It has been said many times with truth that the War of 1812
promoted nationalism. "The Country," says a student of the
period, "entered the war distracted, indifferent, and particular
istic ; It emerged from it united, enthusiastic, national."'" Al
though the Federalists were destroyed by their opposition to
the war, the Hartford Convention, the Peace of Ghent, and
the Battle of New Orleans, yet they bequeathed their doctrine
to the triumphant party. Certain It Is that Federalist par
ticularism during the war was bitterly condemned by Repub
licans, and certain it is that the dominant party proceeded to
do all the things which they had condemned when the Federal
ists were in ^ower. It is equally true, however, that, from
the very end of the War of 1812, there was continuously a
strong section of the Republican party that retained the old
strict constitutional beliefs and that let no opportunity pass
of strongly asserting their Ideas.
The year after the war ended, there was delivered the answer
of the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia to the Supreme
Court of the United States in the case of Martin vs. Hunter's
Lessee, declining to obey a mandamus of the Supreme Court
of the United States and declaring the decision of a state
court could not be reversed by the United States Court. Four
years later appeared Chief Justice Roane's attack on the de
cision of MarshaU In the case of McCuUough vs. Maryland, and
again. In 1821, Roane's assault In his Algernon Sidney papers
on the decision in Cohens vs. Virginia. '^^ The case of Roane
stands out In conspicuous lines because of his position and of the
dramatic features of an attack by a great judge on the
""Nicholas Murray Butler in J. H. U. Studies, Fifth Series, vu.
""" For a description of this contest, see W. E. Dodd — "Chief Justice
MarshaU and Virginia," Am. Hist. Review, July, 1907.

* Some of this chapter was published in the South Atlantic Q'uarterly
for July 1911.

208 William Branch Giles
revered MarshaU, both distinguished sons of the same state.
Roane, however, was only the evident head of a party, prompted
by Jefferson, voicing itself through the Richmond Enquirer
and the legislature. It is true, to be sure, that there was in
Virginia an opposition, sectional In most part — western — in
terested, for good reasons of their own, in nationalistic policies,
and, at thnes, able to make their Ideas felt in legislative enact
ments. But the old Republicans generally dominated. To the
great Strict Construction Party of Virginia, besides a great
judge, Roane, an ex-president, Jefferson, a great editor,
Ritchie, cousin of Roane, there belonged a great publicist, John
Taylor of Caroline, conductor at his home. Port Royal, of a
hostelry for all good Republicans, and a great orator, John
Randolph, and a future President, John Tyler, besides a host
of more unfamiliar names.
The theories of the leaders were reflected In the attitude of
the state legislature. Just before and just after the war, the
General Assembly, it is true, had shown a nationalistic tendency.
In 1810, they had replied to the proposition of the legislature
of Pennsylvania in the Olmstead case to amend the Constitution
by the establishment of "an impartial tribunal to determine
disputes between the general and state governments," that, in
their opinion," a tribunal is already provided by the Constitu
tion of the United States, to wit, the Supreme Court, more em
inently qualified from their habits and duties, from the mode
of their selection, and from the tenure of their offices, to de
cide the disputes aforesaid in an enlightened and impartial
manner, than any other tribunal which could be erected."'^'
The following year, on the other hand, they declare the National
Bank unconstitutional, and instruct Senators Giles and Brent
"to use their best efforts in opposing by every means in their
power the renewal of the charter of the bank of the United
States."'^* However, by "the united vote of the West against
the East," In the session of 1814-1815, a report of a commis
sion, dominated by John Marshall and recommending Federal
""Ames, State Documents on Federal Relations, 435.
"" Ibid, 10.

Virginia After the War of 1812 209
appropriations for internal improvements in Virginia, was
adopted.'" But, by 1817, the strict constructionists had regained the
saddle. Resolutions in 1819 again opposed the bank, and, in
1820, the legislature declared, "that the Congress of the United
States have no right to Impose upon the people of Missouri,
as a condition of their admission into the Union, the restriction
which has been proposed in Congress, or any other restriction
not necessary to guarantee a republican form of government."
Following Cohens vs. Virginia in 1822, regardless of their
opinion in 1810, they resolved that the Supreme Court of the
United States does not possess appellate jurisdiction in any
case decided by a State Court.'"^' On the tendencies of the
times, there is no more suggestive commentary than the writings
of Jefferson. In 1816, In a letter to GaUatin, he had rejoiced
In a "spontaneous and universal concurrence of sentiment."
In 1820, however, he Is fuU of grief because of the financial
depression, "the steady tenor of the courts of the United States
to break down the constitutional barriers between the coordi
nate powers of the states and the Union," and the threatening
aspect of the Missouri question. Federalism, though klUed as
a party, had arisen in a more dangerous form in the Repub
lican ranks and the judges were at Its head.'^^ A struggle was
necessary to save the country from complete dominance by the
heirs of Alexander Hamilton. John Taylor and Judge Roane,
the Virginia apostles of the old Ideas, were about to pass off
the stage, the one in 1824, and the other two years before. On
whom should their mantles fall.''
In 1824, an answer came. On April 9 of that year, there
appeared In the Enquirer, a bitter attack on the latitudinarian
policies of Monroe and Clay. This was the beginning of a
series of articles, long, frequent. Ingenious, and from the same
pen which iterated and reiterated the doctrines of 1798-1799.'^'
""Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia, 98.
"*"Ames, State Documents on Federal Relations, 104.
"1' Writings of Gallatin (Adams), i, 105; ii, 176, 368, 373.
""Most of Mr. Giles's writings of this period are collected in a volume
entitled Political Miscellanies. Unless other reference is given the articles
quoted are in this book.

210 WiLLLAM Branch Giles
The author of the article in question was that same ancient
enemy of Alexander Hamilton, in whom Jefferson and Madison
had found so ready and vigorous an aUy in the attacks on the
Federalists regime and in their attempts to bring to success a
system of their own, William B. Giles. The same statesman
it was who had engineered the famous investigation of the
Treasury Department in 1793; who had declared he saw no
evidence of wisdom in the administration of Washington, and
that the earlier that famous gentleman retired the better ; who
had helped In the agitation in Virginia In 1798, and later lent
capable assistance in promoting the Revolution of 1800. Jef
ferson's right hand man to 1808, he had supported with all his
fiery intensity the embargo acts, had devoted his talents to
Madison's cause in 1808 but had, in 1810, turned his back on
the administration and helped the Federalists to weaken Its
hands. Once popular in Virginia, he had, as we have seen, de
stroyed that popularity by denying. In a speech in the Senate,
the mandatory character of legislative instructions to United
States senators."^" While sick and under the ban, he had vol
untarily withdrawn from the public arena in 1815 to his farm
in Amelia County. Joyfully greeted by admiring children and
neighbors, and affectionately attended by four score slaves, he
had entered upon nine years devoted to the pursuit of financial
improvement and physical recuperation. His spacious plan
tation of three thousand acres, with Its comfortable mansion
furnished in solid mahogany, adorned with costly silver plate,
and equipped with Its bountiful supply of stock, shops, mlUs,
dairies, and barns, afforded the conveniences and distractions
suited for the relief of a wearied body and mind. Little time
had he for public affairs. He did, however, faithfully read the
best paper in all the world, Thomas Ritchie's Enquirer. And,
In retirement, he had watched, though unable to join, the great
movements of the time. A few days' service In the Legislature
in 1816, a series of articles in 1817"" and 1818,'" pubUshed in
the Enquirer, was all he had been able to do. By 1824, how-
°"And by his general opposition to Madison.
°"° Against a system of universal education.
""'Against a state convention.

Virginia After the War of 1812 211
ever, his health had evidently recovered, and the old lust for a
part In the political war overpowered him. By nature and
training devoted to State Rights, he found in the discussion
of the time a favorable opportunity. The pens of Taylor and
Roane were laid down; these he essayed to pick up and wield,
hoping thereby to humiliate the Federalists in the Republican
ranks. And what harm would come If his writings should open
again to him the doors of political preferment?
He had seen with amazement and disgust men who called
themselves Republicans follow such wild vagaries as protective
tariff, Internal Improvements by the Federal Government, a
National Bank. To be sure, he himself had once been guilty
of forwarding the cause of internal Improvements, and, in his
eagerness to support the embargo acts, had stretched the
powers of the Federal government In real HamUtonian style.
But these acts were done under the aegis of the great original
Democrat himself, and some of them in times of great necessity.
In old age, the fervor of youth in defence of thte sacredness of
constitutional limitations on Federal power returned to him,
and the enemies of those limitations he now assaulted with more
than the fury with which he had assailed the arch monarchist,
Alexander Hamilton himself.
In the article of April 19, 1824, he denounced Monroe, a
favorite enemy of past years, for abandoning State Rights.
Under the Influence of the electioneering spirit, the President
and Clay are led, according to Giles, to ride any popular hob
by In a very different way from George Washington, whom
Giles, despite his earlier criticisms, had now learned to admire.
The protective tariff Is a species of robbery of one section by
another. Messrs. Monroe and Clay, on Internal Improvements
and Greek and South American affairs, also receive severe cas
tlgation. However, the article just described Is merely Intro
ductory to a series, which, under the characteristic title, "Po
litical Schemers — Hard Times," ran through AprU and May.
The funding system of Great Britain and our banking system
are highly distinguished members of that class of political
schemes which were producing hard times. "Of all the per-

212 WiLLLAM Branch Giles
niclous monopolies that ever have been Invented, banks," he
declares, "must be considered as the most pernicious." A bank
is a monopoly of currency and "a practical usurpation of his
(the individual's) natural right to property."
In regard to the tariff, he asserts, "no legitimate govern
ment, stiU less the government of the United States, being a
government of chartered, limited powers, has any right what
ever to intermeddle with the surplus proceeds of man's labor,
after paying the public contributions; and every encroachment
upon this sacred guarantee to the individual by government.
Is a palpable and unjustifiable usurpation." The tariff makes
us less. Instead of more, independent; It will Injure our com
merce and our shipping. Besides, what is the effect of our
tariff law upon our farmers, the growers of cotton, tobacco,
flour and rice.'' They "are now suffering and most justly com
plaining of 'hard times' produced, amongst other causes, by
the present exhorbitant tariff. A great number of worthy,
wealthy, and middling farmers and planters have already been
stripped of a great portion of their property. In a great de
gree by various governmental schemes. Many have been re
duced to poverty, and many driven, most reluctantly, from
their native states, and beloved friends and firesides, to take
their chance in the wilderness for better times." Those who
have not migrated have remained, hoping, — "if the natural or
der of things could be permitted in any degree to be restored, —
they might be enabled so far to reinstate their affairs as to save
their families from utter ruin and despair; but upon the first
blush of this hope, this destructive tariff bUl Is presented to their
view; and in an instant it has blasted aU their fond anticipa
tions. Apprehension and despondency are again visible upon
the countenances of almost aU Intelligent reflecting men."
The pathetic picture with which the preceding paragraph
concludes Is not the mere wail of pessimism or of sectional
prejudice. Evidence revealing the Impoverished condition of
the South during the decade 1820-1830 is abundant."' GUes
himself, frora this time untU his pen becomes stiU in 1830, teUs
"""There had been an economic revival just after the war.

Virginia After the War of 1812 213
again and again the story of Virginia's Impoverishment. His
writing, his speeches, his messages as Governor, reflect this feel
ing of utter discouragement existing In the South of the Tide
water during the twenties. Well known are the cases of Jeffer
son, who, in debt, had to secure the privilege of using the lottery
and was compelled to accept the generosity of his friends; of
Madison, who could not offer acceptable security to the United
States Bank ; of Monroe, who had to sell his home."^' Pathetic
are the letters of John Randolph of Roanoke to Josiah Quincy
as early as 1814 after a visit to the seat of his ancestors at
the confluence of the James and the Appomatax. "Nothing,"
he walled, "can be more melancholy than the aspect of the
whole country in tidewater — dismantled country seats, ruinous
churches, fields forsaken and grown up with mournful ever
greens, — cedar and pine." The old families had dispersed from
"St. Mary's to St. Louis ; such as remained here sunk into ob
scurity. . . . Deer and wild turkeys are nowhere so
plentiful in Kentucky as near WiUiamsburg.'"^*
Those who could went west, as Giles declared. Jefferson, as
early as 1818, informed Gallatin that "emigration to the West
and South Is going on beyond anything imaginable."'^' Many
of those who remained at home became unspeakably dis
couraged, as did Giles, and took vengeance in vituperation
against the politicians whom they considered responsible;
others, as we shall see, tried to find a way out by scientific farm
ing, the raising of cotton, and the sale of slaves.'^' Too many
probably failed to examine their own mismanagement and local
institutions,"'^ and spent profitless energy in denouncing bank
and tariff: but those historians not committed to a defence of
the HamUtonian Ideas nor to a necessity of finding in slavery
¦^See Turner in Am. Hist. Review, xi, 569— "The South, 1820-1830."
Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia, 112. For further evidence, see Debates
of Convention, 1829-30. Also Virginia Slavery Debate of 1833, passim.
°"*Life of Josiah Quincy by Edmund Quincy, 351, 354.
"""Writings of Jefferson (Ford), x, 115.
"^' The evidence on the point is overwhelming. See below, p. 227. And
Virginia Slavery Debate, 1833, passim; Ambler, Sectionalism, 112.
'""Some, however, saw the economic evil in slavery, e. g. John Randolph.
Life of Qmncy, 361.

214 WiLLLAM Branch Giles
the cause of all southern IUs, may see in the burden of a pro
tective tariff a just cause of great and widespread discontent
at the South.
Despite the fact that denunciation of the tariff was profit
less, the contentions of the South were sound and their com
plaints justified. When they declared that the tariff Imposed
an unequal burden on the South, that It was robbing one sec
tion for the benefit of another, they were telling the literal truth.
They found themselves compelled to pay higher prices for the
hemp, fiax, wool, and iron used In great quantities on southern
plantations', while they knew that they were adding more than
their share to the wealth of the nation. In 1829, they contri
buted three-fourths of the agricultural products exported from
the country and three-fifths of all commodities that were sent
abroad.'^' 'When they were told of the immense benefit that
would accrue to the manufacturers and farmers alike through
the creation of home markets, they answered: "The manufac
turers by having the monopoly of furnishing us with their
commodities, would in consequence obtain the monopoly of be
ing the only purchasers of ours."'^"
Yet the farmers of Virginia did not leave to governors and
legislatures the exclusive privilege of endeavoring to secure
their redress. One of the most Interesting studies now remaining
to be made In Virginia History is an investigation of the activ
ities of rural citizens between 1820 and 1830 to promote their
own interests. A glowing chapter could be written on the agri
cultural societies of Virginia, following the war of 1812. Soci
eties in other states had been formed during the period of the
confederation, and Washington, in 1788, had written on the
benefit of these organizations. But no effectual organization
was formed in Virginia until 1811 when the "Richmond Society
for Promoting Agriculture" was formed. John Marshall was
President, James Monroe, Vice-president, Abraham Venable,
Treasurer, George Hay, Secretary. This society was revived
"""Wilson, Division and Reunion (1893), 50.
"""The American Farmer, ii, 57, from an address to the Public by the
"United Agricultural Societies of Virginia."

Virginia After the War of 1812 216
in 1818, with John Taylor of Cg,roline, a student of scientific
farming, as new President.
Probably no more active society was estabhshed in Virginia
than the Albemarle Agricultural Society."" This organization
was formed in October 1817, and adopted a programme of
"objects for the attention and Inquiry of an agricultural
society," contributed by Thomas Jefferson. Madison became
President, Jefferson's son-in-law, T. M. Randolph, first Vice-
president, ex-governor James Barbour, second Vice-president.
A moving spirit was John H. Cocke of Fluvanna County, an
intelligent farmer on a large scale and a frequent contributor
of articles on agricultural subjects. The Albemarle Society,
In addition to a discussion of farming problems, endeavored
to secure the establishment of a professorship of agriculture
at the University of Virginia. The fund raised by them was
loaned out and lost, and the splendid opportunity was never
seized by the State University. Another effort of theirs was
to secure a union of the agricultural societies of Virginia. Such
a union was formed in 1820. Edmund Ruffin, later editor of
the Farmer's Register, the man who was to fire the first shot of
the Civil War, was the Secretary and leading member. In an
address to the Public of Virginia, they narrate the facts of the
exhaustion of Virginia soil and the wholesale emigration from
the state, and emphasize the importance of an Increased know
ledge of agricultural subjects, scientific and practical. They
are united, they declare, not only for "the improvement of the
practice," but also "for the protection of the rights and in
terests of agriculture." In consequence, they denounce the
tariff, and send a memorial to Congress."^
AU the activity of Virginia, therefore, was not that of Gen
eral Assemblies, Governors, and Congressmen. Back of them,
""" Original MSS., Letters and other information bearing on the Agri
cultural Society of Albemarle as well as on agriculture in general in
Virginia may be found in a collection of MSS. compiled by N. F. Cabell
(1807-1891) for the purpose of writing a history of Virginia agriculture.
In addition to manuscript material, there are bibliographies of immense
value to the student of Virginia agriculture. This collection is now in
the possession of the State Library at Richmond, Va.
""American Farmer, ii, 37.

216 WiLLLAM Branch Giles
contemplating the sufferings of the state, studying crops, fer
tilizers, machinery, sheep-raising, and kindred topics were bands
of farmers, many of them prominent citizens and politicians.
It is true, earnestly fighting the economic battles of Virginia
in her period of distress.
I do not find that Giles himself was prominent in the agri
cultural efforts of the agricultural leaders. He was, however,
a farmer on a large scale and interested in progressive farming.
He felt as farmers did; in exaggerated form, he interpreted
their spirit, and their discontent gave him an opportunity for
political appeal. With some hope of being heard, he could
sound the clarion call for political revolution. When he wrote,
therefore. It was, of course, for no merely educational pur
poses. His earlier writings were contributions to the campaign
for the election of Crawford and were directed particularly
against Henry Clay. However, when Adams was elected
by the House, Giles joined in the chorus of Democratic
attack on the new President with the determination of
harassing his administration and of preventing his reelection.
And, from Mr. Adams's own writings, as well as from con
temporary testimony, we know that Giles was not the least of
those who disturbed the slumbers of the unfortunate New
Englander. Additional interest Is added to these assaults
on President Adams by the fact that the path of the erratic
Virginian and that of the caustic statesman of Quincy had
crossed before this time. Readers of that acute, though
acrid and unfair, commentary on men and measures known
as The Memoirs of John Quincy Adams will find fre
quent mention of WilUam B. Giles. During the years 1803-
1808, the period of Adams's senatorship, these men, so similar in
temper, but generally so different in ideas, seem to have been
thrown together very frequently and not on unpleasant terms.
At that time, Giles was the man of power and John Quincy, In
characteristic Adams fashion, not unwiUing to increase his own.
How much infiuence the brilliant conversation of the Virginia
leader and his veiled offers in return for Federalist aid may have
had on Mr. Adams, we do not know ; we do know, however, that
Mr. Adams became converted to the Republican cause and that,

Virginia After the War or 1812 217
when he was out of political employment In 1809, while Giles stIU
had great power, he received a safe berth as minister to Russia.
We actually know that, on one occasion, Giles took Mr. Adams
into his carriage, that he defended him when attacked by Fed
eralists, and that, on another occasion, Mr. Adams actually
records in his diary that all he could do in discussing a subject
which Giles had exhausted was to "present some of his ideas
In new lights." Now, however, in 1825, Mr. Adams, first hon
ored by the government of the United States when Giles was
Influential, had risen until the House of Representatives had
placed him in the presidential chair. Carrying with him still,
under his Republican cloak, that Federalism which he had In
herited, he of necessity became a target for those Republicans
who still retained the ideas, as well as the name, of Republicans.
To Mr. Adams, Giles paid his respects In the first of a series
of fourteen numbers published in the Enquirer from February
to December 1825, under the title, "Political Disquisitions."
The opinions of Adams on Internal Improvements are attacked
on constitutional grounds. Significant, as underlying a large
part of southern antagonism to this policy, is his assertion that
Internal improvements by the National Government endanger
the slavery interests of the southern states. To a considera
tion of Adams, Mr. GUes returns in January 1826"^ with a
merciless dissection of the famous message of 1825. Phrases
loosely dropped by Adams in his exuberant enthusiasm for in
ternal improvements are held up to the light and their hidden
significance pitilessly revealed. In Giles's opinion, the General
Government had no business meddling with such subjects. In
ternal Improvements were an affair for the state governments
and for individuals. Even when conducted by the states, they
were of doubtful value. Witness, says Giles, the evU results of
the Erie Canal and the total waste of money employed on the
James River Canal, which works only injury to the country
through which it passes. Let Government leave money in the
hands of the citizens and let Individuals use it in much needed
""¦In a series called "The Golden Casket— or. The President's Message—
or, a proclamation of a great Civil revolution in the Government of this
Union."

218 William Branch Giles
efforts for the reclamation and fertiUzatlon of the soU. Not
confining himself to a discussion of the President's message, the
author launched into a caustic review of Adams's career. Al
though, in 1808, GUes himself had testified in the Senate of the
United States to the disinterestedness of Adams's conversion to
Republicanism, now he declares the President was animated
chiefly by desires for his personal promotion and aggrandize
ment. It was Adams, too, the Secretary of State, who was
responsible for Monroe's political somersault and for aU the
illegal acts of that administration. And the moral of the
story is: "Let us, then, at the next election look up to one
for our President who stands voluntarily committed to pre
serve State Rights, and whose tried patriotism, sound wis
dom and moral rectitude could afford us the best guarantee
against all mischievous schemers, and ambitious encroach
ments." In other words, Giles had joined the great party
in Virginia bent on defeating Adams. He threw aU his
force into the fight for Jackson, and, next to Ritchie, was
the intellectual leader In Virginia of the anti- Adams movement.
Indeed, through his vigorous articles and, especially, through
his publication of a letter he had received from Jefferson In
December, 1825, he attracted national attention, causing in
particular an embarrassing controversy between Adams and
the New England Federalists?"
Meanwhile, Giles entered politics again on his own account.
A candidate for the United States Senate in 1825, he had re
ceived a respectable vote."* In 1826, he made an unsuccessful
campaign for Congress,'" then his faithful people of AmeUa
elected him to the Legislature, and. In February, 1827, the Leg
islature elected him governor of the state. In the Legislature,
the two principal subjects under discussion during these years
were the proposed convention for the revision of the constitu-
""' Jackson managers in Washington were much interested in Giles's
publication and egged him on. MS. letters of Giles to Tazewell and letter
of Giles to Duff Green, May 34, 1839. The latter is in the Van Buren
Collection, Library of Congress.
""Fifty-eight votes on the first ballot. The highest was 65, Enquirer,
December 10, 1836.
"» Against W. S. Archer.

ViRGiNLA After the War of 1812 219
tion under which Virginia had lived since 1776, and the usur
pations of the General Government. The Convention bill Giles
vigorously attacked, and, on the subject of the encroachments
of the General Government, he brought in a long report and
resolutions denouncing the policies of protective tariff and in
ternal improvements. These resolutions of 1827 became the
most famous of all the resolutions of Virginia on Federal rela
tions since 1798. In the popular mind, the resolutions of 1827
were associated with the great resolutions of 1798, and the fact
that Giles was Instrumental in the passage of both was not over
looked."' The principal opponent of Giles's programme was a man
able and famous in his day, but now, like so many famous states
men, unfortunately forgotten — Robert Barraud Taylor, from
that consistent Federalist stronghold, Norfolk. A few words
descriptive of the career of the great Federalist may be of
interest. Born March 24, 1774, educated at William and Mary,
from which he was expelled, along with the other participant,
for a duel with John Randolph, he nourished his intellectual
power by imbibing the doctrines of John Marshall, in whose
office in Richmond he studied law. Then, moving back to his
old home at Norfolk, he allied himself with the Federalists, to
whom he became a pillar of strength. Once before 1827, he and
Giles had met in the public arena: both were present In the
Virginia Assembly of 1799 and had respectively attacked and
defended the report of that year. Since that time, Taylor had
added to his reputation by his defence of Norfolk In the War
of 1812 and by his oration at Yorktown during Lafayette's
visit In 1824. It was in answer to him that Giles delivered those
long and able speeches of February 21 to 23 and March 2,
on the constitutionality and expediency of the tariff and inter
nal Improvements. "What," he asks, "can we gain by the adop
tion of the tariff policy?" Agricultural Interests can derive
from it only injury. It has already shown Its effects "in the de-
'""The comments of Madison and J. C. Cabell on these resolutions are
interesting. Madison defended the tariff; Cabell was bitterly hostile to
Giles. See Madison's Wriimgs (Himt), and Mad. MSS., Library of Con
gress.

220 William Branch Giles
presslon of prices of agricultural productions, and the conse
quent depression in the prices of lands from the Potomac to the
Gulf of Mexico ; indeed, throughout the whole agricultural coun
try of the United States." It is the tax on the farmer, not for
pubUc welfare as the gasconading presidential candidate. Clay,
would have us beUeve ; but a tax "to encourage the Idleness, and
to pamper the wealth of manufacturing stockholders." It Is an
unprincipled tribute, to whose payment, he significantly sug
gests, the other classes of society wiU not long submit.
Two days after this encounter, began Giles's term as Gov
ernor of the Commonwealth. The position of chief executive
of Virginia in 1827 was honorable but beautifuUy innocuous
and impotent. The forefathers of the old state had been so
fearful of loosing in their midst vicious whelps of George the
Third, that they had chained up their Governors and left them
little but the privilege of voicing their feelings. In not too un
becoming a manner, to their legislative masters. Governors
were elected by the legislature for one timid year at a time up
to three ; they possessed no power of veto ; and shared what
little power was given them with eight councillors, over whom
they had the privilege of presiding unless Indisposed. With
them, the Governor enjoyed the delightful privilege of commis
sioning the self appointed county nabobs as justices and
sheriffs, of distributing the newly made map of the state, of
commanding from his comfortable mansion the scattered militia,
of reprieving and pardoning, of sending recommendations to
the Honorable, the General Assembly of Virginia. Executive
letters and minutes show Giles, despite his Increasing suffering,
to have been a faithful executive. True, during his administra
tion, occurred a Treasurer's defalcation for twenty-five thou
sand dollars, but there was no reason to attribute It to executive
oversight or negligence, and a similar defalcation had occurred
In 1820. Day after day, the Council sat, faithfully reading
petitions, and mercifully commuting the death penalty of free
negroes, or pardoning slaves who were accused of stealing hogs
or committing assault or murder, or rape, when It was shown
t.hat the country gentlemen who had convicted them had over-

Virginia After the War of 1812 221
strained the law or when petitions came, as they frequently did,
from respectable whites, making known extenuating circum
stances. Though an ardent slaveholder, Giles, as Governor of
the state, was inclined to lament the severity of penal laws ap
plying peculiarly to free negroes, and to regret, on account
of the white prejudice against them, the administration of the
law In some instances "more in rigour than in justice."
Slavery to him was an evil, the transportation of the negroes
from Africa had, however, in his opinion, been a blessing to
the negro but was an injury to the white because of "Intermix
ture" and its "discouragement to the labouring freemen." Now,
however. It was a necessity; for he saw no remedy. Toward
incendiary pamphlets, th^ Governor was bitter. Some of these
exhilarating documents were circulated in Richmond in 1829
and 1830, whose "character and tendency" were "to excite in
surrection among the people of colour." The Governor was
advised by the Council to call the attention of the legislature to
the propriety of providing by law "for preventing the Intro
duction and circulation of papers, writings or publications
and for the prohibition of practices designed, or having a ten
dency, to produce insurrection among the people of Colour.""'
At one time, rumors of a threatened insurrection of the blacks
alarmed the population of several counties, but such an out
break was to be postponed until the adventure of Nat Turner
in 1831.
During his administration, Giles was also deeply interested
in the Improvement of the penitentiary system and hoped that
Virginia would not be behind other states In meliorating the con
dition of the "frail" members of our society. But another sub
ject was closer to the heart of this ardent southern Governor
than pardoning slaves or repairing the armory or improving
the penal system.
Raised to the executive office because of his espousal of
strict construction, it would be expected of Giles that he would
continue his utterances in its behalf. It will be found, therefore,
that. In his messages, he did not fail to hurl his accustomed
""'Executive Letter Book, Jan. 6 and Feb. 19, 1830, and Journal of
the Executive Council, 1839-1830, p. 8.

222 WiLLLAM Branch Giles
vehemence against the usurpations of the National Government.
In his first message, December 3, 1827, whUe presenting an
elaborate scheme for Internal Improvements at the expense of
the state, he deplored internal improvements by the General
Government, with particular reference to Its encroachment on
the jurisdiction of the states over territory within their bounds.
Agriculture, under the operations of the tariff, was becoming a
losing occupation, and yet we were threatened with extension of
the tariff. Then foUowed the significant sentence, "Under these
circumstances, it Is for the wisdom of the General Assembly to
determine what measures are best calculated to arrest the prog
ress of the evil, to relieve the people of the commonwealth, and
to reinstate them In the full enjoyment of all their rights and
liberties."'" Still more significant is a special message of Feb
ruary 8, 1828, transmitting, resolutions received from Georgia
and South Carolina. Words were used in this document sound
ing very much like a threat of secession if the oppressive laws
of the United States were not repealed. "I cannot help observ
ing, however," he says, " that It must be a subject of the highest
gratification to every citizen within the scenes of country now
laboring under the unauthorized oppressions of the General
Government, to know that the local authorities over them have
competent constitutional means in their own hands for the pur
pose of doing themselves justice, if, most unfortunately, they
should be forcibly driven to that deprecated resort: in fact, in
the worst state of things, that the oppressed scenes of country
afford abundant means to the local authorities to secure to
themselves. In their intercourse with the world, aU the salutary
independence of nations; to protect themselves, without the
least hazard, against physical force from every quarter ; whilst
through the same means, their wealth and prosperity might be
augmented to an amount beyond any estimate which has yet
been made In the contemplation of that view of the subject." It
is strange, he declares, that the advocates of these unjust
measures should be so blind to their own interests as to continue
a policy which will drive the tributary sections of the country
""Journal of House of Delegates, Dec. 3, 1837.

Virginia After the War of 1812 223
to contemplate "these powerful allurements" which everyone
knows will attend a change in their political relations with the
world — a change from which the "inhabitants of the scenes of
country receiving the unhallowed tribute . . . have every
thing to fear and nothing to hope."""
This message was variously received according to the polit
ical beliefs of the critics. In some cases, Giles was praised as
"the able defender of the Constitution and the faithful watch
man of America liberty." In other cases, toasts like the foUow
ing were proposed: "The Union; Its blessings are too highly
appreciated, to be jeopardized by the cant of Dr. Cooper, the
intemperance of South Carolina, or the ravings of WiUiam B.
Giles." To the suggestions of disunion, there came, even from
the friends of Giles, apparently little favorable expression of
sentiment. Ritchie assured "The National Intelligencer" and
"all such terrorists" that no citizen of the state Is so "mad" as
to approve of "resistance of the laws, or a dissolution of the
Union." He thinks a fear that there is such a sentiment pro
ceeds only from "exaggerated misrepresentations" of the Gov
ernor's message.'*" The legislature, on account of the lateness
of the session, did not take up the subject until the following
year. But, on February 24, 1829, resolutions were passed
which declared that the tariff laws were oppressive and ought
to be repealed, at the same time giving as their opinion that, in
construing the constitution, "each state should be guided, as
Virginia has ever been, by a sense of forbearance and respect
for the opinion of the other States, and by a community of
attachment to the Union, so far as the same may be consistent
with self-preservation, and a determined purpose to preserve
the purity of our RepubUcan Institutions."'*^
Thus the Legislature. The Governor, however, waited for
no timid legislature. He had practical things In mind that were
not so radical as the threats contained In the message and these
more moderate means of retaliation he revealed in one of the
most interesting letters in tariff history — a letter dated
•"Ibid, Feb. 8, 1828.
"^ Enquirer, Feb. 16, 1838.
•"Ames, State Documents on Federal Relations, 157.

224 William Branch Giles
May 21, 1818, and addressed to TazeweU and Tyler, Senators
from Virginia —
"The tariff biU has at length passed in its most destructive
form — Is not an obligation imposed thereby upon the southern
people, to counteract its effects? Have they the means of doing
so, with perfect safety and certain efficiency? Could not this
counteraction be produced by concert amongst the representa
tives of the tributary States? Most certainly. Never before
were any people subjected to such plunder, and degradation,
with such ample means In their own hands of doing themselves
justice, without applying them to their object — Whilst the
people of that scene (sic) of country have all the means, of
effectually regulating the tariff at their own pleasure, they
strangely permit others, to seize upon these very means, and
apply them to their own advantage — Would not an internal
excise upon domestic manufacturies (sic) brought within the
limits of the plundered states, corresponding with the external
imposts upon foreign manufacturies, brought from abroad,
completely counteract the tariff upon foreign goods? Would
not an excise upon all animals on foot, driven within the same
limits teach the Western people, their dependence upon the
Southern people, for a market? Most certainly — Then why not
teach them this salutary lessdon (sic) ? Neither East, nor West
could object — It would be complimenting their own favorite
poUtical axiom, Protection of Domestic industry; applied to
States instead of United States, industry — It will and must come
to this ; and the sooner the better — Great Intermediate mischief
would be avoided by it. The constitutional rights of the state
governments to lay such excise, cannot be doubted — The duty
to protect persons and things, is the true foundation of the
right to tax the same persons and things. This duty to pro
tect persons and things, commences, the moment they come
within the limits of the respective States. The duty, and the
right are necessarily contemperanous (sic) ; and the exercise
of the right depends exclusively upon the discretion of the
state legislatures respectively. This most clear and Important
point was unanimously settled by an act of Congress assembled.

Virginia After the War of 1812 225
the third March 1807 prohibiting the introduction of Slaves
within the U. S. after the first January 1808. Suppose
then; that the States of Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia,
South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia, were cotem-
pranously (sic) to lay excises as before stated — Where would
the Eastern people find a market for their manufacturies? or
the Western people for their horses, cattle, hogs &c. ? This
measure would necessarily prove the actual dependence of the
East and the West upon the South. Whereas the South with
all these natural means, is artificially made dependent upon the
East and the West — and most unjustly and degradlngly plun
dered by both, 'it cannot, will not come to good.' What would
be the effect of calling upon the Secretary of the Treasury
before the rising of the present Congress, to report to the next ;
upon the following enqueries? First: — What effect would be
produced upon the wealth, and prosperity of the whole United
States by the abolition of all discrimating (sic) duties, and
substituting an uniform ad valorem duty of ten per cent In their
stead? 1st As It regards agriculture, 2d commerce, 3d naviga
tion, 4th manufactures, 5th revenue, 6th Morals — Second: —
Can any means be devised, through the medium of foreign com
merce, to encourage and protect aggriculture, in such a manner,
as to give 50 cents per bushel to every wheat grower, for every
bushel of wheat brought by him to market — To the Tobacco-
growers, 2 dollars for every 100 pounds. — To the cotton
grower 3 dollars for every 100 lbs. — To the rice grower,
one dollar for every 100 pounds? If no such means can
be devised, to report; whether similar bounties ought not
to be paid out of the public treasury upon the most obvious
principle of equality and justice? Third — ^Whether bounties
upon the aforesaid products, as the specified rates afore
said, would be more, than equivalent compensation to the
growers of the aforesaid products, for the duties imposed upon
all articles, necessarily consumed in raising them. I here deem
it my duty to make these suggestions to you. Gentlemen, before
the rising of the present Congress, and beg your best considera
tion of them. I have, a few days since, given similar hints to

226 William Branch Giles
Mr. MacDuffie;~Be pleased, Gentlemen, to accept my most
respectful and friendly regards.'"*^
It was, however, not only by messages and private letters,
that the Governor sought to aid the cause of strict construction
and the candidacy of Andrew Jackson. The dignity of the
high office he now occupied caused no cessation of his labors
with the pen, meant no withdrawal from heated political and
personal controversy, brought no forgetfulness of his enmity to
John Quincy Adams. On September 7, 1827, Governor Giles
published in the Enquirer a short article, accompanied by a
letter from Jefferson to him dated December 26, 1825,'*' denun
ciatory of the usurpation of the Federal Government. Attempts
had been made to enlist the name of Jefferson In support of
Adams's candidacy, and the publication of the letter to Giles
was intended to demolish such efforts. A sensation was imme
diately caused. Replies and counter replies appeared in the
leading papers of the country. Governor and President and
editors joined in an exciting debate, adding zest to a campaign
already sufficiently fiery. On March 1, 1828, appeared, over
the signature of Giles, another article, widely copied, which con
tained five reasons for his opposition to Mr. Adams's candidacy.
Mr. Adams, he declares. Is not a Republican, is lacking In
ability, and is neither an "honest" nor an "incorruptible poli-
tlcan." Ritchie claps his hand in applause. To him, Giles Is
gifted "with a moral courage equal to that of any man liv
ing.'"** In the year 1829, there came from the pen of Giles two very
significant essays. The first was an answer to an inquiry by
Lafayette as to the practicability of converting slave labor into
free labor in Virginia by the use of colonization societies. Giles
is led In this to a discusson of the slavery question. Admitting
slavery to be an evil, he thinks no remedy for It has been found.
The evil, too, has been greatly exaggerated. The Interesting
portion of the article, however, is the evidence adduced on the
"^ This letter is in the Tazewell Collection and kindly furnished, along
with others, by Mr. E. J. Woodliouse of Yale University.
"" Referred to above.
'"Enquirer, March 35, 1828.

Virginia After the War op 1812 227
subject of slavebreeding in Virginia. Slavetraders, carrying
slaves from Virginia and Maryland, "are," he declares, "doing
tenfold more in one year, towards the removal of the slave popu
lation from this section of country, than the Colonization So
ciety . . . has been able to effect in twelve. The
extensive scenes of rich country to the South and West, for the
most part, but thinly settled, affords an almost boundless res
ervoir for the reception of slaves ; and slave labor being more
profitable there, than here, and, consequently, the price of
slaves higher, furnishes strong Inducements for their removal
to those sections of " country. The demand which exists for
them there, can only be supplied from the scene of country de
scribed; — the slave trade from Africa to that country being
completely at an end. From these causes, numbers of slaves are
removed annually from this scene of country, and shippd from
Richmond and Norfolk to New Orleans; and numbers are also
carried on foot to South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Missis
sippi, Tennessee, Kentucky and the country west of these States.
Besides, the slaves thus removed consist mostly of boys and
girls, about the age of puberty, the period of life when propo-
gatlon is just commencing; and of course, their removal
produces the most effectual check to the slave population,
according to numbers, which could possibly be devised."
Appended to the letter to Lafayette as it appears in Polit
ical Miscellanies is a statement from Jos. C. Haley, chief clerk
in the collector's office in Richmond. According to this state
ment, three thousand negroes a year were shipped from Nor
folk during the years 1826-1829, and over two thousand either
by land or by water from Richmond. No estimate is made of
the numbers sent from Petersburg or other places.
The other Uterary effort of importance in 1829 — and GUes's
last will and testament to his people — Is significant as bearing
on the question of secession. It Is a series of articles pubUshed
In the Enquirer from June to October, under the title — "Ret
rospects." If the tariff and internal improvement policies are
persisted in, disunion is inevitable, he thinks, and, though it
would be disastrous to the whole United States, It would not be

228 William Branch Giles
disastrous to each of the several states. "A consolidated des
potism would be an infinitely greater disaster than disunion."
In case of disunion, there might be four confederacies, New
England, the Middle States, the Western States, and the South.
Nothing but loss or danger could come to the first three ; to the
South there need be no reason for fear. "The Southern States
would be left to the enj oyment of all the good things their God
has given them, and to which they have superadded their own
labor ; the proceeds of which are now transferred to the North
ern and Western States, for their own enjoyment." When the
real injustice of the tariff is known, either the tariff will have
to be put down to a revenue basis, or this union must be dis
solved. No people with common sense "will ever long submit to
such an unnatural and unprincipled state of things." In the
event of an attempt at coercion of one part of the United
States against another, the people of Europe would take
part — and on the side of their Interest. Where is this
Interest? With the part of the United States which sends
them $40,000,000 of exports or with that part which sends
them $10,000,000? ... So here in 1829, this Patriarch
Republican has the whole secession programme worked out;
intolerable conditions ; a wealthy South, European intervention,
Cotton is king.
Two days after the appearance of the last article of the
series described above, Giles became a member of the Virginia
Constitutional Convention of 1829-30.

CHAPTER XV
THE CONVENTION OF 1829-30
Within the last term of Governor Giles, fell the first of those
historic conventions in Virginia called for the purpose of revis
ing the fundamental laws of the Commonwealth. The constitu
tion of Virginia under which the state began its existence had
been adopted In 1776 by a convention, whose business had been,
not only the adoption of a constitution, but also the government
of the state at a time when the regularly constituted authorities
had deserted their posts or lost their power. Although the doc
ument had been written by a body not selected for the partic
ular purpose of writing it, and, in a time of stress and conflict,
had been hurriedly thrown together, it nevertheless remained
unchanged for fifty-four years. From the first. It had been
criticised by Jefferson, who, again In the Notes on Virginia,
published in 1782, had pointed out in detail the defects of that
instrument. Representation In the House of Delegates was
equal for all counties regardless of size; suffrage was left as it
had been in colonial times, based on the possession of a freehold
of land ; the legislature was supreme ; to it, the Executive was
made strictly and meekly subordinate because of the Governor's
election by the General Assembly; gubernatorial duties and
responsibilities were divided among nine men; and the county
courts, with all their far-reaching powers, were erected into a
closed corporation of leading families. As time passed, as
towns grew, as the population moved ever more rapidly toward
and across the Blue Ridge chain of mountains, as a Democratic
wave arose and, sweeping over new and western states, beat
back upon the institutions of the parent commonwealths, the
law of 1776 became more and more unacceptable. An insistent
clamor was raised for reform and amendment. Petitions were
sent down to the legislature whenever it met, praying for the
calling of a new convention; Jefferson broke silence in 1816
and again in 1824 in letters which men might read in the news
papers; a significant convention of reformers was held in 1816
and again In 1825 at Staunton. By 1828, the movement had

230 William Branch Giles
become too strong to resist and so the legislature, on January
31, passed an act authorizing a vote of the people. The returns
were favorable to the reformers, so the legislature provided on
February 10, 1829, for the calling of the convention.
Giles had viewed the situation with growing Interest since
1817 when he had filled column after column of the Enquirer'*''
with protests against the movement. The original constitution
was to him the first and best. Instead of immolating It on the
altar of whim, caprice, and restless discontent, the people of
Virginia, he thought, ought to give thanks and adoration to a
superintending Providence, who made their forefathers the in
struments of handing down so signal a blessing. Again, in
1827,'*' when the matter had come before the legislature while
he was a member, he had delivered a long and stirring speech
praising the very elements of the constitution which reformers
desired to change. Now, in 1829, as Governor of the state, he
signed the bill providing for the meeting. Since it had to
meet, he rejoiced'*'^ that, despite his illness, his office, and the
active campaigning made by his opponents, he had been
chosen from his district as one of its four representatives.
When, on October 5, the delegates had come together, the
gathering of men was such as is seldom seen In Ameri
can history in one assembly. The deeds of some of these men
formed significant chapters in the annals of the Commonwealth
and of bhe nation, and the achievements of others were to be
the material for much of the work of the future. One delegate
had, more than any other one man, written the constitution
of the nation, and battled for its ratification In the Old
Dominion, had been Congressman, Secretary of State, and, for
eight years, President of the Republic. The presiding officer,
chosen this fifth of October, had twice been Governor of the
state, represented his country at three foreign courts, held two
cabinet offices, and, succeeding him of whom we have just spoken,
had given to the world the famous Monroe doctrine. There,
•*"Feb. and March.
""Jan. 36. Speech in Political Miscellanies and in Enquirer, March
1, 3, 1837.
"*' Executive Letter Book, June 34, 1839.

The Convention of 1829-30 231
too, was the judge who had presided over the trial of a Vice-
president and who had, by his far-reaching decisions, not only
made for himself an imperishable name in the history of Juris
prudence, but, as much as any one man, had given direction to
the current of political thought among his countrymen. There
was present the eccentric and pathetic but brilliant John
Randolph of Roanoke — who, more than any other, attracted
the crowds that came from Virginia and surrounding territory
to hear the debates of this famous assembly. Congressmen, sena
tors, judges, governors, cabinet officers, and presidents, past
and future, with a power born of mighty ambition or rich ex
perience, fought out on this arena questions of political science
and constitutional law. Par inter pares, though leaning upon
his crutches and suffering from recent illness, appeared William
B. Giles — the hero of many a parliamentary conflict, the
Charles James Fox of American debate — as his admirers down
to the present have loved to call him. "He was not expected,"
says one who was present, "to take that active part in the dis
cussions which he had been wont to assume in former days. He
was regarded as the leader of the reserve corps, ready to bring
up his powerful reinforcement, when it should be needed."'*'
On frequent occasions, he was, however, to take very ener
getic and conspicuous part. Giles stood in the ranks of the
opponents of reform, of the friends of eastern Virginia. For
It was, in the main, a fight of Tidewater and the Piedmont
against the valley and the Trans-Allegheny sections of the
state. The transmontane regions demanded a white basis for
representation ; the east demanded a mixed basis of white popu
lation and taxation. The west thought it unjust that forty-
seven per cent of the population should have only thirty-three
per cent of the representation. They could not see how It was
reasonable that Warwick county in Tidewater, with six hundred
and eighty-eighth free white inhabitants, should have ten votes
In the House of Delegates while the county of Shenandoah In
the Valley, with nineteen thousand, five hundred and eleven free
white Inhabitants, should have only the same power. On the
•*" Pleasants in Southern Literary Messenger, xvii, 147.

232 WiLLLAM Branch Giles
other hand, the east did not see the justice In handing over the
control of the state to that section which paid the smaller por
tion of state taxation, especially as the property of the east was
partly in slaves, which the smaU farmers and miUers or miners
of the west might emancipate. Eastern Virginia demanded
protection for Its peculiar Institution, just as eastern South
CaroUna had done, and just as CaUioun was demanding for the
slave holding minority of the nation. After aU theorizing about
the fundamental principles of law and government, everyone
knew that Hezekiah Niles was right when he said : "The greatest
question before the Virginia convention Is the perpetual dura
tion of negro slavery,'"*" and that Monroe read the feelings of
the members correctly when he declared that "If no such thing
as slavery existed, the people of the Atlantic border would meet
their brethren of the west, upon the basis of a majority of the
free white population."""
On the fundamental question of the basis of representation,
Giles spoke portions of two days, and made a profound im
pression. "We recollect," says a writer in the Southern Lite
rary Messenger, "to have heard him speak but once during the
session of the Convention, but we could well conceive that in his
palmy days he must have been a host in himself.
His style of speaking was very different from anything we saw,
even at that day, and evidently belonged to another period. He
indulged in none of the frantic gesticulations with which orators
of the present and of a long preceding day were wont to give
force to their arguments. He neither vociferated until he was
unintelligible, nor grew hoarse of utterance, nor became red In
the face, nor sweated like a cart horse in the effort to give birth
to his Ideas. His manner resembled that of a man engaged in
earnest conversation — his tone was animated, as his genius
rose, but It never became harsh or boisterous. His words ap
peared to flow in a continued, uninterrupted, lucid stream,
strong It is true, but strong without fury, pregnant with
thought, but full without overflowing. The great powers of his
"*NUes Register, XXXVII, 146.
"""Debates of the Convention, 149.

The Convention of 1829-30 233
understanding were apparent, from the very marked effect
which he produced on the Convention.""^
Beginning his speech with an ardent expression of a desire
for harmony, he entered into an elaborate defence of the con
stitution adopted by the fathers during the troublous days of
revolution. That constitution was the "best constitution that
was ever presented to any people under the sun." It was not, as
charged, thrown hurriedly and carelessly together on account
of the imminent danger surrounding the famous convention of
1776. Its adoption opened indeed "an aera in the science of
politics." Out of that blessed "aera" we had passed into the
degenerate days of a Federal government possessing enormous
power and patronage, enacting protective tariffs, schemes of
Internal improvement, and the whole American system. "The
best improvement that could be adopted now would be the trans
ference of the present Virginia system to the Government of the
nation." Having lauded the work of George Mason to the skies,
as the sacred document under which we had so happily and
prosperously lived for fifty-four years. Governor Giles took
up each of the alleged defects of that holy writing and found
that alleged defect to be a real jewel of excellence. Was the
executive said to be powerless — to lack energy? But "If we have
had an Executive In Virginia, which has gone on so smoothly, so
easily, so little known, and scarcely felt for fifty-four years,
discharging all its duties," why should it now be changed? As
to want of power in the Executive, so far as his experience
had gone, although he had been often accused of an Inordinate
love of power, he then had as much power as he wished to have,
or ought to have, or as any other human being should ever have.
Executive patronage and power were the sure causes of all
political mischiefs.
Did one say the suffrage was now illiberal, that It was unfair
to impose a freehold restriction on land? But this, It was
answered, was a mark of the "wisdom of our forefathers" and
"the wisest provision that ever was made in any Constitution,
is that which declares that the right of suffrage should remain
""Southern Literary Messenger, vol. 17, 397.

234 William Branch Giles
as it then was.'"" "Look at every State where Suffrage has
been extended to Universal suffrage and you wiU see universal
disorder, intoxication, and demoralization of all sorts" — for
instance. New York which had "conferred a blessing on them
selves, by extending the right of suffrage to people of all colors,
red, black, white and yellow." Was the system of county courts
criticised as inefficient and corrupt? However, "the organiza
tion of the County Courts Is marked with peculiar wisdom."
This system we had received directly from our Anglo-Saxon
Ancestors — Indeed from a period antedating the present by
1500 years.
In defending the eastern position on the great crucial sub
ject of the basis of representation, Giles fell back on the doc
trines of John Locke and found a preexisting State of Nature,
the formation of a social contract, and the erection of "free,
legitimate" governments for the protection of both persons
and property. The Bill of Rights, from which western men
drew so many arrows of argument, gave no trouble to Giles,
even If It did declare all men "by nature, equaUy free and inde
pendent" for "the Bill of Rights detracted nothing from the
Constitution by preceding it," and was "an essential part of
the Constitution." Nor could he see any injustice done the
west by giving the east representation for the protection of its
property; for the eastern people had both persons and prop
erty to protect and could not make war on the west by harmful
legislation without at the same time doing themselves an injury.
But if the white basis were adopted and power put in the hands
of the west, the people on the other side of the Ridge could
injure the property of the east without injuring their own
because of the difference In property owned by the two
sections — the disproportion of slaves. For Giles was frank
enough to admit that the curse tof slavery, whose protection,
however, he so zealously demanded, was the "stumbling block"
confronting the convention at Its very threshhold, and Interpos
ing to Interrupt the "happy spirit" of the discussion.
""^The Constitution of 1776 merely adopted the then existing suffrage
arrangement.

The Convention of 1829-30 236
Indeed, the happy spirit of the discussion was at times very
sadly Interrupted. Talk of breaking the convention, of the
formation of a new state In the west, even of the separation
of the Union, and of the dreadful vicissitudes of civil strife for
the whole Union, was heard in and out of the Assembly. And
Giles gave it as his own sober opinion that "the forcible separa
tion of Virginia, must and will lead to a separation of the United
States, come when it will. . . . Whenever the awful
occasion should arise for calling In force to settle coUIsIons and
divisions amongst ourselves, the destinies of this country will
not be settled by the physical force on the west side of the
Ridge, nor of the whole United States alone . . . the
physical forces of the commercial nations of Europe, would
settle the destinies of the country In that deprecated event.
In such a case. New York would have more to dread than
Richmond and people east of Virginia could hold out to Europe
"the most attractive and Influential douceur that could pos
sibly be offered — Commerce — the most valuable and seductive
in the world." Here again, we have one of the fatal theories on
which secession was to be based In 1860.
In the "basis" speech which I have now outlined, Giles made
clear his position on all the Important matters to come before
the convention. He announced himself a representative of
the east, of the slave-holding aristocracy, of the conservative
property Interests of the state, opposed, as usual, to change
and reform for fear of endangering its security. Not a disciple
of Jefferson now burning with the sense of aU injustices, and
eager to spread the blessings of democracy, did Giles stand In
local politics, but rather with those who, like John Randolph,
were prepared to deny the authority of the author of the Dec
laration except on "the mechanism of a plow."'"
Besides delivering the speech on the basis, Giles took active
part in the discussion of the arrangements for the Executive —
in which he was peculiarly interested — and the Judiciary. On
one feature of the latter, occurred the most able and eloquent
debate during the whole convention. The Judiciary committee
""'See Ambler, Sectionalism, 161.

236 WiLLLAM Branch Giles
had reported that "no modification or abolition of any court
shall be construed to deprive any judge thereof of his office."
Here was the same question discussed by Giles in 1802, when the
RepubUcans In their early fervor were abolishing the Circuit
Courts established for the comfortable refuge of Hamiltonians
just before the retirement of the Federalist party from
the control of the nation. And adding to the dramatic charac
ter of the conflict now was the appearance on opposing sides
of John Marshall, just rewarded in 1801 for his zealous Fed
eralism, and William B. Giles, the floor leader of the Republican
party at that time, and the bitterest political enemy who ever
attacked the great Chief-Justice."* Fighting side by side
against Judge Marshall were now Littleton WaUer TazeweU,
later Governor of the State, and Philip Pendleton Barbour,
later to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United
States. One who listened to that debate declared it was "one
of the most brilliant exhibitions of the convention."'" The
question was settled by placing In the completed constitution
the provision that "no law abolishing any court shall be con
strued to deprive a judge thereof of his office, unless two-thirds
of the members of each House present concur In the passing
thereof.'"" On January 15, 1830, the convention finished its work. The
conservatives had won. An unsatisfactory compromise had
been adopted for the distribution of representation. The suf
frage was extended to leaseholders and householders. The gov
ernment of counties still remained in the hands of justices. The
term of the Executive was extended to three years and the
Council was reduced from eight to three in number.
Less than two months after the end of the convention ex
pired Mr. Giles's term as Governor. He had then finished his
work. Retiring in 111 health to Wigwam, his home in AmeUa
county, he could only wait the inevitable early summons. In
AprU, he was again elected by his faithful people of Amelia
""They had, however, become friends.
"" Grigsby— Convention of 1839-1830.
""Constitution of 1830, Article V: 3.

The Convention of 1829-30 237
county to represent them in the Legislature, but feeling the end
was near, he thanked them for their unswerving loyalty in the
past and declined from necessity their last honor. On Decem
ber 4, 1830, the fires of his spirit burned out. The bar of the
county, "in consideration of the eminent services of the de
ceased and as a testimony of their respect for his elevated char
acter," wore crepe for thirty days.'" And Thomas Ritchie, on
December 9, declared "a great man has fallen in Israel." No
man knew him better than Ritchie, who had supported him
and criticised him, and the judgment of the famous editor now
Is not without Importance.
"Mr. Giles, In point of native ability, was one of the first
men of his country, and of his age. His views were extensive,
the moral force of his character equal to that of any man we
have ever known, and he was one of the first parliamentary de
baters of his time. He has been In public life for nearly 40
years, distinguished in every station which he filled; In the
State Legislature, In both Houses of Congress, in the Executive
chair, and in the Convention of Virginia, he has always been
in the first rank — and has left the traces of his great talents
upon the history of his country. For several years he has
been afflicted by a severe malady ; but nothing could depress the
Energy of his mind. At length, his frame yielded to the re
peated attacks — and he Is gone forever."'"
•"' Order Book of the Court of Amelia, December Court, 1830, 308.
'''Enquirer, Dec. 9, 1830.

ILLUSTRATIONS
The original of the frontispiece is a miniature owned by Mrs.
James W. Sharp, formerly Miss Elizabeth Townes, a great
grand-daughter of Governor Giles. It was painted in 1813 by
an unknown artist.
A letter dated February 6, 1813, written by Senator GUes
to his wife says: "The miniature painter caUed on me at the
Senate-Chamber this morning, and I Immediately returned with
him to my chambers and had one sitting for the miniature. He
requested me to say to you that you may be assured of a
striking and animated likeness. This occurrence Is particularly
agreable to me, as I hope it may contribute in some smaU degree
to the happiness of my beloved Frances, and to see her happy
would be the delight of my heart."
Another miniature wa.s owned by the late Mrs. William Over
ton of Louisa County, Virginia. Its history seems to be un
known. The picture of Giles facing page 207 is from a Ufe size origi
nal painted by Chester Harding in 1829 and now In possession
of the Virginia Historical Society. Harding came to Richmond
while the Convention of 1829-30 was in session, especIaUy to
"take the heads" of members of that body. He painted portraits
of Chief Justice Marshall, John Randolph of Roanoke, Gover
nor WilUam B. Giles, and others — eighteen in all. On the death
of Governor Giles, the Harding potralt became the property of
WiUiam B. GUes, Jr.
It was regarded as an excellent Ukness of Governor GUes —
Giles in old age and worsted by disease. A portrait of him by
Gilbert Stuart made about 1795, now in the possession of
Clarence B. Bowen, of Brooklyn, N. Y. shows him to have been
a handsome man. Two miniatures of him — one of them made
In 1813 and the other, it is thought, earlier, bear the same
testimony. There is a third portrait, painted in 1816 by Bass
Otis in Boston, and now in the possession of Mrs. Frances
Gwynn Townes of Richmond.

Illtjstrations 239
Plates of the five original extant pictures of Giles appear in
"The History of the Celebration of the first Inauguration of
George Washington as first President of the United States"
(1892) edited by C. W. Bowen, p. 112. Interesting notes are
given — ^though the notes are not altogether accurate.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
I have not attempted in the foUowing list to Include aU the
titles which I have used. An exhaustive bibliography would
take in a large part of the material bearing on American and
Virginia history from 1790 to 1830, and would make a volume of
its own. The foUowing, however, have been of service, par
ticularly the manuscript and newspaper material.
I. MANUSCRIPT
Adams, Henry — Transcripts of letters of public men.
In the three volumes loaned me by Mr. Adams
there are no Giles letters but some letters of interest
in the study of the Jeffersonian party. Some of
the originals of these letters are now in the Library
^ of Congress.
Cabell, N. f.— Manuscripts relating to the history of agriculture in
Virginia, collected by N. F. Cabell; one bound vo
lume in Virginia State Library.
Among these papers are autograph letters of
distinguished Virginians interested in agricultural
improvements particularly after 1812, and a valuable
bibliography of Virginia agriculture by Mr. Cabell.
A complete list of this material is contained in
a pamphlet issued in 1913 by the Virginia State
Library, and edited by Assistant Librarian, Earl
G. Swem.
Commissioners of the Revenue, Personal Property Books for Amelia
County. The Virginia State Library has the commissioners'
books for all the counties from 1783 to 1863.
Executive Letter Books — Virginia State Library.
These letter books contain contemporary transcripts
of Governors' oflScial letters.
Giles's letters are found in volumes for 1837-1830.
Executive Papers — Miscellaneous — Virginia State Library.
In the 1136 boxes of these papers is much valu
able material. Original drafts in Giles's handwrit
ing, of the letters copied in the Executive Letter
Books, are found in the boxes for 1837-1830.
Giles letters found in numerous collections. There is no collection
of Giles papers. Such as there were, were probably
destroyed in the Richmond fire in 1866. By per
sistent searching in various libraries and private col
lections, I have found, however, a nmnber of inter
esting letters.

Bibliography 241
The Jeferson, Madison, Monroe, and Van Buren Manuscripts, Library
of Congress.
These manuscripts contain some valuable letters
by and to Giles. Many of them, not bearing directly
on Giles himself, throw light on the events in which
he took part.
Order Books, WUl Books, and Deed Books of Amelia County in the
Clerk's office, Amelia Court House.
Petitions to the General Assembly of Virginia 1778-1861 — Virginia
State Library.
The 'Virginia Historical Society Collections.
There is little of importance, however, in these
collections, bearing on Giles.
II. WORKS OF PUBLIC MEN
Adamis, John — ^Works, with a life of the author, notes and illustrations,
edited by Charles Francis Adams. Boston, 1850-1856.
10 vols.'
Adams, John Quincy — Memoirs; comprising parts of his diary from
1795 to 1848, Philadelphia, 1874-1877. 13 vols.
In later years, Giles and Adams were bitter enemies
and the Memoirs reflects this enmity. Aside from its
bitterness of tone, the Memoirs is of inestimable
value.
Ames, Fisher — Works- — ^with a selection from his speeches and corres
pondence. Edited by Seth Ames. Boston, 1864,
3 volumes.
Gallatin, Albert — Writings, edited by Henry Adams. Philadelphia, 1879.
3 vols. Gallatin and Giles became hostile to each other
in 1809.
Gibbs, George — Memoirs of the administrations of Washington and John
Adams. New York, 1820. 2 vols.
Consists largely of letters of prominent Federal
ists.
Giles, William Branch —
Address of the Honorable WUliam B. Giles to the people
of Virginia. 1813. 133 p.
In this pamphlet Giles defends himself for his op
position to the Madison administration.
Letter from William B. Giles, esquire, senator in Congress,
to the Honorable the Legislature of Virginia. [Washing
ton, 1813]. 39, (1) p.
This letter explains his position on the subject
of instructions to senators and the censure of him
and Senator Brent by the legislature for their con
duct on bUl to recharter U. S. Bank.
Speech ... in the Senate on the bill for renewing the
charter of the United States Bank. n. p. n. d. 33 p.

242 William Branch Giles
Speech . . . on the bUl . . . entitled, "An act
to repeal certain acts respecting the organization of the
courts of the U. States." DeUvered . . . February,
1803. Washington and Boston, 1802. 30 p.
Mr. GUes's speech, deUvered in Senate of the United
States, on Thursday 34 November, 1808, on the resolutions
of Mr. HUlhouse to repeal the embargo laws. Several
editions— Washington, Baltimore, Salem, 1808. 36, 30, 23,
30, 38 p. respectively.
, Second Speech of Mr. W. Giles, deUvered in the Senate
of the United States December 3, 1808; on the resolution
offered by Mr. HUlhouse to repeal the several acts laying
an embargo. Boston, 1808. 20 p.
The New Embargo Law, and Mr. GUes's Speech on the
same. n.p.n.d. 33 p.
Speech deUvered by Mr. GUes, in the Senate, on the 13th
February 1809; in support of the foUowing resolution [for
the repeal of the Embargo laws] moved by him on the
8th of the same month. n.p.n.d. [Washington? 1809] p. 40.
Speech ... on raising an additional miUtary force.
Washington, 1811.
The speeches of Mr. GUes and Mr. Bayard in the House
of Representatives of the United States, February 1803.
On the bUl received from the Senate entitled, "An act
to repeal certain acts respecting the organization of the
courts of the United States." Boston and Hartford, 1802.
56 p.
Speeches in Congress by W. B. Giles, S. Smith; and Judge
Anderson on repeal of the Embargo Laws. Washington,
1808.
Mr. Clay's speech upon the tariff . . . Mr. GUes's
speech upon the resolution, of inquiry in the House of
Delegates of Virginia in reply to Mr. Clay's speech: also
his speech in reply to General Taylor's . . . Richmond,
1837. p. 188. Also republished in "Political MisceUanies,"
see below. "To the Public":
This consists of letters of WiUiam B. GUes, Archi
bald Stuart, T. J. Randolph, executor of Thomas
Jefferson. [Richmond, 1828]. p. 17.
Relates to Jefferson's opinion of J. Q. Adams and
Giles's publication of a letter of Jefferson to him on
Adams's turning Republican in 1808 and his apostasy
from Republican principles later.
Plain 'matters of fact . . . n. p.n.d. p. 67.
This consists of articles reprinted from the Rich
mond Enquirer in 1828 attacking Adams and Clay.
Political Miscellanies . . . Richmond, 1829.
This compUation is made up of speedies and

Bibliography 243
articles previously published in the Enquirer and in
smaUer pamphlets. The different sections have dis
tinct pagination. The titles of the parts of which
the book is composed are as follows:*
1. Mr. Clay's speech upon the tariff or the "Ameri
can system" so called, or the AngUcan system, in
fact, . . .
Mr. Giles's speech upon the resolutions of inquiry
in the House of Delegates of Virginia in reply to
Mr. Clay's speech; Also his speech in reply to Gen.
Taylor's accompanied with simdry other interesting
subjects and original documents . . . Richmond,
1837. 123 p.
3. Report of the select committee [Feb. 2, 1839]
on the resolutions of Georgia and South Carolina, as
submitted by WiUiam O. Goode, esq., member of the
House of Delegates, from Mecklenburg County. 13 p.
3. [Mr. Giles's Speech delivered in the House of
Delegates, Jan. 36, 1837, against a biU providing for
the calling of a constitutional convention]. 28 p.
4. Debate on the bill for the punishment of treason
and of other crimes and offences against the United
States in the Senate of the United States, Feb., 1808.
[Mr. Giles's speech], 16 p.
5. PoUtical Disquisitions. [A series of articles re
published from the Richmond Enquirer on Mr.
Adams's message respecting internal improvements].
7 and 43 p.
6. Political Disquisitions — no. V — or, the Missouri
Question. 8 p.
7. [An Attack on Adams and Clay published in
the Enquirer AprU 9, 1834, and four numbers of a
series — entitled], "Political Schemers — Hard Times,"
on the clergy, funding, banks, tariff. 31 p.
8. . . . PoUtical Disquisitions [nos. VII to
XII] Raymond's Elements of PoUtical Economy —
or, the text-book of the new political school. 40 p.
9. Political Disquisitions [XIII to XIV]. These
continue the discussion of Raymond's Political Econ
omy. 36 p.
10. Retrospects — no. VIII. Messrs. Daniel Ray
mond, John Quincy A'dams, and Henry Clay — an
affiliated Triumvirate in the elements of PoUtical
Economy . . . 13 p.
* "The Table of Contents" is not a reUable guide to
the actual contents of the book.

244 William Branch Giles
11. [Correspondence between Giles and Jefferson,
1835, with references to the circumstances under which
Adams became Republican and a series republished
from the Enquirer of 1835 entitled], "The Golden
Casket — or, the President's Message, or a proclama
tion of a great civil revolution, in the Government
of the Union." 106 p.
12. [A Letter to General La Fayette dated Aug.
20, 1829, in answer to an inquiry as to the work of
the American Colonization Society.] 30 p.
This letter is valuable for a study of the shipping
of slaves from Virginia to the south.
13. PoHtical Disquisitions [nos. I to III] . . .
These numbers are on slavery. 37 and 3 p.
14. Lectures on the restrictive system deUvered to
the Senior Political Class of WilUam and Mary Col
lege by Thomas R. Dew, Professor of History, Meta
physics and PoUtical Law. Richmond, 1839. vU, 195.
195. [Letters addressed to the people of the United
States, by a native of Virginia; on the subject of U-
legal and improper disbursements of the pubUc mon
ey, etc. Part 1st . . . Baltimore, 1822. p. 59.
Also published under the following title: Public de
faulters brought to Ught, in a series of letters to
the people of the United States, by a native of Vir
ginia. New York, 1822. p. 64.
These two pamphlets are usuaUy attributed to
GUes. They are anonymous and I have found no
reason to attribute them to Giles].
Hamilton, Alexander — Works, edited by H. C. Lodge. New York, 1886-
1886. 9 vols.
Jefferson, Thomas — Writings, edited by P. L. Ford. New York, 1904-
1905. 10 vols.
Writings . . . being his autobiography, corres
pondence . . . and other writings edited by H.
A. Washington. Washington, 1853-1854. 9 vols.
The Writings of Thomas Jefferson — Library edition.
Washington, 1903. 20 vols. Issued under the aus-
pieces of the Jefferson Memorial Association of the
United States. Edited by Andrew P. Lipscomb.
Contains useful index.
Notes on the State of Virginia [1783] and sub
sequent editions.
Madison James — Letters and other writings. Philadelphia, 1865. 4 vols.
Writings, edited by Gaillard Hunt. New York, 1900-
1910. 9 vols.

Bibliography 245
Monroe Jam£s — Writings, edited by S. M. Hamilton. New York, 1898-
1903. 7 vols.
Wa,shington, George— 'Writings, edited by W. C. Ford. New York, 1889.
14 vols.
Writings . . . being his correspondence, address
es, messages, and other papers, official and private,
edited by Jared Sparks. Boston 1837. 13 vols.
Webster, Daniel — Letters, edited by C. H. Van Tyne. New York, 1903.
III. DOCUMENTS, OFFICIAL AND UNOFFICIAL COLLECTIONS
Adams, Henry [editor] — Documents relating to New England Federal
ism. 1800-1816. Boston, 1877.
Contains along with other docmnents articles writ
ten by Giles [republished from the Richmond En
quirer] in a controversy with John Quincy Adams in

American State Papers — ^Documents from the first session of the first
Congress to 1838. Gales and Seaton, 1833-1860.
The foUowing series have been of use to me:
MUitary, 7 vols., covering 1789-1838.
.Foreign, 6 vols., covering 1789-1828.
Aines, H. F. [editor] — State documents on federal relations (1789-1861).
New York, 1907.
Anaials of the Congress of the United States published by Gales and
Seaton. 1834-1856. 43 vols.
As Giles was in Congress during a large part of
his life, the Aiinals is of inestirnable value for this
study.
Benton, Thomas Hart [editor] — Abridgment of the Debates of Congress,
from 1789 to 1856. New York, 1857-1861. 16 vols.
Calendar of 'Virginia state papers and other manuscripts preserved
... at Richmond, 1652-1869. Richmond, 1815-
1893. 11 vols.
This work is so incomplete as to diminish very
much its value.
Cranch^ William, [reporter] — Reports of cases argued and adjudged in
the Supreme Court of the United States. 1804-1817.
9 vols.
Journals and Documents of the House of Delegates of 'Virginia, 1776-1830.
From 1819 to 1866 such executive documents as
were published were printed as an appendix to the
House and Senate Journals.
Proceedings and Debates of the Virginia State Convention of 1839.1830.
Richmond, 1830.
Resolutions of 'Virginia and Kentucky penned by Madison and Jefferson,
in relation to the Alien and Sedition Laws, and the
debates and proceedings in the House of Delegates

246 WiLLLAM Branch Giles
of Virgmia, on the same, December 1798. Richmond,
1833. 73, 183 p.
Richardson, J. D. [compUer]— CompUation of the messages and papers
of the Presidents (House Misc. Docs. 53 Cong., 3nd
sess., no. 310). Washington, 1896-1909. 10 vols.
IV. PERIODICALS. (NEWSPAPERS, MAGAZINES, ANNUAL
PUBLICATIONS)
,;,- I have made extensive use of newspapers. GUes
was a subject of so much discussion in Virginia
and WEis himself so copious in newspaper contro
versies that it has been necessary to examine the
leading Virginia papers page by page, for the period
of his activity.™
The American Historical Review. N. Y., 1895 —
Anderson, F. M. — Contemporary Opinion of the Kentucky and Vir
ginia Resolutions. — ^vol V, 45, 335.
Farrand, Max— The Judiciary Act of 1801. vol. V, 683.
McLaughlin, A. C. — Social Compact and Constitutional Interpre
tation. Vol. V, 467.
Turner, F. J.— The South 1830-1830. vol. XI, 569.
Dodd, W. E.— Chief Justice MarshaU and Virginia. Vol XII, 776.
The Am.erican Historical Association Awmud Reports. Washington, 1890 —
^ McLaughUn, A. C. — ^Western Posts and British Debts. 1894, 413.
Ogg, F. A. — Jay's Treaty and the Slavery Interests of the United
^ States. 1901. vol. I, 375.
Branch Historical Papers of Randolph-Macon College. 1901-1913.
1-111. Contains sketches of prominent Virginians
and some interesting source material. The June,
1911, nxmiber contains article on GUes by G. M. Betly.
The Daily Convpiler. Richmond.
The Virginia State Library has numbers from 1814
to 1847.
The Examiner. Richmond. 1798-1804.
In 1804 the name was changed to the Richmond
Enquirer. It was anti-Federal, promoting the elec
tion of Jefferson.
Th<e Intelligencer and Petersburg Coirvmercial Advertiser. Petersburg.
SenU-weekly. Library of Congress has 1800 to 1840.
°™The dates of the Uves of the various newspapers are sometimes ap
parently impossible to find. A Virginia State Library BuUetin issued
October, 1913, gives a list of newspapers in the Virginia State Library,
Confederate Museum, and Valentine Museimi. The work has been carefiUly
done by Mrs. Kate Pleasants Minor of the Virginia State Library. The
Check list of American newspapers in the Library of Congress, Washington,
1901, is of great value.

Bibliography 247
Joh'ua Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science.
1883 — Contains many articles on Virginia history.
The Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings. Boston, 1791 —
The Massachusetts Historical Society CoUections. Boston, 1879—
Both the Proceedings and the Collections contain
interesting Virginia material.
The Nation. New York, 1865.—
In issue of July 18, 1913, are extracts from diary
of Moreau de St. Mery which throw some Ught on
the situation in 1798.
In issue Sept. 5, 1895, is a discussion by Paul
Leicester Ford of the authorship of the Giles reso
lutions of 1793.
The National Intelligencer. Washington, 1800-1870.
The New England Historical and Genealogical Register. Boston, 1847 —
Niles Weekly Register. Baltimore, 1811-1849. Index to first 13 vols.
Boston, 1818.
The Norfolk Herald. Semi-weekly and tri-weekly. EstabUshed 1794.
The Norfolk Press and Public Advertiser.
Tht Recorder. Richmond. The Virginia State Library has 1«03-1803.
The Richmond Enquirer. This paper pubUshed 1804-1877 is a mine of infor
mation for Virgima History.
The Richmond and Manchester Advertiser.
A continuation of the Virginia Gazette and Rich
mond and Manchester Advertiser.
The Southern Literary Messenger. Richmond, 1834-1864. 36 vols.
In parUciUar vol. 17 which contains an account of
the Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1829-1830.
Also volume 18 has something on GUes.
The United States Telegraph Extra, 1838. Washington. Weekly.
This was a Jackson organ edited by Duff Green,
GUes contributed to it.
The Virginia Argus. Richmond. Semi-weekly; continuation of Richmond
and Manchester Advertiser. Library of Congress has
1797-1816.
The Virginia Gazette and Richmond and Manchester Advertiser. Semi-
weekly. EstabUshed 1793.
The Virginia Gazette and General Advertiser. Richmond. Weekly and
semi-weekly. Library of Congress has 1790-1809.
The Virginia Gazette and Weekly Advertiser. Richmond. The Vir
ginia State Library has 1787-1793.
The Virginia Historical Society Collections. New Series. Richmond.
1883-1893, 11 vols. Vols. IX and X contain Grigsby's
Convention of 1788. Mudi valuable biographical ma
terial of years preceding and following 1788 is given
in this work.

248 WiLLLAM Branch Giles
The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography. Richmond. 1893—
William and Mary Quarterly. Richmond. 1893 —
V. BIOGRAPHIES AND GENEALOGIES
Adams, Henry— Life ot Albert GaUatin. Phila., 1879. John Randolph,
(American Statesmen Series). Boston, 1883-1898.
Brock, R. .4.— Virgima and Virginians, 1606-1888. Richmond and Toledo,
1888. 3 vols. Contains a, sketch of GUes.
Brown, Alexander— The CabeUs and their Kin . . . Boston, 1895.
Cabell, James Branch-Branch of Abingdon, being a partial account of
the ancestry of Christopher Branch of Arrowhattocks'
and Kingslands' in Henrico County, and the founder
of the Branch famUy in Virginia. Richmond, 1911.
Branchiana — Being a partial account of the Branch
family in Virginia . . . Richmond, 1907.
Dodd, W. JS.— The Life of Nathaniel Macon. Raleigh, 1903.
Gay,S.H. — James Madison. (American Statesmen Series). Boston, 1884-
1898.
Gordon, A. a.— Life of WiUiam Fitzhugh Gordon, Washington, 1909.
Grigsby, Hugh Blair — Discourse on the Ufe and character of the Hon.
Littleton WaUer TazeweU. Delivered . . . before
the bar of Norfolk, Virginia, and the citizens, gener
ally, on the 39th of June, 1860 . . . Norfolk, 1860.
Hamilton, J. C. — History of the republic of the United States of Ameri
ca, as traced in the writings of Alexander HamUton
and his contemporaries. N. Y., 1857-1864. 7 vols.
Hayden, H. E. — Virginia Genealogies . . . Wilkes-Barre, 1891.
Henry, William Wirt — Patrick Henry, Life, Correspondence and Speeches.
New York, 1891. 3 vols.
Probably the best history of Virginia 1736-1799;
anti-Jeffersonian.
Hunt, Gaillard — Life of James Madison. New York, 1903.
Lodge, Henry Cabot — George Washington (American Statesmen Series).
Boston, 1889 and 1898.
Alexander Hamilton (American Statesmen Series).
Boston, 1882 and 1898.
Magruder, A B. — ^John Marshall (American Statesmen Series). Boston,
1886 and 1898.
Marshall, John — Life of George Washington. PhUa., 1804-1807. 5 vols.
Also an abridged ed. 1832. 3 vols.
Morse, John T., Jr. — Thomas Jefferson (American Statesmen Series).
Boston, 1883 and 1898.
Quincy, Edmund — Life of Josiah Quincy. Boston, 1808.
Randall, Henry Stephens — Life of Thomas Jefferson. New York, 1871.
3 vols.
Randolph, Sarah — The Domestic Ufe of Thomas Jefferson compUed from
family letters and reminiscences. N. Y., 1871.

Bibliography 249
Rives, W. C. — Life and Times of James Madison. 3 Vols. This work
comes down only to 1797.
Smith, Margaret V. — ^Virginia 1493-1892. A brief record of the discovery
of the continent of North America with a history of V
the executives of the colony and commonwealth of Vir
ginia. Washington, 1893.
Story, W. W. — ^Life and Letters of Joseph Story. Boston, 1857. 3 vols.
Tucker, George — The Life of Thomas Jefferson. Philadelphia, 1837.
3 vols.
Tyler, Lyon G. — ^Letters and Times of the Tylers. Richmond and WU-
liamsburg, 1884-1896. 3 vols.
VI. WORKS ON VIRGINIA HISTORY
Amibler, Charles H. — Sectionalism in Virginia. Chicago, 1910. An ex
ceUent study — the best history of Virginia 1776-1861.
Howe, Henry — Historical Collections of Virginia. Charleston, S. C, 1863.
Grisby, Hugh Blair — The Virginia Convention of 1776. A discourse de
livered before the Virginia Alpha of the Phi Beta
Kappa Society in the chapel of WUliam and Mary Col
lege . . . July 3, 1853. Richmond, 1856.
The History of the Virginia federal convention of
1788, with some account of the eminent Virginians of
that era who were members of that body . . .
edited by R. A. Brock and published in the Virginia
Historical Society Collections (new series) IX-X.
Richmond, 1890-1891.
The Virginia Convention of 1829-30. A discourse
deUvered before the Virginia Historical Society . . .
Richmond, December 16, 1863. Published in
Virginia Historical Reporter vol. I. Richmond, 1864.
Howison, R. R. — A history of Virginia from its discovery and settlement
by Europeans to the present times. Richmond, 1848.
3 vols.
So much material has been discovered since Mr.
Howison and the earUer historians of Virginia wrote
that their work is aU but obsolete.
Martin, Joseph — A new and compendious gazeteer of Virginia and the
District of Columbia. CharlottesviUe, 1836.
Meade, Bishop [William] — Old churches, ministers and famiUes of Vir
ginia. Phila., 1867. 3 vols.
Semple, Robert B. — A History of the Rise and Progress of the Baptists in
Virginia. Revised and extended by G. W. Beale.
Richmond, 1894.
Warfield, E. D. — The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. An historical study.
N. Y., 1894. 3nd edition.

250 ,. WiLLLAM Branch Giles
VII. HISTORIES OF THE UNITED STATES
Adams, Henry — History of the United States of America during the ad
ministrations of Jefferson and Madison. N. Y., 1889-
1891. 9 vols.
Mr. Adams's work is, of course, the authority on the
Jeffersonian period, but his work is not final. From
lack of sympathy with southern men, he sometimes
faUs to understand them,
Benton, Thomus Hart — Thirty Years View, or a History of the workings
of the American government for thirty years, from
1830 to 1850. N. Y., 1854-1856. 3 vols. Vol. I has an
appreciation of GUes.
Dewey, D. R. — Financial history of the United States (American citizen's
series) N. Y., 1903. 3rd ed. 1907.
Hart, A. B. [editor]— The American Nation: a History. N. Y., 1904^1908.
36 vols., one being index volmne.
The following volumes in this series are valuable
for our period:
Bassett, J. S. — Federalist System.
yChanning, Edward — The Jeffersonian System.
Babcock, C. B. — Rise of American Nationality.
Turner, F. J.— Rise of the New West.
Hildreth, BicftartZ— History of the United States— N. Y., 1849-1856. 6
vols. Revised edition 1880-1883.
McMaster, J. B. — History of the People of the United States from tiie
Revolution to the Civil War. N. Y., 1883-1910. 7
vols, (to 1850).
Schouler, Jam,es — History of the United States under the constitution.
Revised ed. N. Y. [copyright] 1894-1899. 6 vols.
The South in the Building of the Nation: A History of the southern states
designed to record the south's part in the making of
the American Nation; to portray the character and
genius, to chronicle the achievements and prowess
and to iUustrate the life ajid traditions of the
southern people. Published by the Southern Histor
ical PubUcation Society. Richmond, [1909-1910].
The most valuable volumes are V and VI on the
economic history of the south 1607-1909. The other
volumes add Uttle of importance to our resources on
southern history.
VIII. MISCELLANEOUS
Alexander, Sanrnel Dalies- Princeton during the eighteenth century.
N. Y., 1873.
Asbury, Francis — Journal of Rev. Francis Asbury, Bishop of the Metho
dist Episcopal Church. N. Y., 1853. 3 vols.
Callender, J. T.— The History of the United States for 1796. PhUaddphia,
1797.

Bibliography 251
[Cobbett, William] — Peter Porcupine — A little plain English addressed to
the people of the United States on the treaty. Phil
adelphia, 1795.
Grigsby, Hugh Blair — Discourse on the lives and characters of the early
presidents and trustees of Hampden-Sjdney College.
Ddivered at the centenary of the founding of the col
lege, on the 14th of June, 1876. Richmond, 1913.
Griswold, R. W. — The Republican court or American Society in the days
of Washington. N. Y., 1866.
Latrobe, Benjamin Henry — The Journal of Latrobe . . . 1796-1830.
N. Y., 1905.
Maiwry, Arm — Memories of a Huguenot Family. Translated and com
piled from the original autobiography of the Rev.
James Fontaine . . . N. Y., 1853.
Saint-Mery, Moreau de — Voyage aux i:tats — Unis de L'Amfirigue, 1793-
1798. Edited with an introduction and notes by
Stewart L. Mims. New Haven, 1913. Has interest
ing chapters on Norfolk and Portsmouth, and items
of interest about Congress and public men.
Schoepf, J. D. — Travels in the Confederation, from the German of Johann
David Schoepp [1783-1784]. Translated and edited
by A. J. Morrison . . . Phila., 1911. 3 vols.
Trumbull, John — Autobiography, reminiscenes, and letters of John Trum
buU from 1806 to 1841. N. Y. and New Haven, 1841.
TrumbuU was an enemy of Giles and gives an
account of how that enmity began.
Virginia slavery debate 1833 — ^A bound volume of various speeches,
separately printed, deUvered in the General Assembly
1833, in the Virginia State Library.

APPENDIX
RETROSPECTS No. XV
Compilations — Reviews — and' Reflec tions
"UNION"
Division — disastrous to the whole U. S. But not equally
disastrous to each of the several States.
It will appear from an examination of the last Number, that
both the author of "Union" and the writer, concur in opinion;
that the Union of these states is actually put In jeopardy, by
the various intermeddlings and usurpations of the General
Government; but particularly by the Tariff and Internal Im
provement Acts. Both, also, concur in opinion, that such dis
union would, probably, be extremely disastrous to the whole
United States, and ought to be deprecated by every real patriot
In the nation; but they differ in this material respect. The
writer of "Union," applies the disastrous consequences of dis
union, in an equal degree, to every individual state — whereas,
the writer thinks, the disastrous consequences would be much
greater to some States, than to others ; nor would the writer, so
far concur with the author of "Union," as to admit, that dis
union would be the greatest possible disaster, that could befall
the U. S., should the author entertain such opinion.
The writer thinks a consolidated despotism, would be an
infinitely greater disaster than disunion; of course, he thinks,
the Tariff Acts, and Internal Improvement permanently fixed
upon this Union, as an Infinitely greater disaster — as they
must necessarily eventuate in the very worst of consolidated
despotisms; provided the Union should continue under their
most baleful influence. The inevitable effects of such a gov
ernment, would be the utter annihilation of human liberty and
with It, all human rights, prosperity and happiness. The
writer has often been astonished to observe, how little the real
characteristics of the Tariff and Internal Improvement Acts,
have been considered and understood. It seems as If the public
mind cannot be brought to bear upon their vicious, militant

Appendix 253
elements, and consequent immoral tendencies. It is not In
frequent, to hear the most zealous devotees to these measures,
express the greatest horror and alarm, at consolidation, and
consequent , despotism ; whereas, a very little reflection, ought
to convince every man of sound mind, that they are precisely
.the same thing, clothed in different garbs, and called by different
names. This essay, published in the Richmond Enquirer, Oct. 3, 1839, is reprinted
here because it illustrates the general character of Giles's voluminous
newspaper writing and also because the views in the article are in them
selves decidedly interesting. They suggest the intense hostility of the
South to the Protective Tariff, the willingness of some in 1839 to view
disunion as a lesser evU than the "usurpations" of the National Govern
ment, and their opinion as to the pecuUar strength of the South in case
of disunion and war.
The only change which I have made in the paper as originaUy pubUshed
is to paragraph it. Mr. Giles or Editor Thomas Ritchie didn't bother
much aboiit such small matters as paragraphing.
What constitutes the difference between a federal and a con
solidated government.'' It consists simply In this: A federal
government confines Its jurisdiction strictly to general and ex
ternal objects. A consolidated government, includes within its
jurisdiction, not only general and external objects, but all
objects of internal concerns. Of which description of objects,
are the Tariff and Internal Improvement Acts? — especially
when the Tariff Acts assume the character of protecting, in
ternal Industry, and directing the Internal occupations of in
dividuals.? Most certainly, these are objects of Internal juris
diction, and the government which exercises jurisdiction over
them, as well as over all general and external objects, must be a
consolidated government. In all Its essential, practical charac
teristics, whatever be the nomenclature affixed to It. The
writer believes there exists but one opinion, as to the ultimate
effects of a consolidated government In the U. S. — that It must
produce despotism, and destroy freedom. Under this view of
the subject, it is evident, that the General Government, as now
administered. In exercising jurisdiction over internal, as well
as general and external concerns, is a consolidated govern
ment — ^is, in fact, already a despotism ; and time Is only wanted,
to satisfy everyone, when it is too late, of Its despotic character.

254 WiLLLAM Branch Giles
Directing and controlling the property, capabilities and talents
of Individuals, instead of leaving them to the control of their
owners, Is the very essence of despotism; and this is the iden
tical ground assumed by Messrs. Adams, Clay, and Rush, in
justification of the Tariff Acts.
Believing, then, that the Union is put In hazard, by the
various and complicated usurpations already In practice, by
the General Government, the writer thinks, the time is come,
when It Is the duty of every lover of "Union," to examine well,
and estimate the consequences of disunion, with aU its hazards,
and a consolidated despotism, with all its Inevitable, deplorable
certainties. If the usurpations of the General Government be
continued, to this issue we must come at last ; and when we do,
the writer most earnestly hopes and trusts, with Mr. Jefferson,
that there can be neither doubt nor hesitation. The choice must
be, between disunion with liberty — and consolidated despotism
with slavery. As it regards the relations of the U. S. in their
present condition with foreign nations, it Is self-evident, that it
must be the same throughout the whole — ^being, in that respect,
one government; and of course, all parts must participate
equally In the same foreign relations — ^but very different wiU
be these relations with the different States, in case of disunion.
To present this important subject in a clear point of view, it
will be necessary to examine the natural relations of different
sections of the U. S. toward each other; and with the foreign,
commercial nations, growing out of their different productions
and occupations.
Let, then, the six New England states, Including Vermont,
be presumed to constitute one confederacy, in case of disunion —
what, then, would be the relations of those confederated
States, separated from all the rest, with the commercial nations
of Europe? — ^particularly with Great Britain, whose immediate
relations with these States, whether united or disunited, must
be more important, than the commercial relations with the
other European nations, arising from her great ascendancy
over all other nations, both in regard to her naval power, and
her commercial capital? This section of the U. S., would

Appendix 255
present the relation of rivalship, with all commercial foreign
nations, particularly with Great Britain, with scarcely one
single natural tie of mutual accommodation. They are strictly
rivals in almost aU their relations — in Commerce — in Naviga
tion — in Fishing — and In Manufactories, — whilst the only sub
ject of commercial accommodation, would consist in their
supplies of live stock, and some other notions for the West
Indian market. It is presumed, that the whole amount of agri
cultural products exported from those States, would not amount
to $2,000,000, out of an export from the whole United States,
exceeding $5,000,000. Hence, it Is evident, that these States,
In their natural condition are necessarily and essentially
rivals ; and can never, by any artificial means, which would
not be ruinous to both parties, become customers of the com
mercial nations of Europe. Rivalship Is a state of hostility,
not of friendship; hence, little or no advantageous connection,
could take place between those States, and any one of the
commercial nations of Europe ; and, so far, they might be said
to be independent of those nations — that this boasted, positive
independence, would add very little to the wealth and prosperity
of those positively independent States.
New York and New Jersey might form another confederacy,
or It might include Delaware, Pennsylvania and Maryland. In
either case, the actual relationship between those States, and
the commercial States of Europe, would be nearly the same.
New York is, at present, an Empire in herself — ^but much of her
greatness is artificial, not intrinsic. The great commercial city
of New York, and the twenty-five millions of bank capital de
pend upon contingencies, not upon intrinsic, paramount causes,
and her intrinsic resources, or her native productions for
exportation, will be found not to be much greater, than those
of New England. The only additon to them, of importance,
consists of breadstuffs; and those are so highly dutied in
Great Britain, as to amount, in ordinary times, to a prohibi
tion, and they are not wanted, in the other commercial nations
of Europe. The same rivalship will apply to the whole of the
other States, thrown into this confederacy. The whole of these

256 William Branch Giles
States are the rivals, and cannot be made the customers of
the commercial States of Europe — and hence. In case of
forming this confederacy out of the separation of the present
United States, these States must, in the fixed, unalterable na
ture of things become rivals and not customers of the commer
cial States of Europe; and out of this rivalship must, neces
sarily, come hositility, not friendship. The cities of New York
and Philadelphia, particularly New York, present the most
powerful and alarming rivals to London and Liverpool in the
whole world; and so far from Great Britain cherishing any
disposition to foster and increase the wealth and prosperity of
either of these cities, particularly New York, she would be de
lighted in being afforded an opportunity of prostrating her
most formidable rivals, and even laying the City of New York
in ashes. New York, therefore, would have more to dread, in
case of disunion, than any state in the Union ; especially when,
independent of the effect of stripping her of aU her artificial
resources, arising from her present connection .with the
Southern States, and casting her upon her own means, she
would become placed in a hostile attitude with Great Britain —
with her great city exposed to British power on the water,
and, with her Northeastern frontiers open to attacks from
Great Britain, through Canada — now containing a population
exceeding half a million of souls, , and rapidly Increasing both
in strength and population — ^her fortifications strengthened
every day. New York, therefore, without the possibility of
gaining anything, would be placed in greater jeopardy, by
disunion, than any other state in the Union. The. whole native
productions, from this supposed confederacy for exportation,
would fall short of. 8,000,000, whilst their points of rivalship
with the commercial nations of Europe, would be little less than
those of the New England states. These states, then, in the
unalterable nature of things. In the event of disunion, must
become the rivals, not the customers, of all other commercial
nations : But it Is difficult to say whether more relatively
dependent upon, or independent of, them; but certainly with
out any increase of wealth and prosperity arising from the
direct and extensive rivalship.

Appendix 257
The Western States, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois,
might form a separate confederacy. From their remote posi
tion, they would have very little connection with the commer
cial nations of Europe; but to Its extent, it would be rather
that of mutual accommodation than rivalship ; and so far their
relation would be friendly rather than hostile. The strange
notion of the Western States rivaling the manufacturing
nations of Europe, particularly Great Britain, Is most absurd
and preposterous, and would be ridiculous in the extreme, if
it had not already been used to bring about the tariff, with
all Its horrible effects. The notion of rivaling a nation in
manufacturing. In which there Is a perfect division of labor,
and in which the operatives are content to labor all day, and all
night too. If necessary ; and, whether content or not, are com
pelled to perform this labor without sufficient bread or covering,
by another nation, in which the operatives are not only per
fectly free from all restraints — demand high wages, and require
good clothing, and an overabundance of food — and, moreover,
the real governors of the nation are extravagant, nonsensical
and preposterous. Whenever the operatives are permitted to
vote under the blessed influence of general suffrage, they, of
course, become the governors of the nation, and thus they be
come absolutely incapacitated for successfuhy rivaling oper
atives not blessed with the same great privilege of the elective
franchise. The time necessarily required to quaUfy an opera
tive for performing this great governmental duty, by meetings
at barbecues, listening to electioneering orations, and enlighten
ing their own minds with due potations of whiskey for that pur
pose, would alone render the voters the most unsuccessful rivals
of operatives, who are relieved from all governmental cares and
duties, without sufliclent bread or covering, and who are willing
to labor all day and night — and. In the course of that labor,
without permitting their minds to wander Into governmental
cogitations, but to keep them perpetually confined to one single
conception, and their bodies to one single physical action, for
the perfection of their mechanical art, be it what It may.
Mr. Clay's electioneering, barbecue orations alone, would

258 William Branch Giles
call for more time from the operative voters, under the
general suffrage provisions, than would throw them far in
the background In their rivalship with the British operatives.
The writer deems the business of manufacturing for exportation
in rivalship with European manufactories in foreign markets,
absolutely incompatible with the right of general suffrage,
wherever that right may be executed — whether in Massa
chusetts, Kentucky, or elsewhere : and this consideration alone,
ought to have determined the tariff-schemers from the wild
attempt to form a competition with British manufactories in
foreign markets: for, surely, nothing can be more unwise, as
weU as unjust, than buying a foreign market by bounties,
drawn from other occupations. From aU these considerations,
the writer thinks, that the Western states, composing this sup
posed confederacy, having but little connection, and no rival-
ship with foreign nations, would have very Uttle dependence
upon them, and may be considered quite independent of them,
but not a whit the better, nor the wiser, nor the wealthier, nor
the happier, from the absence of aU connection with the com
mercial nations of Europe.
Very far different would be the relations between the States
composing the Southern supposed confederacy, consisting of
Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, Louisiana, Florida,
Georgia, South and North Carollnas and Virginia; and the
commercial states of Europe. These states present no points
of rivalship whatever with the commercial states of Europe ; but
are the best customers they have in the world — ^whUst they have
no taste for manufacturing except household manufactures,
and but Uttle disposition for commerce; their native produc
tions consist precisely of the materials, in most demand. In other
commercial countries — cotton, breadstuff, rice and tobacco.
These states, therefore, are the best customers of the com
mercial nations of Europe, without any one material point of
rivalship; of course, aU their relations are friendly, none
hostile; and whilst the native productions of these states are
much wanted by aU the commercial and manufacturing nations

Appendix 259
of Europe, their manufactured goods are much wanted in
those states ; hence the relations between them consist in mutual
accommodations and mutual Interests.
The writer thinks this relationship of mutual accommodation
and interest, might produce a mutual dependence between
these States and the commercial states of Europe, particu
larly Great Britain; but this mutual dependence, would
necessarUy be attended with a mutual, relative independence,
which Is the most desirable relation that can exist between
foreign nations. Out of $50,000,000 exports from the whole
United States In 1828, cotton alone produced nearly
$30,000,000. Add then, the productions of breadstuffs, rice
and tobacco and at least $40,000,000 out of $50,000,000 wIU
be found to be produced by the exports from these states alone ;
and this great relative amount would have been, and now would
be, much enhanced, if British manufactured goods were freely
taken as exchange for consumption here. This measure would
be as much to the true interest of these states, as of Great
Britain. This statement is made in general terms; but the
proportions of the products of the exports, wiU be found suffi
cient for coming to the great general results. Those who
choose to make more minute calculations, may do so, by turning
to the treasury reports of 1828 — from which this outline view
In round numbers is taken. Several most instructive lessons
may be leamed from these facts.
First. It will most clearly appear, that In the event of dis
union, these states would be placed in the most friendly rela
tions with the commercial nations of Europe, grounded upon
the best possible basis — that of mutual accommodation and
interest, whilst the Northern and Eastern sections of the Union,
would be placed In a state of unalterable rivalship, and of
course, of hostility; and, therefore. In the event of disunion,
that the southern states would have nothing to fear from
the hostUe spirit of Europe, whilst the Northern and Eastern
section of the Union, would have to encounter all the hostilities
arising from jealous rivalshlps, fixed In the nature of things,
and, therefore, unalterable by artificial expedients.

260 William Branch Giles
Another lesson equally instructive wiU be found in the rela
tions which must necessarily arise between these different sec
tions of the present union, in the event of separation. It Is
admitted as an universal truth amongst commercial nations,
that the annual imports of every nation wIU always be nearly
equal to its exports. Hence, the southern states must Import
into the United States, or. In other words, the imports Into
the United States grounded upon the exports from these states,
must be equal to $40,000,000, whilst the Imports grounded
upon the exports from aU the rest of the United States do not
much exceed $50,000,000 ; it must, therefore, irresistibly follow,
that during the existing union, the Southern States contribute
four-fifths of the whole revenue, besides the contribution they
pay to the manufactories under the tariff acts. The amount
then paid is enormous ; but the writer has no means at this
time to make an accurate estimation thereof — ^whilst out of
this enormous amount of contributions, a very smaU portion
thereof Is returned to the contributing states. In the event of
disunion, the Northern and Eastern states would be stripped of
all participation in these contributions, and left to their own
resources, which they wiU find meagre enough, whenever the
trial shall be made; and hence It Is rendered evident, that dis
union would not be found equally disastrous to every state in the
Union. In that event, the southern states would be left to the
enjoyment of aU the good things their God has given them, and
to which, they have superadded their own labor; the proceeds
of which are now transferred to the northern and eastern states
for their enjoyment. This singular and unjust effort Is pro
duced by the tariff and other artificial, legislative contrivances.
Whenever the amount contributed through these means shaU
become perfectly ascertained, and their unequal distributions
known, then either the tariff must be put down to a simple
revenue system, or this union must be dissolved. No people,
possessing common sense enough to understand the enormous
amount obtained from them, through the tariff and other artifi
cial expedients, and common courage enough to defend their
own rights, will ever long submit to such an unnatural and
unprincipled state of things.

Appendix 261
The writer is well aware, that the southern people have been
often threatened with the superior pliyslcal force of the other
parts of the United States. Mr. Clay most significantly re
minds the Southerns, that the disproportion of physical force
is as 8,000,000 to 2,000,000 whUst the productive means of the
Southerns are as 4 to 1 in their favor. This may be true in
regard to physical force as a result from the census of the
whole people of the United States ; but It is not true. In relation
to the object for which the threat was made. That Is in plain
English, for coercing the Southerns Into a subjection to the
tariff acts ; to the forcible plunder of the southern people. In
a deplorable, wicked purpose of the kind, the people of the
United States would not be the only people consulted on that
occasion. No coercive expedient could be resorted to by the
people of one part of the United States against another without
caUing into action the people of Europe — and on which side
would they be found? Surely, on the side of their interest. On
which side is that? On the side of their rivals? — or tlie side of
their customers? And who would have the money to pay them?
The section which exports $40,000,000 or that which exports
$10,000,000? The author of "Union" most justly says : "Once
divided, we should form stronger bonds of union with foreign
nations, than with one another." Most certainly we should;
and who possesses the means of uniting to advantage In those
stronger bonds? Certainly the southern sections; not only
through commercial means, but money means — 40,000,000 to
10,000,000 money, is truly said to be the sinew of war itself.
Money is power — and can easUy be converted Into physical
power. The southern people, therefore, have no cause to be
intimidated by these threats. In case of disunion the northern
and eastern people would become much more harmless, when
kept to themselves, than they are with union, enjoying all the
aids they now get from their connection with the southern
people. What would become of the northern and eastern
people, if cut off from all commercial relations with the southern
people? What would become of their navigation? What of

262 William Branch Giles
their manufacturing industry, so far as cotton is employed as
an essential fabric!' — and so long as their manufactured goods
should be excluded from the southern market?
Notwithstanding the southern people have so little to fear,
and so much to gain from disunion, comparatively with the
northern and eastern people, the writer would most sincerely
deprecate such an event ; but he has no hesitation in saying, he
would infinitely prefer disunion, with all its hazards, to the
Tariff Acts; which, he sincerely believes. Imposes upon him an
unprincipled, degrading tribute. He would prefer any
calamity, to the condition of a tributary slave. Turning and
twisting the Tariff Acts In every possible way to avoid It, they
must be brought to it at last; and whenever their real effects
shall come to be universally understood, is it possible that free
men should tolerate them?
There are other most important and instructive views, which
may be hereafter taken of this deeply interesting subject,^ —
particularly as to the grounds upon which union ought to be
preferred to disunion, so long as the Constitution is observed. In
the practical administration of the government, and Its great
original principles, generality and equality amongst aU the
several states in the Union strictly regarded. The writer has
sketched out this number too rapidly, for its importance. His
apology Is, that it is a suhject, which has long been familiar to
his contemplation, and he, therefore, hopes no material errors
have occurred; but If it should turn out otherwise, he wiU take
pleasure in correcting them hereafter. His real object now is,
to invite the attention of others, to the just development of the
subject. If he should have succeeded in effecting that, one
great object will be attained.

INDEX

Agricultural Societies; 314.
Adams, J.; 51, 54, 55, 63.
Adams, J. Q. ; 80, 81, 96n, 97, 99, 106,
107n, 130, 131n, 134n, 130, 133, 135,
139, 149, 171, 176, 189, 191, 316, 317,
318, 336.
Adam's Gallatin; 86n, 114n, 135n,
147n, 148n, 165n, 167n, 187n, 193n,

Adam's History of U. S.; 85n, 86n,
96n, 130n, 167n, 167n, 176n, 180n,
187n, 188n, 193n.
Adam's Randolph; 70n, 103n, 132n,
133n.
Adams, (Ship); 179.
Albemarle Agric. Soc'y; 315.
Albemarle Co.; 113n, 146.
Alexandria; 113n.
Ahen act; 61, 63, 64, 67, 68, 73.
Ambler, C. H.; 43n, 61n, 71n, 183n,
189n, 309n, 313n.
AmeUa County, Va.; 3, 4, 38, 61, 74,
90, 113, 337.
American Farmer; 314.
Ames, Fisher; 33, 38, 43, 49, 51.
Ames's Proposed amendments; 103n.
Ames's State documents; 138n, 333n.
Anderson, V.; 190, 191n, 300n.
Anderson's Va. and Ky. Resolutions;
61n.
Anti-f ederaUsts ; 15, 16.
Apportionment of representation; 17,
18, 19, 88.
Archer, W. S.; 318n.
Archer famUy; 4, 43.
Army; 73.
Arrowhattocks; 1.
Asbury, Francis; 3.
Assumption; 11.
Bacon, E.; 139.
Baldwin's Amer. Judiciary; 97n.
Bank of Alexandria; 13n, 161.
Bank of Richmond; 13n.
Bank of the Potomac; 161.
Bank of the U. S.; 30, 31, 160,
163, 163, 164, 166, 167.

161,

Bank of Virginia; 13n.
Bank of Washington; 161.
Banks; 13, 13, 14.
Banks, in Va.; 13n, 161.
Bannister family; 53.
Baptists; 3.
Barbour, J.; 64, 303, 304, 305, 315.
Barbour, P. P.; 336.
BarnweU, R.; 33.
Barron, Commodore; 113.
Bassett's FederaUst System; 31n, 49n,
79n.
Bayard, J. A.; 83, 85, 118, 143, 189,
191.
Beard, C. A.; 13n, 36n.
Bent Creek; 113n.
Benton, T. H. ; 59.
Berkeley, Vice-Admiral ; 113.
Berlin decree; 108.
BUl of Rights; 334.
Blair, A.; 73n.
Bland, E.; 5.
Bland, Theadorick; 8.
Bledsoe, J.; 190.
BaUman, emissary of Burr; 107.
Bostock family; 1.
Botetourt Co.; 49n.
Bounties; 19.
Bradley, S. R.; 134.
Branch, Ann; 3.
Branch, Christopher; 1, 3.
Branch, Henry; 3.
Branch, John; 3.
Branch, Lionel; 1.
Branch, Richard; 1.
Branch, WUUam; 1.
Branch family; 1.
Branch Hist. Papers; 73n, 133n, 144n,
167n.
Brent, R.; 166, 189.
Breckenridge, James; 189.
Breckenridge, John; 63, 83.
British debt cases; 6, 7, 8, 43.
Brock, R. A.; 8n.
Brooks, D.; 58.
Brown, J.; 190.

264

WiLLLAM Branch Giles

BrunskUl, John; 4.
Burr, A.; 51, 97, 101-111, 109.
BurweU, L.; 71.
BuUer, N. M.; 307n.
CabeU, James B.; In.
CabeU, J. C; 319.
CabeU, N. F.; 315n.
CabeU, W. H.; 113.
Cabot, G.; 31.
CaUioun, J. C; 173, 183, 301.
CaU, D.; 91.
CaUender, J. T.; 91, 98.
CampbeU, G. W.; 130n, 139, 133, 140,
176, 201.
Carleton, Gen.; 39.
CaroUne Co.; 38, 113n.
Carrington, Edw.; 10.
Chandler, J. A. C; 63n, 63n.
Channing's Jeffersonian System; 81n.
Charlotte Co.; 145.
Chase, S.; 94, 95, 97, 98, 99.
Chesapeake outrage; 113-121.
Chesterfield Co.; 90.
Cheves, L.; 179.
Christian, W. A.; 13n.
Clark, A.; 31.
Clay, H.; 169, 166, 172, 173, 176, 180,
311, 316.
CUnton, G.; 133, 136, 147.
Clopton, J.; 71, 73n.
Cocke, J. H.; 315
Cohens vs. Va.; 307.
CoUege of New Jersey; 4.
Colonization Societies; 237.
Connecticut; opposes embargo, 138.
ConsteUation (Ship) ; 179.
Constitutional Convention of 1839-
1830; 339-337.
Convention of 1839-30; 339-^7.
Cooper, Dr. T.; 333.
Courts of U. S.; 76-100.
Crawford, W. H.; 130, 156, 160, 163,
179, 186, 316.
Cumberland Co.; 113n.
DaUas, A. J.; 301.
Daniel, Delegate in H. of D., 1799; 73.
Davis, A.; 91.
Davis, J.; 104.
Dayton, J.; 30, 59.

Debts, British; 6, 7, 8.
Delaware; opposes embargo, 138.
Democratic Societies; 33, 33, 34.
Dewey's Financial history; 35n.
Disunion; 70, 333, 327.
Dodd, W. E.; 36n, 307n.
Douglas, S. A.; 104.
Duane, W.; 167.
Dubois' Suppression of slave trade;
106n.
D' Yrujo, Spanish Minister; 163.
Early, P.; 104, 105.
Edmunds, Col.; 8.
Eggleston, J.; 71.
Eggleston famUy; 4.
Ellsworth, O.; 31, 93.
Embargo; 115, 133-145, 180, 197, 304.
Eppes, J. W.; 90, 107, 189.
Erskine, D. M.; 150, 163.
Eustis, W.; 149.
Excise; 13.
Fairfax, Denny; 43.
Fairfax Devisee vs. Himter's Devisee;
43.
Fairfax lands; 41, 43.
Farmer's Register; 316.
Farrand, M.; 79n, 86n.
Findley, W.; 33, 38, 79n.
Fisk, J.; 163.
Florida, West; 159.
Fluvanna Co.; 113n.
Fontaine, James ; 3n.
Fontaine, WilUam; 3.
Ford, P. L.; 33n.
Ford's Jefferson; 33n, 63n, 73n, 79n,
81n, 91n, lOln, 123n, 139n, 14<te,
SlSn.
Ford's Washington; 39n, 69n.
France, war with U. S.; 51-58.
Franking privUege; 30.
FrankUn, J.; 189.
Fredericksburg; 63, 113n.
Fries, J.; 98.
Fugitive slave biU; 88.
Gallatm, Albert; 16, 47, 89, 114, 133,
135, 136n, 147, 148, 150, 165, 156,
168, 169, 175, 185-195, 197.
Gantt, Dr.; 168.

Index

265

Garnett, J. M.; 105.
Gay's Madison; 33n.
Gengt, E. C; 37.
German, O.; 167, 188, 189.
Gerry, E.; 67.
Gibbs, G.; 46n.
Giles, John; 3.
GUes, WiUiam; 3, 3.
GUes, WilUam Branch; birth, 3; ex
ecutor of father, 3; youth, 4; at
Hampden-Sidney CoUege, 4; at
Princeton, 4, 5; at WUliam and
Mary, 5; admitted to practice law,
5; early career at bar, 6; in Brit
ish debt cases, 6, 7, 8; at Va. con
vention of 1788, 8; elected to Con
gress, 9; in 3d session of 1st Cong.,
11; on Com. on MU. Affairs, 11;
opposes miUtia BiU, 11; opposes
excise, 13; opposes bank bUl, 13,
14; an anti-f ederaUst, 16; re
turned to 3d Congress, 16; his
manner of speaking, 16, 17; pres
ent at Congress, Oct. 34, 1791, 17;
attitude toward reapportionment,
17, 18; opposes bounties, 19; op
poses franking privUege, 19; op
poses Hanulton's poUcies, 30; pre
sents resolutions attacking HamU
ton, 30; introduces 5 resolutions
attacking HamUton, 31; again at
tacks HamUton, 23, 33, 34; investi
gates defeat of St. Clair, 36; visits
John Taylor, 36; in 3d Congress,
37; avows friendship with France,
37; supports Madison's resolutions
for increased duties, 38; opposes
navy, 39; favors sequestration of
debtsf 30; defends France, 30;
votes for Clark's resolutions, 31;
opposes Jay as envoy, 33; visits
Jefferson, 32; in Congress, Nov. 7,
1794, 32; defends Democratic so
cieties, 33; views on tiUed foreign
ers, 34; opinion of slavery, 34; on
treaty making power, 44, 45, 46;
discusses Jay's treaty, 47, 48, 49;
on Washington's last message, 53;
marries Miss Tabb, 53; opinion of

J. Adams, 54; attitude towards
France, 56, 56, 57; defends Mon
roe, 56n; on a navy, 57; attends
Congress, Feb. 7, 1798, 67; on
slaves in the West, 59, 60; resigns
from H. of R., 63; elected to Gen.
Assembly of Va., 63; on Va. re
solutions, 65, 66, 69, 70; in As
sembly, 1799, 71, 73; for separa
tion, 71; instructions to Va. Sena
tors, 73; elector in 1800, 74; con
gratulates Jefferson, 76; on Judi
ciary system, 80; leader in the
House, 83; discusses Judiciary
system, 83; defends navy, 88; op
poses a mint, 88 ; for fugitive slave
bin, 88; on reapportionment, 88;
for admission of Ohio, 89; on in
ternal improvements, 89; ill-health,
91; letter to Madison 1803, 93; ap
pointed senator, 93; his theory of
impeachment, 95; views on Chase's
trial, 97, 98, 99; carries through
act for gov't of Orleans, 99, 100;
in senate, Dec. 1806, 101; injured
in accident, 101; on importation of
slaves, 104; on Monroe's treaty,
108; withdraws from jury at
Burr's trial, 109; on Burr's trial,
110; resolutions on Chesapeake
outrage, 113; attends Congress,
Jan. 7, 1808, 115; his treason bill
116, 117; personal appearance,
118; opposes expulsion of Smith,
130; supports Madison for presi
dency, 133, 134; manager for
Madison for Va., 136, 136; sup
ports embargo, 130; proposes bill
for enforcement of embargo, 135,
136; defends bill for enforcement
of embargo, 137; supports non-
intercourse vrith Gt. Brit., 140;
opposes selection of Gallatin as
Sec'y of State, 148; his policy to
ward Gt. Brit, in 1810, 164; speech
on non-intercourse act, 151; chair
man on foreign affairs, 161; op
poses Madison and Gallatin 156,

266

WiLLLAM Branch Giles

156; his votes on Macon biU, 158;
second marriage, 158; speech on
Bank of U. S., 163; theory of
right of instruction, 164; loses
popularity in Va., 167; opposes
nomination of Monroe as Sec'y of
State, 171; belongs to War party,
173; chairman of Foreign Affairs
Com., 174; speaks on war bills,
174; in favor of regular army,
177; cites Washington for regular
army, 178 ; defends navy, 179 ; votes
against embargo, 180; Ritchie's
letter in Enquirer, 181; votes for
declaration of war, 183; votes for
additional ships, 186; hostile to
Gallatin, 186-196 ,•¦ approves sea
men's bill, 188; opposes sending
Gallatin to Russia. 190; writes
Address to peonle of Va., 193; op
poses Maryland Memorial for
peace, 197; reports war bills, 199;
chairman Com. on Military Affairs,
199; supports Madison, 199, 300;
0PT)0ses National bank bill, 302;
retires from Congress, 304, 305;
letter to Barbour, 205; in retire
ment, 210; supports State rights,
311; letters in the Enquirer, 310,
311, 313; or)poses Monroe's poli
cies, 1824, 209, 211; opposes J. Q.
Adams, 216; letters in Enquirer,
1835, 317; candidate for Senate,
1825, 218; candidate for Congress,
1836, 318; elected to Legislature,
318; elected governor, 318; op
poses convention bill, 319; views
on slavery and free negroes, 321;
views on tariff, 334; discusses
slavery, 336; opposes Adam's
candidacy, 336; views on secession,
338; member of Va. Const. Con.,
228, 330; views on constitution of
1776, 230; manner of speaking,
232; defends const, of 1776, 333;
views on separation of Va., 335;
his "basis" speech, 335; views on
state judiciary, 336; elected to

Legislature in 1830, 337; dies, Dec.
4, 1830.
GUman, N.; 189.
Goochland Co.; 90.
Goodrich, C; 46n, 136, 137, 154n.
Granger, G. ; 149.
Great Britain; attitude of U. S. to
ward, 38-33; Monroe's treaty, 107;
apology for Chesapeake outrage,
114.
Green, D.; 218n.
GrenviUe, Lord; 43.
GrenviUe lands; 43.
Grigsby, H. B.; 8n, 36n, 6Sn, 87n,
145n, 336n.
Griswold, R.; 89.
Grundy, F.; 173.
Gunn, J.; 86.
Gwynn, Frances A.; 158.
Gwynn, T. P.; 168,
Habeas corpus; 70n, 106, 107.
Haley, J. C; 337.
Hamilton, Alex. ; recommendations,
1790, 13; resolutions presented by
Giles against, 30; answers resolu
tions, 31, 33; Giles's 9 resolutions
against, 33, 33; triumph of, 34;
named as envoy to Gt. Brit, 31;
defends Jay's treaty, 38; on treaty
making power, 46; essay by, 86n.
HamUton, P.; 149.
Hamilton's Monroe; 135n, 171n.
HamUton's RepubUc; 32n, 28n, 39n.
Hampden-Sydney CoUege; 4.
Hampton; 113n.
Hancock, Geo.; 49;
Harper, R. G.; 55n, 58, 69.
Harrison's campaign; 179.
Hay, G.; 137, 314.
Hawkins, B.; 36, 91.
Heath, John; 43.
Henderson, A. N.; 87n.
Henry, John.; 180.
Henry, Patrick; 6, 13n, 71, 73.
Henry's Henry; 71n, 73n.
Heth, W.; 93.
HilUiouse, J.; 38, 118, 130, 134, 144n,
154.

Index

267

HoUand, J.; 43.
House of Representatives; apportion
ment, 17, 18, 19.
Howe, J.; 144n, 183n.
Hunt, G.; 30n.
Hunt's Madison; 139n, 183n, 319n.
Impeachment; 95.
Impressment; 188.
Jackson, A.; 53, 303, 318, 336.
Jackson, "Copenhagen"; 153.
James's Struggle for rel. lib.; 4n.
Jay, John; 31, 33.
Jay treaty; 36-60.
Jefferson, J. G.; 39.
Jefferson, Thos.; his opinion of Giles,
6, 7n; organizes a party, 15, 16;
resolutions attacking Hamilton,
31; comments on GUes's attack on
Hamilton, 34n; Virginia's loss of
slaves, 39; on Jay's treaty, 45n;
candidate for presidency, 51; to
John Taylor, 61; to S. T. Mason,
63; sends Ky. resolutions to Madi
son, 63; Madison's report, 1799,
73n; letter to Rowan, 70n; con
gratulated by Giles, 76; principle
as to appointments, 79; removal of
ofScials, 81; message, Dec. 8, 1801,
80; letter to GUes, Feb. 33, 1806,
101; message, Dec. 1806, 103; on
3d term, 123; on embargo, 129;
returns to Va., 146; deplores dis
sensions in Madison's cabinet, 168;
hostUe to MarshaU, 308; on U.
S. courts, 309; financial diificulties,
313; interested in agricultural so
cieties, 315; attitude on Adam's
candidacy, 236; favors new con
stitution for Va.; 339.
Jefferson Co.; 183.
Jones, W.; 168, 190.
Judges, removal of; 77, 78, 79, 97.
Judiciary act of 1801; 93.
Judiciary system; 80, 83, 84.
Kentucky; 173.
Kentucky resolutions; 63.
King, C; 300.
King, R.; 31, 80, 189, 190, 191.

King and Queen Co.; 113n.
King's King; 31n, 49n.
Knowles, Bethenia; 3.
Knowles, John; 3.
Lafayette, Marquis de; 336.
Latrobe's journal; 6n.
Lee, H.; 64, 73.
Leib, M.; 151n, 160, 167, 187, 188, 189.
Leigh, B. W.; 103n, 137, 166.
Leopard (ship) ; 113.
Lewis, J.; 189.
Licensing act; 304.
Lincoln, L. ; 138.
Livingston, E. ; 5, 44, 63.
Lloyd, J.; 130, 134, 137, 154, 179.
Locke, J.; 334.
Lodge's HamUton; 33n, 71n, 85n.
Lodge's Washington; 31n, 38n.
Louisa Co.; 113n.
Louisiana; 99, 100, 159.
Lynchburg; 113n.
Mac Duffie; 336.
Macon, N.; 16, 36, 43, 53, 83, 105,
136.
Macon BiUs; 157, 158.
Madison, James; letter of introduc
tion to, 10; an Anti-federalist, 16;
resolutions attacking Hamilton,
21; defends resolutions against
HamUton, 23; resolutions for in
creased duties, 38, 39; opinion as
to titled foreigners, 34; on com.
on President's message, 44; dis
cusses Jay's treaty, 47; on Wash
ington's last message, 63; receives
Ky. resolutions from Jefferson,
63; resolutions by, 64; in As
sembly, 1799, 73; report 1799, 73;
on Va. resolutions, 68, 69; letter
from Giles, 1803, 91; letter from
Giles on iU-health, 93; Yazoo
claims, 133; Randolph's opposition
to, 133; nominated for Pres., 134;
elected President, 137; on em
bargo, March 8, 1808, 129; sus
pends non-intercourse with Gt.
Britain, 150; proclaims non-inter
course act in force, 163; recom-

268

William Branch Giles

mends volunteer force, 164; op
posed by Giles, 155 ; Giles's opinion
of, 169; War of 1812, 171-184; 2d
nomination for presidency, 181;
nominates Gallatin to Russia, 190-
191; closing of the war, 196-206;
financial difficulties, 213; president
Albemarle Agric. Soc'y, 216; com
ments on resolutions of 1836, 319;
member convention 1829-30, 230.
Magruder's MarshaU; 38n, 61n.
Manchester, 113n, 183.
Marbury vs. Madison; 94.
Marshall, John; introduces Giles to
Madison, 10; envoy to France, 57;
return from France, 61; insulted
at Fredericksburg, 63; candidate
for Congress, 71, 83; in Va. Const.
Con., 87; Marbury vs. Madison, 94;
criticized by GUes, 117; cited by
GUes in favor of regular army,
178; McCuUough vs. Md., 207; on
commission for internal improve
ments in Va., 208; Pres. of Agric.
Soc'y, 214; member convention of
1829-30, 331; in conv. of 1829, 336.
Martin vs. Himter's Lessee; 307.
Mason, George; 8, 333.
Mason, J.; 189.
Mason, S. T.; 36, 37, 43, 43, 63, 87.
Massachusetts; 138, 138.
Maury, Ann; 3n.
McLaughlin, A. C; 41n, 69n.
McMaster's U. S.; 32n, 30n, 31n, 38n,
49n, 61n.
Meade, W. M.; 78.
Meade's Old Churches; 3n, 4n.
Mercer, in H. of D. in 1799; 73.
Merry, A.; 150.
MUitia; 199, 200, 303.
Mint, 88.
Mississippi Territory; 59.
MitcheU, S. L.; 117, 130.
Monroe, James; on British debt cases,
6; proposition in regard to British
debts, 43; letter from Roane, 73;
letter to Taylor, 1803, 91; treaty
with Gt. Britain, 101-111; letter

from Giles, Mar. 4, 1807, 103; as
successor to Jefferson, 133, 123,
134, 125; defeated for presidency,
1808, 137; becomes Sec'y of State,
167, 168, 169; Giles opposes his
nomination as Sec'y of State, 171;
on factions against Madison, 193;
policies attacked by G%s, 1824,
209; financial difficulties, 313;
Vice-pres. Agric. Soc'y, 314; mem
ber convention 1839-30, 330; on
slavery, 333.
Moreau de Saint-MSry's Voyage; 61n.
Moore, A.; 130.
Morrison, A. J.; 6n.
Morse's Jefferson; 81n.
Murray, W. Vans; 33, 38, 80.
National bank; 13, 15.
National bank bUl; 303.
National InteUigencer; 323.
NaturaUzation laws; 34.
Navigation acts; 40.
Navy; 39, 73.
New England; attitude toward war of
1812; 196, 198.
New York (State) ; 173.
Nicholas, G.; 63.
Nicholas, J.; 60.
Nicholas, W. C; 63, 63n, 64, 73n, 87,
109, 114n, 133, 134, 139, 140, 147,
148, 168, 173.
Nicholson, J.; 96, lOln, 103, 130n.
Niles, H.; 333.
NorfoUs; 38, 40, 74, 113, 319, 327.
Norfolk Co.; 39.
Non-intercourse act with Gt. Britain;
140, 150, 151.
North Carolina; 43.
NuUiflcation; 68, 69.
Ohio; 88, 89.
Olmstead case; 308.
Orange Co.; 113n.
Orders in council; 150, 153.
Orleans, Territory; 99, 100.
Otis, H. G.; 58.
Overton, Mrs. W.; 3n, 54n.
Page, J.; 92.
Parker, J.; 31.

Index

269

Pendleton, E.; 71.
Pennsylvania; 173.
Petersburg; 5, 6, 38, 113, 227.
Peyton family; 63.
PhiUips, U. B.; 34n.
Pickering, J.; 94.
Pickering, MSS.; 16n, 71n.
Pickering, T.; 16n, 88, 134, 138, 154.
Pinckney, C. C; 55, 66, 57, 80.
Pinckney, T.; 51.
Pinkney, Wm.; 107, 139.
Pleasants, H. R.; 331.
Pope, J.; 117, 130, 159.
Port Royal; 113n.
Porter, P. B.; 173, 173, 177.
Portsmouth; 113.
Powhatan Co.; 38, 90, 113n.
Presbyterians; 3.
Princeton CoUege; 4.
Quids; 103, 183.
Quincy, J.; 136, 145, 154, 313.
Raleigh, parish; 4.
Ramsay's South Carolina; 144n.
Randall's Jefferson ; 46n, 49n, 63n, 73n,
73, 109n, 149n.
Randolph, J.; on armory at Rich
mond, 70; on Jefferson's attitude
toward FederaUsts, 81; Chairman
of Ways and Means Committee, 83 ;
defends Giles, 86; Consults with
Giles on Chase's trial, 95; Mana
ger in Chase trial, 97, 99 ; Criticizes
Jefferson and Cabinet, 101, 103;
on importation of slaves, 104, 105;
foreman of Grand jury in Burr
trial, 110; Anti-judiciary attitude,
120n; desires Monroe for Presi
dent, 133, 133; 134; opposes con
cuss, 135; intrigues for Monroe,
126, 137; on southern violations
of embargo, 144n; tells Quincy
Embargo was ruining Virginia,
145; an independent under Madi
son, 146; on Giles's speech on Bank
of U. S., 165; on Smith faction,
167; opposes declaration of War,
183; defeated by J. W. Eppes,
189; opens breach among Repub
Ucans, 198; on Giles's retirement.

306; in Strict Construction party
of Virginia, 308; on economic con
dition of Virginia, 313; duel with
R. B. Taylor, 319; in convention,
1839; 30, 331.
Randolph, P.; 137.
Randolph, T. M. ; 140n, 316.
The Recorder; 91.
Representation in Congress; 17, 18, 19,
88.
Representation in Va. legislature;
333.
Resolutions of 1798; 61.
Rhode Island; opposes embargo, 138.
Richmond; 61, 73, 113n, 183, 327.
Richmond Society for promoting agri
culture; 314.
Ritchie, T.; 139, 167, 168, 173, 181,
305, 308, 318, 333, 336, 337.
Roane, S.; 73, 93, 139, 173, 307, 308,
309.
Rodney, C. A.; 149, 165.
RoyaU, W. L.; 13n.
Ruffin, E.; 315.
Rowan, A. R.; 70n.
Rush, B.; 8L
RusseU, J.; 191, 193n.
Rutledge, E.; 45n.
Schoepf 's Travels; 6n.
Schouler's History; 13n, 19n, 22n, 23n,
36n, 38n, 39n, 31n, 37n, 80n, 83n,
90n, 138n, 153n, 304n.
Seamen's biU; 188.
Secession; 61, 68, 196, 337, 336.
Sedgwick, T.; 44, 46n.
Sedition act; 61, 63, 64, 67, 68, 73.
Seybert's Statistical annals; 144n.
Semple's Virginia Baptist; 3n.
Sequestration of debts; 30.
Sheffey, D.; 189, 300.
Sitgreaves, S. ; 44.
Slaves, loss of, by Va. in Rev.; 39,
47.
Slaves, importation of; 104.
Slavery, 36; views of Giles, 34; in
Mississippi territory, 69; in Va.,
232.
Smilie, J.; 28.
Smith, John, Sen. from Ohio; 130.

270

William Branch Giles

Smith, Robert; 114n, 146-170.
Smith, Sam'l; 38, 106, 109, 130, 146,
170, 187, 188, 189.
Smith, Sam'l Stanhope; 4.
Smith, Wm.; 33, 38, 57, 80.
Smith faction; 146-170.
South Carolina; 173, 333.
Southern States; effect of embargo on,
144; econonuc condition, 1820-30,
313; tariff in, 314.
Sprigg, R.; 58. ,
St. Clair, defeat of; 36.
Stanwood's history of pres. elections;
138n.
State control of mUitia; 303.
State rights; 207-337.
Stolo, Caius Licinius; 1.
Stone, D.; 189.
Story, J.; 119, 139, 140n, 143.
Strong, C; 31.
Suffrage in Va.; 333.
Sumner, C; 176.
Swartwouts, emissary of Burr; 107.
Tabb, John; 53.
Tabb, Martha Peyton; 53.
Tabb family; 4, 63.
Tariff; 313, 314, 333, 334.
Tarleton, B.; 3.
Taylor, Creed; 103, 136.
Taylor, G. K.; 64, 65, 66, 73.
Taylor, John of CaroUna; GUes visits,
36; writes Confidential Memoran
dum for Madison, 30; talks seces
sion, 61; Jefferson writes to, on
Va. Resolutions, 63; offers Va.
Resolutions, 64; in debate on Va.
Resolutions, 69n; returned to As
sembly, 73; on Committee on
Governor's Message, 73; Monroe re
grets absence of, from Congress,
91; Jefferson writes to, on 3d
term, 133; stimulates Monroes dis
content, 133n; intrigues for Mon
roe, 136, 137; receives letter on
Monroe's exoneration, 171 ; in strict
Construction party, 308; dies in
1824, 309; president of Richmond
agri. society, 316.

Taylor, R. B.; 319.
TazeweU, H.; 36, 43, 43.
TazeweU, L. W.; 318n, 334, 336.
Tennessee; 173.
Tiflin, E.; 130n.
TiUed foreigners; 34.
Tracy, U.; 38.
Treason biU; 113-131.
Treasury Dept.; 31.
Treaty making power; 44, 46.
Trigg, A.; 106.
Troup, G. M.; 176, 300.
Turner, F. J.; 313n.
Turner, J.; 186.
Tyler, J.; 166, 308, 334.
Tyler's Lives and Times of the Tylers;
166n.
University of Va.; 215.
Van Tyne's Webster; 190n, 193n.
Varnum, J. B.; 300n.
Venable, A. B.; 5, 13n, 36, 53, 93, 214.
Venable, R. N.; 6.
Venable, Sam'l; 6.
Virginia ; convention of 1788, 8 ; banks,
13n; denounces Jay's treaty, 38;
British debts, 38; slaves carried
off by British, 39, 47; loss in the
Revolution, 39, 47; West Indian
trade, 40; British debts in, 43;
elections after the negotiation of
Jay's treaty, 43; petitions for Jay's
treaty, 48; resolutions of 1798, 61-
76; in 1798, 69, 70; campaign of
1799, 71; judges in 87; supports
embargo, 139; effect of embargo,
145; attitude toward Bank of
U. S., 160; banks in, 161; favors
war, 181; Supreme Court, 307
state rights in, after 1813, 307-237
economic condition, 1830-30, 213
slavery, 313n, 327, 232; agricul
tural societies, 314; Const, conven
tion, 339-337; constitution of 1776,
329; separation of, 336.
Virginia Gazette and General Adver
tiser, 91.
Volunteer biU; 178, 179.
War of 1813; 171-184, 196-306.

Index

271

Warfield, E. D.; 63n.
Washington, G.; opposes Democratic
societies, 33; Virgima slaves lost
in Rev., 39; message on Jay's
treaty, 44; message on treaty mak
ing power, 46; retirement, 51; con
fers with MarshaU, 63 ; in campaign
of 1799, 71, 73; citied by GUes in
favor of regular army, 178; on
agric. societies, 314.
Webster, D.; 190n, 193.
WeUs, W. H.; 191.
West Florida; 159.
West Indian trade; 108.
Westmoreland Co.; 113n.
White, S.; 130.

Wigwam ; 54.
Wilkinson, J.; 97, 110.
Wilkinson, MUes; 39.
WiUiam and Mary College; 63.
WUson's Division and reunion; 314.
Wirt, W.; 135, 137, 146, 168.
Wise, in H. of D., 1799; 73.
Wishart, Thos.; 39.
Woodhouse, E. J.; 43n, 336n.
Worthington, Col.; 93.
Wright, R.; 176.
Wythe, Geo.; 38.
Wythe Co., Va., Democratic Society;
33.
Yazoo claims; 101, 103, 133. & -<f.

3 9002 00573 5494

^^--ir.S: "

- \

r^r^v

'*¦' ^¦'m- -¦'^r'" ' tV ^ 1 >¦ ' '

. a;:-