Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow 1822. - The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, vol. 4 (1794-1826)

Return to Title Page for The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, vol. 4 (1794-1826)

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Political Theory
Topic: The American Revolution and Constitution

1822. - John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, vol. 4 (1794-1826) [1893]

Edition used:

The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, ed. Henry P. Johnston, A.M. (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1890-93). Vol. 4 (1794-1826).

Part of: The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, 4 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


1822.

JAY TO THE EDITOR OF “THE AMERICAN.”

Bedford, Westchester County, N. Y.,
8th January, 1822.

Sir:

On Saturday last I received a printed paper (which I had not before seen), taken from one of the numbers of the American, in these words—viz.:

“We state as a historical Fact, that the present Constitution of this State was actually adopted by the Convention then Sitting at Kingston on Sunday—and the adjournment from the Saturday to Sunday was, if we are correctly informed, on motion of John Jay.”

In 1776 my father removed with his family from Rye to Fishkill. On the 17th day of April, 1777, my mother died there. Notice of that afflicting event was immediately sent to me; I thereupon went without delay from Kingston to Fishkill, where I attended my mother’s funeral, and where (for obvious reasons) I remained some time with my father and family. The Constitution was adopted during my absence from Kingston,—viz.—on the 20th day of that same month of April.

Be pleased to publish this letter in your next paper.

I am, sir,
Your obedient servant,

John Jay.

GEORGE A. OTIS TO JAY.

Quincy, 19th February, 1822.

Sir:

I did not receive your very kind and very gratifying communication of the 13th January, 1821, until after I had rejoined my family in this place; and consequently, not till after it was too late to profit, in passing homeward, of your very obliging permission to pay you my respects personally; a satisfaction which I regret in proportion to the just sense I have of its value.

Your remarks on the first volume of Botta, confirmed as they were by Presidents Adams and Jefferson, were communicated to the reviewers of my translation of that author, and were by them introduced into their account of the work published in the North American Review for July, 1821.

. . . . . . . .

With respect to the animadversions which you did me the honor to address to me upon the first volume, and which I took the liberty to communicate to the late Presidents Adams and Jefferson, the former of these gentlemen wrote me as follows:

“I cannot refrain from expressing the pleasure I have received from the reasoning of Mr. Jay upon the passage in Botta, ‘that anterior to the Revolution there existed in the colonies a desire of independence.’ There is a great ambiguity in this expression. It is true, there always existed in the colonies a desire of independence of parliament in the articles of internal taxation and internal policy, and a very general, if not an universal opinion, that they were constitutionally entitled to it, and as general a determination, if possible, to maintain and defend it; but there never existed a desire of independence of the crown, or of general regulations of commerce, for the equal and impartial benefit of all parts of the empire. It is true, there might be times and circumstances in which an individual or a few individuals might entertain and express a wish, that America was independent in all respects; but these were ‘rari nantes in gurgite vasto.’ For example, in 1756-57 and ’58, the conduct of the British generals, Shirley, Braddock, Loudon, Webb and Abercrombie, was so absurd, disastrous and destructive, that a very general opinion prevailed that the war was conducted by a mixture of ignorance, treachery and cowardice; and some persons wished we had nothing to do with Great Britain forever. Of this number I distinctly remember, I was myself one, fully believing that we were able to defend ourselves against the French and Indians, without any assistance or embarassments from Great Britain. In ’58 and ’59 when Amherst and Wolfe had changed the fortune of the war, by a more able and faithful conduct of it, I again rejoiced in the name of Briton, and should have rejoiced in it to this day, had not the king and parliament committed high treason and rebellion against America, as soon as they had conquered Canada and made peace with France. That there existed a general desire of independence of the crown in any part of America before the Revolution, is as far from truth as the zenith is from the nadir. The encroaching disposition of Great Britain, it was early foreseen by many wise men in all the States, would one day attempt to enslave them by an unlimited submission to Parliament, and rule them with a rod of iron. That this attempt would produce resistance on the part of America and an awful struggle, was also foreseen but dreaded and deprecated as the greatest calamity that could befall them. For my own part, there was not a moment during the Revolution when I would not have given everything I possessed for a restoration to the state of things before the contest began, provided we could have had a sufficient security for its continuance,” etc., etc.

Mr. Jefferson says in fewer words:

“I confirm, by my belief, Mr. Jay’s criticisms on the passages quoted from Botta. I can answer for its truth from this State southwardly, and northwardly I believe to New York, for which State Mr. Jay himself is a competent witness. What, eastward of that, might have been the dispositions towards England before the commencement of hostilities, I know not; before that I never had heard a whisper of a disposition to separate from Great Britain; and after that, its possibility was contemplated with affliction by all,” etc.

With many acknowledgments for the attentions with which you have deigned to honour my undertaking, and the encouraging tone with which you were pleased to cheer me on to its accomplishment, I pray you to be assured of the profound veneration and perfect esteem of, sir,

Your much obliged and most humble servant,

George Alexander Otis.

JAY TO EDWARD LIVINGSTON.

Bedford, 28th July, 1822.

Sir:

On the 20th inst. I received a copy of your report to the General Assembly of Louisiana, under a cover directed to me. To whom I am indebted for it, does not appear; the impression of the seal, which is that of your family, leads me to conjecture that you have had the goodness to send it. There are various important remarks and reflections in it which I believe to be just; and there are others whose weight I cannot venture to estimate, without more thought and investigation than the state of my health admits of I will, however, take the liberty of suggesting a few hints on two of the topics.

That the government of a State should have authority to appoint “particular days for rendering thanks to God” for any signal blessing, or imploring his assistance “in any public calamity,” is certainly proper. But, can any of our governments be rightfully restrained from providing for the observance of the Sabbath, which the Sovereign of the universe had instituted, and which our Saviour has assured us “was made for man”?

Again—Can any government be justifiable in exempting murderers from the punishment of death, in opposition to the positive declaration of the Almighty to Noah, and through him to all his posterity, that “whosoever sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed”; not, I presume, at the discretion of private individuals, but under the cognizance and by the authority of government?

Accept my thanks for this mark of friendly attention.

I am, sir,
Your obliged and obedient servant,

John Jay.