72-15,198

DICKSON, Charles Ellis, 1935- POLITICS IN A NEW NATION: THE EARLY CAREER OF JAMES MONROE.

The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1971 History, modern

University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Copyright by

Charles Ellis Dickson

1972 POLITICS IN A NEW NATION:

THE EARLY CAREER OP JAMES MONROE

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

Charles Ellis Dickson, B.S., M.A. ######

The Ohio State University 1971

Approved by PLEASE NOTE:

Some pages have indistinct print. Filmed as received.

University Microfilms, A Xerox Education Company ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Among the many people who have helped me in my graduate studies at Ohio State, I wish in particular to thank my adviser,

Professor Mary E. Young, and my wife, Patricia.

This work is dedicated to my father, John McConnell Dickson

(1896-1971).

ii VITA

13 June 1935 . . . Born— Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

1957 ...... B.S., Indiana University of Penn­ sylvania, Indiana, Pennsylvania

1957-1958 . Active Duty as Second Lieutenant, U.S.A.R., Port Lee, Virginia

1958-1966 . Social Studies Teacher, Churchill Area Schools, Pittsburgh, Pennsyl­ vania

1961 ...... M.A., University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

196^ . Pulbright Grant for Study and Travel in Prance and Great Britain

1967-1970 . Teaching Associate, Department of History, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1970-Present . . . Assistant Professor, Department of History, Geneva College, Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania

FIELDS OF STUDY

Jefferson-Jackson. Professor Mary E. Young

Colonial America. Professor Bradley Chapin and Assistant Professor Paul G. Bowers

Tudor-Stuart. Professor R. Clayton Roberts

Modern Britain. Professor Philip P. Poirier

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... ii

VITA ...... ill

Chapter

I. EVALUATING JAMES MONROE ...... 1

II. BEGINNING A POLITICAL CAREER IN EIGHTEENTH- CENTURY V I R G I N I A ...... 22

III. SERVING IN CONGRESS...... 48

IV. DEVELOPING WESTERN INTERESTS ...... 69

V. DEFENDING THE W E S T ...... 89

VI. DECIDING ON A C A R E E R ...... 123

VII. OPPOSING THE CONSTITUTION...... 140

VIII. OPPOSING THE FEDERALIST GOVERNMENT FROM THE S E N A T E ...... 168

IX. CONCLUDING REMARKS ...... 195

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SOURCES CITED ...... 202

lv CHAPTER I

EVALUATING JAMES MONROE

James Monroe had a long and generally successful career in public service. As Francis Walker Gilmer, a neighbor of Monroe's, noted in 1816, Monroe had "succes­ sively occupied almost every station of public confidence which his native state or the national government could confer"; and, he judged, "There have been few more zealous, indefatigable or useful servants of the public than James 1 Monroe."

While Monroe's two terms as president (1817-1825) are now his best remembered years, his long career, which corresponds generally to the life of the Republican Party, began during the American Revolution and continued into the

^Sketches of American Statesmen," Richard Beale Davis, Francis Walker Gilmer: Life and Learning in Jeffer­ son's Virginia; A Study in Virginia Literary Culture in the First Quarter of the Nineteenth Century (Richmond, Va.: Deitz Press, 1939), pp. 353-54. Detailed chronological out­ lines of Monroe's career can be found in Ian Elliott, ed., James Monroe, 1758-1831: Chronology— Documents— -Biographi­ cal Aids, Oceana Presidential Chronology Series (Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.: Oceana Publications, Inc., 1969) and in Curtis W. Garrison, ed. with David L. Thomas, asst. ed., Guide to the Microfilm Edition of James Monroe Papers in Virginia Repositories ([Charlottesville, Va.:J University of Virginia Library, 1969).

1 early years of the Jacksonian Era. Monroe's first acts of public service were military, for he was an officer in the

Continental Army while still in his teens and then became an officer and military commissioner in Virginia. Even before the Revolutionary War was officially over, Colonel

Monroe entered political life. He was elected to the

Virginia House of Delegates in the spring of 1782 and then almost immediately was placed on Virginia's Council of

State. In 1783 he was elected to the Congress of the Con­ federation, where he served with distinction for three years. He was then elected again to the House of Delegates and played a prominent role, on the Antifederalist side, in the Virginia convention called in 1788 to consider the rati­ fication of the Federal Constitution. After the adoption of the Constitution, Monroe ran unsuccessfully against James

Madison for a seat in the new United States House of Repre­ sentatives but soon afterwards secured a place in the

United States Senate. There he became a prominent leader of the opposition to the Washington Administration until

179^, when Washington appointed him American minister to

France. He remained in that country for two years, until

President Adams recalled him, whereupon he was elected governor of Virginia. He was in the last possible consecu­ tive year in that office when President Jefferson sent him back to France, where he took part in negotiations for the purchase of Louisiana. When he returned to the United States

In 1807, after failing to negotiate a treaty with Great

Britain which Jefferson could accept, some dissatisfied

Republicans made Monroe a presidential candidate. When he lost to Madison, Monroe made his peace with the Republican leadership and again became governor of Virginia for a short while, and then secretary of state, and sometimes acting secretary of war, In Madison's cabinet. He then succeeded Madison In the presidency. After eight years in the White House, he attempted to retire from public service but was elected a member of the convention on the Virginia constitution. This meeting, filled with such distinguished

Virginians as James Madison and John Marshall, further honored Monroe by electing him to preside over that body.

After Monroe's death, John Quincy Adams praised his

"long and illustrious career in war and peace";2 but, despite the many Important state and national offices which

Monroe had held during the eventful early years of the

United States, scholars have written very little of sig­ nificance about him. Although many have commented on

p An Eulogy: on the Life and Character of James Monroe, Fifth President of the United States. Delivered at the Request of the Corporation of the City of Boston, on the 25th of August, 1831 (Boston: JL H"I Eastburn, City Printer, 1831), P ■ 18■ "a near famine of recent publications about the man and his presidency,"3 it appears that no one has ever written a doctoral dissertation on any aspect of Monroe's life other than his connections with the Monroe Doctrine. Many writers of general histories have discussed the last part of Monroe’ public career, especially the period when he was secretary of state and president;** but Monroe rarely receives much attention for his important activities during the last two decades of the eighteenth century. Merrill Jensen, for example, can write an entire book on the Confederation period, The New Nation, discussing details of the time when

Monroe was one of the major figures in Congress, without making more than three references to him. Jackson Turner

Main's The Antifederalists likewise contains only a few incidental references to Monroe, although he was the only

Antifederalist leader to become president. In addition, many historians have written about the Republican Party

^Elliott, James Monroe, p. 8l; cf. Stuart Gerry Brown, The First Republicans: Political Philosophy and Public Policy in the Party of Jefferson and Madison (LSyracuse, N .Y.:] Syracuse University Press, 195^)> p. 173

**Probably the first historians to consult the Monroe Papers (then in the Dept, of State and now in the Library of Congress) were John Robert Irelan, The Republic: or, a History of the United States of America in the Administra­ tions, From the Monarchic Colonial Days to the Present Times (18 vols.; Chicago: Fairbanks and Palmer Publishing Co., 1887-88), esp. Vol. V, subtitled History of the Life, Admin­ istration, and Tlmesof James Monroe, Fifth President of the United States and James Schouler, History of the United States of America, under the Constitution (7 vols., rev, ed. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company [189^-1913])• 5 without emphasizing Monroe?s important role in its founding: for example, Joseph Charles in his The Origins of the Amer­ ican Party System mentions Monroe only three times.^

Unfortunately, no contemporary of Monroe has left an adequate account of his career; and a recent biblio­ graphic survey of his period concludes that the "figure of £ James Monroe has yet to find a superior biographer."

Other than a long eulogy by John Quincy Adams, only four book-length biographies have been published on Monroe. The first, not published until the last part of the nineteenth century, was Daniel Colt Gilman's biography in the American

Statesmen series. Barely more than a sketch, it accomplished only the most basic scholarly spadework; and yet the next biography did not appear until 1921, when George Morgan produced a popular account consisting mainly of extensive

^The New Nation: A History of the United States During the Confederation, 1781-1789 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1950), pp. 35b, 403, 41U-19; The Antifederalists: Critics of the Constitution, 1781-1788 (Chapel Hill: Uni- versity of North Carolina Press for the Institute of Early American History and Culture at Williamsburg, Va. [1961])» pp. 15, 113, 131, 140, 224, 283; The Origins of the American Party System: Three Essays, with a Foreword by Frederick Merk, Harper Torchbooks— The Academy Library (New York: Harper & Brothers [1961]) pp. 82, 124, 127.

^Morton Bordon, Parties and Politics in the Early Republic, 1789-1815, The Crowell American History Series (New York: Thomas Y . Crowell Company [1967]), p. 108. There is a brief Autobiography of James Monroe, ed. and with an Introduction by Stuart Gerry Brown, with the assistance of Donald G. Baker ([Syracuse, N.Y.:] Syracuse University Press [1959]), hereinafter referred to as Monroe, Autobiography. quotations from previous histories of the period. The next major biography, entitled The Last of the Cocked Hats, is not a traditional biography; for the author, Arthur Herman

Styron, attempts to fit Monroe's life into a general review of American history starting with the discovery of the New

World. As Styron1s book is filled with minor errors and lacks bibliographical footnotes, the only really scholarly modern biography of Monroe remains the one published in

19^7 by friends of William Penn Cresson, who had died in 7 1932 leaving his work incomplete. One other fairly recent book about Monroe— Lucius Wilmerding, Jr.'s James Monroe:

Public Claimant— also deserves mention, even though it is not really a biography but rather an extensive study of

Monroe's claims for more money from the United States

Government based upon his services to his country, espec­ ially in the diplomatic field.® Harry Ammon, who plans to publish a book-length biography in the near future, has

^Gilman, James Monroe: In His Relations to the Public Service During Half a Century, 1776 to 1826^ Amer­ ican Statesmen Series, Vol. XIV (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1883); Morgan, The Life of James Monroe (Boston Small, Maynard and Company [1921]); Styron, The Last of the Cocked Hats: James Monroe & the Virginia Dynasty (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 19^5); and Cresson, James Monroe, with an Introduction by M. A. De Wolfe Howe (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press [19^6]). Q (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press [I960]). 7

written many articles which touch on Monroe's career.^

No doubt one of the principal reasons why few scho­

lars have attempted to make a detailed study of Monroe's

life has to do with the sources. Unfortunately, for those

wishing to examine the original manuscripts, they are

scattered throughout the country, and the ones that are

published are scattered throughout the printed correspon­

dence of other early American statesmen.10 Unlike the cur­

rent efforts to print the complete writings of such found­

ing fathers as Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton in a highly

professional manner, no one seems to be planning a more modern edition of Monroe's correspondence; and so the only major printed collection of Monroe's papers is therefore

Agricola Versus Aristides: James Monroe, John Marshall, and the Gen&t’’’Affair in Virginia," Va. Mag, of History and Biography, LXXIV (July, 1966), 312-320; "The Formation of the Republican Party in Virginia, 1789-1796," Journal of Southern History, XIX (1953 )> 283-310; "The Gen$t Mission and the Development of American Political Parties," Journal of American History, LII (March, 1966), 725-41; "James Monroe and the Election of 1808 in Virginia," Wm. and Mary Quarterly, 3d Ser., XX (Jan., 1963), 33-56; "James Monroe and the Era of Good Feelings," Va. Mag, of History and Biography, LXVI (Oct., 1958), 387-98; "The Jeffersonain Republicans in Virginia: An Interpretation," ibid., LXXI (April, 1963), 153-67; and "The Richmond Junto, 1800-1824," ibid., LXI (Oct., 1953), 395-418.

10The U. of Va. is developing a union list of Monroe's papers, many of which are now available on microfilm. Major repositories often contain some Monroe correspondence, large collections being found in the National Archives (about 6,750 items, mainly official papers from l8ll on), the Libra­ ry of Congress (about 4,800 items), the New York Public Library (about 1,300 items), and the library at the U. of Va. (about 2,000 items). the one which a librarian and amateur historian published at the turn of the century.11

Another problem is that Monroe’s handwriting is often almost illegible; and historians face the additional 1 ? obstacle of his "plain, spiritless style"; for, to de­ scribe Monroe's rhetoric— even in what he wrote specifically for publication— historians ofr,en use the adjective

"turgid."1^ Julian P. Boyd, who has read a large quantity of late eighteenth-century prose in connection with editing the complete papers of Thomas Jefferson, refers to Monroe's

"characteristic awkwardness" and speaks of a Monroe "Whose use of language left much to be desired and whose punctua­ tion was sui generis."1^ Philip M. Marsh, a professor of

English who has studied extensively the political writings

The Writings of James Monroe, Including a Col­ lection of His Public and Private Papers and Correspondence Now for the First Time Printed, ed"! by Stanislaus Murray Hamilton (7 vols.; New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1898-1903), hereinafter referred to as Monroe, Writings. This work mainly Includes letters from Monroe (presently housed in the Library of Congress) printed with minor in­ accuracies and often with coded passages undeciphered.

^Irelan, Republic, V, 24.

■^E.g., Harry Ammon, "The Republican Party in Vir­ ginia, 1789 to 1824" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Univ­ ersity of Virginia, 1948), p. 123, hereinafter referred to as Ammon, dissertation; Brown, First Republicans, p. 97*

The Papers of Thomas Jefferson (17 vols. to date; Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1950— ), VJI, 292n and 277n, hereinafter referred to as TJ, Papers (Boyd). of the Federalist era, sums up Monroe's literary ability this way:

In fact, of all the prominent political writers of his day, his style is perhaps the least facile. It Is orderly but lumbering, forceful In a slow- gathering momentum, devoid of any striking feature. It uses little sarcasm and is usually devoid of humor. Its merits are a deep seriousness, a convic­ tion of righteousness, and a dogged persistence.15

It should be noted in Monroe’s defense, however, that he was writing political pamphlets during the partisan strug­ gles of the 1790's (while Jefferson "contributed almost nothing over his signature to the polemic literature of that turbulent decade") and that Monroe exhibited a talent for defending himself during this period when making a defense was what counted: "Monroe, by vigorous attack on 16 his tormentors, an attack more clever than fair, survived."

Another major reason why scholars tend to ignore

Monroe is that his Virginian contemporaries overshadowed him. Even though Stuart Gerry Brown finds much to admire about Monroe, he points out the rather obvious fact that

Monroe "has always been considerably obscured by the shadows of Jefferson and Madison"; or, as Allen Johnson more simply puts it, Monroe suffers from being "the last,

1^"James Monroe as 'Agricola' In the Gen©t Controver­ sy, 1793," Va. Mag. of History and Biography, LXII (Oct., 1954), 476.

■^Marshall Smelser, "The Jacobin Phrenzy: Federal­ ism and the Menace of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity," Review of Politics, XIII (October., 1951), 476 and 48l. 10 and perhaps least talented, President of the Virginia

Dynasty.,rl7 Most historians, in fact, seem unable to re­ sist comparing Monroe with Jefferson and with Madison, and not to Monroe's credit. Even James Schouler, who can write quite favorably about Monroe, admits, "Of the great Virginia trio Monroe had the least originality, and remains perhaps the least remarkable"; Herbert Agar agrees that he "posses­ sed neither the imagination of Jefferson nor the knowledge of Madison"; and Harry Ammon finds that Monroe’s "approach to statescraft was vastly different from that of his two more famous colleagues" because, unlike them, he was "neither a philosopher nor a scholar."1® It seems that most histor­ ians of the early national period would prefer to do re­ search on supposedly kindred spirits like Jefferson or

Madison rather than on a less Intellectually oriented figure such as Monroe would appear to be.

Many historians also find Monroe a less than compel­ ling personality. Stuart Gerry Brown admits that he was

"sober-sided"; and Herbert Agar finds that Monroe "seems so

■^Brown, First Republicans, p. 28; Johnson, Jeffer­ son and His Colleagues: A Chronicle of the Virginia Dynasty, The Yale Chronicles of America Series (textbook ed.: New York: United States Publishers Association, Inc. [1921]), p. 265. 1®Schouler, History, II, 510; Agar, The Price of Union (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1950), p. 197; Ammon, "Era of Good Feelings," p. 387* 11 colorless In retrospect" because he "lacked humor, charm, and any form of Impressiveness.!,19 Richard Hofstadter was initially reluctant to include Monroe in a recent political study, for he found him, like Martin Van Buren, "neither a glamorous figure in our political annals nor an important thinker.1,20

In particular, many scholars seem to be discouraged from concentrating on Monroe because they sense in him what

Edward M. Shepard calls his "mediocrity" and Alexander

DeConde his "moderate abilities."21 This feeling is quite apparent among the patrician historians of the nineteenth century. Theodore Roosevelt, for example, describes Monroe as "a very amiable gentleman, but distinctly one who comes

In the category of those whose greatness Is thrust upon them"; and, accordingly, he preferred to write about Monroe’s 22 political foe, the aristocratic Gouverneur Morris. Some

1 Q ^Brown, Alexander Hamilton, The Great American Thinkers Series (New York: Washington Square Press, Inc., 1967), p. 19; Agar, Price of Union, pp. 197-98. 20 The Idea of a Party System: The Rise of Legitimate Opposition in the United States , 1780-18'40 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1969), p. viii. 21 Shepard, Martin Van Buren, American Statesmen Series, Vol. XVIII (rev. ed.; Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin and Company [1899])» P- 89; DeConde, Entangling Alliance: Politics & Diplomacy under George Washington (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1958), p. 344. 22 Gouverneur Morris, American Statesmen Series, Vol. VIII (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin and Company, 1889), p. 293. 12

writers have gone so far as to call Monroe "simple-minded"

or "stupid," one even exclaiming that "one wonders how he

could ever have been famous for anything that required

brains."23

Probably such uncomplimentary conclusions have

been influenced by similar statements made by some of Mon­

roe's contemporaries, especially by political figures who

were not his close friends. An anonymous pamphleteer op­

posing Monroe’s election to the presidency in l8l6 furnishes

us with an explicit example: "This slowness of comprehen­

sion, and want of penetration and decision in Col. Monroe, 24 have been conspicuous throughout his political life."

President John Adams, who had fired Monroe for what he con­

sidered to be partisan activities while representing the

United States in France, characterized him as "dull, heavy, and stupid.The grandiloquent Senator Thomas Hart Benton

of Missouri opined that President Monroe of Virginia "had none of the mental qualities which dazzle and astonish man­

23j. a . Lovat-Fraser, "President James Monroe and His Doctrine," London Quarterly and Holborn Review, CLX or 6th Ser., IV (July. 1935), 372; cf. ibid., p. 37T~and also Albert J. Beveridge, The Life of John Marshall (4 vols. in 2, 2d ed.; Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company [1947]), I, 407 and II, 144. ^ Exposition of Motives for Opposing the Nomination of Mr. Monroe for the Office of President of the United States (Washington: Jonathan Elliot, 1816), 'p'. IT".

25Quoted In Page Smith, John Adams (2 vols.; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1962), II, 933. 13 kind."28 While negotiating the Monroe-PInkney Treaty, Lord

Holland found him "somewhat slow in his apprehension. "^7

Hugh Blair Grigsby, a Virginia statesman and writer who was acquainted only with an aging, slightly deaf Monroe, described his faculties as "neither very large, nor very bright.1,28

But contemporaries who were reasonably close to

Monroe for a long period of time— while they agreed that he was not the most brilliant of men— qualified such uncompli­ mentary remarks. Judge Francis T. Brooke, who had practiced law with Monroe, thought that, although Monroe was "a slow man, he possessed a strong mind and excellent judgment."2^

Patrick Henry, a long-time political ally of Monroe, echoes this, calling Monroe "slow, but give him time and he was 30 sure." William Wirt, whom Monroe would later make his attorney-general, admits in an essay which went through many

26 Quoted in Gilman, James Monroe,, p. 210.

2?Quoted In Agar, Price of Union, p. 197. pQ The History of the Virginia Federal Convention of 1788, with Some Account of the Eminent Virginians of That Era Who Were Members of the Body, with Additional Material ed. by R. A. Brock, Collections of the Virginia Historical Society, New Ser., Vols. IX and X (2 vols.; Richmond, Va.: Virginia Historical Society, 1890-91), I, 168. 29 ^"Some Contemporary Accounts of Eminent Characters: From 'A Narrative Of My Life for My Family,1 By Judge Francis T. Brooke," Wm. and Mary Quarterly, 1st Ser., XVII (July, 1908), 4 . ------

3°Quoted In Grigsby, Virginia Federal Convention, I, l68n. i4 editions: "Nature has given him a mind neither rapid or rich; and therefore, he cannot shine on a subject which is entirely new to him"; but despite this, Monroe had "a judgment solid, strong and clear"; he had "amassed a store of knowledge"; and he was "a safe and an able counselor.'1^

Moreover, many people recognized Monroe's abilities very early in his career. During the Revolutionary War both

Alexander Hamilton and George Washington, despite later op reconsideration, considered Monroe to be "sensible.

General Charles Lee believed that young Monroe was too much embarrassed to show his abilities, and so he admonished him:

". . . you wou'd appear one of the first characters of this country, if your shyness did not prevent the display of the knowledge and talents you possess."33 The brilliant, learned

Jefferson recognized early In Monroe's career the abilities

^ The Letters of the British Spy (8th ed.; Baltimore: Fielding Lucas, Jun". [ 18 2 I ),pp. 109-10 ; the author remained anonymous until the 10th ed. (1832).

■^Hamilton to Lt. Col. John Laurens, 22 May 1779, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, ed. by Harold C. Syrett, with Jacob E. Cooke, assoc, ed. (11 vols. to date; New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1961— ), II, 52-54, hereinafter referred to as Hamilton, Papers (Syrett); Washing­ ton (draft in Hamilton's writing) to Archibald Cary, [22] May 1779, The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799, Prepared under the direction of the United States George Washington Bicentennial Commis­ sion and published by authority of Congress (39 vols.; Wash­ ington: United States Government Printing Office, 1931-44) XV, 198-99, hereinafter referred to as Washington, Writings (Fitzpatrick).

33Letter of 18 June 1780, Monroe, Writings, I, 3n. 15 and merits of this young man who soon became his "particular

friend.Indeed, Monroe started his political career with a good reputation among many of the distinguished political

leaders of Virginia; in 1782 Edmund Pendleton told James

Madison that the newly-elected Monroe was "said to be

c l e v e r . "35 At the end of his life Madison still supported

this early judgment of Monroe, saying, "His understanding

has been much underrated; his judgment was particularly good. . . ."36

The first impression which Monroe made probably in­

fluenced those who remained unimpressed by Monroe's mental

abilities. The youthful eagerness which he radiated doubt­

less helped to disguise his abilities from some people.

James Schouler, who believes that Monroe had a "greater

capacity for growing" than did Madison, points out that by

the time Monroe became president he "had passed into ripe

manhood so gradually that the companions of his youth might

easily underrate still his intellectual strength." In fact,

3^Unpresented letter introducing Monroe by Jefferson to B. Franklin, J. Adams, and J. Jay, 5 Oct. 1781, TJ, Papers (Boyd), VI, 126.

35Letter of 15 April 1782, The Letters and Papers of Edmund Pendleton, 173^-1803* ed. by David John Mays (2 vols.; Charlottesville, Va.; University Press of Virginia for the Virginia Historical Society, 1967)3 II3 390, hereinafter re­ ferred to as Pendleton, Letters.

36Quoted in William 0. Stoddard, Makers of American History: James Madison, James Monroe, and John Quincy Adams (New York: A~. Hill & Company, 1904), pp^ 222-23. 16 when Schouler first wrote about Monroe, he failed to notice this development himself and in the revision of his work

(made after Henry Adams published his history of the period) he had to change his characterization of Monroe’s "youthful ardor" to "matured ardor."^

Along with this youthful quality Monroe usually exhibited an innocent frankness and simplicity which could easily be interpreted as awkwardness and lack of polish.

Monroe’s neighbor, Francis Walker Gilmer, praises Monroe's

"captivating frankness" and "disqualifying humility" which went "directly to the heart." In a similar vein, William

Wirt finds Monroe lacking in sophisticated manners:

To be plain there is often in his manner an inarti­ ficial and even an awkward simplicity, which, while it provokes the smile of a more polished person, forces him to the opinion that Mr. [Monroe] is a man of most sincere and artless soul.39

According to Grigsby, Monroe "never attained the easy freedom of a well-bred man"; for he lacked "those accomplish­ ments which amuse, instruct, and adorn the social sphere"; and his speaking manner was "awkward, warring at once with the common laws of motion and the established rules of pro­ nunciation"; but he had a "strong common sense" and "his

37-History, II, 188, 510, 357, and (original 1882 ed.) II, 322. ^"Sketches of American Statesmen," Davis, Francis Walker Gilmer, pp. 353-5^.

•^British Spy, p. 109* 17 real education was on the stage of a busy life.’1**0 Gilmer agrees that Monroe's concentration upon a public career prevented him from developing "literary attainment" and that his mind's character was "formed for business and ac­ tion rather than for fine intellectual exertion"; neverthe­ less, because of Monroe's "sound judgement" Gilmer can compare Monroe favorably with the other two members of the

Virginia Dynasty: "Mr. Jefferson's mind is the most capac­ ious, Madison's the most rapid, Monroe's the most sure. One has most learning, another most brilliancy, a third most judgement.

Lack of formal education was not responsible for this unpolished impression which Monroe gave to some people.

He had studied at a small private school under the Reverend

Alexander Campbell. Many prominent Virginians, including

Patrick Henry and William Wirt had never gone beyond such schools "though they spoke and wrote fluently with full- Jj ? blown classical embellishments." In addition, Monroe had studied for avhile at the College of William and Mary before leaving to join the army; and after his military experiences, he was privileged to study law and more general subjects

^ Virginia Federal Convention, I, 168, 172, 167, 170.

^"Sketches of American Statesmen," Davis, Francis Walker Gilmer, pp. 353-5*1.

^Richard Beale Davis, Intellectual Life In Jeffer- son's Virginia, 1790-1630 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press 1.196*0) * p. 3*1; see also ibid., pp. 50 and 68. 18 under Thomas Jefferson. Moreover, Monroe's many years in public service discouraged provincial thinking; not only did he spend long periods of time at the various federal capitals— even marrying an English-born New York lady— he also had two extended sojourns in Europe. We can assume, therefore, that if Monroe did not appear sophisticated and polished in his manners, it was from personal choice rather than from lack of knowledge.

Although Monroe was not noted for conversational brilliance, learning, or social flair among the Virginia gentry, many statesmen, including the clever Madison and

Jefferson, respected Monroe's considered judgment on political matters. It was the product of considerable experience and hard work. Wirt attributed Monroe's able counsel to the fact that his "patient and unwearied industry has concentrated before him all the lights which others have thrown on the subjects of his consideration, together with all those which his own mind, by repeated efforts, is en- /j ? abled to strike." William Cabell Rives, a Virginian politician who also studied under Jefferson, makes a similar analysis, saying that Monroe had "a basis of good sense and sound judgment, fortified by untiring application and indominable perseverence, which made him equal to every

^^British Spy, p. 110. 19 exigency of public affairs." Monroe's extant correspon­ dence makes it quite clear that throughout his life he customarily sought the advice of the most able and experi­ enced men he could find. George Bancroft, with his char­ acteristically florid style, makes this habit seem to be a weakness:

No man liked better than Monroe to lean for support on the minds and thoughts of others. He loved to spread his sails in a favoring breeze, but in threat­ ening weather preferred quiet under the shelter of his friends.^5

Nevertheless, being aware of the opinions of others not only improved Monroe's judgment but gave him a distinct political advantage.

Seeking the advice of others no doubt also helped

Monroe to develop what Cresson calls "his genius for friend- ship." Although Monroe failed to display this genius in his rather dry letter-writing, he seems to have been a rather likeable person, and despite a long career in politics, made few lasting enemies. One instance will suffice to il­ lustrate Monroe's attractive personality. Early in 1786

William Temple Franklin wrote Jefferson, who had given him

^ History of the Life and Time of James Madison (3 vols.; Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1859-68), II,

20“21* 4:>History of the Formation' of the Constitution of the United States' of America (2 vols.; New York: D"! Apple­ ton and Company, 1882), I I , 100-01.

^ James Monroe, p. 95. 20 a letter of introduction to Monroe, in order to thank him for the "Pleasure I receive in the Acquaintance of Col.

Munro [sic ]11 because he had "found him very sensible and agreable, and possessing those pleasing Manners, which take off from the formality of a new Acquaintance and smooth the 14 7 Way to Friendship."

While this incident also Illustrates that not every­ one was in agreement about Monroe's manners, practically everyone who came into contact with Monroe agreed about his integrity. When they were friends during the Revolutionary

War, Alexander Hamilton described Monroe as "a man of honor.Gilmer warmly admired "his private virtues."^9

Grigsby commented on Monroe's "moral hardihood. Jeffer­ son, who knew Monroe longer and much more intimately than these other gentlemen, summed up Monroe's honest character in what has become a classic quotation: responding to

William Temple Franklin's letter thanking him for intro­ ducing him to Monroe, Jefferson replied, "You have formed a just opinion of Monroe. He is a man whose soul might he

^Letter ^ Jan. 1786, TJ, Papers (Boyd), IX, 178-79. ^Letter to Lt. Col. John Laurens, 22 May 1779, Hamilton, Papers (Syrett), II, 53-5*1-

^"Sketches of American Statesmen," Davis, Francis Walker Gilmer, pp. 353—5^-

^ Virginia Federal Convention, i, 167. turned wrong side outwards without discovering a blemish to the world.

People therefore usually liked Monroe and respected his judgment and his character. Monroe had a real desire to serve the public and his praiseworthy traits encouraged many people to help advance him in his political career.

^Letter of 7 May 1786, TJ, Papers (Boyd), IX, 466; cf. Jefferson to Madison, 30 Jan. 1787 ■. Ibid. , XI, 97. CHAPTER II

BEGINNING A POLITICAL CAREER IN

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY VIRGINIA

When Monroe began his career in government, Virginia still had a tradition of fairly peaceful politics stretching far back into its colonial past. With its House of Burges­ ses In existence since 1619, Virginia possessed a longer his­ tory of representative government than any other British col­ ony; and yet, in comparison with other colonies with much shorter legislative histories, its past contained few events which would Indicate the prevalence of Intense, long-lasting political bitterness and Intrigue. Many factors contributed to this relative tranquility during Virginia's colonial period, some of which still influenced politics when Monroe won his first elections in 1782. Probably the most impor­ tant factor was the long domination of Virginia’s political and social affairs by a homogeneous group of men who usually agreed on the fundamentals of governmental policy because they shared common interests and had equal, or nearly equal, status. Scholars usually describe early Virginian govern­ ment as aristocratic. Even a recent detailed examination of colonial election record^ which concludes that "Virginia

22 23 was far more democratic than we have been led to believe in the past,” finds that, of their own free will, "with almost no exceptions, the people chose men above the average in 1 economic and social status for their representatives."

The House of Burgesses therefore consisted exclusively of

locally prominent men; in fact, running for office insured recognition of a person's social standing. A survey of bur­ gesses' tax records indicates that in 1773 between five-

sixths and seven-eighths of the 122 members of the House had inherited their property, the median amount of property being 1,800 acres of land and 40 slaves. Moreover, as another researcher concludes, the House was firmly in the

control of great planters because over half of the leaders,

as shown by committee memberships, were connected by blood 2 or marriage to one of the great families. This being the

case, one would expect that such factions as did from time

■^■Robert E. Brown and B. Katherine Brown, Virginia, 1705-1786: Democracy or Aristocracy? (East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University Press L1964]), pp. 307 and 227. Charles S. Sydnor makes similar conclusions in American Revolutionaries in the Making: Political Practices Tn~~ Washington's Virginia [originally published in~1952 as Gentle­ men Freeholdersj (New York: Free Press [1966]), passim.

2Jackson Turner Main, "Government by the People: The American Revolution and the Democratization of the Legis­ latures," Wm. and Mary Quarterly, 3d Ser., XXIII (July, 1966), 396; Jack Pi Greene, "Foundations of Political Power in the Virginia House of Burgesses, 1720-1776," Wm. and Mary Quar­ terly, 3d Ser., XVI (Oct., 1959), 489-90. Oreene qualifies his conclusions by pointing out that one-third to one-half of these leaders were not so related and that not all mem­ bers so related were in positions of legislative leadership. 24

to time arise among this acknowledged ruling class of the

Old Dominion were more likely to be based solely on personal

or family ties rather than upon class divisions or political

issues. Not until the American Revolution did issues pro­ mote the organization of a primarily political faction in

Virginia. Accordingly, during the colonial period, Virginia

experienced less intense factional turmoil than anywhere else

in British North America.

The electorate, confined to freeholders with a pro­ perty requirement nearly all adult white males could easily meet, appeared content to be ruled by the leading local gentry. For this reason Virginian society is commonly de­

scribed as deferential; but this does not mean that all

aristocrats were assured of election; even incumbents or

sons trying to succeed their fathers lost elections— to other aristocrats. The ordinary Virginian probably re­ mained satisfied because he found these patricians unlike

English courtiers. "They were not a close-knit group representing only a few 'aristocratic' families which 'ruled' by heredity or something akin to divine right."^ Instead, they were a loose association of hardworking country gentry, imitating an idealized English society, being conscious of the responsibilities that went with their privileges, feel­ ing secure in their social position, and therefore attempting

•a JBrown and Brown, Virginia, 1705-1786, pp. 146 and 239. to practice the ideal of noblesse oblige. Despite the fact that many in government believed that there was nothing un­ ethical in using governmental influence, to improve their personal economic situation (especially by obtaining favors in connection with land speculation) the prevailing philo­ sophy of the Enlightenment seemed to help keep this ruling class from becoming self-seeking, oppressive rulers. They constantly used such words as "reasonable" and "disinterested 4 and seemed to mean them.

The Whig Ideology also impeded the development of divisive, more broadly-based political groups in Virginia by stressing that the purpose of government was to keep the society orderly and by condemning factious political opposi­ tion. As the intellectual historian Gordon S. Wood explains:

As long as politics remained such a highly personal business . . . the Whig distinction between country and court, legislature and executive, people and rulers, remained a meaningful conception for describing American politics.5

Perhaps the memory of frontier turmoil also encouraged this desire for order, even after the Virginian society had ap­ parently achieved sufficient integration. Certainly the presence of British authority in colonial government rein-

^Tilfred E[llsworth] Binkley, American Political Parties: Their Natural History (2d ed.; New York: Alfred PT. Knopf, 1949), p. 74; Dumas Malone, "The Great Generation," Va. Quarterly Review, XXIII (Winter, 1947), 111-13 and 115-16 ^The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787 (Chapel HTlT: University of North Carolina Press for the Institute of Early American History and Culture at Williams­ burg, Va., 1969), p. 76. forced this Ideology and likewise served to keep Virginians united against royal incursions into their colony, and thus— to use a currently popular expression— the situation tended to polarize along colonial-crown lines. Even though the

British-appointed governor was dependent upon the colonial elite's support, the imperial relationship prevented any colonial political group from seizing complete control of both the executive and legislative branches of a colonial government, and accordingly prevented such factions as did exist among the colonials from evolving Into more permanent and responsible political parties.

This situation changed with the attaining of inde­ pendence from Great Britain. James Monroe and other young aspiring political leaders now had to operate in a new, less stable political environment where disintegrative forces could easily disturb the previous tranquility. These rising politicians found it difficult to identify government with the whole, well-ordered society because government now was more obviously controlled by only a part of society. Polit­ ical struggles could now occur among the people themselves, who had replaced the distant sovereignty of the British crown. For many years Monroe's contemporaries in Virginia failed to realize the long-range effect of such a fundamental change, and so they did not perceive the need to organize political parties among the people. The Patriot faction, which might have evolved into a political party (i.e. a permanent organization) began to break up in Virginia even before the Revolutionary War had been won. (The quarrel be­ tween Thomas Jefferson and friends of Patrick Henry indicates that this disintegration was occurring.) The relationship between the voter and his representative therefore remained a personal one rather than one determined by political is­ sues .

Independent Virginia, nevertheless, managed to con­ tinue its colonial practice of avoiding relatively intensive factional turmoil. One historian of legislatures of the

Confederation period finds that "political alignments were less consistent here and parties more rudimentary than in a state such as New York."^ After all, the constitution which

Virginia adopted in 1776 made few alterations in the struc­ ture of the old colonial government other than those few reforms obviously required to eliminate British authority formally from the state. The suffrage remained unchanged, and so did the manner of conducting elections. The free­ holders faithfully continued to send the members of their local elite to represent them in the new legislature. With­ out major changes the General Assembly of the independent

Commonwealth of Virginia continued the former House of Bur­ gesses and Council as the House of Delegates (the body with

Jackson Turner Main, The Upper House In Revolution­ ary America, 1763-1788 (Madison, Wise.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1967), p. 240. 28 real power) and the Senate (essentially a council of re­ vision). The governor's previous power, however, was . considerably weakened: He lost the veto power and could now act only with the consent of the Council of State, chosen not by him but by the legislature. This constitution, which continued in effect until the Jacksonian Era, there­

fore intensified the rule of the local elite by eliminating

the only legitimate competition it had faced during the colonial period and by making the Assembly, and in partic­

ular the House of Delegates, both of which the elite con- 7 trolled, the dominating element in the government. Thus,

late in the 1780's, when Jedidiah Morse surveyed all the

American states, he praised Virginia's political and mil­

itary character and then added regretfully:

But it is to be observed that this character has been obtained for the Virginians by a few eminent men, who have taken the lead in all their public transactions, and who, in short, govern Virginia; for the great body of the people do not concern themselves with politics— for that their government,

7 The Constitution of 1776 is found in Ben[jamin] Perly Poore, ed., The Federal and State Constitutions, Colo­ nial Charters, and Other Organic Laws of the United States, compiled under an order of the U.S. Senate (2 vols.; Wash- ington: Government Printing Office, 1877), II, 1910-12. The only change made before the Constitution of 1830 (which does not radically alter the situation either) was a reduc­ tion of the rural property qualification for voting from 100 acres to 50 acres of unimproved land, made in 1785 by statute; see William Waller Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large; Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature,' in the Year lbl^T (13 vols.; Richmond, Va.: Geo. Cochran, 1823), XII, T20-21. though nominally republican, is, in fact, oligarchal or aristocratical.°

Robert Michels would have found nothing contrary to his views in Morse's description of post-Revolutlonary

Virginia; for, according to this noted political philosopher

History seems to teach us that no popular movement, however energetic and vigorous, is capable of pro­ ducing profound and permanent changes in the social organism of the civilised world. The preponderant elements of the movement, the men who lead and nour­ ish it, end by undergoing a gradual detachment from the masses, and are attracted within the orbit of the 'political class.'

He believes that usually "there is not a simple replacement of one group of elites by another, but a continuous process of intermixture, the old elements incessantly attracting, absorbing, and assimilating the new."^ Although one may quarrel with Michels' "iron law of oligarchy" as a general rule, it does seem to apply to Virginia at this time; for, despite an increase in popular participation in politics during the struggle with Great Britain, the old elite con­ tinued in power by including new members, much as Michels describes.

Q The American Geography: or, A View of the Present Situation of the United States of America (Elizabethtown, N.J.: Shepard Kollack L 1789.1), p. 3&7• In this passage, unlike most of his section on Va., Morse was not quoting directly from Thomas Jefferson's Notes on Virginia.

^Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy^ trans. by Eden and Cedar Paul (Glencoe, 111.: Free Press [1958]), pp. 408 and 394. 30

Accordingly, when Monroe was beginning his career, the people of Virginia did not really have more power than they had possessed before 1776; and the changes taking place in their political leadership during the Revolutionary peri­ od were differences of degree, not of kind. Long before twentieth-century historians began to consider the American

Revolution as a social movement, historians had noticed that after Independence there were changes in who ruled at home.

In an influential Centennial essay on the Revolution's effect on politics, W. G. Sumner remarks, "Office was open to many who, before the war had little chance of attaining it."^

Similarly, David Ramsay, writing shortly after the Revolu­ tion, observes, "It seemed as if the war not only required, but created talents. To Dumas Malone, the Revolution which he calls "the catalytic agent" of the Great Generation of Virginian statesmen, helped to level the "peaks of econ­ omic privilege" which had existed in Virginia during the 12 colonial period.

This economic leveling may help to explain the rise of Monroe to political prominence, for his class certainly

10,,Politics In America., 1776-1786," North American Review, CXXII (Jan., 1876), ^8. Sumner also argues that the Revolution eventually resulted In shallower men (such as many have described Monroe) replacing abler statesmen.

~*~~*~The History of the American Revolution (2 vols; Philadelphia: R^ Aitken & Son, 1789), 11^ 316.

12"Great Generation," p. 115. 31 benefltted politically. A recent quantitative analysis of post-Revolutionary Virginian politics provides evidence for this conclusion: "Power thus shifted into the hands of the 13 lesser planters, the well-to-do rather than the wealthy."

In another detailed study of post-Revolutionary legislatures, the same historian concludes that in the General Assembly of Virginia the less-powerful Senate was "controlled by the large planter-businessmen class, the delegates by the lesser planters who came from respectable, but not eminent back- „ lli grounds."

Contemporaries also noted the rise of Monroe's class to greater political influence. A German traveling in Virginia during the Confederation period complained that, according to his Continental viewpoint, the legislators were often casually dressed and lacked decorum, declaring, "It is said of the Assembly: It sits; but this is not a just expression, for these members show themselves in every pos­ sible position rather than that of sitting still, with dig-

13]viain, "Government by the People," p. *102. Accord­ ing to this study the House of Delegates in 1785 was quite different from the House of Burgesses in 1773: members classified as ordinary farmers increased from 13% in 1773 to 26% in 1785; similarly, -members classified as wealthy de­ clined from 50# to 25$; the median property owned by members declined to 1,100 acres of land and 20 slaves.

-*-^Main, Upper House, p. 127- 32 TC nity and attention.” Another contemporary, who could speak from the Virginian viewpoint, noticed that during the

Revolution the legislature had become "composed of men not quite so well dressed, nor so politely educated, nor so highly born as some Assemblies I have formerly seen." He could have been describing Monroe, especially when he added:

They are plain and of consequence less disguised, but I believe to ye full as honest, less intrigu­ ing, more sincere. I wish the People may always have Virtue enough & Wisdom enough to chuse such plain men. . .

It was fortunate for the success of James Monroe's political career that the Revolution had increased the op­ portunities for political advancement of such men, but

Monroe would never have been able to put his foot on the political ladder in Virginia in the first place had he not been a member of the lesser gentry. Probably one of the major reasons why the voters of King George County elected

Monroe to represent them in the House of Delegates in the spring of 1782 was his acceptable family background. For many generations Monroe’s roots had been in the soil of

Tidewater Virginia where his ancestors had owned small but

■^Johann David Schoeph, Travels in the Confederation, ed. and trans. by Alfred J. Morrison (2 vols.; Philadelphia: William J. Campbell, 1911), II, 55.

1^Roger Atkinson to Samuel Pleasants, 23 Nov. 1776, "Letters of Roger Atkinson, 1769-1776," ed. by A. J. Mor­ rison, Va. Mag, of History and Biography, XV (April, 1908), 357. 33 respectable estates and had served in the Influential posi­ tions of justice of the peace and officer in the militia.

His father, Spence Monroe, a small planter who also seems to have been a carpenter, continued this family tradition of public service. The Monroes were therefore not low on the social scale, but they

never held the same state in society as the Lees, Washingtons, Allertons, Ashtons, and a few other great families of Westmoreland and King George counties— a fact which is shown by the absence of intermarriages and the inferiority of their estates and offices compared with these power­ ful neighbors.1'

James Monroe's acquaintances in King George were also aware of his commendable war record— he had even been wounded in action— and of his honorable character. He had left the Continental military service with regret, wishing

"that officers of reputation wo[ul]d continue in the service" and claiming, "Patriotism, publick spirit and disinterested­ ness have almost vanish'd, and honor and virtue are em[p]ty names." Returning to Virginia he could not secure a per­ manent command because he found himself "incapable of rais­ ing a sufficient proportion of men to take the field" as he would not obtain the necessary men "without using those

17hyon G. Tyler, "James Monroe," Wm. and Mary Quarterly, 1st Ser., IV (April, 1896), 274-75. Public records of the Monroe family's property in Va., beginning in 1650, are available on Roll 13, Ser. 3 of University of Virginia Library Microfilm Publication No. 7, James Monroe Papers in Virginia Repositories, hereinafter referred to as UVa Microfilm. 34 arts wh[ich] I wo[ul]d avoid and which no man of honor should use."-*-8

No doubt influence also played an important part in young Monroe's early political success. He was fortunate to have two close relatives who were prominent in the govern­ ment of Virginia and thus able to promote him. His father's first cousin was Colonel William Grayson, a former aide- de-camp of Washington who served Virginia and the United

States for many years, eventually becoming one of Virginia's first United States senators. (Monroe was elected to Gray­ son's office when his cousin died.) Of immense significance to Monroe was his uncle, the extremely Influential Joseph

Jones. This statesman, who was the brother of Monroe's mother, was able and willing to take a family interest in promoting Monroe's career, playing the role more normally associated with the father of a rising young public man.

Jones had been a member of the House of Burgesses, the

Committee of Safety in 1775, the Virginia Convention in

1776, and the Continental Congress, He had also served as a major-general of the Virginia militia and a judge of the

General Court, the highest court of Virginia.

l8Monroe to Col. John Thornton, 21 Nov. 1777, and to Maj. John Thornton, 3 July [1779?], Va. State Archives, Rejected Claim of John Thornton, 1818, UVa Microfilm, Roll 12, Ser. 2. 35 His high offices permitted Jones to correspond frequently with many important officials who could aid his nephew's career. For instance, when he wrote to the already politically important James Madison, he called attention to

Colonel Monroe's recent military activities in Virginia where he was temporarily commanding three hundred volunteer horse and Infantry.^ Jones also corresponded regularly with George Washington and was thus able to use his influ­ ence with that important Virginia gentleman to help his nephew. In one of these letters he indicated that he was deliberately observing how Captain Monroe carried out his duties— the implication being that Monroe was his protege or at least his potential proteg^— and Informed the busy

Washington that young Monroe was handling himself well. PO w

Actually Monroe Impressed Washington favorably, even without his uncle's help, when he served under him during the early years of the war, making battlefield recon­ naissance reports directly to him. In his memoirs Monroe writes of the "relation" between Washington and himself

■^Letter of 10 Nov. 1780, The Papers of James Madison, ed. by William T. Hutchinson and William M. E. Rachal (5 vol. to date; Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press [1962— ], II, 169, hereinafter referred to as Madison, Papers (Hutchinson). PO Letter of 11 Aug. 1777, Letters of Joseph Jones of Virginia, 1777-1787 [ed. by Worthington Chauncey Ford] (Washington: Department of State, 1889), pp. 1-2, herein­ after referred to as Jones, Letters. 36

"which had been formed between them in his early youth.

This relationship may even have begun before the war, for

Washington was a neighbor of the Monroe and Jones families

in Westmoreland County. Years later Lund Washington asserted

that the resulting acquaintanceship probably "had consider­

able influence with the General, in his bringing James Monroe

into public life in the flattering manner in which he did."^

Before Monroe returned to Virginia in 1779, he man­

aged to obtain a letter of recommendation from General

Washington to help him secure a command in the Virginia

militia. In this letter to the politically Influential

planter and industrialist, Colonel Archibald Cary, Wash­

ington described Monroe as "a brave and sensible officer" and earnestly wished "to see him provided for in some hand- 2 ? some way." 3 Especially when one considers their later

political enmity, it is of Interest to note that Alexander

Hamilton drafted this letter of Washington's. Hamilton was

quite fond of Monroe during the war. At the same time that

he drafted Washington's letter of recommendation, Hamilton

^ Autobiography, pp. 57-58; see also Monroe to Washington” 28 June 1778, Monroe, Writings, I, 1.

^Quoted in Edward S. Lewis, "Ancestry of James Monroe," Wm. and Mary Quarterly, 2d Ser., Ill (July, 1923), 172.

^Letter Qf [22] May 1779, Washington, Writings (Fitzpatrick), XV, 198-99; cf. Hamilton, Papers (Syrett), II, 5^; and Monroe, Writings, I, 2021n, where the letter is dated 30 May 1779. 37 also wrote Lie .tenant Colonel John Laurens, in words which echoed that letter, that Monroe was "a man of honor, a sensible man and a soldier." In a much lighter vein he added that Monroe was a knight errant who he hoped might find some military action that would "enable him to get p 2] knocked in the head in an honorable way."

Although Monroe was unable to use the Washington-

Hamilton letter successfully to further his military career, he utilized the letter quite ably to begin a new career for himself in politics. (It was probably the knowledge of how

Monroe had used this letter that prompted Lund Washington's aforementioned remark.) At least Monroe wanted General

Washington to feel that he was largely responsible for promoting his career, for he wrote his former commander to thank him for his interest and to inform him of how he had used his letter after It failed to help him obtain a mili­ tary appointment:

. . . in my application to my county In the first instance & in the subsequent appointment of the Assembly to the Executive Council of the State I have had the pleasure of experiencing y ’r friendly letter in my fav’r of essential service to me.25

That other people's essential services were just as important to Monroe may explain why Monroe waited several

2^Letter of 22 May 1779, Hamilton, Papers (Syrett), II, 52-54.

2^Letter of 15 Aug. 1782, Monroe, Writings, I, 19-22. 38 months after hi^ election before acknowledging Washington's influence, for other important Virginians were also noticing the young man. Somehow Monroe had become acquainted with

the rather shy Thomas Jefferson. Judge Jones advised his young nephew to cultivate Jefferson's friendship; and Monroe, who had previously asked for advice on this matter, proceded

to follow it. The friendship which developed between Jeffer­

son, who was experiencing difficulties as a war-time gover­

nor, and Monroe, who provided respectful companionship for

the troubled older man, continued almost without inter­ ruption for the rest of Monroe's years in government. It was to a great extent responsible for Monroe's ultimate

success in life; for, as Jones predicted about Jefferson,

". . . while you continue to deserve his esteem, he will 26 not withdraw his countenance."

Governor Jefferson soon commissioned his twenty-

two year old friend, who even with Washington's influence

had been unable to obtain a permanent command, to gather military news from the South for him, sending him "to hang

as near as he could about the enemy's principle [sic ] post."2?

2^Letter to Monroe, 1 March 1780, U.S. Library of Congress, Presidential Papers Microfilm, James Monroe Papers, Ser. 2, Reel 9, hereinafter referred to as Monroe Papers (LC).

2?Jefferson to Samuel Huntington, 28 June 1780, TJ, Papers (Boyd), III, 467-68; see also Jefferson to Monroe, 10 June 1780 and 16 June 1780, ibid., 431-32 and 451-52; and Monroe to Jefferson, 26 June 1780, ibid., 464-67• 39

Jefferson also helped Monroe by undertaking to tutor him in the law. These signs of approval by one of Virginia's foremost citizens drew the young man to the attention of many Virginians. Well aware of this, Monroe was suitably grateful, telling the Governor, "... whatever I may be in ? ft the future has greatly arose from your friendship." A few years later Monroe confided to a young friend, John

Francis Mercer, regarding Jefferson: "... I feel myself under obligation to him. I find myself bound by . . . my heart to gratify his wishes.He also made certain that prominent men realized that he was, in effect, Jefferson's protege; for example he informed Washington that he had

gone thro' that course w[hi]ch[,] in the opinion of Mr. Jefferson to whom I submitted the direction of my studies, was sufficient to qualify me in some degree for publick business.30

Monroe continued to lean upon Jefferson for help and advice. When he planned a trip abroad, Monroe requested

Jefferson to continue instructing him in the law; "for surely these acquirments [sic] qualify a man not only for publick office, but enable him to bear prosperity or adversity. . . with greater magnanimity and fortitude." ^ In his reply

28Letter of 9 Sept. 1780, ibid., 621-23.

“^Letter of 14 March 1783, Swem Library, College of Wm. and Mary. Monroe Papers, UVa Microfilm, Roll 12, Ser. 2.

3°Letter of 12 Aug. 1782, Monroe, Writings, I, 19-22.

31Letter of 1 Oct. 1781, TJ, Papers (Boyd), VI, 124- 25- Jefferson made several recommendations, including that of observing Parliament in action, because such prepara­ tions might "be of use when you shall become a parliamentary man, which for my country [i.e. Virginia] and not for your ■Dp sake, I shall wish to see you."J

Within a few months Jefferson had his wish, for

Monroe remained in Virginia where the people of King George

County elected him to the House of Delegates. Fifty-nine of the 150 delegates elected in the spring of 1782 were, like Monroe, serving for the first time. According to

Edmund Pendleton, many counties elected "the most able men, altho1 they did not offer themselves."33 Perhaps this was the case with Monroe, but he later spoke of his "application to his county after rejecting "the Idea of Insignificancy and indolence." It certainly was the case with ex-

Governor Jefferson, who was elected at the same time to represent Albemarle.

A month later Monroe wrote to tell Jefferson about his own election and to express "how very anxiously" he

“D p Letter of 5 Oct. 1781, U.S. Library of Congress, Presidential Papers Microfilm, James Madison Papers, Ser. 1, Reel 1, hereinafter referred to as Madison Papers.

■^Pendleton to Madison, 5 May 1782, Madison, Papers (Hutchinson), IV, 208-09; see also ibid., 152n.

’^Monroe to Washington, 15 Aug. 1782, Monroe, Writings, I, 19-22; Monroe to Maj. John Thornton, 3 July [1779?J, Va, State Archives, Rejected Claim of John Thornton 1818, UVa Microfilm, Roll 12, Ser. 2. 41 awaited Jefferson's arrival in Richmond. Perhaps he hoped that the experienced and influential Jefferson might be of use to him when he first entered the legislature.

More likely he had already heard that Jefferson was de­ clining to serve in government because his actions as governor had been questioned by former colleagues, who were still close to Patrick Henry, the most influential politician in the state and a man who had worked closely with Jefferson during the early years of the Revolution. After Monroe's first letter failed to bring a response, he tried again, this time urging Jefferson to serve and explaining with youthful enthusiasm why he had decided to enter politics himself: "The present is generally conceiv'd to be an important era. . . . I am warmly interested in whatever concerns the publick interest. . . .11 This tactful criticism led Jefferson finally to reply in a long letter, in which he expounded on the legal reasons why the House of Delegates could not force him to accept the office to which the people had elected him. As Jefferson had not answered the Speaker's letter, probably he intended for

Monroe to show this letter to his fellow delegates, who were considering having Jefferson arrested for failing to appear. At any rate, one of Monroe's first activities In

■ ^ L etter of 6 May 1782, TJ, Papers (Boyd), VI, 178-79.

36Letter of 11 May 1782, ibid., p. 183- the legislature was to show Jefferson's letter to several people (including Edmund Randolph, who reported this fact to Madison^?).

Monroe's action no doubt influenced the delegates to respect his friend's wish to withdraw from public life and contributed to the defeat of a proposed resolution for­ bidding resignations. Seeing Jefferson's letter to him may also have influenced the Assembly a few days later to elect

Monroe to the Council of State; for in this letter Jefferson also declared, "It gives me pleasure that your country has been wise enough to enlist your talents into their service."

It was customary in Virginia for the older political leaders to look for talented young men for possible future inclusion in their ranks, giving potential leaders positions of some responsibility and then observing their behavior. The Coun­ cil of State, or Privy Council, was not as powerful as the colonial council had been; but, when (on 8 June 1782) Monroe

"took his Seat at the board," being made one of eight privy

^Letter of 1 June 1782, Madison Papers, Ser. 1, Reel 1.

3®Letter of 20 May 1782, TJ, Papers (Boyd), VI, 18*1-87. Merrill D. Peterson, in Thomas Jefferson and the New Nation: A Biography (New York": Oxford University Press 1970), p. 243, calls this "a long and pathetic letter" and says (p. 244) that the House left Jefferson alone more because his wife was dying, ordering him into custody in the fall and then releasing him. 43 39 councilors was still an honor. This was especially true for a freshman delegate who had just passed his twenty-fourth birthday. About half a year later a visitor to a public house in Williamsburg met "a Col. Monroe, one of the Honor­ able Council, who appear'd to be a modest, well-behav'd Man,

But Rather young for a Counsellor."^0

The position of privy councilor involved the inexpe­ rienced young Monroe in important aecisions almost daily.

By the end of his first month in office the busy new councilor was concerned enough about his heavy responsibil­ ities to begin seeking help. Initiating what became his usual practice throughout his long political career— a practice which undoubtedly furthered that career— he con­ sulted the wisest and most knowledgeable statesmen he could persuade to advise him. He was already fairly well acquaint­ ed with the experienced Richard Henry Lee, who had previously written to his brother William in Europe to ask him to render

Monroe service when he arrived there on the trip he had

39councll of State Journal, UVa Microfilm, Roll 1, Ser. 1, also published by Wilmer L. Hall, ed., Journals of the Council of the State of Virginia [2 previous volumes ed. by H. R." McllwalneJ, III (Richmond, Va.: Virginia State Library, 1952), p. 104. Discussion of rewarding young talent is found in Sydnor, American Revolutionaries, p. 96.

i,0Entry for 25 Feb. 1783, "Journal of Alexander Macaulay," Wm. and Mary Quarterly, 1st Ser., XI (Jan., 1903), 188. 44 41 planned to make before his election to the House. Now, even though there were rumors that Jefferson's wife was dying, Monroe wrote to his old friend for help:

You have perhaps heard of my appointment in Council. Engag'd as you are in domestic duties permit me to assure you I wish regularly, as soon as circumstances will permit you, to correspond with you and to have your advice upon every subject of consequence.^

Although he was in retirement, Jefferson complied; and early the next year he received from Monroe a simple cipher of men and places for use in their correspondence.^3 This was the first of many such devices that they would exchange through the years.

Two days before making his request to Jefferson,

Monroe also offered to engage in similar correspondence with a complete stranger, but one whose high rank and reputation in the West had impressed Monroe. He proposed to George Rogers Clark that Clark furnish him with informa­ tion about the District of Kentucky's settlements, resources, defenses, and other matters which Monroe might need both for

William Lee to R. H. Lee, 22 Nov. 1782, Letters of William Lee, Sheriff and Alderman of London; Commercial Agent of the Continental Congress in France; and Minister to the Courts of Vienna and Berlin; 1766-1783, ed. by Worthington Chauncey Ford (3 vols.; Brooklyn, N.Y.: Histor ical Printing Club, 1891), III, 892; cf. Jones to Madison, 16 July 1782, Jones, Letters, p. 95.

^Letter of 28 June 1782, TJ, Papers (Boyd), VI, 192-93. ^Monroe to Jefferson, 8 Feb. 1783, ibid. , p. 233. public and private reasons; and Monroe promised in return to promote whatever might tend to be "honorable & advanta­ geous" to Clark. (He also suggested that his arrangement remain secret even from John May, a mutual friend.) True to his word, Monroe early the next year warned Clark, who had taken to drink, that the Council had been discussing his conduct and, in particular, his immense expenses in admin­ istering Kentucky, many of the councilors believing that

Clark unwisely had been giving his officers too much discre­ tion in making official purchases. Monroe informed his famous correspondent that he was being investigated offi­ cially and that he would have to return to Richmond as soon iili as it was convenient in order to defend himself.

By now, if he had not known it before, Monroe realized that even for a young man with the proper back­ ground and with powerful friends, "reputation is only to be acquir’d by filling with ability" the office in which the public had placed him. He remarked to his friend John

Francis Mercer that "Mr. Madison I think had acquir'd more reputa[tio]n by a constant & laborious attendance upon

Congress than he wo[ul]d have done had he dash'd from

Phil[adelphi]a" where the public expected him to be. He

^Letters of 26 June 1782 and 5 Jan. 1783, George Rogers Clark Papers, 1781-178*1, ed. by James Alton James, Collections of the Illinois State Historical Library, Vol. XIX, (Virginia Series, Vol. IV) (Springfield 111.: Trustees of the Illinois State Historical Library [1926]), pp. 68-69 and 178-8 0. also observed that "political connections are but slender

ties between men, that they commence mutually in a respect

for talents," and that just as public opinion was influ­

enced "by consistence and uniformity of conduct," so

"these connections will rather be strength1ned than weak'ned"

in the same way. It was therefore "not to these connections

that we are to look for ye good offices of friendship," 45 for Its warmth is confined to "a small compass."

Accordingly, while he was a privy councilor, Monroe began to build his life-long reputation for Industrious at­

tention to his duties. Although illness sometimes prevented his attendance in Richmond— James Mercer reports one occasion

when Monroe had "a fever In his leg"— he was generally

present at the meetings of the Council. There his most out­

standing work, which he accomplished with his old friend

John Marshall, was to straighten out the financial accounts

between the United States and Virginia.^

^Letter Qf 1*J March 1783, Swem Library, College of Wm. and Mary, Monroe Papers, UVa Microfilm, Roll 12, Ser.

^Letter to John P. Mercer, 6 May 1783, "Letters of James Mercer to John Francis Mercer," ed. by John Melville Jennings, Va. Mag, of History and Biography, LIX (Jan., 1951) 97-99. **?See numerous references to Monroe’s being present at Council meetings in Council of State Journal from 8 June 1782 to 21 Oct. 1783, UVa Microfilm, Roll 1, Ser. 2; or Hall, Journals of the Council, pp. 10^-297- For Monroe's and Marshall's investigation of the Va.-U.S. accounts, see esp. the entries for 12 March and 25 March 1783- 47

Eventually, however, Monroe decided that It would be better for his career to resign from his office and go to Prance, hopefully with Jefferson to work on the treaty negotiations to end the Revolutionary War: "... I con­ ceiv'd I sho[ul]d not relinquish these prospects within ye

State and at the same time extend my character & give it more libera[l] traits in the publick eye as well as make more substantial acquirments [sic] of political and legal 48 knowledge than I w[oul]d attain here." When news from

Paris indicated that a treaty might soon be arranged, the

Governor and the gentlemen of the Council persuaded their young colleague to change his mind and resume the seat which he had not yet formally renounced.

Probably repeating the advice he had just heard from them, Monroe then told John Francis Mercer about his future prospects:

I am well aware that the present is a critical time to absent myself from the State & that the arrangements wh[ich] may take place upon a peace will be more permanent & in ye instance of appoint­ ments under gov[ernmen]t more desirable.

Within three months of writing this, Monroe was elected one of Virginia's delegates to the Congress of the United States.

^Letter of 14 March 1783, Swem Library, College of Wm. and Mary, Monroe Papers, UVa Microfilm, Roll 12, Ser. 2.

49Ibid, CHAPTER III

SERVING IN CONGRESS

Monroe's election on 6 June 1786 to the Congress of the Confederation indicates that the older, more important men of Virginia's government were rewarding him for his services on the Council of State and were providing him with a further opportunity to demonstrate his abilities. Elected at the age of twenty-five, Monroe was the youngest member of the Virginia delegation and possibly the youngest delegate

Virginia had ever sent to Congress.^ By industrious atten­ tion to his duties, a dedicated young man like Monroe had a chance to do well for himself as a member of the governing body of the United States. Not only would he be able to deal with important national and International matters, but he would also have greater opportunities to participate significantly in major decision-making than if he remained at home where firmly established leaders monopolized polit­ ical power. Deeply entrenched leadership did not exist in

Congress to the same extent that it did in state government.

Indeed, many Important state political leaders tried to avoid the dubious honor of becoming a member of Congress.

■^Grigsby, Virginia Federal Convention, I, 166-6 7 . 48 49

Probably the most Important reason for avoiding service In Congress was the weakness of that body as estab­ lished under the Articles of Confederation. Unlike present- day members of the national legislature, who possess a measure of political independence due to their high office, the members of Congress during this early period were more like ambassadors from rival, often bickering states. Hence congressmen had to make their decisions on matters almost entirely on the basis of state politics, and thus they had few common political objectives to encourage them to develop national political parties. Possibly the Patriots had formed something like a national party during the American

Revolution, but once they had achieved their goal of inde­ pendence that "party" disintegrated. Moreover, Congress became even less important than it had originally been when the end of the Revolutionary War made the necessity for strong interstate cooperation less apparent. In fact,

Merrill Jensen, one of the leading scholars of this period, contends that the nationalists, such as Madison, had given up the fight in Congress to strengthen the Articles at just about the time that Monroe was elected to that body and had returned to the state governments where the real political 2 power lay.

2 "Idea of a National Government during the American Revolution," Political Science Quarterly, LVIII (Sept., 1943), 378. 50

Although Congress debated many Important national and international matters during the so-called Critical

Period, few people seemed to pay much attention to what the members of Congress were doing. Though Monroe served for three years in Congress and became one of the leaders of that body, the people of his home state hardly noticed his actions In Congress at all. Monroe encountered this problem when he was getting his law practice established in

Virginia after he left Congress. He found it necessary to remain in Richmond while court was in session because he had to show the public that he could attend to business, and he could not return to Fredericksburg in order to see his wife, to whom he complained:

That I have attended to my duty In other stations is of little consequence— I am but a new character here, & must cultivate all the forms & circumstances that wo[ul]d be necessary, if I had just set out in the world; otherwise I fail.3

Later, when Monroe participated In the Virginian convention of 1788, he was still "almost wholly unknown to many of the ij leading members of the House."

Before the adoption of the Constitution, congress­ men and the people back home were more concerned with the actions of state governments. In Virginia throughout the

1780's the powerful Inner circle around Patrick Henry con-

^Letter of 13 April 1787. Monroe Papers (LC), Ser. 2, Reel 9.

^Grigsby, Virginia Federal Convention, I, 166-67. 51 trolled the government and had no desire to leave their bailiwick for public service elsewhere. Virginians were well aware of who dominated their government; for example,

Colonel Theodorick Bland, Jr. learned from his father:

Henry is at the head of that party, who carries every thing in the House as he pleases. This I have from a sensible and, I believe, a worthy member of that assembly.5

Even Johann David Schoeph, a foreigner making a brief visit to Virginia, said of the powerful House of Delegates,

"Among the orators here is a certain Mr. Henry who appears to have the greatest influence over the house."^

With such power in Patrick Henry's hands, it is obvious that Monroe must have had his tacit approval in order to be elected first to the Council and then to the Congress; but Monroe was certainly not yet a member of Henry's inner circle. He was too young and too closely identified with

Thomas Jefferson, who was no longer friendly to Henry. Thus

Monroe was not removing himself from a position of real in­ fluence by agreeing to go to Congress. Besides, when he was 7 first elected, he was determined to serve for only one year.

^Theodorick Bland, Sr. to Col. Theodorick Bland, Jr., 8 Jan. 1781, The Bland Papers: Being a Selection from the Manuscripts of Colonel Theodorick Bland Jr. of Prince George County, Virginia, ed. by Charles"Campbell (2 vols.; Peters­ burg, Va.: Edmund & Julian C. Ruffin, 1840), I, 51*

^Travels, II, 56.

^Beverley Randolph to Monroe, 16 April 1784, Monroe Papers (LC), Ser. 1, Reel 1. 52

Although he eventually agreed to serve two more terms, and was therefore out of the state for long periods of time over the next three years, his prolonged absence did not hurt his political career. Henry and his Influential friends— while they remained more interested in state than in national af­ fairs— continued to be impressed by the conduct of the sen- g sible and industrious young man.

Unlike Monroe, Virginians who were already politi­ cally influential might have lost power by leaving Virginia to serve in Congress. In addition, they were often older gentlemen who were unwilling to face hardships which accept­ ing such a position entailed. As congressional sessions usually took place in a northern city, attending Congress involved long journeys over rough roads and prolonged ab­ sences from home, family, and important private affairs.

Monroe, however, was young and healthy enough to withstand the inconveniences of traveling and living In temporary quarters in a strange city; he was not yet encumbered with

Q Monroe attended Congress 13 Dec. 1733 through 14 April 1784, 23 April through 19 May 1784, 25 May through 3 June 1784, 1 Nov. through 24 Dec. 1784, 17 Jan. through 11 March 1785, 31 March through 17 Aug. (or later) 1785, 20 Dec, 1785, and 26 Jan. through 5 Oct. (or later) 1786. These dates (from an analysis by Edmund C[ody] Burnett, Letters of Members of the Continental Congress, Papers of the Division of Historical Research L8 vols. ; Washington: Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1921-36], VII, Ixxxvii and VIII, xcviii) do not Include the time Monroe spent traveling and awaiting the presence of a quorum (a common problem of the Congress of the Confederation). 53 a wife and children; and he had little private business re­ quiring his personal attention in Virginia. Indeed, unlike his more affluent colleagues, Monroe probably did not find the uncertain pay and allowances of a congressman a finan­ cial sacrifice; for at this stage in his life the remuner­ ation was adequate for his modest needs.^

Despite these considerations, one older and poten­ tially powerful Virginian was elected to Congress at the

same time as Monroe; for Thomas Jefferson had come out of his retirement. The Henry clique was undoubtedly very happy to exclude their former associate from the Assembly and send him out of the state to Congress. After all, if Jefferson had remained in Virginia, he could have challenged their control of politics. Like many Virginian statesmen who were not in close association with Patrick Henry, Jefferson had a tendency to be more concerned with national matters;

g -'Letters from R. H. Lee in which he complained about his family's suffering from his absence and about pub­ lic service being a financial sacrifice are cited by Oliver Perry Chitwood, Richard Henry Lee: Statesman of the Revolu­ tion (Morgantown, W.Va.: West Virginia University Library, 1967), p. 285n. Uncertainty about pay for congressmen is shown in "Letters of James Mercer to John Francis Mercer," esp. pp. 91-92, 93-96, 97-99, 184-85, and 185-86. Monroe's pay and allowances as a delegate in Congress from 20 Oct. 1783 to 31 Oct. 1786 were ,£2299/4/1 (according to his ac­ count in Va. State Archives, Continental Congress Papers, UVa Microfilm, Roll 12, Ser. 2). 54 and so he was willing to leave Virginia and return to

Congress.1®

Naturally it was advantageous to Monroe to be at­ tending Congress with his friend Jefferson. After their election, Monroe spent part of August at Jefferson's

Monticello, taking the mountain air for his ague. There he no doubt took the opportunity to learn basic congres­ sional procedures from his former tutor and to discuss the major issues which they would probably encounter in Congress during the coming year. (In October Monroe Informed George

Rogers Clark that there was still a remote possibility that he might go to France with Jefferson, although when the opportunity actually arose, he chose to remain In

1^John Marshall told the recently elected Monroe (3 Jan. 1784, Monroe Papers [LC], Ser. 2, Reel 9) that the practice of excluding congressmen from General Assembly was caused by "an apprehension of a distant evil" but "must pro­ duce a certain one" and that he lamented "as sincerely as you can do the exclusion of our Delegates in Congress from a seat in our Legislature. There is no one quality perhaps which we more need than wisdom." Virginians attending Congress with Monroe (from late 1783 through 1786) were: Edward Carrington, William Grayson, Samuel Hardy, Thomas Jefferson, Arthur Lee, Henry Lee, Richard Henry Lee, and John Francis Mercer. The relationship of R. H. Lee (and hence of other Lees) with Patrick Henry was (according to Chitwood, Richard Henry Lee, p. 210) "changing and elusive," but their many "disagreements on policy seem not to have caused any permanent estrangement between them. They stood side by side in their fight on some big issues." 55

Congress.)

Monroe's one-year term started on the first Monday in November (i.e. 3 November 1783), but the session really did not begin until 13 December in Annapolis. Coming north with Samuel Hardy, another Virginia delegate, Monroe brought with him a letter from Joseph Jones to James Madison. Madi­ son, who was about to leave Congress after three years of service in that body, arrived in Annapolis by the end of

November, traveling with Jefferson. Thus the three men who would become major leaders of the Republican Party when it was formed in the 1790's were present together on the national political scene, at least for a little while. As members of Congress began assembling in Annapolis from all over the Union, Jefferson and Madison were in a position to introduce many of their congressional acquaintances to 1 p young Monroe.

Madison soon left Annapolis for Virginia and, as

Congress began, Monroe continued his close association with

■^Monroe to John Francis Mercer, 8 Aug. 1783, U. of Va. Library, Div., Ac. No. 38991, UVa Microfilm, Roll 12, Ser. 2; cf. Arthur Lee to Monroe, 23 Aug. 1783, Bur­ nett, Letters, VII, 277-78; Monroe to Clark, 19 Oct. 1783, Clark Papers, XIX, 248-50.

12Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, ed. by Worthington Chauncey Ford et. al., (34 vols.; Wash- ington: Government Printing Office, 1904-1937) XXV, 795-99 and 810, hereinafter referred to as JCC; Joseph Jones to Madison, 30 Oct. 1783, Madison Papers, Ser. 1, Reel 2; Jefferson to Monroe, 18 Nov. 1783, TJ, Papers (Boyd). VI, 355. 56

Jefferson. At this time he agreed to buy land near Monti- cello. As William Short, another mutual friend, had already agreed to do the same, the pleased Jefferson then wrote to

Madison to request him also to buy land nearby and "fall into the circle. With such a society I could once more venture home and lay myself up for the residue of 13 life. ..." Unlike Monroe, Madison never did move to

Albemarle, but as a result of Monroe’s promise at Annapolis two of the three members of the Virginia Dynasty eventually became neighbors. While attending Congress, Jefferson

(according to a recent biographer) "sought a retired exis­ tence and kept company chiefly with his young friend

Monroe. . . . The only other member of the Virginia delega- li| tion Jefferson cared for was Samuel Hardy . . . ," Monroe’s recent traveling companion. By the end of February, 1784,

Jefferson and Monroe were sharing a small house which they had rented from a Mr. Dulany. Here they entertained George

Washington when he came northward to attend a meeting of the

Society of the Cincinnati. Shortly after this event, on

7 May 1784, Congress appointed Jefferson United States minister to France. He immediately sold some of his books

13Letter of 20 Feb. 1784, TJ Papers (Boyd), VI, 550; cf. Jefferson to Monroe, 11 May 1785 and lb Dec. 1786, lb id. , VIII,148-50 and X, 611-13.

■^Dumas Malone, Jefferson arid His Time, Vol. I: Jefferson the Virginlan; Vol. II: Jefferson and the Rights of Man, and Vol. Ill: Jefferson and~~Fhe Ordeal of Liberty (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 194b-b2), 410, here­ inafter referred to as Malone, Jefferson. 57 and household belongings to Monroe and left Annapolis four days later (with Monroe still in Jefferson’s debt a little 15 over twenty dollars). v

Jefferson's departure saddened Monroe, but he de­ cided to remain in Congress rather than go abroad with his friend. With Jefferson gone, his young colleague had a better opportunity to become the leading representative in

Congress of one of the most important states in the Confed­ eration. In fact, during the entire period of Jefferson's absence from the country, Monroe remained in a good position to overcome the problem of being in the shadow of the great

Virginian. Now he could draw closer to the Henry clique and yet at the same time retain an interest in the national problems with which that group was relatively unconcerned.

Moreover, Monroe still had the benefit of the absent Jeffer­ son's advice. Even before the newly-appointed minister had a chance to leave the country, Monroe wrote to tell him how much he missed him, sending two letters within a single week.

In these he requested information on the defense of the western posts, asked his opinion on a controversy over the qualifications of the Rhode Island delegation, and informed him that a cipher would soon be arriving for use in their

!5Edith Rossiter Reven, ed., "Thomas Jefferson in Anapolis, November 25, 1783-May 11, 1784," Md. Historical Mag. XLI (June, 1946), 115-124; cf. TJ,' Papers (Boyd) VII, 24l and Malone, Jefferson, I, 410. 58 future correspondence.1^*

Jefferson appreciated the prospect of corresponding regularly with a devoted friend in Congress, and so their close association continued. Then as now, political power depended to a large extent upon the possession of useable information, and in the late eighteenth century it was difficult even for a well-read man to know what a government was doing unless he received personal letters from people on the scene. The Virginia delegation in Congress, for example, had an obligation to write regularly to the governor of

Virginia about congressional proceedings, the governor in turn responding with news, as well as instructions, from

Virginia.1^

While he was away in Paris, it was to Jefferson's advantage to know what the members of Congress were con­ sidering before they made their final decisions. Naturally, it also would be helpful to have an advocate in that body who was ready to protect his interests if they were chal­ lenged during his absence and able to influence foreign policy decisions in such ways as to make his job in France

■^Letters of 14 May and 20 May 1784, TJ, Papers (.Boyd), VII, 251-53 and 275-77.

■^As his term was nearing its end, Gov. Benjamin Harrison wrote to Monroe (19 Nov. 1784, Monroe Papers [LC], Ser. 1, Reel 1): "... I need not tell you how agreeable it will be to me to keep up a correspondance [sic] with you, [sic] if the thoughts of an old man will be worth your notice you shall certainly have them." 59 easier. Not only did Monroe perform these services well for Jefferson, but Jefferson especially looked forward to receiving his letters; for, as he told Monroe, "I have never received a tittle from any [mem]ber of Congress but 18 yourself and one letter from Dr. Williamson." Indeed, on one occasion he complained to his friend: "I should remind you that two packets have now come without bringing me a letter from you, and should scold you soundly, but 19 that I consider it as certain evidence of your being sick."

In Jefferson’s next letter to Monroe, who had still not written, he warned him that he would continue to pester him until he received a letter from him; but, at about this same time, he wrote in despair to William Short, "Monroe I am afraid is dead, for three packets have now come without 20 bringing me a line from him or concerning him."

Monroe had Indeed been 111 and upon his recovery he recommenced his useful correspondence with Jefferson. The next year Jefferson thanked Monroe for warning him that some congressmen were discontented with Jefferson for falling to inform the United States about Prance’s new fish arrets; he justified himself and then added:

■^Letter of 15 April 1785, TJ, Papers (Boyd), VIII, 88-9 0 .

^Jefferson to Monroe, 11 May 1785, and to Short, 2 May 1785, ibid., 148-50 and 134; cf. entry concerning’ Jefferson to Samuel Hardy, 11 May 1785, ibid., p. 145. 60

These are the most friendly office you can do me, because they enable me to justify myself if I am right, or correct myself if wrong. . . . Be so good as to communicate these circumstances to the persons who you think may have supposed me guilty of remiss­ ness on this occasion.

A short time later Jefferson wrote again to express his gratitude to Monroe. Monroe had informed him about the secret talks between the United States and Spain and Jeff­ erson had been "entirely in the dark as to the progress of that negociation.1,22

In addition to supplying Jefferson with useful In­ formation, Monroe also helped Jefferson satisfy innumerable patronage requests. Shortly before sailing for Prance,

Jefferson wrote Monroe that he had told Francis Hopklnson, who wanted to be appointed director of the mint, "that you would render him any service which the duties of your situa- tion would permit." J After taking up residence in Prance,

Jefferson on more than one occasion recommended William

Temple Franklin to Monroe for a position, and he likewise recommended Colonel Humphreys, who was "In need of some Oil provision." He also advised Monroe that he wanted to make

21Letter of 9 July 1786, ibid., X, 111-115: cf. Monroe to Jefferson, 11 May 1786, ibid., IX, 512. For Monroe's illness, see John F. Mercer to Monroe, 12 May 1785, Monroe Papers (LC), Ser. 2, Heel 9-

22Letter of 11 Aug. 1786, TJ, Papers (Boyd), X, 223-25.

23Letter of 21 May 1784, ibid., VII, 279-81.

2**Letters of 11 Nov. 1784, 5 July 1785, and 10 May 1786, ibid., VII, 508-14, VIII, 261-62, and IX, 499-503. 61 permanent Mr. Pranks' temporary appointment to a position in Marseilles, saying, "I promised him that I would com­ municate his wishes to some of my friends, that his pre- 25 tensions might not be set aside for want of being known,”

Monroe was therefore quite useful to Jefferson in many ways; and so, when he finished his last year in

Congress, Jefferson regreted the resulting loss of congres­ sional intelligence: "I feel too the want of a person there to whose discretion I can trust confidential communications, and on whose friendship I can rely against the unjust de- 26 signs of malevolence." Six months earlier he had said,

I know not to whom I may venture confidential com­ munications after you are gone. Lee I scarcely know, Grayson is lazy, Carrington is industrious but not always as discreet as well meaning yet on the whole I believe he would be the best.

Jefferson thus clearly implied that Monroe's excellent qualities as a correspondent were irreplaceable, but he asked Monroe to perform yet another service for him before he left Congress. He wanted him to sound out Edward Car­ rington: "If you find him disposed to the correspondence 27 engage him to begin it."

^Letter of 11 Nov. 178*1, ibid. , VII, 508-1*1.

^Letter of 18 Dec. 1786, ibid., X, 611-13-

27Letter of 11 Aug. 1786 (italics indicate words in code), ibid., 223-2*1. 62

While he was in Congress, Monroe wrote regularly to many people besides Jefferson. Richard Henry Lee, George

Mason, Joseph Jones, and many other talented and experienced statesmen were, like Jefferson, happy to provide the respect­ ful young Virginian with (as Lee put it) their "poor opin­ ions concerning the great congressional questions" stated 2 8 in Monroe’s letters to them. Moreover, many of Monroe's regular correspondents furnished him with useful information about the current political situation in Virginia. Thus

Beverley Randolph, soon to be governor of Virginia, informed

Monroe that, if he wished to return to the Council of State at the end of his first year in Congress, there would be 29 at least two vacancies. ^ Such correspondence was of mutual benefit to men in government, but Randolph believed that

Monroe contributed more in their exchange of letters. He regretted that he would probably never have use for the cipher which Monroe had sent to him because nothing ever happens "in this part of the world, but what I could most openly communicate," and he claimed that his greatest in­ ducement for corresponding with Monroe was "the hope of receiving Information from you which would at once please &

^®Monroe to R. H. Lee, 16 Dec. 1783, Monroe, Writings, I, 22-24; R. H. Lee to Monroe, 5 Jan. 1784, Monroe Papers (LC), Ser. 1, Reel 1; Monroe to Mason, Feb., 1784 and Jones to Monroe, ca. Jan. 1784, ibid., Ser. 2, Reel 9. ^Letter of 16 April 1784, Monroe Papers (LC), Ser. 1, Reel 1. 63 on be useful to me.l,J

Shortly after Jefferson's departure from Congress,

Monroe acquired one of his most significant correspondents for years to come— James Madison. In the midst of his preparations to leave Annapolis, Jefferson had taken time out to write to Madison about Monroe, saying:

He wishes a correspondence with you; and I suppose his situation will render him an useful one to you. The scrupulousness of his honor will make you safe in the most confidential communications. A better man cannot be.31

Adrienne Koch describes this letter as

the forerunner not only of a voluminous correspondence but of a close friendship between Madison and Monroe. Thus the historically important three-cornered friend­ ship of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe was conceived and deliberately arranged by Jefferson's own prudent hand."

Without offering any evidence, she expresses her belief that Monroe's request to Madison was "no doubt at Jeffer­ son's suggestion."^ it Is just as likely, however, that

It was Monroe, rather than Jefferson, who initiated this suggestion so that he could enlarge his network of corres­ pondents by adding to It another talented person, one whom he already knew.

30Letter of ca. April 1785* ibid.

^Letter of 8 May 1784, TJ, Papers (Boyd), VII, 234 The clause underlined Is the only portion of the letter printed in Italics.

Jefferson and Madison: The Great Collaboration, Galaxy Books (New York: Oxford University Press, 196^ [c. 1950], p. 16 . 64

Whatever the origin, a real friendship soon devel­ oped between these two prominent friends of Jefferson.

William Cabell Rives, a student of Jefferson's who saw all three of the members of the Virginia Dynasty together, com­ ments on the significance of the ties which they formed in the early 1780's:

It Is a rare and noble spectacle in the history of humanity to see three men of such eventful lives, coming from the same State and neighborhood, united for so long a period by bands of the closest friend­ ship, and attaining In succession, one after another in the order of their ages, the supreme magistry of their country. . . .

Near the end of his life, Monroe wrote in his memoirs of the "intimate and cordial friendship and great harmony in political life which he had so long enjoyed" with both

Jefferson and Madison; and a few months before he died,

Monroe wrote in a similar vein to Madison.3i* Upon learn­ ing that his old friend was leaving Virginia to spend the remainder of his days in New York, Madison replied: . ,

The effect of this in closing the prospect of our ever meeting again afflicts me deeply, certainly not less so, than it can you. The pain I feel at the Idea, associated as it is with a recollection of the long, close, and uninterrupted friendship which united us, amounts to a pang which I cannot well express. . . .35

33Madison, II, 20.

^ Autobiography, p. 154; Monroe to Madison, 11 April 1831j Monroe Papers (LC), Ser. 1, Reel 9*

^Letter of 21 April 1831, Monroe Papers (LC), Ser. 1, Reel 9* Madison was exaggerating when he said that their friendship had never been interrupted; but, despite a few significant breaks in their long relationship, their close association over many decades is as remarkable and as important as the corresponding collaboration between Madison and Jefferson.

Many other statesmen of the Confederation period besides Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe established personal communications networks of some kind. Like those of these three great Virginians, their networks were often interlock­ ing. In a way these statesmen were continuing the Revolu­ tionary practice of using committees of correspondence.

Interestingly enough, their private networks had many of the functions associated with political parties of a later period; for example, one team of political scientists has given the following as characteristics of a party:

(1) continuity in organization . . . ; (2) Manifest and presumably permanent organization at the local level, with regularized communications and other relationships between local and national units: (3) self-conscious determination of leaders • • • to capture and to hold decision-making power . . . ; and (4) a concern . . . for popular support.36

Thus these long-lasting associations of politically-minded letter-writers had many similar characteristics, although they were not parties in the modern sense of the term.

Certainly some form of political organization was necessary

Joseph LaPalombara and Myron Weiner, "The Origin and Development of Political Parties," Political Parties and Political Development, ed. by these authors (PrInceton, N.j 7 Princeton University Press, 1966), p. 6, hereinafter refer­ red to as Political Parties. in a complex modern government based on a popular mandate, and so perhaps these networks prepared the way for the development of true national political parties in the

United States. It is often argued that modern mass parties grew out of political groups within legislatures;-" but in a federal system the linking of the partisans on the national level of government with those on the state level Is a trend obviously worthy of notice. In the 1780’s, rather than reaching out to include the electorate, those in government first had to reach out to Include those in other govern­ ments. Members of Congress did not find direct links with the electorate so necessary as they would in the 1790's when they began to obtain their seats by popular election. The presence of these communications networks, therefore, not only aids an understanding of politics during the Confedera­ tion period, but also helps explain the rapid formation of true political parties during the 1790's.

In this regard, the alliance which Jefferson,

Madison, and Monroe began to form in the 1780's is particu­ larly significant. At this time Jefferson concentrated on international affairs, Monroe on national affairs, and

^E.g., Avery Leiserson in Parties, p. 62, says: "Party organization outside the legislative body started in the United States during the Adams administration. . . ." (Avery Leiserson, Part i e s and Poll tic's: An Institutional and Behavioral Approach LNew York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1958] p- 82). Madison on Virginian affairs. As Jefferson remained out of the country for the rest of the decade, the relationship between Madison and Monroe was more directly important in domestic politics. Their association gave each of them the advantages of the experience and knowledge which the other had gained from serving on both the state and federal levels of American government! Madison had served in Congress im­ mediately before Monroe began his first term there; and then, when Monroe completed his maximum three years, Madison returned to Congress as Monroe was leaving. Similarly, while

Monroe was in Congress, Madison was active in the General

Assembly of Virginia; and then, after Madison returned to

Congress, Monroe was elected to the Virginia legislature.

When they first formed their alliance, the national­ istic Madison felt that, of the two, Monroe's position was the more important. After acknowledging the receipt of a cipher from Monroe, Madison lamented that "from the nature of our respective situations, its chief value will be derived from your use of It."3® Madison was indeed for­ tunate to be corresponding with Monroe, for the latter became one of the most Important members in Congress. John

Quincy Adams recounts that Monroe "took a distinguished part" in that body and that his fellow members held him

■^Letter of [18] Nov. 1784, Madison Papers, Ser. 1, Reel 2. in "high estimation."^ The words of Jacob Read, a congres man who served with Monroe, supports this conclusion: writing to the Secretary of the Congress, Charles Thomson, he asked "how stands Cabal, Munro [sic], Howell, and all the other great men" of the Congress.^

Contributing to Monroe's growing importance was his interest in one of the major concerns of Congress :

Monroe was increasingly regarded as an expert on the West.

•^Eulogy a pp. 30 and 32; see also Louis Guillaume Otto to Jefferson, 15 Oct. 1786, TJ, Papers (Boyd) X, 466.

^°Letter of 26 April 1785* Burnett, Letters, VIII, 104-05. CHAPTER IV

DEVELOPING WESTERN INTERESTS

Long before his name was associated with the

Louisiana Purchase, Monroe managed to achieve great popu­ larity among Western people and to attain among many

Easterners the reputation of being something of an expert on the West. This achievement by a young congressman was quite impressive, especially because it is misleading to describe Monroe as (in the words of one noted historian) a "delegate from the back country of Virginia."-'- He was at no time in his career a Westerner in the usual sense of the term. He spent the early years of his life in Westmoreland and King George Counties in eastern Virginia. Even his military service was in the eastern part of the United

States. Moreover, when he left Congress, Monroe moved no

farther west than to the City of Fredericksburg and sub­

sequently to Albemarle County, neither area then being on

the frontier.

-'-Forrest McDonald, E Plurlbus Unum: The Formation of the American Republic, 177b—1Y9U (Boston: Houghton Miff­ lin Company [1965]), p . 135.

69 70

Monroe was able to establish himself as a leading

Western spokesman mainly as a result of his activities in a legislative body where decisions concerning the West were probably more significant than actions in other fields of legislation.^ When Monroe and his fellow congressmen were dealing with Western matters, they avoided many of the frustrating, powerless conditions which they often experienced under the Articles of Confederation. Monroe was especially active in such congressional discussions because he represented a state with enormous Western inter­ ests. When Monroe entered Congress, Virginia still con­ tained what later became the states of Kentucky and West

Virginia and had not yet completely relinquished its sub­ stantial claims to the Old Northwest. Moreover, even after

Virginia formally ceded the Northwest to the United States during Monroe's first term in Congress, it still concerned itself with the problems of the whole West because, like the rest of the South, Virginia considered the West to be an adjunct to its own region and therefore supported those

Western interests which did not seem to conflict with its own Eastern-oriented ones.

2 Dale Van Eyerly, in Ark of Empire: The American Frontier, 1784-1803 (New York: William Morrow and Company, 1963), p . 350, says that Monroe "had been a confirmed advo­ cate of all western causes since the first outbreak of the Mississippi controversy in 1786," this factor being one of the reasons for his appointment to negotiate with France in 1803. 71

Besides his obligation as a representative of

Virginia, personal economic considerations also influenced

Monroe to involve himself in the political fate of the West.

Like many other Southerners of his class, he owned consider­

able Western property. Possessing more Western land than

any other state, Virginia had been quite generous to its

Revolutionary army officers. Monroe's war record enabled

him to obtain ^3,000 acres in Kentucky, the government

granting his request for a bounty in lands which he made

after he had been on the Council of State for almost a

year.^ in addition, for some undetermined reason, Monroe

received a large grant of Ohio land from Governor Patrick

Henry in May of 1786.^ Moreover, by this time Monroe was

engaged in land speculation in the Mohawk Valley of western

New York. Along with Madison, he contracted to buy un­

developed land there, the two Virginians acting mainly on

Monroe's initiative and with Monroe's financial support.

In fact, Monroe was so eager to complete this arrangement

^Monroe received a major's bounty although his heirs later requested that of a lieutenant colonel. His petition was read 27 May 1783; see Virginia, Journal of the House of Delegates (Richmond: Thomas W. Whlte^ 1828), p"I 22 or the session for the spring of 1783: see also Va. State Archives, Bounty Warrants, Box 107, Polder 28, UVa Micro­ film, Roll 12, Ser. 2; cf. Monroe's power of attorney of 8 Jan. 1788, U. of Va. Library, MSS Div. Ac. No. 8-11*1, ibid., Roll 13, Ser. 3-

^Grant of 18 May 1786, James Monroe Memorial Library and Museum, VIFRM6, UVa Microfilm, Roll 13» Ser. 3* 72 that he even wrote to Madison about the deal on his wedding 5 day.

Earlier, Monroe had also bought 50,000 acres in

Payette County, Ohio, from a Major John Crittenden. On this occasion he had called upon George Rogers Clark to advise him on which of Crittenden's tracts he should choose.

Monroe had begun to correspond with Virginia's most famous

Western leader even before he had committed himself econ­ omically to the future of the West. He indicated to Clark that he had "some thoughts of turning my attention toward y[ou]r quarter & perhaps sometime hence removing thither myself" and later assured his correspondent that "our

Interests in the western country are very similar & of 7 course whatever will promote mine will serve yours."

^Unless otherwise noted, the following correspond­ ence in 1786 dealing with the Mohawk speculation is found in the Madison Papers, Ser. 1, Reel 2: Monroe to Madison, 9 Feb., Monroe, Writings, I, 120-22; Madison to Monroe, 24 Feb., 14 March, 19 March, 9 April, 13 May, and 11 July; Monroe to Madison, 15 July; Madison to Jefferson, 12 Aug., TJ, Papers (Boyd), X, 229-236; Monroe to Madison, 12 Sept.; Madison to Monroe, 5 Oct.; Monroe to Madison, 7 Oct., Burnett, Letters, VIII, 476; Monroe to Jefferson, 12 Oct., TJ, Papers (Boyd). X, 456-58 ; Madison to Monroe, 30 Nov. and 21 Dec. £ Monroe to Clark, 19 Oct. 1783, Clark Papers, XIX, 248-50; see also Crittenden-Monroe contract, 22 June 1783, Monroe Papers (LC), Ser. 2, Reel 9; cf. survey of 24 March 1785, U. of Va. Library, MSS Div. Ac. No. 6089, UVa Micro­ film, Roll 13, Ser. 3-

"^Letters of 26 June 1782 and 19 Oct. 1783, Clark Papers, XIX, 68-69 and 248-50. 73

Western economic interests did not cause Monroe to support all Western causes; for example, their Virginia- granted lands in Kentucky possibly encouraged both Monroe and Clark to oppose Kentucky’s separation from Virginia.

Early in 1783 Monroe confided to Clark:

we know that Congress wish to wrest that country from us. . . . .we mean however not to let them have it, but if in ye chance & fortune of things they sho[ul]d get it from us . . . we mean not in ye meantime to desert it in ye infancy but to give it what support we can. . . .

This attitude toward Kentucky's separation was unusual among Virginia’s statesmen, most of whom had relatively little economic interest in Kentucky; for "practically all the Virginia leaders, with the exception of James 9 Monroe, favored the creation of a separate State."

More typical was Schoeph's prediction that Kentucky would eventually become independent because it was too incon­ venient for its people to deal with a government centered at Richmond.

Before attending his first congressional session,

Monroe was temporarily reconciled to Virginia's eventual loss of Kentucky, probably due to Jefferson's influence.

^Letter of 5 Jan. 1783, ibid. , pp. 178-80.

^Thomas Perkins Abernethy, Western Lands and the American Revolution (New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, Incorporated, for the Institute of Research in the Social Sciences, University of Virginia, 1937), p. 308.

10Travels, II, 5*K 74

After a visit with his mentor, Monroe realized that his previous opinion was not the popular one and told Clark that the separation might even be in the best interests of

Virginia:

of this you may rest Assur'd that ye object of this part of ye State . . . will be to effect a separation & erect an independendt [sic] State westw[ar]d as it will enable us to oeconomize our aff[ai]rs here & give us greater strength in ye foederal councils.11

Accordingly, at first Monroe offered no open opposition in

Congress to the separation movement; for instance, the entire Virginia delegation, including Monroe, gave some support to Kentucky's petition for statehood, sending a copy of the petition to Governor Benjamin Harrison so that he could lay it before the General Assembly for action.

After Jefferson's departure, however, the now more experienced Monroe again expressed his previous distaste for separation. He wrote to his friend in France that, even though he believed that the measure would eventually pass, he doubted the wisdom of permitting the separation because "unquestionably the more we diminish the state the

11Letter of 19 Oct. 1783, Clark Papers, XIX, 248-50. 12 Letter from Jefferson, Arthur Lee, and Monroe, 20 Feb. 1785, TJ, Papers (Boyd). VI, 552-55. 75 less consequence she will have in the union.” He did not tell Jefferson that he and his cousin, William Grayson, another Virginian congressman, were responsible for a motion opposing the further dismemberment of states; but he did inform Madison that the "enlightened" members of Congress were against such dismemberment.^ Because the meetings of Congress were held behind closed doors, news of Monroe’s opposition in this matter probably did not become generally well-known.

Corresponding with Clark was not the only way that

Monroe increased his knowledge of the West; for, while he served in Congress, Monroe made two expeditions to the

West. Besides indicating his abiding interest in that region, these journeys also served to further his political career by making many influential people aware of his first­ hand knowledge of the West. No doubt wishing for more action than his normal governmental duties provided,

Monroe decided during his first term to travel westward,

13 Letter of 15 Aug. 1785 (Italics indicate words in code), ibid., VIII, 381-84. Margaret Phelan Scott, in "Virginia's Reaction to the Federal Question, c. 1780-1788, with Especial Reference to the Growth of Antifederalism" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Virginia, 1940), p. 246, states: "Monroe was evidently nervous, as a Revolutionary officer, about the security of his Kentucky land bounties; perhaps he also feared that Kentucky might go over to Spain."

■^Letter of 19 Dec. 1785, Madison Papers, Ser. 1. Reel 2; cf. Monroe to Jefferson 19 Jan. 1786, TJ, Papers (Boyd), IX, 186-89; and JCC, XXIX, 822-23. 76 even though he was worried that he might lose his scalp in the process. He began his expedition to parts of Canada and the Northwest In July of 1784, after the adjournment of Congress placed the government In the hands of a Com­ mittee of the States. Monroe had originally planned to represent Virginia on this experimental caretaker committee, but he had changed his mind and decided to spend the time on what turned out to be the more worthwhile enterprise of 15 gathering information.

After an exciting journey, Monroe returned in time for the next session of Congress, reaching Trenton in late

October before most of the other members of his delegation arrived from Virginia; and, while waiting for Congress to begin— there was the usual trouble obtaining a quorum-1-0— he recounted his experiences and set forth his conclusions in a flurry of letter writing. He indicated to many that his trip had placed him in considerable danger. Beverley

Randolph, for instance, could hardly wait to hear in person the details of "the narrow escape you had."^ More Impor­

■^Monroe to Jefferson, 1 June, 20 July, and 9 Aug. 1784, TJ, Papers (Boyd), VII, 299-300, 379-81, and 391-92.

l6JCC, XXVII, 641-42.

"^Letter of 26 Nov. 1784, Monroe Papers (LC), Ser. 1, Reel 1; cf. John Tyler to Monroe, 26 Nov. 1784, ibid.; and Rauleigh Colston to Monroe, 20 Jan. 1785* ibid., Ser 2, Reel 9. tantly, Monroe Informed his many correspondents that the

British were refusing to evacuate posts on American soil, and thus he was one of the first political leaders to draw attention to a problem which was to remain an important issue in American politics until Jay's Treaty finally resolved it ten years later. He discussed this important issue with many people including Governor Benjamin Harrison of Virginia, to whom he wrote a letter which he intended -[ O others to see. The news soon spread. Richard Henry

Lee, for example, reported to both Madison and Washington that Monroe was sure, as a result of his recent journey, that the British intended to retain the Western posts at least until Virginia repealed its laws impeding the recovery of British debts.^

Previous to this, when Monroe had reached New York on his Western expedition, he had written to its governor,

George Clinton, for the latest news of the British. Clinton had replied that he did not think that they were about to leave the posts and promised to keep Monroe informed of future developments. Upon his return Monroe reported to

-^Letter of 30 Oct. 1784, Monroe, Writings, I, 39- 40; cf. Monroe to Madison, 15 Nov. 1784, Madison Papers, Ser. 1, Reel 2.

•^Both letters dated 20 Nov. 1784, The Letters of Richard Henry Lee, ed. by James Curtis Ballagh (2 vols.; New York: Macmillan Company, 1914), II, 297-301, herein­ after referred to as Lee, Letters (Ballagh). 78

Clinton what he had learned. Thus, in this small way, be­

gan the important liaison between future Republicans of

New York and Virginia.20

Before Monroe's journey, congressional debate on

the Western posts (which had begun in May of 1784) had been

concerned merely with garrisoning the posts after the

British evacuation, which was expected soon. At that time

Monroe, fearing that having a standing army was dangerous

to liberty, had wished the United States to rely mainly

upon militia for possible defense against the British.

He had wanted the garrison cut at West Point and, relying

upon Jefferson's information, had preferred to have soldiers PI stationed only at certain Western posts. After his return

from the West, however, Monroe worked to strengthen the

American army, now believing that the United States needed

at least 1,200 soldiers, and expressed displeasure with 22 opposition to military requisitions.

20Monroe to Clinton, 19 Aug. 1784, referred to in Clinton to Monroe, 20 Aug. 1784, Bancroft, Formation of the Constitution, I, 379; cf. R. H. Lee to Washington, 20 Nov. 1784," Lee, Letters (Ballagh), II, 299-301.

2^R. H. Lee to Monroe, 5 Jan. 1784, Monroe Papers (LC), Ser. 1, Reel 1; Monroe to George Mason, Feb. 1784, ibid., Ser. 2 Reel 9; Monroe to Jefferson 14 May and 25 May T 7 W , TJ, Papers (Boyd), VII, 251-53 and 290-92; cf. JCC, XXVII, 499.

22Monroe to Madison, 15 Nov. 1784, Madison Papers, Ser. 1, Reel 2; Thomas Stone to Monroe, 18 March 1785s Monroe Papers (LC), Ser. 1, Reel 1. 79

Monroe's Western journey and the knowledge which he had gained about the posts affected his legislative activities in another way. Monroe informed Jefferson privately that he was now convinced that it was not yet time for the United States to attempt acquiring Canada from the British. First it was necessary to weaken Canadian ties with Great Britain and show Canadians that their true interests lay with the United States. Accordingly, he pro­ posed in Congress the adoption of diplomatic instructions favoring the restriction of American-Canadian trade. Even though the members of Congress received his proposal favor­ ably, Monroe did not press for immediate action because he realized that in order to gain his ultimate goal the United

States first needed control of the Western posts.

Monroe's expedition, together with his letters about it upon his return, helped to establish him in the eyes of many congressmen as an expert on Western matters at a time when Congress was making significant decisions about the Northwest. To cite one example, Thomas Stone, a congress­ man from Maryland, acknowledged that Monroe had certainly learned a greal deal about the Northwest which would be of importance to those who were "likely to have the management

23Monroe to Jefferson, 1 Nov. 1784 and 12 April 1785, TJ, Papers (Boyd), VII, 459-62 and VIII, 75-80; JCC, XXVIII, 59-60 and 89. 80 oil of It.” Management of the Northwest had formally become a matter of congressional concern on 1 March 1784 when

Virginia finally ceded claims to the region. Virginia's cession thus took place after Monroe became a member of

Congress (his signature appears on the deed) but before he visited the West. At that time Congress appointed Jefferson chairman of a committee to make some tentative plans for

Western government. He had used this opportunity to make some basic suggestions which had, after amendment, become the Ordinance of 1784.

Jefferson's original proposal contained an anti­ slavery clause which did not become part of the ordinance.

It lost by a narrow margin even though only one other

Southerner besides Jefferson voted in favor of it. Although his favorable vote would have prevented Virginia's delega­ tion from casting a negative vote, Monroe failed to support his friend's anti-slavery provision. He did not openly oppose Jefferson on this matter but was conveniently absent at the crucial time due to Illness. (It Is Interesting to note that Monroe was again absent in 1785 when Rufus King made a similar proposal, and that he omitted any anti-slavery provision from his own report on the West of 10 May 1786.)^^

? ii Letter to Monroe, 15 Dec. 1784, Monroe Papers (LC), Ser. 1, Reel 1.

^Bancroft, Formation of the Constitution, II, 100-01. 81

Despite its adoption, Jefferson's Ordinance of 1784 never went into effect, eventually being replaced by the famous Northwest Ordinance of 1787; nevertheless, Jefferson's proposals continued to affect the thinking of congressmen about the West. Before leaving for Prance, Jefferson had also proposed a rectilinear land survey system, which

Congress revived the next year and, after some revision, incorporated into the famous Land Ordinance of 1785. Monroe was more involved in the passage of this measure than he had been in the passage of the Ordinance of 1784. He offered a couple of amendments, one being to strike out a clause re­ serving one-third of the gold, silver, lead, and copper for the central government. Richard Henry Lee (as well as William

Grayson, the other Virginia member present at this session) opposed this amendment, and the motion did not carry. For­ tunately for Monroe's economic interests, the Virginia dele­ gation unanimously supported provisions for military land claims in the area. The three Virginia delegates— Lee,

Grayson, and Monroe— also voted in favor of reserving a section of each township for the support of religion, de­ spite the objections’of Madison, who was fighting government aid to religion in Virginia.^

P Chitwood, Richard Henry Lee, p. 160; Madison to Monroe, 29 May 1785, Madison Papers, Ser. 1, Reel 2; JCC, XXVIII, 251ff., esp. 284-85 and 294-95- 82

To Monroe, the long debate before the adoption of the ordinance on 20 May 1785 seemed to represent an economic conflict between the North and the South. While these two sectional groups were arguing, Monroe informed Madison, "I am strong inclin'd to believe the western land will absorb all ye domestic debt Eastw[ar]d [i.e. east of the Hudson]; the gent[leme]n from that quarter think so."2^ Madison reminded Monroe that getting the British out of the Western posts would also increase "the fiscal importance of the P ft back Country to the U. States." Likewise, the Virginia delegation— including Monroe— agreed that the purpose of the Indian treaties which Congress was arranging was to make the land valuable so that Congress could sell it in order to reduce public debts. 29 ^

In July of 1785, Monroe began making tentative plans to attend the signing of one of these Indian treaties on the

Ohio River. Although the homesick Jefferson wanted Monroe to spend the summer with him, the lure of another Western O Q journey proved greater than that of a trip to Paris.J It was also more attractive to Monroe than an Eastern trip

2^Letter of May 1785, Madison Papers, Ser. 1, Reel 2.

28Letter of 29 May 1785, ibid.

2^Lee, Grayson, and Monroe to Gov. Patrick Henry, 16 May 1785, Burnett, Letters, VIII, 120-21.

8°Jefferson to Monroe, 10 Dec. 1784, TJ, Papers (Boyd), VII, 562-65; cf. Jefferson to Madison, 8 Dec. 1784, and to Monroe, 17 June 1785, ibid., VII, 559, and VIII, 227-34 . 83 with Madison. Monroe had invited Madison to accompany him westward; hut, while Madison was interested in "an option of rambles this fall," he preferred a more practical visit to New England and so did not make a real effort to join

Monroe in Philadelphia before his departure in September.31

Monroe got as far westward as Pittsburgh and then, rather than go on to the treaty site at the mouth of the Great

Miami, he circled back through Kentucky to Virginia. While in Pittsburgh, Monroe reported to Richard Henry Lee, now

President of the Congress, that the recently-passed con­ gressional plan for survey and sale of Northwest lands

"for payment of the public debt" (in Lee's words) promised to be successful: "Colo. Monroe represents the Intruding

Settler N.W. of Ohio to be very few in number and they disposed to obey quickly the orders of Congress.

Particularly after this second trip, Monroe expressed unfavorable views about the West and indicated his basically

Eastern bias. Perhaps it was this direct experience with

Kentucky that caused him to change his mind about moving there. (It was also after this trip that he began to Invest

^Madison to Jefferson, 20 Aug. and 3 Oct. 1785, ibid., VIII, 4l6 and 579; see also Monroe to Madison, 12 July and 14 Aug. 1785, Madison Papers, Ser. 1, Reel 2; Monroe to Jefferson, 15 July, 15 Aug., and 25 Aug. 1785, TJ, Papers (Boyd), VIII, 296-97, 381-84, and 441-42.

32Lee to Washington, 11 Oct.,1785, Lee, Letters (Ballagh), II, 391; see also Monroe to Jefferson, 19 Jan. 1786, TJ, Papers (Boyd), IX, 186-89. In the Mohawk Valley lands with Madison.) He told Madison that the admission of diverse new states worried him and that similar thinking members of Congress wanted the agree­ ment between the United States and Virginia changed in order to reduce the number of potential states in the North­ west.^ jn addition, Monroe reported to Jefferson that both of his Western trips had "impress'd me fully with a conviction of the impolicy of our measures respecting it" because Western "interests, if not oppos'd, will be but little connected with ours" and also because much of the territory would remain wilderness and never obtain enough

O /l population for statehood. (These conclusions may also explain in part his continued opposition to Kentucky's separation from Virginia.)

Monroe informed Jefferson that his friend's own plans for the area would therefore have to be revised, especially by reducing the number of states envisioned for the area. Change was necessary not only to make it easier for the scattered population of the region to have a rea­ sonable chance to attain statehood eventually, but also to weaken the future voting strength in Congress of a possibly antagonistic Northwest. Naturally Jefferson did

^Letters of 19 and 26 Dec. 1785» Madison Papers, Ser. 1, Reel 2.

^Letter of 19 Jan. 1786, TJ, Papers (Boyd), IX, 186-89- 85 not care for this idea, arguing that Westerners were so much in favor of small states that he felt they would

leave the Confederation in order to have them; . . but

[he added] I respect your opinion, and your knowledge of the country too much, to be over confident in my own."^

Fortunately, Congress was likewise recognizing

Monroe's special knowledge of the Western country; for, as one authority on this legislative body argues, Monroe's

"convictions, even if erroneous, were better than Indif­

ference."^ When Monroe moved that there be fewer states in the Northwest, he received a favorable response from the rather slow-moving legislature by drawing attention to a field of legislation which most congressmen were ready to consider; for he "reopened the whole issue of territorial government at a time when the activities of [squatting]

frontiersmen only reinforced the idea of greater control

0*7 during the initial stages of dependency." A grand

committee (including Monroe) considered his motion, and its

preliminary report of 24 March 1786 supported Monroe's sug-

^Letter of 16 July 1786, ibid., X, 111-15.

■^Edmund Cody Burnett, The Continental Congress (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1964 [c. 1941 j, p”I 651^

37Rc>bert F. Berkhofer, Jr., "The Republican Origins of the American Territorial System," The West of the American People, ed. by Allan G. Brogue, Thomas D. Phillips, and James E. Wright (Itasca, 111.: F. E. Peacock Publishers, Inc. [1970]), p. 157. 86 gestion, even though new action would entail a revision of

Jefferson's Ordinance of 1784 (as well as the wording of

Virginia's and Massachusetts' cessions). Congress then appointed, on 27 March, a committee of five members to plan this revision and named Monroe the chairman of this n O committee.5

For some Northern congressmen like Rufus King and

Nathan Dane, the naming of Monroe's committee was "the en­ tering wedge to upset Jefferson's plan entirely."^9 Based upon less specific knowledge of the area, Jefferson's origi­ nal plan was more theoretical than Monroe's. Having a more sympathetic attitude toward the Westerners, Jefferson had also created the possibility of some confusion in the future by making the settlers, rather than Congress, responsible for somehow establishing the initial government in the area.

Monroe on the other hand suggested placing a tighter rein 4 0 upon the West. In his capacity as committee chairman,

Monroe asked John Jay, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs,

3®JC£, XXX, 131-35 and 139. The other members of .Monroe's committee were William Samuel Johnson, Rufus King, John Kean, and Charles Pinckney.

^Peterson, Thomas Jefferson, p. 284.

^°Berkhofer, in "Republican Origins," p. 159, argues, however, concerning Jefferson's plan: "While it is true that temporary government was organized by the state’s Inhabitants under his plan, they still had to operate under a constitu­ tion selected from those of the original states." 87 whether It might not be a better Idea to base Western government "upon Colonial principles"; and, while Jay's answer Is not extant, the report of Monroe's committee, which he submitted to Congress on 10 May 1786, adopted this basic philosophy. Writing to Jefferson the day after sub­ mitting his report, Monroe— without revealing that he was responsible for it— described the new plan, designed to replace Jefferson's own plan for the West, as establishing

"in effect . . . a Colonial Gov[ernmen]t similar to that wh[ich] prevail'd in these States previous to the revolu­ tion" with the obvious exception that Congress promised these

American colonies statehood when their population equaled 42 that of the least numerous of the thirteen original states.

As his report was a fundamental step in the movement away from the Ordinance of 1784 and toward the Northwest

Ordinance of 1787 (adopted after he left Congress), Monroe played an important part in establishing American policy

toward the West. Grayson, who remained in Congress the next year, Informed his cousin that Congress had passed an

^Letter of 20 April 1786, Burnett, Letters, VIII, 342.

^Letter of 11 May 1786, TJ, Papers (Boyd), IX, 510-12; JCC, XXX, 251-55.

^Letter of 8 Aug. 1787 > Monroe Papers (LC), Ser. 1, Reel 1. 88 ordinance for Western government "in a manner something different from the one you drew, though I expect the de­ parture is not essential but that it will meet your approba- 43 tion." Recent scholarship supports Grayson's view, one historian stating that Monroe's report was "the outline of what was to become the Northwest Ordinance of the next year" and that Monroe's plan, rather than Jefferson's,

"provided the basic structure and sequence of territorial government. In one sense Monroe's proposal really favored the West more than Jefferson's had, in that state­ hood was easier to attain because the smaller number of states which Monroe advocated for the Northwest meant a lower, more practical ratio of land to people. "Monroe's plan, imperfect as it was in form when reported, provided for a more advanced state of civilization than Jefferson's 45 and in some respects was an Improvement on it."

Monroe did not offend the West by employing his colonial analogy in his report, but obviously his efforts to prevent the separation of Kentucky and tc provide for a colonial-style government for the American West did not contribute to his popularity among Westerners. In that

^Letter of 8 Aug. 1787, Monroe Papers (LC), Ser. 1, Reel 1.

^Berkhofer, "Republican Origins," pp. 157-58.

^Frederick S. Stone, "The Ordinance of 1787," Pa. Mag, of History and Biography, XIII (1889), 339. regard his efforts to preserve American rights the Mississippi River were more important. CHAPTER V

DEFENDING THE WEST

One of the most dramatic crises to face the

Congress of the United States during the so-called Critical

Period reached its climax in 1786 when, after long debate,

Congress found it necessary to make some basic decisions regarding American negotiations with Spain. The manner in which these negotiations were conducted, and the actions which Congress considered regarding them, illustrate some of the fundamental problems facing the union under the

Articles of Confederation. The decisions of individual congressmen on this matter also reveal the presence of basic conflicts in attitude toward the future of the Amer­ ican West. In addition, a study of legislative maneuvering during this period demonstrates the important political position which James Monroe had reached In his last year in Congress; for he played a prominent part in every stage of the issue's development.

Long before negotiations began, Monroe realized the importance of reopening the lower Mississippi to

American commerce. Although Washington, Richard Henry Lee,

Jefferson, and most statesmen in eastern Virginia seemed

90 91 unconcerned when Spain proclaimed the closure of the river on 26 June 1784, this action had deeply disturbed some people in Virginia— especially in the Kentucky district— and Monroe soon heard about it. Late in 1784 Madison, from his vantage point in Virginia’s General Assembly, informed him that the House of Delegates was in the process of for­ mally urging Congress to begin serious negotiations with

Spain about this problem and eventually the legislatures of Virginia and North Carolina both petitioned Congress for action. Even before this occurred, Monroe had already ex­ pressed to Madison his view that the closing of the Missis- p sippi "requires the Immediate attention of Congress."

Monroe may even have hoped that Congress would put Jefferson in charge of arranging a solution with Spain. At least he warned his friend in France that he might soon be called upon to handle a Spanish problem. Monroe, however, then learned that John Jay, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, would conduct the negotiations with Spain personally as soon as Don Diego de Gardoqui, Spain's newly appointed encargado de negocios, reached the United States. In fact, Monroe complained that Spanish affairs would have to "sleep" until

1 Abernethy, Western Lands, p. 295; Madison to Monroe, 14 Nov. 1784, Madison Papers, Ser. 1, Reel 2; Samuel Flagg Bemis, "John Jay," in The American Secretaries of State and Their Diplomacy, ed. by S. F. Bemis, I (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1927-29), 234-35-

^Letter of 6 Dec. 1784, Madison Papers, Ser. 1, Reel 2. this man’s arrival.^

Although Monroe expected Gardoqui to reach New

York— where Congress was meeting— by April of 1785, the

Spanish diplomat did not announce his presence in the

United States until 21 May, when he began making inquiries in Philadelphia. The President of Congress finally re­ ceived his credentials by the end of the next month, and

Congress then granted the envoy from the Spanish king a special public audience on 2 July. Jay had requested

Congress to hear Gardoqui in person, and so part of the reason for the long delay in beginning negotiations re­ sulted from Congress’s indecision regarding how that body should act toward such an important diplomat bearing such ij a lowly title.

After Gardoqui's ceremonial reception by Congress, negotiations still could not begin in earnest. When

Congress ordered Jay to write a letter responding to Gardo­ qui 1 s brief remarks to the members, Gardoqui inquired in his reply to Jay as to how he was to proceed with the negotiations. The fact that he had to ask indicates Congres lack of experience in conducting direct diplomacy. Before

^Monroe to Jefferson, 14 Dec. 1784, TJ, Papers (Boyd), VII, 572-73; Monroe to Madison, 18 Dec. 1784 and 6 March 1785, Madison Papers, Ser. 1, Reel 2.

^Monroe to Jefferson, 12 April 1785, TJ, Papers (Boyd), VII, 75-80; JCC, XXVIII, 400n, 402, 459n, 466-67, 484, and XXIX, 494ff. 93

Gardoqui had presented himself, the members of Congress

had certainly had plenty of time to consider possible

diplomatic procedures; but they had done nothing. Perhaps

a primarily legislative body is incapable of handling such matters adequately. Congress at this time was still at­

tempting to control diplomacy through its committees.

Jay's office of secretary for foreign affairs was merely a transitional creation, a step toward having foreign af­

fairs directly supervised by the Department of State estab­

lished in 1789.

On 8 July 1785 Congress therefore referred Gardoqui's and Jay's inquiries to a committee consisting of Elbridge

Gerry, James Monroe, and William Samuel Johnson. The com­ mittee reported four days later; and then, on 20 July, Con­ gress finally authorized Jay to treat with Gardoqui but

unrealistically ordered him to get prior approval from Con­ gress for every step he took.-* The next day Congress adopted the form— drawn by Charles Thomson, the Secretary of Congress— for commissioning Jay as American plenipotentiary, "grant­

ing to him full powers . . . to treat, adjust, conclude and sign . . . whatever may be necessary" and promising to ratify agreements made between Jay and Gardoqui;^ but by these words Congress did not leave Jay free to act on his own.

%TCC, XXIX, ligilff, 520, and 561 ff.

frbid., pp. 567 ff• 94

His authorization of the preceding day, the details of which were supposed to remain secret, still bound him.

Perhaps Monroe, who had a part in composing these unusual limitations upon a diplomatic negotiator, was already wor­ ried about the way in which Jay might handle the Mississippi problem.

Less than a month later, Monroe's wary attitude to­ ward Jay became more apparent when, on 15 August, the Secre­ tary for Foreign Affairs, requested Congress to revise the procedures. Jay told Congress that, while he liked his commission, he found his instructions unacceptable, com­ plaining that it was "exceedingly embarrassing" for him to be compelled to communicate every one of his propositions for Gardoqui to Congress first. In addition, he argued that

Gardoqui would eventually discover that Jay was submitting the Spanish minister's proposals to Congress in writing and would thereafter become more reserved in his dealings with

Jay. The next day Jay's request was read and referred to a committee headed by Monroe, the other members being Charles

Pettit, Elbridge Gerry, James McHenry, and Rufus King. On the following day Monroe submitted his committee's report, which Congress adopted verbatim on 25 August 1785. Monroe did not allude to Jay's newly revised instructions in his next letter to Jefferson, but he was largely responsible for them. These instructions reflected Monroe's views; they originated in his committee; the committee's report is in his handwriting; moreover, the committee acted so quickly

that one can assume that the other members probably merely acquiesced to the views of their chairman. By these in­

structions Monroe made sure that Jay was not empowered to agree to any treaty which failed to recognize what the

United States claimed to be its southern boundary and, more

importantly, what the United States claimed as its right

to free navigation of the entire Mississippi.7 Congress readily adopted Monroe's proposals without any significant opposition; but the new instructions became the subject of prolonged argument in Congress the next year, with many of

Monroe's former committee opposing their continuance.

Despite Congress’ original determination not to yield on the two stipulated points, the young republic was too weak to budge Spain from its well-buttressed position.

Moreover, Jay's "excessive vanity did make him the prey of Q clever diplomatists." As a result of Gardoqui1s previous acquaintanceship with Jay, whom he had met when the latter had represented the United States in Spain from 1779 to

1782, the Spanish envoy felt that he knew how to persuade the American secretary to accept Spanish terms and had therefore obtained special instructions permitting him to

7Ibid., pp. 627-29, 631n, and 657ff; Monroe to Jefferson, 25 Aug. 1785, TJ, Papers (Boyd), VIII, HH1-H2.

^Bemis, "John Jay," in American Secretaries, I, 2^2. 96 entertain this self-centered American and his wife, who was known to be able to influence him easily. Although Jay's conduct remained honorable, during the winter of 1785-1786 there was "plenty of evidence to show that he was gradually weakening to the Spaniard's arguments."9 Perhaps he had no other choice. At any rate Gardoqui and Jay were even­ tually able to reach tentative agreement on all points except the two on which Congress, at Monroe's suggestion, had refused to yield. Thus Monroe's instructions alone prevented Jay from binding the American Confederation to accept "what today seems to every American the mistaken policy of an honest man,"^ a commercial agreement and military alliance with Spain in return for losing all claims to navigate the lower Mississippi for the next twenty-five or thirty years.

In order to make such a final agreement with

Gardoqui, Jay found it necessary to lobby members of Congress to free him from the restrictive instructions prepared by

Monroe and adopted by Congress. In December of 1785 Jay informed Monroe, who had just arrived for the new session, that he was unable to complete negotiations with Gardoqui on the basis of his present instructions and that instead he wanted Congress to place a committee over him with the

9Ibid., p. 240.

10Ibid., p. 248. 97 power to instruct him. Monroe, who believed that Jay wanted the committee established "with a view of evading his instructions and concluding the treaty before they were known," heard Jay out before indicating that he would oppose him.11

Long before Jay made his formal request to Congress,

Monroe had thus learned about Jay’s plans from Jay himself.

Moreover, Monroe later claimed that he was "acquainted with 12 all the previous arrangements" which Jay's supporters made.

Although nothing prevented the Secretary for Foreign Affairs from explaining his position to individual members of

Congress, and Monroe himself indicated that Jay was not act­ ing secretly, Monroe, nevertheless, later castigated Jay's activities as "a long train of Intrigue and management." D

Jay was able to secure the support of all seven of the Northern states and, by the end of May, was prepared to

^Monroe to Jefferson, 16 June 1786 (italics indicate words in code, TJ, Papers (Boyd), IX, 652-55; Monroe to Mad­ ison, 31 May 1786, Madison Papers, Ser. 1, Reel 2; Monroe to Henry, 12 Aug. 1786, Monroe Papers (LC), Ser. 1, Reel 1; Monroe to Washington, 20 Aug. 1786, Burnett, Letters, VIII, 446-47. 1 P Monroe to Madison, 31 May 1786, Madison Papers, Seri 1, Reel 2.

■^Monroe to Henry, 12 Aug. 1786, Monroe Papers (LC), Ser. 1, Reel 1; see also Monroe's speech on this whole matter to the Va. ratifying convention, 13 June 1788, The Debates in the Several State Conventions, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, as Recommended by the General Con­ vention at Philadelphia, in 1787, ed. by Jonathan Elliot (2d ed., 5 vols; Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1836), III, 334-40, hereinafter referred to as Elliot, Debates. 98 act. Accordingly, he obtained a letter from Gardoqui requesting Jay to refer their Mississippi difficulty to a full meeting of Congress as they had both wished to do "for 1 Jj many months." Jay then formally asked Congress on 29 May to establish a secret committee with "power to instruct and direct me on every point and subject relative to the pro­ posed treaty with Spain."^5

Congress referred the matter to a committee headed by Rufus King of Massachusetts, the other members being

Charles Pettit of Pennsylvania and James Monroe, who was the only one of the three opposed to Jay’s request. Con­ vinced that the Mississippi must be opened in order to prevent the West from being thrown into the hands of Great

Britain and believing that "the folly of our councils and the vice of those who govern them" had prevented turning to American advantage the fact that Spain was the European power most in American hands, Monroe contended privately that "Jay has managed this negociation dishonestly." Also doubting the honesty of Rufus King, he managed to prevent

King's committee from making a quick decision in favor of

1 /i x Gardoqui to Jay, 25 May 1786, JCC, XXVI, 469-72.

^ J a y to Hancock, 29 May 1786, Monroe Papers (LC), Ser. 1, Reel 1.

-^Monroe to Madison, 31 May 1786 (italics indicate code), Madison Papers, Ser. 1, Reel 2; Monroe to Jefferson, 16 July 1786, TJ, Papers (Boyd), X, 142-44; cf. JCC, XXX, 323. 99 Jay’s request. In fact, he prevented the committee from making any decision at all. King even experienced dif­ ficulty finding Monroe, some weeks after the committee had met formally with Jay, when he tried to inform Monroe that the other two committee members had agreed that they

"could do nothing" other than request Congress to discharge their two-month old committee and consider the matter in a committee of the whole.^

Wien King made this recommendation official on 1

August, Congress immediately ordered Jay to appear two days later. Well-prepared for the occasion, Jay spoke to Congress 1 R at great length. The future Federalist argued that "the situation of the United States appears to be seriously deli­ cate, and to call for great circumspection both at home and abroad . . . until a vigorous National government be formed, and public Credit and confidence established." He believed that at this time it was in "the interest of the United

States to be on the best terms with Spain," that by the proposed commercial arrangements which he had tentatively worked out with Gardoqui "we gain much and sacrifice or give up nothing," and that by agreeing— for the period of the treaty

'^Klng to Monroe, 30 July 1786, Monroe Papers (LC), Ser. 1, Reel 1; cf. Monroe to Jefferson, 16 June and 16 July 1786, TJ, Papers (Boyd), IX, 652-55 and X, 142-44.

l^JCC t XXXI, 457* Quotations from Jay’s speech in the rest of the paragraph are from Monroe Papers (LC), Ser. 1, Reel 1 and JCC, XXXI, 467ff. 100

(twenty-five or thirty years)— to forbear using the Missis­ sippi "while we do not want it is no great sacrifice." He also pointed out that such forbearance would not hurt the value of Western lands more than the present situation, which could be remedied only by a successful war with Spain.

Jay reminded Congress that, when he had been in Spain, he had himself been against formal relinquishment of American navigation rights, and insisted that he still was. While

Gradoqui strongly urged their complete relinquishment, Jay told Congress that the Spaniard would probably accept the

American promise merely to forbear using the Mississippi:

"We have had many conferences and much reasoning on the subject. ..." Jay had repeatedly warned him that the

West "was filling fast with people; and that the time must and would come, when they would not submit to seeing a fine river flow before their doors without using it as a Highway to the sea. ..." Gardoqui, however, insisted that this development was in the far distant future and remained adamant. Jay, who seems to have accepted Gardoqui1s concep­ tion of the West's development, then asked Congress: "Why therefore should we not (for a valuable consideration too) consent to forbear to use what we know is not in our power to use?"

For almost the rest of August there was a great deal of political activity in and out of Congress as the members 101 attempted to answer the question which Jay had raised.

Monroe later exclaimed:

Since this pro.1 ect was presented, the negoclation has been more with Congress to repeal the ultimata than with Spain to carry the instructions into effect.^9

On 10 August Rufus King moved to repeal the portion of Jay's instructions by which Monroe had insured that any Spanish-

American agreement included the free navigation of the

Mississippi. From that time on— as Monroe reported to

Jefferson— "the debate turn'd" upon this motion of the delegates of Massachusetts, who were Jay's "instruments on the floor."20

Monroe realized that, while the five Southern states disliked King's motion, unfortunately all seven

Northern states favored repeal. Consequently he sought ad­ ditional help from outside Congress. He wrote to James

Madison to explain that Jay's proposals would be "absolutely defeated" if James Wilson and Arthur St. Clair (two absent

Pennsylvania congressmen) were opposed to them and if they joined their delegation in time to alter its vote. He therefore asked his colleague, who was in Philadelphia, "If this shall be the case, may you not discover it in conversa-

-*-^Letter to Jefferson, 12 Oct. 1786, TJ, Papers (Boyd), X, *156-5 8 .

20Letter of 19 Aug. 1786, ibid., pp. 27^-79; cf. JCC, XXX, 509ff. PI tion & send them up?"

Madison, who had just visited Monroe in New York and was thus well informed about the issue, was unable to see St. Clair (who soon arrived in Congress and favored

Jay’s proposal) but did manage to have a long talk with

Wilson (who never arrived). He hoped that Wilson's "ulti­ mate opinion" favored Monroe's side; for he had made Wilson aware of the fact that such a Spanish treaty "tends to defeat the object of the meeting at Annapolis, from which he [Wilson] had great expectation."22 In the same nation­ alistic vein, Madison confided to Jefferson that the issue was personally "mortifying" because he had stressed to

Westerners that the federal government needed more power to negotiate effectively on the Mississippi problem and now this proposed treaty, if accepted, would "be fatal I fear to an augmentation of the federal authority if not to the little now existing.”2^

Madison had other reasons for sharing Monroe's con­ cern over the Mississippi problem. He had earlier told

Monroe that "the fiscal importance of the back Country to

^Letter of 11 Aug. 1786 (misdated 10 Aug.), Madison Papers, Ser. 1, Reel 2.

22Madison to Monroe, 15 Aug. 1786, ibid.; cf. Monroe to Madison, 30 Aug. 1786, ibid.

^Letter of 12 Aug. 1786 (italics indicate code), TJ, Papers (Boyd), X, 229-36. 103 the U. States" through land sales depended upon the naviga- n i| tion of the Mississippi.^ Madison had also pointed out that, as Nature had given the Mississippi to the Westerners,

"no power on Earth can take it from them"; and consequently the United States "cannot ultimately be deprived of it."^5

Jay’s proposals therefore astonished Madison. Because the

United States was not being forced to accept them and be­ cause the North would be the principal beneficiary of a commercial treaty, Madison characterized these proposals as "voluntary barter in time of profound peace of the rights of one part of the [American] empire to the interests 2 6 of another part." (Madison’s contention is supported by a letter of Rufus King to Elbridge Gerry in which King ex­ pressed a worry that the impasse in the negotiations over the Mississippi might interrupt New England's fish trade 27 with Spain. )

Monroe shared Madison's belief that the North alone would benefit from Jay's proposals and that the issue might endanger the union, but his conclusions about these political developments were more extreme. (They also serve as an

2^Letter of 29 May 1786, Madison Papers, Ser. 1, Reel 2.

^Letter of 8 Jan. 1785, ibid.

^Letter to Monroe, 21 June 1786 (italics indicate code), ibid.

2^Letter of 13 Aug. 1786, Burnett, Letters, VIII, *125-26. 104 early Indication of the almost fanatically partisan nature which Monroe manifested during the political activities of the next decade.) Monroe saw in the activities surrounding

Jay's proposals an actual conspiracy of Northern politicians who were resolved to make their section more important than the South, even if they had to form a separate confedera­ tion for their region in order to accomplish this goal. In a remark which also demonstrates that Monroe was not as much of a nationalist as Madison, Monroe informed Jefferson that

our affairs are daily falling into a worse situa­ tion , arising more from the Intrigues of designing men than any real defect in our system or distress of our affairs. The same party who advocate this business have certainly held in this city committees for dismembering the confederacy and throwing the states eastward the Hudson into one government.

He also told Madison that "Jay and his party in congress" were clearly trying to retard the development of the West

(a section closely identified with the South) or were work­ ing for "dismembering the gov[ernmen]t itself, for the pur­ pose of a separate confederacy."2^ Monroe later expressed the belief that Jay's party had "sought a dismemberm[en]t to the Potowmack and those of the party here have been on sounding those in [state] office thus far."-1

2^Letter of 19 Aug. 1786, TJ, Papers (Boyd), X, 276-77. ^Letter of 14 Aug. 1786, Madison Papers, Ser. 1, Heel 2.

3°Letter to Madison, 3 Sept. 1786, ibid. 105 Although Congress had not yet authorized its members

to communicate their discussions on foreign affairs to the

state governments (and, in fact, later voted down such an authorization), Monroe was so fearful of the possible ef­ fects of the Mississippi issue upon the union in general, and upon Virginia in particular, that— in addition to dis­ cussing the North’s political maneuverings with Jefferson and Madison— he also wrote to Governor Patrick Henry. He warned him that Jay's cohorts were risking a possible break­ up of the union into smaller parts; and he advised him that, if such a dismemberment should occur, Virginia must be pre­ pared to prevent a realignment of states "which would throw too much power into the Eastern division."31

Monroe's charge of Northern intrigue was not merely partisan rhetoric, nor the result of an overactive imagina­ tion. Proof of such a conspiracy exists, for example, in a letter which Theodore Sedgwick, one of King's colleagues in the Massachusetts delegation, wrote to Caleb Strong on

6 August:

It well becomes the eastern and middle States, who are in interest one, seriously to consider what ad­ vantages result to them from their connection with the Southern States . . . [and] to contemplate a substitute . . . that of contracting the limits of the confederacy to such as are natural and reason­ able, and within those limits instead of a nominal

^Letter of 12 Aug. 1786, Monroe Papers (LC), Ser. 1, Reel 1; cf. JCC, XXXI, 697- 106

to Institute a real, and an efficient government.32

Monroe and the other Southern congressmen, however, did not consider It wise to charge Jay's party publicly with conspiring to end the Confederation; and instead they pre­ sented Congress with several other major arguments against

Jay's proposals. Charles Pinckney of South Carolina in a long speech on 16 August insisted that the United States was too weak to enforce a commercial treaty but that, on the other hand, the United States must get the Mississippi opened in order to increase the value of Western lands and thus re­ duce the public debt. He also warned Congress that the West might become an enemy of the Atlantic states in the future if the Mississippi remained closed and thus made that area dependent upon Spain.^3 Later the same day Monroe also at­ tacked Jay's arguments. Although his speech has not been preserved, the brief notes of one member indicate that Monroe

3^Burnett, Letters, VIII, 415-16. Richard E. Welch, Jr., in Theodore Sedgwick, Federalist: A Political Portrait (Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press [1965]), p* 37, argues that, although Sedgwick "did speak once or twice of secession, 11 Monroe judged him incorrectly: "A study of all his actions and words at this period, however, forbids a conclusion that he was either involved in any actual seces­ sionist plot or wished— or even expected— to see a division of his country." Robert Ernst, in Rufus King, American Federalist (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press for the Institute of Early American History and Culture at Williamsburg, Va. [1968]),pp. 7^-75, makes a similar dis­ claimer concerning Monroe's judgment of King's wish for dis­ union, but he admits that King may have proposed a congres- sionally sanctioned subconfederation of the Northeast.

33j c c , XXXI, 944, 9^5, and 947. 107 discussed the proposed commercial treaty, calling it "not benef[icia]l," and argued that the whole affair "will pre-

■3 2l vent obtain[in]g necess[ar]y Powers of Congress.At the end of the month Virginia put forward yet another argu­ ment against Jay's proposals, claiming— in a motion largely

in Monroe's handwriting— that the acceptance of Jay's pro­ posals would be "a direct violation" of the compact with

Virginia by which Congress had agreed to create states in

the West with the same rights as the original states, in­

cluding that of having their rights "promoted under the

patronage of Congress"; but as these proposals tended "to

fix the weight of population on one side of the Continent

only," Virginia wanted to know: "Can the United States then

dismember the government by a treaty of commerce?"^

In addition to making such formal arguments against

Jay's proposals, Monroe offered countermeasures designed to

extract the United States from the difficulties which Jay

had encountered in his negotiations with Gardoqui. At first

Monroe and his cousin, William Grayson, merely decided to

propose some new instructions authorizing the American nego­

tiator to persuade Spain to permit Westerners to trade

through the Mississippi upon the payment of a small tax.

Monroe suggested this idea on 14 August to Madison, who

^Notes of William Samuel Johnson, ibid. , pp. 951-53*

•^Ib.ld. , p. 586. 108 objected not to Its principles but to its lack of political feasibility. By the time Monroe received Madison’s reply, he had already made a significant addition to his plan: near the end of the day on Friday, 18 August, Virginia not only moved that the new instructions be adopted but also that the negotiations be conducted by the American charg^ d 1 affaires in Spain, a man by the name of William

Carmichael.36

Actually Monroe was not merely working to get the stalled negotiations moved to Madrid but, more importantly, to put them in the safe hands of his friend, Thomas Jeffer­ son. He indicated this goal to Jefferson in a letter writ­ ten the next day. Moreover, the minutes of the Secretary of Congress for Monday, 21 August, show that Virginia was by now suggesting that Congress send a special (as yet un­ named) envoy to Spain. After Virginia made the original motion on Friday, Monroe spent the weekend lobbying for his complete plan, even though he admitted to Jefferson that 27 he thought it would eventually fail to be adopted. ' Before

Congress met on Monday, he corresponded with several other people besides Jefferson. One letter went to George Wash-

36jvionroe’s letter and Madison’s reply of 17 Aug. 1786, Madison Papers, Ser. 1, R e e l 2; Burnett, Letters, VIII, 440-42; cf. JCC, XXXI, 527.

37ivionroe to Jefferson, 19 Aug. 1786, TJ, Papers (Boyd), X, 274-79; Burnett, Letters, VIII, 449. 109 ington, to whom he explained what Jay had proposed, out­ lined his own plan to send John Adams and Jefferson to

Madrid to secure the "just rights" of "our ultra-montane brethren," and asked for Washington’s opinion, no doubt with the idea of showing it to other members of Congress if a favorable reply should arrive in time.3® Monroe also wrote to influential men closer at hand. Unfortunately,

Arthur St. Clair, soon to be elected president of Congress, immediately replied that he did not favor "the investing of Mr. Jefferson, or any other person, with the character of an Envoy Extraordinary, and sending him to Madrid would virtually supercede Gardoqui" and thus offend Spain.^

Lambert Cadwalader, a possible swing vote in the New Jersey delegation, replied that, while he liked the new instructions which Monroe was suggesting, he did not care who carried ii o them out.

On Monday three Virginians (Grayson, Monroe, and

Carrington) defended their motion against three New England­ ers (Johnson, Sedgwich, and King); and again on Tuesday

38Letter of 20 Aug. 1786, Burnett, Letters, VIII, 446- 47. -^Letter of 20 Aug. 1786, The St. Clair Papers: The Life and Public Service of Arthur St. Clair; Soldier of the Revolutionary War; President of the Continental Congress; and Governor of the North-Western Territory; with His Corres­ pondence and Other Papers, ed. by William Henry Smith C2 vols.; Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & C., 1882), I, 599-603.

^°Letter of 20 Aug. 1786, Burnett, Letters, VIII, 446. 110 there was "a long sp[eech] by Monroe and Carrington"; but, while this activity was going on in Congress, Monroe and his colleagues were also attempting to secure French support against Spain. In fact, the possibility of French mediation was probably one of the justifications which

Monroe used when he privately suggested that Jefferson replace Jay as American negotiator with Spain. As early as 10 August Grayson had requested Congress to have Jay document the French opinion of the matter and on 16 August had argued in Congress that France would be a satisfactory mediator. Even after Jay made his official reply, in which he suggested that France would not be willing to help, Jay's 4 ? leading opponents were not dissuaded from this course.

Accordingly, they went to Louis Guillaume Otto, the French charge d'affaires, to request him to obtain help from the

French foreign ministry. Despite Monroe's condemnation of Jay for intriguing with members of Congress, the group making this clandestine visit to the representative of a foreign power undoubtedly included Monroe, who had previously written to Jefferson:

I have also been much pleas'd with an acquaintance with Mr. Otto. He hath made an impression here very

^Thomson's minutes, ibid., p. *150; cf. JCC. XXXI. 528-29 and 535.

^2JCC, XXXI, 509ff, 537-552; Thomson's minutes, 16 Aug. 1786, Burnett, Letters, VIII, 428-29. Ill

flattering to himself and favorable to the Idea you entertain of him.^3

After the secret meeting Otto reported to the Count of Ver-

gennes that congressmen from the five Southern states had

"formed a league" to stop Jay, had asserted In "open

congress . . . that Prance alone could succeed In procuring

for them a treaty of commerce with Spain," and had secretly

communicated with Jefferson about the need for this French

aid. Otto also learned, "They already have seven states

on their side, and if they can gain two more, which is very

likely, Mr. Jefferson will receive his instructions at

once.

This last piece of information turned out to be wishful thinking, for on the same day that Otto wrote home,

Congress heard the report of the committee of the whole, a report which accepted King's motion to repeal Jay's restrict­

ing instructions and which ignored Monroe's countersuggestion.

When this report was debated the next week, Monroe made one

last attempt to prevent its adoption. He introduced a minor­ ity report which, after summing up Southern arguments, or­ dered the negotiations transferred to Spain, instructed

Jefferson to request French mediation, and reduced Jay's role in the Spanish negotiations to that of one of three

^Letter of 19 Jan. 1786, TJ, Papers (Boyd), IX, 187.

^Letter of 23 Aug. 1786, Burnett, Letters, VIII, HH2n. 112 commissioners appointed to decide on whether the results of those new negotiations were acceptable. By a vote of seven (all Northern) states to five (all Southern) states,

Congress rejected this Virginia plan and then, in the same manner voted to adopt the Massachusetts one. 45

The next day, 30 August, the Southerners contested the constitutionality of this decision because "nine were alone competent to such alteration and enlargement" of the powers which Congress had originally granted to J a y . ^ Mon­ roe had mentioned this argument as early as 12 August, in his letter to Henry, and had repeated it on 19 August, in a letter to Jefferson. Virginia had also proposed a motion to this effect sometime before the matter had come to a vote, probably as early as 17 August. Even after Congress re­ jected this claim by the same seven-to-five vote, the five

Southern states continued to contend that Jay was still bound by his original instructions.^ Monroe, however, decided against having the Southern delegations communicate their sentiments to Jay on this matter because communicating

"otherwise than thro the journals might have an intemperate

^5JCC, XXXI, 554, 565ff, and 574 ff.

46Ibld., p. 597.

^Burnett, Letters, VIII, 431-32; JCC, XXXI, 6l0ff and 620 ff. 113 il 8 & factious appearance."

Actually, Monroe had not avoided factious activities earlier but now resolved to refrain from pressing the issue for fear that, to save face, "Jay and the principal advo­ cates" of his proposals would "labor to break the Union.

Also, he was busy on another matter of congressional concern; for, shortly after Congress voted on the Mississippi matter, both King and Monroe complied with an earlier request of

Congress by going together to the Pennsylvania legislature to plead for that state's acceptance of a law promoting

American trade. While these two leading opponents were away,

Congress ignored the Mississippi debate; but, as soon as they returned, the South once again tried to reopen the issue. The Southerners questioned the legality of the seven- to-five vote, but without success, Congress even refusing to authorize the members to communicate with their state governments about the Spanish negotiations.

^Monroe to Madison, 3 Sept. 1786, Madison Papers, Ser. 1, Reel 2. ^ Ibid.

5°JCC, XXXI, 515, 687-88, and 697- Ernst, in Rufus King, p. 80, recounts that, when King began his speech to the Pa, Assembly on 13 Sept. 1786, he became flustered and had to ask Monroe to take over until he recovered. Un­ doubtedly Monroe used his visit to encourage Pa. to join the Southern side, for that was one of his objectives in the continuing struggle over Jay's proposals (see his letters to Madison for Sept. and Oct.). 114

Despite this last vote, the arena of debate about the importance of the Mississippi shifted from Congress to the state legislatures, in particular to Virginia’s General

Assembly. Although Patrick Henry had not replied to Monroe’s letter of 12 August (thereby causing Monroe to become un­ sure of Henry's attitude), the Governor used on the state level the information which Monroe had sent to him and thus backed up Monroe's actions in Congress. Through his sister,

Henry directed a couple of Kentucky leaders to get up peti­ tions against Jay's proposals. Eventually this action at the grassroots resulted in the unanimous adoption in the

Virginia House of Delegates of a resolution protesting the whole a f f a i r . Madison assisted in getting this resolution adopted, telling Monroe that he was "consulted frequently

on matters which I cannot or ought not to speak, and refer to you as the proper source of information as far as you may be at liberty" and requesting him to hasten to Richmond.

Although Monroe did not comply, his highly signifi­ cant letter to the Governor had already been of great help in defending Western interests in Virginia's legislature.

5^-Monroe to Madison, 29 Sept. 1786, Madison Papers, Ser. 1, Reel 2; Henry to Mrs. Anne Christian, 20 Oct. 1786, Patrick Henry: Life, Correspondence and Speeches, ed. by William Wirt Henry (3 vols.; New York: Charles Scribner1s Sons, 1891), III, 379-80. The House of Delegates resolution was adopted 29 Nov. 1786.

-^Letter of 30 Oct. 1786, Madison Papers, Ser. 1, Reel 2. 115 Monroe’s congressional activities were also successful In deflecting the Northerners from their goal. According to

Julian Boyd, ", . . Jay had been given such a blow by the vigor and resourcefulness of Monroe’s attack that, for the moment, the danger of disunion s u b s i d e d . "^3 Thus one year after the questionable vote of Congress to repeal Jay’s restrictions, William Grayson was able to report to his cousin:

The Mississippi is where you left it; i.e. nothing has been done; Mr. Jay has in one of his later let­ ters, decidedly said he would do nothing more with- [ou]t the farther [sic] decision of Congress.-— I therefore think we are safe for the present.54

This prolonged dispute over the handling of the

Mississippi question, which was not completely resolved even after Monroe left the Congress, exposed deep-seated conflicting interests among congressmen and divided them into two obvious groups or parties along sectional lines.

Monroe, who told Jefferson that it was "manifest they have 5 5 had throughout seven states and we five,"-^ had not noticed any such factions in Congress before Jay began his unsuc­ cessful negotiations with Gardoqui. Indeed, before this issue arose, Monroe had praised the members of Congress

53t j , Papers, X, 279n.

^Letter of 8 Aug. 1786, Monroe Papers (LC), Ser. 1, Reel 1.

55Letter of 19 Aug. 1786, TJ, Papers (Boyd), X, 27^-79• 116 for their "upright intentions" and declared that he had

"never seen a body of men collected in which there was

less party for there is no shadow of it here."56

This new division of congressmen in 1786 was more clearly evident than the later sectional division which

Joseph Charles finds appearing in the House of Representa­ tives at the time of the vote on Assumption and which he claims marks the beginning of the development of the Feder­ alist and Republican p a r t i e s ; 57 t»u.t whether the Monroe and

King factions in the Congress of the Confederation were parties in the same way depends upon one's conception of party. The political historian must also be aware— as is

Morton Grodzins— that there is a danger in "giving the

label 'parties' to emerging groups of political activists and then endowing these 'parties' with an independent force and importance"; for, even in a mature political system, democratic parties are rarely a causative force in a society or a political system because they are "derivative rather 58 than determinant."

Scholars have been unable to agree on a definition

for the term party, and consequently they have also been un-

-^Letter to Jefferson, 16 June 1786, ibid., VIII, 215-20.

■^Origins of the American Party System, pp. 23-24.

5®"Polltical Parties and the Crisis of Succession in the United States: The Case of 1800," in Political Parties, p. 303. 117 able to agree on when national political parties began in the United States. Most American historians, however, con­ sider the labeling of any political group before 1789 as a party to be anachronistic. Richard P. McCormick, for example, while willing to analyze this period in order to

"test adequately any hypotheses that may be advanced to ex­ plain the emergence of parties shortly after 1789," argues that national parties did not form until shortly after the

Confederation period.^9 Moreover, some historians limit the term party to mass-mobilization parties and therefore do not consider any pre-Jacksonian political grouping to be a party in any real sense. Walter Dean Burnham, for example, cannot grant full party status even to the First American

Party System (that which developed immediately after 1789) because it was merely "a bridge between a pre-party phase

in American political development [i.e. the Confederation period] and the recognizably modern parties found in the

second and succeeding party systems.

59"politlcal Development and the Second Party System," The American Party Systems: Stages of Political Development, ed. by William Nisbet Chambers and Walter Dean Burnham (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), P- 93- Chitwood, in Richard Henry Lee, p. 212, says: "There were no political parties in the Continental Congress in the present-day sense of the term. Members who were in general agreement on policy worked together, consulted each other at Informal meetings, and planned joint action on Important measures pending in the House." He then (p. 213) says that the Lees and Adamses and their friends "constituted virtually a unified party."

^°"Party Systems and the Political Process," in American Party Systems, p. 289• 118

Other historians, however, find by concentrating on political ideology as basic to a definition of party that something like party activity was present very early in the history of the United States. Edgar E. Robinson, for instance, finds a national party present during the Revolu­ tionary War but rejects the existence of national parties immediately afterwards, when "Congress became the scene of bickerings of rival states, rather than the arena of political conflict among factions with a common political objective."^

On the other hand, Henry Jones Ford considers that during the Confederation period "antagonistic factions . . . served /T p as centres of party formation."

There were, however, enough conditions necessary for the development of modern national political parties present during the quarrel over Jay's proposals in order to permit us to label Monroe's faction at least a party-in- embryo. Joseph LaPalombara and Myron Weiner declare that political parties develop "whenever the activities of a political system reach a certain degree of complexity" which "implies that the masses must be taken into account by the political elite."^3 Such a situation existed after

6^-The Evolution of American Political Parties: A Sketch of Party Development (Mew York: Harcourt, Brace and Company [1924]), pp'.'"3V, 35, 37, and 38. 6 p The Rise and Growth of American Politics: A Sketch of Constitutional Development (New York: Macmillan Company,- 1898), p. 100. 63»origin and Development," in Political Parties, pp. 3-n. the American Revolution, as Monroe’s concern for the

Westerners and Henry's activities among them clearly il­ lustrate. LaPalombara and Weiner also believe that parties emerge with "the occurrence of political crises of systemic magnitude at a point in time when sufficient modernization has taken place to provide conditions for party development.

Certainly Jay's proposals and the resulting constitutional debate over the seven-to-five vote to repeal part of his instructions greatly disturbed the Confederation’s very foundation, and the degree of modernization in America was as sufficient for party development in the 1780's as it was in the next decade. Moreover, the Congress of the Confedera tion, even though greatly limited in its power, did provide a significant common political arena where an Important con­ flict of interests and opinions was clearly evident after

Jay made his controversial request.

Usually historians who can conceive of groups of legislators as parties do not consider the mere alignment of legislators on opposing sides of a single issue to be of enough significance to justify calling the two sides parties in that case, but the complicated quarrel over the Spanish

6**Ibid. , p. 21.

^5cf. William Nisbet Chambers, "Parties and Nation- Building in America," in Political Parties, pp. 82-83 and 86 Cresson, in James Monroe, p. 86, states that the Mississippi question transcended all other issues of the 1780's in devel oping parties in Congress. 120 negotiations in 1786 can be considered an exception for several reasons. Monroe and his colleagues were arguing about an issue of longer duration than most issues. We have seen sides beginning to form over the Mississippi problem as early as the autumn of 1785 and the first phase of the quarrel reaching its climax during the summer of 1786, but the problem continued to plague the American government until it was finally resolved by the Louisiana Purchase in

1803. (It is Interesting to note that Monroe was thus in­ volved in this issue at the time of its formation and at the time of its resolution.) In addition, the quarrel over Jay's • negotiations with Gardoqui was different from most factional strife because it was merely the synecdoche of many other fundamental questions. The members of Congress were dis­ cussing more than the question of how Congress should con­ duct diplomacy. As we have seen, they were also discussing the nature of the Confederation, the relationship of the

North with the South, the future of the West, and the direc­ tion of the American economic development.

Their quarrel over the Mississippi question Is of great significance In another way, for many of those congress­ men who voted on Jay's proposal during the summer of 1786 were not only still active in national politics after the formation of the First American Party System in the next decade; but, more Importantly, most of them remained on the same side which they had taken in 1786. Probably due to the sectional nature of the Mississippi quarrel and of the party divisions in the 1790's, generally those who supported Mon­ roe in 1786 became Republicans in the next decade, and those who supported King became Federalists. Among those Congress­ men in 1786 who remained prominent in national politics, only two seem to have changed sides: Melancthon Smith, who had supported Jay in 1786, became an associate of Monroe's in the 1790's when the Clintonians made their alliance with the Jeffersonians of Virginia; and Henry Lee, who had voted against Jay's proposals in 1786 because he felt obliged to follow the instructions of his state, became a leading

Federalist in Virginia.^ That the factions forming in the

Congress of the Confederation were of long enough duration to be considered the beginnings of parties is also shown by the fact that in 1816, when the Federalist and Republican parties opposed each other in a presidential race for the last time, the candidates were James Monroe and Rufus King, the leaders of the opposing sectional factions of 1785 and

1786.

Whether Monroe's vigorous political activity in his last year in the Congress of the Confederation was that of a real party leader or not, he found himself, as he told Jeffer­ son, "wearied with the business in which I have been en­ gag'd. It has been a year of excessive labor and fatigue

^Henry Lee to George Washington, 11 Oct. 1786, Burnett, Letters, VIII, 482. and unprofitably so."6? He looked forward to his retire­ ment from Congress when he would become, for the first time in his adult life, a private citizen.

67Letter of 12 Oct. 1786, TJ, Papers (Boyd), X, 456-58. CHAPTER VI

DECIDING ON A CAREER

Monroe was In financial difficulties nearly all of his life and after a lifetime of public service— like Presi­ dents Jefferson and Madison— he died in poverty.1 As a young man Monroe managed to keep his head above water but found that serving his country required financial sacrifice.

During the Revolutionary War he seemed unconcerned that he did not receive much compensation for his military service because he had "only acted that part which the opinion of the duty I owe to the publick dictated and which many worthy

Republicans are now acting without even a similar compensa- tion." Although he was not Independently wealthy, he de­ sired to continue in governmental service after the war be­ cause he was "warmly interested In whatever concerns the publick interest";-1 and thus, quite early in his life, he planned a career primarily revolving around holding public office. He assured his friend, John Francis Mercer, that

^For a detailed study of Monroe's financial prob­ lems during his later years see Wilmerding, James Monroe. ^Monroe to Jefferson, 9 Sept. 1780, TJ, Papers (Boyd), III, 621-23. ^Monroe to Jefferson, 11 May 1782, ibid., VI, 183. 123 124 he wanted desirable governmental appointments in the future and that he was therefore trying to extend his "character

& give it more liberal traits in the publick eye as well as make more substantial acquirments [sic] of political and „ii legal knowledge." Thus, the main reason why he studied law under Thomas Jefferson, then governor of Virginia, was his desire to make himself an able and cultured public ser­ vant, rather than to prepare himself for a profitable private career. He told Jefferson that reading the law under his direction

if not profitable will be agreable, for surely these acquirments qualify a man not only for publick office, but enable him to bear prosperity or adversity . . . with greater magnanimity and f o r t i t u d e . 5

At first Monroe found that a public career did not prevent him from earning a small income by practicing law.

In fact, the members of the Executive Council approved his attorney's license only five days after he joined them on the Council.^ Being able to combine a public and private career in Virginia may explain why Monroe originally planned to serve only one year In the Congress of the Confederation; for he had to abandon his small practice completely when he

^Letter of 14 March 1783, Swem U-brary, College of Wm. and Mary, Monroe Papers, UVa Microfilm, Roll 12, Ser. 2.

^Letter of 1 Oct. 1781, TJ, Papers (Boyd), VI, 124- 25.

^Council of State Journal, 13 June 1782, UVa Micro­ film, Rool 1, Ser. 1; cf. Jacquelin Ambler to Madison, 12 Oct. 1782, Madison, Papers (Hutchinson), V, 191-92. 125 7 left Virginia to attend Congress. By changing his mind and accepting two more terms, Monroe was forced to be away from Virginia for the greater part of three years, and thus he found it necessary to rely mainly upon his salary as a congressman.®

Although this fairly liberal salary was helpful, it did not end Monroe's financial difficulties. Indeed, he left many debts behind him when he went northward to Congress.

For example, John Marshall, who at this time took care of

Monroe's financial affairs in Virginia, informed his friend that, among others, Monroe's "old Land Lady Mrs. Shera be­ gins now to be a little clamorous.Indeed, Marshall found it necessary to negotiate Monroe's warrants, drawn on the slow acting public treasury of Virginia, at a discount. He complained about the difficulty of turning such warrants in­ to cash, avowing that "if I succeed I shall think myself a

^Beverley Randolph to Monroe, 16 April 178*1, Monroe Papers (LC), Ser. 1, Reel 1. O According to Chitwood, in Richard Henry Lee, p. 236, the pay for a member of the Virginia delegation "was fairly liberal and seems to have been in specie or paper money valued in specie. There also were adequate allowances for travel to and from the places of meeting of Congress." For Monroe's services in Congress (from 20 Oct. 1783 to 31 Oct. 1786) the Commonwealth of Va. paid him £2299/4/1 (Va. State Archives, Continental Congress Papers, UVa Microfilm, Roll 12, Ser. 2). ^Letter of 2H Feb. 178A, Beveridge, Life of John Marshall, I, 181-83. 126 first rate speculator."10

Monroe's financial condition did not Improve, espe­ cially after he took on additional responsibilities during his last year in Congress. On 16 February 1786 he married

Elizabeth Kortright, who presented him with their first daughter before the end of the year. During this year

Monroe received many gloomy reports from Joseph Jones, who was now handling his nephew's affairs. Just at the time when Monroe's congressional salary was about to cease, Jones found it necessary to sell some of Monroe's property at a loss. He experienced great difficulty in selling one of

Monroe's lots in Fredericksburg, and also in selling Monroe's 11 horse, and accordingly advised his nephew to be frugal.

Jones also convinced his nephew that he ought to return to Virginia and his dormant law career as soon as possible. Monroe at last came to realize:

My dependence is almost altogether on the bar. By my late absence I have left the door open to others. The soon I therefore return to it the better it will be for me.12

This decision came after Jones had told Monroe that "if you resolve to betake yourself to that business [i.e. the law]

10Letter of 17 April 1786, ibid., p. 212.

11Letters of 7 June, 16 June, 16 July, and 6 Aug. 1786, Monroe Papers (LC), Ser. 1, Reel 1.

12Monroe to Jefferson, 19 Jan. 1786, TJ, Papers (Boyd), IX, 186-89; cf. Jones to Monroe, ca. Jan 1786, Monroe Papers (LC), Ser. 2, Reel 9 . 127 for your support and the enlargement of your fortune, you cannot too soon bend your thoughts that way."1^ After the war the legal profession In Virginia became overcrowded with talented gentlemen. Using the examples of John Marshall and

John Francis Mercer, Jones advised Monroe as quickly as pos­ sible to forsake all other pursuits except the law "and as a man ought to do with the woman he marries cleave only unto her."'*'^ Jones believed that, whatever Monroe's choice of livelihood was, it was "high time you fixed your course for this life" and, in particular, avoided dependency upon

"public employment of one kind or other," which "may provide for the day, so long as we are able to work— but if a family are to be attended to, or the infirmities of age provided for, a man should extend his views somewhat beyond the pres­ ent moment."-^

Public employment at this time, and for the rest of his life, interested Monroe more than the law profession.

Despite his uncle's warning, he was unwilling to take time off from his congressional duties in order to begin reestab­ lishing his law practice by attending the court during the spring elections of 1786. Jones then advised him at least

-^Letter of 15 April 1785, Monroe Papers (LC), Ser. 1, Reel 1.

-^Ibid.; cf. Jones to Monroe, 10 May 1786, Monroe Papers (LCJl Ser. 2, Reel 9.

l5jones to Monroe, 15 April 1786, ibid., Ser. 1, Reel 1. 128 1 fi to spend his spare time studying the laws of Virginia.

Jones also tried to get his nephew to make up his mind before he left Congress as to where in Virginia he in­ tended to establish his practice permanently. For a while

Monroe inclined toward Richmond (no doubt because the

General Assembly met there as well as the General Court) but, after failing to attain a seat in the House of Delegates from King George County, he finally agreed to settle in

Spotsylvania County, at Fredericksburg. Jones seemed to prefer this choice, and John Francis Mercer also recommended it as having good prospects for a young lawyer. In fact,

Mercer had originally considered setting up his own practice there but changed his mind and shortly afterwards moved to

Maryland.^ By residing in Fredericksburg, Monroe would be able to get to the state capital, but at great inconvenience.

Schoelph, who describes Fredericksburg as a "town of middling size" located seventy-nine miles from Richmond, reports that this distance from Richmond was "not much, but the bad con­ ditions of the roads and the number of broken bridges made n Q detours necessary."

■^ L e t t e r 0f 14 March 1786, ibid.

■*-7jones to Monroe, ca. 1785-86 , ca. Jan. 1786, 9 Feb. 1786, 14 March 1786, and 25 March 178*6, Monroe to Jones, 12 March 1786, and Col. Mercer to Monroe, 6 April1786 , ibid., Ser. 1, Reel 1 and Ser. 2, Reel 9; see also Monroe to Jeffer­ son, 19 Jan. 1786, TJ, Papers (Boyd), IX, 186-89.

•^Travels, II, 42 and 46. 129

Monroe established himself in Fredericksburg with great reluctance, telling Jefferson that he hoped to move closer to Monticello in the near future. Moreover, he was even reluctant to make the law his career. Confiding to his friend that he "should be happy to keep clear of the bar if possible," Monroe instead hoped to make his fortune by speculating in land."^ From past experience Monroe was aware that the ownership of large tracts of land did not necessarily mean that cash would be available when he need- 20 ed it. He undoubtedly knew that his holdings in Kentucky and Ohio were only potentially valuable for what they might bring in the distant future, especially as Spain's refusal to open the lower Mississippi retarded their development.

On the other hand Monroe, from his vantage point in the

Congress, knew that the New York area was more likely to rise in value much sooner than his present holdings; and so he was eager to join with Madison in a real estate venture in the Mohawk Valley.

As both of them wanted Jefferson to become a partner in this deal, Monroe wrote to Jefferson of his hopes: "Mr.

Madison and myself have been desirous if possible of form­ ing an engagment for land in this State [New York] which

• ^ L e t t e r of 12 Oct. 1786, TJ, Papers (Boyd), X, 456- 58.

^®John Marshall to Monroe, 28 Dec. 1786, Beveridge, Life of John Marshall. I, 168-69. 130

2 1 would hereafter put us at ease.” Jefferson, who was not interested in investing in this scheme, advised his friend:

You wish not to engage in the drudgery of the bar. You have two asylums from that. Either to accept a seat in the council, or in the judiciary depart­ ment . 22

Even before receiving this advice, Monroe had been making plans for continuing his public career after his coming retirement from national affairs. He sought to re­ gain a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates from King

George County, the first elected office he had held. Draw­ ing on his years of political experience, Joseph Jones urged his nephew to return home before the election was held in April of 1786. Not only would this be a wise political move, but— as we saw earlier— it would also provide an op- 23 portunity for Monroe to begin building his legal practice.

Manroe had several reasons for not taking his uncle’s advice. He was rarely absent from Congress during a session

(for example, he had returned to his seat after only a brief pii honeymoon). In addition, he probably thought that partici­ pating in national affairs was of more significance than attending a local election and a meeting of a court, espec­

^Letter of 12 Oct. 1786 (italics indicate words in code), TJ, Papers (Boyd), X, 456-58.

^Letter of 18 Dec. 1786, ibid., pp. 611-13*

23Cki. Jan. 1786, Monroe Papers (LC), Ser. 2, Reel 9*

2^Monroe to Jones, 2 March 1786, ibid. 131 ially when the controversy over the Gardoqui negotiations was about to begin. Moreover, he probably did not want to spend several weeks away from his new bride, who could not be expected to undertake an arduous journey for such a brief sojourn. His cousin, William Grayson, provided another reason when he pointed out that it would be quite expensive for Monroe to return to Virginia while Congress was still in session because— in addition to the traveling expenses— he might lose as much as JC150 in salary.^

Monroe therefore decided to remain in Congress, his uncle eventually agreeing with this judgment; but the de­ cision cost Monroe his first defeat for public office. His able and faithful service in Congress had kept Monroe away from Virginia too long and had temporarily reduced his popu­ larity with the voters. Madison felt that, if Monroe had been able to be present in Virginia at the time of the election, he would doubtlessly have w o n.^ Colonel John

Taliaferro, the man who was handling Monroe's candidacy for him, had also advised him to be present before the election.

When he informed Monore that he had lost by only four votes, he explained that Monroe's opponent, Daniel Fitzhugh, had spent three weeks in the district soliciting votes and that

^ Ibld.; cf. Jones to Monroe, 1^ March 1786, ibid., Ser. 1, Reel 1.

^Madison to Jefferson, 12 May 1786, TJ, Papers (Boyd), IX, 518-19. 132 another prominent figure in the county had also been active against Monroe because of an old quarrel over patronage.2?

Monroe considered his failure to secure the King

George seat only a temporary setback, for almost as soon as he established himself in Fredericksburg, he began seeking public office again. Even though he declared to

Jefferson a year after his defeat for the King George seat,

"With the political world I have had little to do since I left Congress," it seems that his "anxiety . . . for the O Q general welfare" had not been diminished. In addition to serving on the vestry of Saint George's Episcopal Church, he was appointed (on 11 July 1787) to fill a vacancy on the

Common Council of the City of Fredericksburg. 29 In the meantime, he decided to see if the voters of Spotsylvania

County, unlike the voters of King George County, were inter­ ested in having him represent them in the state legislature.

His uncle told him that he was foolish to make the attempt because it was "not very probable you will succeed and I

2?Letter of 4 May 1786, Monroe Papers (LC), Ser. 2, Reel 9; cf. Jones of Monroe, ca. Jan. 1786, ibid.

2^Letter of 27 July 1787, TJ, Papers (Boyd), XI, 630- 32. As Monroe recalled it much later, "He sought no public employment but rather, shunned it" (Autobiography, p. 55).

29common Council Minutes, UVa Microfilm, Roll 12, Ser. 2; cf. John T[ackett]Goolrick, The Life of General Hugh Mercer . . . (New York: Neale Publishing Company, 1906), p. 88. 133 on know such disappointments are disagreeable";J but when

the election was held (in April of 1787)— although Monroe was still relatively new in the area— this time he emerged a victor.

This successful return to state office not only re­

established Monroe's public career, but it also aided his private career as well. John Parker, for one, wrote to

congratulate Monroe on the "mark of the approbation of your neighbours" and promised to recommend all potential legal

clients to him.31 Monroe later admitted about his desire

for a legislative post: "I supposed it might be serviceable 32 to me in the line of my profession."-^

Monroe, nevertheless, remained dissatisfied with his life in Virginia even after he established his law

practice and returned to public life. He regretted that

both his work at the bar and in the legislature kept him

from his family and found that "neither of these employments

has many allur'ments in it," more especially the latter,

perhaps because he had "obtain'd a seat . . . at a very un­

fortunate period, both as to publick affairs and my own

3°Letter of 3 March 1787, Monroe Papers (LC), Ser. 1, Reel 1.

31Letter of 21 April 1787, ibid.

32Letter to Jefferson, 27 July 1787, TJ, Papers (Boyd), XI, 630-32. temper of mind.At the time of his election Monroe had just been admitted to the bar of the General Court and felt that it might be unwise for him to leave Richmond, even though this decision entailed being absent from wife and baby and from those who might vote for him. By remaining at the state capital he would show the public that he could attend to business; for, as he complained in one of the few extant letters to his wife, ". . . I . . . must cultivate all the forms & circumstances that wo[ul]d be necessary, if I had just set out in the world; otherwise

I fail."32*

Monroe also experienced difficulties in managing his private affairs properly while he was away serving the public. He often found it necessary to write to his agent in Fredericksburg, Larkin Stanard, in order to keep his finances in shape; and, in fact, as Monroe attempted to make sure that his family had cash available, he became an experienced writer of dunning letters to this agent.

Despite these Inconveniences and financial dif­ ficulties Monroe never really wished to be out of public

33 Letter to Jefferson, 10 April 1788, ibid. , XIII, 49-50.

3 * * L e t t e r of 13 A p r i l 1787, Monroe P a p e r s (LC), S e r . 2, R e e l 9.

33Letters of 4 April, 7 April, 19 April, ca.. April or May, 16 Oct., 18 Oct., and 20 Oct. 1788, U. of Va. Libra­ ry and Va. Historical Society, UVa Microfilm, Roll 12, Ser. 135 office again. As a result of the decisions which he made in the late 1780's, he spent the rest of his life in public service. In 1788 he sought reelection to the General As­ sembly and planned to continue in the legislature "for some time."In the same year he also served as a dele­ gate to Virginia’s ratifying convention and— even though

Jones was convinced that winning such an office would "hurt his private prospects"^?— he ran unsuccessfully for a seat in the First Congress of the United States. He continued to serve in the House of Delegates until his election to the United States Senate in 1790. The rest of Monroe’s career is accurately summed up in Hugh Blair Grigsby’s comment: "though sometimes not in office, in a certain hO sense never to have been out of office."

By deliberately choosing, after his brief experience as a private citizen, to make public office his chief source of livelihood, Monroe became in reality a professional poli­ tician. Cresson declares: "Necessity, as well as his secret but consistant inclination, was turning Monroe Into an invet­ erate office-holder . . . one of the earliest American profes-

^Monroe to Jefferson, 12 July 1788, TJ, Papers (Boyd), XIII, 351-55.

^Jones to Madison, 1*1 Dec. 1788, "Letters from Joseph Jones to Madison," ed. by Worthington C. Ford, Pro­ ceedings of the Mass. Historical Society, 2d Ser., XV (June, 1901), 125-26, hereinafter referred to as Jones,"Letters."

^ Virginia Federal Convention, I, 170. 136 "30 sional statesmen. . . . " As such he was a transitional figure in American political history, a precursor of Martin

Van Buren, the man usually considered to be the first

American professional politician. Richard Hofstadter could almost be describing Monroe when he recalls "the placatory professional politician, whose leadership comes in large part out of his taste for political association, his liking for people, and his sportsmanlike ability to experience political conflict without taking it as ground for personal 1)0 rancor." (Only the last phrase may be inapplicable to

Monroe.) Philip Alexander Bruce notes Monroe's profession when he exclaims:

And yet he was a great public servant, a servant not the less great because he was fashioned upon the famil­ iar model of the trained English diplomat in permanent office, rather than upon the model of the normal Ameri­ can public man, depended upon popular good will for the retention of his position. . . .^1

Monroe's first diplomatic appointment, however, did not occur until 1794, and so in this statement Bruce neglects the very foundation of Monroe's long career in public service, a foundation laid in offices dependent upon the will of the people.

Although he does not discuss Monroe's career, Paul

Goodman points out:

39James Monroe, p. 114.

^°Idea of Party, p. 216.

^ The Virginia Plutarch (2 vols.; Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1929), H s 97. 137

The Revolutionary generation did produce some proto­ types of the political professional. . . . But such individuals [like Aaron Burr and DeWltt Clinton] in­ spired distrust and contempt.^2

He also argues that post-Revolutionary Americans thought:

Only those recruited from among the "real" interests of the republic— merchants, farmers, and planters— could understand and would serve the people’s needs. Lawyers, the occupation from whom professional poli­ ticians were to be recruited, were suspect since . they were widely viewed as social parasites. . . . ’

Such adverse criticism, however, did not apply to Monroe.

Virginians regarded him as more than a lawyer and a place­ man; he was also a member of the lesser gentry and thus qualified to represent honorably what they considered to be the Republic’s real interests.

Apparently Monroe not only found that serving the public provided an interesting way to avoid concentrating upon his law practice but also that his experience as a lawyer fitted him to be an able representative of the people.

In Max Weber's view the "significance of the lawyer in

Occidental politics . . . is not accidental" because "the craft of the trained lawyer is to plead effectively the cause of interested clients.

4 2 "The First American Party System," American Party Systems, pp. 88-8 9 .

^ Ibid. , p. 88.

^ From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, trans. ed., and with Introduction by H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (New York: Oxford University Press, 1946), p. 95. 138

When Monroe was elected to represent the interests of the people of Spotsylvania, the major political issues confronting the legislature were economic ones. John

Marshall wrote just before the 1787 election, "The debtors as usual are endeavoring to come into the assembly and as usual I fear they will succeed."**-’ Like Marshall, Monroe seems to have sided with the British merchants who had been attempting after the Revolution to collect debts which Amer­ icans owed them. According to one historian, Monroe "went all over the State pleading for the creditors. Probably due to this concern, Monroe at this time found himself op­ posing Patrick Henry's faction, as knowledgeable Virginians were well aware. Madison was convinced that— although many prominent men like Henry were considering paper money for

Virginia— Monroe would oppose such a proposal. 47 Likewise

Edward Carrington implied that he was sure that Monroe would combat in the legislature the attempts of "that

^Letter to Arthur Lee, 5 March 1787, Richard Henry Lee, Life of Arthur Lee, LL.D. . . . (Boston: Wells and Lilly, 1829), pp. 321-22. ^Dice Robins Anderson, William Branch Giles: A Study in the Politics of Virginia and the Nation from 1790 to lo30 (Menashaj Wise.: George Banta Publishing Co., 1914), p"! 6 n.

^Letter to Jefferson, 23 April 1787, TJ, Papers (Boyd), XI, 310 desperate band," the "paper money faction. When the

Assembly met in the autumn of 1787, Monroe opposed Patrick

Henry on several bills regarding debtors. This opposition is one of the few patterns which one can discover in Mon­ roe's legislative activities at this time. Sometimes he voted with the overwhelming majority, sometimes with a small minority, but nearly always on the side opposite

Patrick Henry.^ These disputes over state legislative matters were not bitter conflicts; for, when Virginia's convention met In the spring of the next year to consider the adoption of the new Federal Constitution, James Monroe did not join with Madison but Instead became one of

Patrick Henry's most important lieutenants In his nearly successful battle to stop Virginia from ratifying the

Constitution.

^Letter to Monroe, 1 May 1787, Swem Library, College of Wm. and Mary, Monroe Papers, UVa Microfilm, Roll 12, Ser. 2. 49 See in particular the three votes concerning British debts proposals on 17 Nov. 1787, Virginia, Journal of the House of Delegates [15 Oct. 1787 to 8 Jan. 1788] (LRichmond: Aug. Davis and Thomas Nicolson, 1788]), p. 40. CHAPTER VII

OPPOSING THE CONSTITUTION

By June of 1788 the struggle over the ratification of the Constitution was reaching a climax. Early in that month New Hampshire's vote assured the adoption of the Con­ stitution, but several Important states had not yet decided to accept the new form of government. One of these major holdouts was Virginia. There such prominent statesmen as

George Washington, James Madison, John Marshall, and eventual­ ly Edmund Randolph supported the Constitution; but the op­ position of equally prestigious public men like Patrick

Henry, George Mason, and Richard Henry Lee meant that It would be difficult for the Federalists to secure Virginia's ratification. In October of 1787 the General Assembly voted to delay the meeting of its ratifying convention until the first Monday in June. This decision gave the Antifederalists of Virginia more opportunity to organize their attack than was the case in many other states where the Federalists had been able to seize the Initiative. Thus when the dele­ gates finally assembled at New Academy Hall in Richmond, they were divided into two fairly well disciplined factions of almost equal strength; and the Virginian Antifederalists— 140 m while not in perfect agreement concerning goals— exhibited greater skill than those in other states and almost succeeded in blocking ratification.^ This close call for the Consti­ tution is doubly important because a Federalist failure in

Virginia might have precipitated a similar failure in New

York, another major holdout.

With the exception of the leading Federalist, George

Washington, and the leading Antifederalist, Richard Henry

Lee, Virginia's most prominent public men were present at the convention in Richmond. A real two-party system had not yet developed in Virginia where from the beginning of the

American Revolution the members of the governing class— despite minor disagreements and personality clashes— had normally stood on the same side of really big issues.^ Now the men at the Constitutional Convention in faraway Phila­ delphia forced upon these patricians a major issue upon which they could not agree. One scholar has declared,

"In no other state was the situation so complicated; in no other states was there so striking a division among the 3 political, social, and economic leaders." In such an

^Robert Allen Rutland, The Ordeal of the Constitution: The Antifederalists and the Ratification Struggle of 1787-- 1788 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1988), pp. 227- 28. John Q. Adams, in Eulogy, p. 4*1, says Monroe took no part in the Virginia legislature's debate on calling a ratify­ ing convention.

^Rutland, Ordeal, p. 184.

^Main, Antifederalists, p. 223- 1H2 unusual and volatile situation, James Monroe moved with great caution toward open opposition to ratification.

Monroe, the only President of the United States to have voted against the Constitution,** had an ambivalent at­ titude toward the changes proposed for the American govern­ ment. At first, he seemed to favor the Constitution. While its framers were meeting in Philadelphia, Monroe, who real­ ized that the United States was in a crisis, worried that rejecting their work would "complete our ruin" and was there­ fore "inclined to vote for whatever they will recommend."

After the results of the convention became known, Monroe had "some strong objections" but argued that reasons for adopting the Constitution overbalanced them. In fact, less than two months before he spoke out against the document at the Richmond convention, Monroe still believed that the

Constitution would not be rejected and that this would 5 ultimately have good results. At about this same time,

James Madison was writing: "Monroe is considered by some as an enemy [of the Constitution], but I believe him to be

Dumas Malone also points out, in Jefferson, II, 17^, "that of all those opposed to ratification the only im­ portant political supporter of his [i.e. Jefferson's] in the later battles with Hamilton was James Monroe."

^Monroe to Jefferson, 27 July 1787, TJ, Papers (Boyd), XI, 630-32; Monroe to Madison, 13 Oct. 1787, Madison Papers, Ser. 1, Reel 3; Monroe to Jefferson, 10 April 1788, TJ, Papers (Boyd), XIII, 50. Harry Ammon, in his dissertation, p. 51, calls Monroe a "waverer." 143 a friend though a cool one."^

Monroe remained relatively quiet about his dissatis­ faction with the Constitution until the ratifying convention met, even suppressing the publication of his Some Observa­ tions on the Constitution, &c., a pamphlet in which he planned to provide his constituents with his reservations about the proposed form of government. Although he claimed that printing errors were responsible for this suppression, per­ haps Monroe, who said that he "had no inclination to inlist

[sic] myself on either side," was simply exercising politi- 7 cal caution. Even though Harry Ammon believes that Monroe's

objections as stated in this pamphlet are "not very pointed Q and indicate a certain amount of indecision," it is a

shame that Monroe did not permit its distribution; for another scholar, Stuart Gerry Brown, has called it "a re­ markable paper . . . the most thorough and systematic anal­ ysis of the Constitution made by any of the Republicans,

^Letter to Jefferson, 22 April 1788, TJ, Papers (Boyd), XIII, 98.

"^Monroe to Jefferson, 12 July 1?88, ibid., pp. 351- 55* Monroe's pamphlet is printed, with minor inaccuracies, in Monroe, Writings, I, 307-43- D Dissertation, p. 52n. Davis, in Intellectual Life, p. 401, mistakenly describes Monroe's Observations as *'a fairly strong point by point defense of the proposed Consti­ tution.11 inn excepting only Madison's Federalist essays."^

In the era before the transportation revolution it was natural for the typical American to be on the Anti­ federalist side because most Americans were acquainted only with their local government; but Monroe, due to his military service during the Revolutionary War and his congressional service afterwards, knew about the weak central government first hand and therefore, like many other Antifederalist statesmen, favored strengthening the union.His record in Congress clearly demonstrated this attitude. He had, for instance, supported the unsuccessful attempt to estab­ lish an executive Committee of States to act during congres­ sional recesses because he believed that "there sho[ul]d always be a foederal head."‘L’L Moreover, discovering that

Q ^First Republicans, p. 28. Several people besides Jefferson seem to have received copies of Monroe's Observa­ tions , and at least some were favorably Impressed; see Edward Carrington to Monroe, 15 Sept. 1788, Monroe Papers (LC), Ser. 1, Reel 1; and Washington to Monroe, 23 Feb. 1789, Washington, Writings (Fitzpatrick), XXX, 213.

^°Main, in Antifederalists, p. 113, says, "An impres­ sive number of Antifederalist leaders favored some degree of stronger government before 1787, among them William Grayson, Timothy Bloodworth, Joseph Jones, James Monroe, James Warren, James Mercer, Elbridge Gerry, Benjamin Harrison, George Mason, Patrick Henry, John Francis Mercer, and George Clinton"; cf. Alpheus Thomas Mason, The States Rights Debate: Antifederal­ ism and the Constitution (EnglewoodCliffs, N.J.: Prentice- Hall, Inc. L1964]), p. 15- ^Monroe to Gov. Benjamin Harrison, in May 1784, Va. State Archives, Continental Congress Papers, UVa Microfilm, Roll 12, Ser. 2. 145 his fellow congressmen generally agreed that the powers of

Congress should be enlarged with respect to commercial interests, he had initiated a campaign to obtain wide and permanent powers for Congress to regulate trade. During the winter of 1784-85 he caused a committee to recommend amending Article IX of the Articles of Confederation in order to permit congressional regulation of interstate and foreign trade and wrote a draft circular letter to the states asking for their support for this proposal and ap­ pealing to them to "Act as a nation" and "cement the Union 12 by the Strongest ties of interest and affection." He told Jefferson that his plan— the authorship of which he modestly failed to mention— would hold the union together

"in its present form longer than any principle it now con­ tains will effect.

When Congress delayed taking final action, Monroe complained that some congressmen had "inveterate prejudices against all attempts to increase the powers of Congress, others see the necessity but fear the consequences."^

Monroe placed himself in neither category. He was himself

TP Beverley Randolph to Monroe, 6 March 1785, Monroe Papers (LC), Ser. 1, Reel 1; JCC, XXVIII, 17n, 70n, l48n, and 201-05; cf. Burnett, Letters, VIII, xlv-xv.

^Letter of 16 June 1785, TJ, Papers (Boyd), VIII, 215-20.

•^Letter to Jefferson, 15 July 1785, ibid., pp. 296- 97. 146 somewhat worried about the effects of his proposed system on the South's economy; and so he made a minor alteration in his proposal in order to protect states rights further, requiring eleven rather than nine states' approval for

Congress to make commercial regulations. Congress, however, never submitted any form of Monroe's report to the states.

Consequently, when a more limited navigation act came close to adoption, Monroe helped support this proposal as well.

Somewhat contrary to his wishes, he consented to join Rufus

King— his leading opponent in the recent dispute over the

Mississippi— in a journey to the Pennsylvania legislature to make a special plea on behalf of Congress for that 15 influential state to accept the plan.

Monroe likewise supported the attempt of the Anna­ polis Convention to increase Congress' power over trade.

At first he had some doubts about and argued in Congress

that congress had full power to raise troops, and that they had a rightto compel a compliance in every case where they acted agreeable to the powers given them by the confederation [a reference to the requisitioning power]; that all the states but New York had invested them with commercial powers [a false hope] . . . therefore he saw no occasion for a convention, etc.1

"*'^Monroe to Madison, 26 July 1785 and 1 Sept. 1786, Madison Papers, Ser. 1, Reel 2; JCC, XXIX, 533, and XXXI, 511-13, 515, and 687-88; cf. Bancroft, Formation of the Constitution, I, 192-97.

•^Thomas Rodney's reports of debates in Congress, 2-4 May 1786, Bancroft, Formation of the Constitution, I, 499-501. 147 Following his speech Congress delayed taking action. Subse­

quently, Monroe decided that he ought to support the pro­

posed convention, if only because the plan had originated

in Virginia and also because he had some hopes for its suc­

cess. In fact, after Madison revealed to him his hopes for

using the convention to strengthen the union, Monroe became quite enthusiastic about it. Like Madison, he feared that

the Northern states' attempt to get the Jay-Gardoqui pro­ posal accepted would be fatal to any plans to increase

federal power but, nevertheless, tried to get these Northern

states to send delegates to Annapolis, telling the President of New Hampshire that it was "expedient . . . to extend the powers of congress" and that he "looked forward to that convention as the source of infinite blessing to this coun- 17 try." After the convention ended, Monroe supported the adoption of Hamilton's report on the convention, virtually 1 fi calling for the Philadelphia Convention.

■^Monroe J°hn Sullivan, 16 Aug. 1786, Burnett, Letters, VIII, p. 430; cf. Burnett, Continental Congress, pp. 665-67; and Madison to Jefferson, 12 Aug. 1786, TJ, Papers, (Boyd), X, 229-36. If the union were to dissolve over the Mississippi controversy, Monroe hoped that the Annapolis Convention would be helpful in the formation of a Southern confederation; he therefore urged Madison to his "utmost exertions" (3 Sept. 1786, Madison Papers, Ser. 1, Reel 2).

l8JCC, XXXI, 678-80 and 770n; cf. Brown, Alexander Hamilton, p. 36; Monroe to Madison, 2 Oct. and 7 Oct. 1786, Burnett, Letters, VIII, 475-76. 148

In spite of his record of favoring a stronger union, many factors contributed to Monroe's eventually choosing

the Antifederalist side. One scholar has stated concerning

Monroe, "As usual with him, his federal leanings were 19 dampened by his dubiousness regarding the North." This

argument has some validity. On the other hand, other his­

torians have argued that Antifederalists generally were members of the old guard trying to preserve their vested interest in state offices against young reformers whose on plans would disturb the status quo. This explanation may help our understanding of the motivation of a man like

Patrick Henry, but it does not satisfactorily explain the motivation of Monroe, who at this time seemed rather un­ happy with his political career.

M m r o e 's colleagues in the legislature, however, must have Influenced his decision to oppose ratification.

When the Assembly met to authorize the ratifying convention, 21 he was anxious to see "how its pulse beats." One scholar who has examined the political situation In Virginia during this decade divides the Virginian public men into three

19 Scott, "Virginia's Reaction," p. 108. ?n David K. McCarrell, "The Formation of the Jeffer­ sonian Party In Virginia" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University, 1937), p. 2; Forrest McDonald, "The Anti- Federalists, 1781-1789," Wise. Mag, of History, XLVI (Spring, 1963), 209.

21Monroe to Madison, 13 Oct. 1787, Madison Papers, Ser. 1, Reel 3. groups: (1) a small group of consistent federalists (mean­ ing nationalists), (2) an equally small group of consistent antifederalists (meaning supporters of states rights); and

(3) a large group of "leaders who acted quite individual- istically," placing Monroe in this third category, which 22 consisted of "men of first-rate importance." Monroe probably thought that Jefferson, also in this third group, was against ratification. Moreover, Monroe soon found that many of his other political associates were against the

Constitution, including the Influential Patrick Henry and

Richard Henry Lee, who usually led opposing factions in the legislature. While Monroe did not necessarily always agree with Lee, he had over the years maintained a close associa­ tion with this important man, now busy writing the most famous criticism of the Constitution, his Letters from the 23 Federal Farmer. Monroe had recently been opposing Henry on more minor matters. Some historians have suggested that by backing Henry, who often seemed to represent the popular will, Monroe felt that he would be backing the winner in this close contest. Monroe, like many other Virginians, waited to declare his opinion about the Constitution until

22Scott, "Virginia's Reaction," pp. 417-18. For a different way of grouping Virginian statesmen, see McCarrell, "Jeffersonian Party," p. 134.

^Chitwood, Richard Henry Lee, pp. 210, 224, 278n, and esp. 209 where he says”: " James Monroe, though not an intimate friend of Lee, maintained cordial relations with him and seems to have held him in high esteem." 150 24 after Patrick Henry had declared his.

Another factor influencing Monroe was the fact that he was not on good terms with several leading Federalists.

He found Edmund Randolph unfriendly, believing that the

Governor (who eventually supported the ratification of the

Constitution after refusing to sign it in Philadelphia) was thwarting him at every turn. It is not clear, but perhaps this feeling arose from the fact that Monroe was handling a legal case against Randolph on behalf of Elbridge Gerry

(who, Incidentally, also became an Antifederalist) . More importantly, Monroe felt that James Madison was in league with Governor Randolph and "concurr'd in arrangements un- favorable" to him. Perhaps Monroe was displeased that he had not been selected as one of Virginia’s delegates to the Philadelphia Convention. Perhaps he resented Madison’s polite refusal to give him confidential information regarding what the members of that convention were doing, despite the fact that Monroe had been confiding government secrets to him for years. Perhaps they had a quarrel over money mat­ ters, for they were engaged in land speculation together

p ii McCarrell, "Jeffersonian Party," p. 26n; Ammon, dissertation, p. 52; cf. Rutland, Ordeal, p. 184.

^Monroe to Jefferson, 27 July 1787, TJ, Papers (Boyd), XI, 630-32; see also Gerry to Monroe, 11 June 1787, Monroe Papers (LC),Ser. 1, Reel 1.

^Monroe to Jefferson, 27 July 1787, TJ, Papers (Boyd), X, 630-32. 151 and at various times were In each other's debt.^ Whatever

the cause, just before they broke off their correspondence,

Monroe alluded to their quarrel in the following way: "I think the cloud wh[ich] hath hung over us for sometime past is not yet dispell'd or likely soon to be."2^

In addition to Monroe's favorable and unfavorable feelings about his colleagues, another reason for his Anti­ federalism was the opinion of a majority of his constituents.

Many historians see the section which the delegates repre­ sented as determining how they voted at Richmond; in particu­ lar the members of Virginia's bar have been shown not to have voted as a class but instead to have reflected the opinions of the areas they represented.29 One historian calls Monroe's

Antifederalist position "a logical stand for a confirmed sectionalist representing constituents with strong sectional views.Monroe certainly found that the people in his county of Spotsylvania were (except in Fredericksburg) unl-

2^Cresson, James Monroe, p. 96; Madison to Monroe, 10 June 1787, Madison Papers, Ser. 1, Reel 2. pO Letter of 6 Dec. 1787, Madison Papers, Ser. 1, Reel 3* Monroe's last extant letter to Madison is 7 Feb. 1788 until the correspondence resumes with his letter of 24 Sept. 1788.

2^Ammon, dissertation, p. 76; Robert E. Thomas, "The Virginia Convention of 1788: A Criticism of Beard's An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution," Journal of Southern History, XIX (Feb., 1953), 64,65, and 72; cf. Ammon, "Formation of the Republican Party," p. 286; and Rutland, Ordeal, p. 184.

8°DeConde, Entangling Alliance, p. 345. 152 31 versally against the Constitution. John Dawson, the other delegate elected from this district, also became an

Antifederalist. Some instructions to convention delegates, which a committee of citizens of Spotsylvania probably adopted in May of 1788, were later found in Monroe's files.

These instructions, which the delegates (especially Monroe) may have written in advance of the meeting, indicate that

Monroe's constituents agreed with the position which he subsequently took at the ratifying convention. They dis­ approved of the powers which the Constitution granted to the Senate and the federal judiciary, wanted the executive to have "a proper Council of advise [sic]" and urged that more care be taken to preserve the rights of the people.

Taking a moderate tone in the document, they expressed dislike for the present federal compact, saw the necessity of additional powers, did not object to what they believed was a "political experiment of a consolidation of the

States," and (not meaning "to break the Union which it is our determination to preserve") authorized their delegates to ratify the Constitution should the votes in other states make it advisable.^

^Monroe to Madison, 7 Feb. 1788, Madison Papers, Ser. 1, Reel 3- 32 Swem Library, College of Wm. and Mary, Monroe Papers, UVa Microfilm, Roll 12, Ser. 2; see also "Instructions to a Delegate to the Virginia Convention in 1788," Va. Mag. of History and Biography, XL (July, 1932), 280-82. 153 Although all these Influences were Important, the factor which most determined Monroe's position was ideology.

In the next decade known for his rabid Republicanism, at this time he was a fervid believer in the classic republican doctrines associated with the views of such theorists as

Harrington, Locke, and Montesquieu. Thus, just as the conservative nature of the Constitution disturbed many other Antifederalists, who found it not democratic enough,

Monroe's reading of the proposed Constitution offended his political tenets and moved him to become an Antifederalist.

Making a brief general reference in his memoirs to this period of his life, Monroe said merely that Antifederalists contended that ratifying the Constitution "would lead to 33 consolidation and monarchy."

When he later discussed Virginia's ratifying conven­ tion with Jefferson, Monroe modestly reported that "Mason,

Henry and Grayson were the principal Supporters of the oppo­ se sition," but he played a major role in the deliberations.

^ Autobiography, p. 5 0 . Main, in Antifederalists, pp. 130-32, points out that calling the new Constitutional government undemocratic was an important and almost univer­ sally made agrument but given with gentlemanly restraint; cf. McDonald, "Anti-Federalists," p. 209. William E. Dodd, in "Jonn Taylor of Caroline, Prophet of Secession," John P. Branch Historical Papers of Randolph-Macori College, II, (June, 1908), 217, says that Monroe and others triedun- successfully to get more radical Virginians sent to the Philadelphia Convention,

-^Letter of 12 July 1788, TJ, Papers (Boyd), XIII, 351-55. His first speech to the convention, which was also his first public criticism of the Constitution, was a moderate, compre­ hensive and well-prepared address based upon his suppressed pamphlet. In it he conceded that the present Confederation was "defective," "void of energy," "badly organized," and in need of "one great power . . . an absolute control over com­ merce"; but, as America's present relations with foreign countries and present lack of internal dissention indicated that there was no danger of immediate disunion, he felt free to characterize the Constitution as establishing "a dangerous government, and calculated to secure neither the interests nor the rights of our countrymen." He particularly objected to granting Congress the concurrent power of direct taxation because this grant would cause perpetual federal-state con­ flict. He believed that this conflict, which would be won by the federal government, would ultimately end "in the establishment of a monarchical government," especially be­ cause America was "too extensive to be governed but by a despotic monarchy." Like other Antifederalists, Monroe deplored the absence of a bill of rights and saw no real checks In the Constitution: representatives could not be called to account; senators could not be punished; and the president, because he commanded the army, probably could not be controlled either.^5

^Speech of 19 June 1788, Elliot, Debates, III, 207-22; cf. Grigsby, Virginia Federal Convention, I, 173-76. While Monroe's criticisms in one sense reveal him to be one of those Antifederalists whom Cecilia M. Kenyon has described as "Men of Little Faith,on the other hand

Stuart Gerry Brown finds Monroe's objections (in his

Observations and in his convention speeches) to the undemo­ cratic nature of the Senate praiseworthy:

It was more than a hundred years before the Seven­ teenth Amendment vindicated Monroe's thesis. But in perspective his view appears not only well grounded in theory but also amply supported by experience.37

Brown also appreciates Monroe's objections to the presidency.

Monroe disliked the manner of electing the president, pre­ suming "that once he is elected, he may be elected forever."

Monroe argued in a later speech to the convention for a president "elected by the people, dependent upon them, and 38 responsible for maladministration." Accordingly Brown feels that Monroe "offered the most searching analysis of the Presidency as proposed in the Constitution," and fol­ lowed "a different line of attack" from other critics in his objections to the mode of election; he concludes:

36"jYjen Qf Little Faith: The Antifederalists on the Nature of Representative Government," Wm. and Mary Quarterly, 3d Ser., XII (Jan., 1955), passim, esp. 13, 22, 38, 39, 42, and 43. John Q. Adams, in Eulogy, p. 41, more simply says that Monroe's "mind was not altogether prepared for that which was, in truth, a revolution."

37Fjrst Republicans, p. 30.

3®Speeches of 10 June and 18 June 1788, Elliot, Debates, III, 221 and 488-490. 156

Here his insight is truer than Jefferson's or Mason's, or even Madison's. . . . In the light of the history of the American Presidency the objections of the older revolutionaries, like Jefferson and Mason, appear to have substantially less validity than Monroe's . . . [for] the mode of election, as Monroe foresaw, has been under almost endless discussion and has never provided full satisfaction.39

Probably because Monroe was arguing for what turned out to be the losing side, not all of those who have commented on Monroe's arguments give such favorable opinions as Brown. John Robert Irelan refers to Monroe's first

speech as "contracted, boyish, and ridiculous"; and John

Marshall's biographer, calling it "a long, dull and cloudy

speech," judges:

Monroe did not help or hurt either side except, per­ haps , by showing the members that all the Revolution­ ary veterans were not for the Constitution. Neither members nor speculators paid much attention to him.

James Madison, however, was paying attention to

Monroe. The Federalist leader had been absent from the

convention for the previous two days due to illness, and

Monroe seems to have awaited the return of his former friend

before making his first speech. Madison considered Monroe's

remarks important enough, for his reply the next day seems

to be his only speech during the entire convention for ill which he made notes beforehand.

39pirst Republicans, pp. 31-32. 40Republie, V, 39; Beveridge, Life of John Marshall, I a 407 . ^ R i v e s , Madison, II, 589n. 157

No doubt Madison was also listening closely to

Monroe a few days later when Monroe made his most dramatic

contribution to the discussions at Richmond. Patrick Henry, who had often found Westerners supporting his position of

favoring Virginia over the union, brought up Jay’s proposal

to keep the Mississippi closed and called upon those who had been in Congress to supply the details. Henry's request

gave Monroe a chance to remind his colleagues of his able

service in the Congress and to demonstrate his knowledge of

the workings of the Confederation. As one historian recent­

ly described the event: "His unimpressiveness as a speaker was soon forgotten as eager ears heard for the first time

the details of an affair that had nearly lost the Mississippi n to a foreign power." ^ After revealing the background of

the Jay-Gardoqui proposal and the resulting vote of the seven

Northern states to repeal Jay's restrictions, Monroe con­

cluded that he did not know if these states considered it

in their "permanent interest . . . to depress the growth

and increasing population of the western country" but added

"that the interest of the western country would not be secure, lj 3 under the Constitution as under the Confederation." Hugh

^David John Mays, Edmund Pendleton, 1721-1803: A Biography (2 vols.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1952), II, 251, hereinafter referred to as Mays, Pendleton Biography; see also William E. Dodd, Statesmen of the Old South, or From Radicalism to Conservative Revolt (New York: Macmillan Company, 1911), p. 41.

^Speech Qf 13 June 1788, Elliot, Debates, III, 33^-40. 158

Blair Grigsby reports that this speech was well received, the listeners being impressed with Monroe's modesty, sincer­ ity, and knowledge:

Such was the excitement in the Convention that men whose opinions are entitled to respect declared after­ wards that if the final vote on the Constitution had then been pressed that instrument would have been lost by a majority fully as large as that which ul­ timately adopted it. 4

The Kentucky delegates in particular were furious to hear that the northern part of the present union had been self­ ishly trying to barter away their rights to an outlet to the sea, ten of the fourteen delegates subsequently voting against ratification. William C. Rives says that "the state­ ments and opinions of Mr. Grayson and Mr. Monroe furnished to Mr. Henry, with his rare dramatic and oratorical powers, ample materials for the creation of a panic among the re- 45 presentatives of the district of Kentucky."

Madison, who was not in Congress at the time Jay made his proposal but who had assisted Monroe in his fight against its acceptance, was forced to admit, "As far as I

44 Virginia Federal Convention, I, 240-41.

^Madison, II,. 597. Rutland, In Ordeal, p. 232, says of Monroe's speech on Jay's proposal: "The style was a little florid, but Kentuckians saw the point." Main, In Antifederalists, pp. 224-29, points out that Antifederalist strength lay principally in regions more distant from the major streams, that the area west of the Blue Ridge deter­ mined the Constitution's fate in Va., that Ky. was against it because of resentment over the treatment of the Mississippi but that what became W. Va. favored it because of hopes that a stronger U.S. could get the British out of the Western posts. 159 can recollect, it was nearly as my honorable friend said."

He then argued, however, that Congress was not going to re­ vive Jay's proposal under any circumstances and observed that the new Constitution provided better protection against similar attacks from the North, pointing out that the House of Representatives would contain more Westerners than the present Congress, that the South and West would elect the president, and that the president as well as two-thirds of the Senate must agree on treaties. Moreover, under the

Constitution a more powerful United States would not cede the Mississippi: "A weak system produced this project. A 46 strong system will remove the inducement."

Madison's arguments on this issue virtually con- vinced the relatively moderate Monroe. 47 William Grayson replied to Madison, but Monroe did not speak again that day.

Monroe continued to support the Antifederalist position.

He served on the committee which prepared proposed amendments to the Constitution, voted to delay ratification until other states had also had a chance to consider basic changes, and voted against the unconditional ratification of the Constltu-

^Speech of 13 June 1788, Elliot, Debates, III, 244-49. ^Brown, in First Republicans, p. 34, states: "The Republican opposition of Monroe and Mason was principled and vigorous but relatively amenable to persuation.11 Ammon, in "Jeffersonian Republicans in Virginia," p. 158, calls Monroe "a man of moderate views." Schouler, in History, I, 71, says that Monroe was more moderate than Mason. 160 tlon. The Antlfederallsts succeeded in persuading the con­ vention to adopt a series of proposed amendments; and, on the decision to ratify unconditionally, they barely lost to the Federalists (eighty-nine to seventy-nine); but, as one scholar has declared, "the fact remains that the defeat in the Constitutional Convention of 1788 was the first serious 48 check suffered since 1775 by the ruling 'organization.'"

The Virginian Antifederalists held a brief rump session of their own members of the Richmond Convention in order to plan what they might do to make sure that the Con­ stitution was properly amended and probably also to make sure that men of their persuasion were elected to represent

Virginia in the new Congress. When the Congress of the

Confederation— now practically a lame duck— provided on 13

September 1788 for elections to the new federal offices, the Federalists in Virginia wanted Madison to accept the nomination for a seat in the United States Senate. Unfor­ tunately for Madison, according to his later estimation two- thirds of the Virginian legislature consisted of Antifederal­ ists. There were no prominent Federalists in the General

Assembly in 1788; and the still extremely influential Anti­ federalists were well represented by important public men such as former congressmen James Monroe and William Grayson and, of course, the powerful Patrick Henry. Henry's associates

^^McCarrell, "Jeffersonian Party," p. 35; see also Elliot, Debates, III, 653-56 and 622. 161 defeated Madison's bid for the Senate seat by electing in

October of 1788 Richard Henry Lee and William Grayson, the only two avowedly Antifederalists to attend the first session 1)9 of the Senate. The vote was Lee 9 8 , Grayson 86, and

Madison 77*

Madison was surprised to see how many votes he re­ ceived, considering "the present temper and disproportionate 50 number of the anti federal part of the Assembly." Henry, likewise impressed, was happy to smooth Madison's way to return to the now dying Congress of the Confederation, in order to get him out of the state long before the congres­ sional elections were held on 2 February 1789* Madison thought he could afford the trip northward to Congress be­ cause he hoped to be unopposed in his bid for a seat in the

House of Representatives, but he declared that he would "not be surprised if the attempt should be equally successful to

^Rutland, Ordeal, p. 2*J1; Madison to Jefferson, 8 Dec. 1788, TJ, Papers (Boyd), XIV, 3**0; C. 0. Paullin, "The First Elections under the Constitution," Iowa Journal of History and Politics, II (Jan., 190*}), 3; Ray Swanstrom, The United States Senate, 1787-1801: A Dissertation on the First Fourteen Years of the Upper Legislative Body (87th Cong., 1st Sess., Senate Doc. No. 6*L; Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962), p. 32.

■^Madison to Edmund Randolph, 23 Nov. 1788, The Writings of James Madison: Comprising His Public Papers and His Private Correspondence, Including Numerous Letters and Documents Now For the First Time Printed, ed. by Gaillard Hunt (9 vols; New York and London: G~. P. Putnam's Sons, 1900-10), V, 303-05, hereinafter referred to as Madison, Writings (Hunt). 162

shut the door of the other House" against him.-'

Considering the makeup of the legislature, naturally

the committee appointed on 31 October 1788 to decide upon

the boundaries of Virginia's ten congressional districts had

an Antifederalist majority; one of its members was Monroe.

Irving Brant uses the word "Henrymander" to describe how this

committee drew the lines in Madison's area. Although it was

not misshapen, many contemporary Virginians commented on how this district violated the normal regional alignments by including with Madison's home county of Orange the ex­

tremely Antifederalistic Amherst County and Monroe's county

of Spotsylvania. When Madison considered running in a more

favorably constructed district, Patrick Henry also got the 52 legislature to enact a residency requirement.

In Madison's district the Antifederalists at first

considered running French Strother, the Antifederalist dele­

gate to the ratifying convention from Culpepper, or the

elder William Cabell, the Antifederalist delegate from Am­

herst, but eventually pressured the popular Monroe into op-

^-Ibid.; see also Ammon, dissertation, p. 82.

52irving Brant, James Madison, Vol. I subtitled The Virginia Revolutionist; Vol. II subtitled The Nationalist, 1780-1787; Vol. Ill subtitled Father of the Constitution, 1787-1800 (Indianapolis and New York: Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1941-50), III, 238; Paullin, "First Elections," p. 10; McCar- rell, "Jeffersonian Party," pp. 47-48; J. R. Pole, Political Representation in England and the Origins of the American Republic (London and New York: Macmillan and St. Martin's Press, 1966), p. 295. 163 posing Madison, pleading that they needed him in Congress to make sure that the Constitution's defects were properly amended. J Joseph Jones observed that "the party, as it is called, had too much influence with him."5^ On the other hand, George Bancroft believes that the Antifederalists1

"iniquitlous preparations" were responsible for Monroe's decision, "without scruple," to accept their nomination.^

When they campaigned for him, many of Monroe's friends in­ sinuated that Madison was against making any amendments to the Constitution. William Cabell, for example, characterized

Madison as uniformly against amendments (especially by a new convention called by Congress) and declared that the people must unite "against Tyranny and oppresion [sic ]" by electing eg Monroe.J

The astute George Mason thought that Monroe would win, but Madison's friends believed that the Federalist leader would emerge the victor if he campaigned in person.

^Edward Carrington to Madison, 15, 18, and 26 Nov. 1788, quoted in Rives, Madison, II, 65^ — 655; Monroe to Jef­ ferson, 15 Feb. 1789, TJ, Papers (Boyd), XIV, 558; cf. Joseph Jones to Madison, 14 Dec. 1788 and 5 April 1789, Jones, "Letters," pp. 125~27.

•^Letter to Madison, 5 April 1789, Jones, "Letters," pp. 126-27.

•^Formation of the Constitution, II, 354-55.

-^Letter to Col. James Higginbotham, late 1788, Wm. and Mary Quarterly, 2d Ser., IX (April, 1929), 124-35; see also Brant, James Madison, III, 239. 164

Madison was busy In Congress; travel in winter was difficult and Madison, suffering from piles, could not ride a horse at this time; nevertheless, in response to his friends' pleas, he hurried home and, although he remained against the Virgin­ ian custom of treating the voters, consented to make some public speeches and to use "epistolary means" extensively.-^

By this time Monroe and Madison had resumed their formerly friendly relationship, but Madison's friends warned 58 him not to expect any public favors from Monroe. During the campaign, however, the two political opponents remained personally close; and thus a novel feature of their brisk contest was their decision to campaign together, the two candidates traveling from county to county for two weeks.

Madison afterward declared that by confining themselves to discussing the Constitution in an amiable way, rather than indulging in personal recriminations, they were able to pre­ serve their newly-reestablished friendship "from the small-

^ M a d i s o n to Washington, 14 Jan. 1789, Madison Writings (Hunt), V, 318-21; see also George Mason to John Mason, 18 Dec. 1788, Kate Mason Rowland, The Life of George Mason, 1725-1792 (2 vols.; New York and London: G. P. Put- nam's Sons, 1892), II, 304; Edward Carrington to Madison, 26 Nov. 1788, quoted in Rives, Madison, II, 655; Madison to Edmund Randolph, 1 March 1789, Madison, Writings (Hunt), V, 325027; Ammon dissertation, p. 34. 58aaillard Hunt, The Life of James Madison (New York: Doubleday, Page & Co., 1902), p . 164. Concerning this resumed relationship, Styron, in Last of the Cocked Hats, p. 125, says: "For his part Madison had learned something about his younger colleague's mettle; and henceforth he was noticeably less oracular and patronizing in handing down judgments to someone he knew would do battle even with a revered friend for a principle." 165 59 est diminution." In later years Madison recalled their joint visit to speak to an influential "nest of Dutchmen" at a Lutheran church in what is now Madison County: after the service, the two candidates

kept them standing in the snow listening to the discussion of constitutional subjects. They stood it out very patiently— seemed to consider it a sort of Tight of which they were required to be spectators.

It w e j so cold that on this occasion Madison's nose was frostbitten, leaving him with a permanent battle scar of which he seemed to be very proud.^

Madison's influence among the non-Episcopalians, in particular the Baptists, due to his support of disestablish- fi P ment in Virginia, helped him to win this critical election.

Bancroft says that Madison "easily won the day" but neglects to point out that Madison found it necessary to promise the voters that he would work for amendments to the Constitu- tion. Madison defeated Monroe by three hundred votes.

Monroe carried Amherst with ease, had a majority of seventy-

-^Madison to Jefferson, 29 March 1789, TJ, Papers (Boyd), XV, 6. 6 0 Memorandum of N. P. Trist, Hunt, Life of James Madison, p. 165; cf. Brant, James Madison, III, 2WT~. £ n Sydney Howard Gay, in James Madison (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company [1912"]'), p. 121, incor­ rectly recounts how Madison's ears were frostbitten.

^McCarrell, "Jeffersonian Party," p. 55.

^^Formation of the Constitution, II, 355; cf. Rut­ land, Ordeal, p. 297* 166 four votes in Spotsylvania, but lost heavily in Culpepper

(103 to 256) and in Madison's Orange County (9 to 216).

Even though later Americans might be fascinated by this political campaign between two noted Virginians, both des­ tined to serve as presidents of the United States, the voters of this district— in common with the voters in most of the other elections held as the Constitution was being placed in operation— showed very little interest. Only 1,290 out of an estimated 47,000 adult white males— this is only 2.7 64 per cent— chose to vote in the Madison-Monroe contest.

Madison was the most noteworthy member elected to

Virginia's delegation to the First Congress; but the Anti­ federalists succeeded in electing three of the ten, a result which Madison had predicted a month before the election.

This number is quite significant because, of the fifty-five members of the First Congress, no more than fourteen were

Antifederalists.^ Thus in Virginia the Antifederalists remained relatively strong, even after the ratification of the Constitution. The still influential Henry and his party were under obligation to Monroe for consenting to campaign against Madison as well as for his important contributions to their cause in the ratifying convention. They fulfilled

^Paullin, "First Elections," pp. 27, 31, and 32; Grigsby, Virginia Federal Convention, II, 371; see also Brant, James Madison, III, 242.

^Madison to Jefferson, 8 Dec. 1788, TJ, Papers (Boyd), XIV, 340; Paullin, "First Elections," p. 27. 167 this obligation by helping him to obtain a seat in the national legislature at the first opportunity. CHAPTER VIII

OPPOSING THE FEDERALIST GOVERNMENT FROM THE SENATE

Joseph Jones was not very sympathetic with James

Monroe after his defeat in the congressional contest. He told James Madison that he thought his nephew had been wrong to oppose him and that he believed "his disappointment will prove much more beneficial to him than his election would have been. "-*• Monroe consoled himself with service in the state legislature. Moreover, by now his law practice was better established. Not only had John Taylor of Caroline turned over part of his considerable practice in eastern

Virginia to Monroe, but also the state attorney-general had appointed Monroe a deputy state attorney for the dis­ trict court held at Fredericksburg.2 Monroe, however, gave up this security by moving westward to Jefferson's home county of Albemarle. There he remained dissatisfied, telling

Madison, who was keeping him informed about national issues:

"You must not expect, in return for your attention, any com-

■'"Letter of 5 April 1789, Jones, "Letters," pp. 126- 27. 2 Mays, Pendleton Biography, II, 288; proclamation of James Innes, 16 March 1789, Fredericksburg City Circuit Court, Misc. Ac. No. 25^01, UVa Microfilm, Roll 12, Ser. 2. 168 169 municat[io]n of Importance from me.

It was in this situation that Monroe found himself when in 1790 he seized upon an opportunity to give up his practice and his seat in the state legislature and devote himself to serving the public in the Federal Government.

After his cousin, William Grayson, died on 12 March 1790,

Monroe— as he later stated— "yielded to my Inclinations to suffer my name to be mention'd" and on 9 November 1790 was elected to Grayson's unfinished two-year term in the United

States Senate and to a subsequent full six-year term as well.

In the excitement of running for an important of­ fice Monroe expressed the hope that he would soon be able to give up his law practice completely, telling Jefferson: "I have determin'd in great measure in case of my election to abandon my profession";^ but he had second thoughts after he won the seat. His friends assured him that leaving Vir­ ginia for the short sessions of the new Federal Congress would not interfere with his law practice in the same way that his service in the old Congress of the Confederation

^Letter of 15 June 1789* Madison Papers, Ser. 1, Reel 4. 4 Monroe to Jefferson, 20 Oct. 1790, TJ, Papers (Boyd), XVII, 607; cf. Monroe to Jefferson, 18 July 1790, ibid., pp. 231-33; see also Virginia, Journal of the House of Delegates [18 Oct. to 29 Dec. 1790] (.LRichmond: Augustine Davis, 1791]), p. 49.

^Letter of 22 Oct. 1790, TJ, Papers (Boyd), XVII, 621. 170 had; and so he decided to "make an experiment" of combining two careers, stating: ■ "It is my most earnest wish to carry them on together & if possible shall attend the Courts as g usual"; nevertheless, when he found that Congress remained in session longer than he originally had anticipated, he gradually gave up his practice and became a full-time public 7 servant.

Monroe did not obtain his new office without diffi­ culty, discovering that there was "not that certainty in O the event we seem’d to suppose." Governor Beverley Randolph, who was empowered to fill the Grayson vacancy until the leg­ islature met, first asked George Mason to accept the honor; but after he (with characteristic reluctance to leave home) refused the interim appointment, Randolph asked John Walker, n who accepted the position. In the autumn of 1790, when the legislature assembled, there were several candidates for the fragmentary and the full Senate terms, but the two major

^Monroe to James Lyle (Clerk of District Court at Staunton), 19 Nov. 1790, "Letter from James Monroe," Va. Mag, of History and Biography, IX (Oct., 1901), 221-22.

"^Monroe to Archibald Stuart, 14 March 1792, Va. Historical Society, Monroe Papers No. 8847-A, UVa Microfilm, Roll 12, Ser. 2; Monroe to Jefferson, 17 June 1792, Monroe, Writings, I, 230-33- Q Monroe to Jefferson, 20 Oct. 1790, TJ, Papers (Boyd), XVII, 607. 9 Robert Allen Rutland, George Mason: Reluctant Statesman, with a Foreword by Dumas Malone, Williamsburg in America Series, Vol. IV (Williamsburg, Va.: Colonial Williamsburg [1961]), p. 105- 171 contenders were the incumbent appointed by the Governor and

James Monroe. Monroe won both elections after a contest which— as Grigsby recalled years later— featured a political ballad with a chorus "rather too pungent for modern ears."1^

Monroe's successful bid for the two Senate terms came at a time when the political factions which existed during the ratification struggle were finally breaking up in

Virginia and at a time before the new party alignments began to solidify there over national issues. Monroe's supporters included people who had formerly taken opposite views on the

Constitution, but the Antifederalists were probably of more help to him.11 Even though Monroe modestly claimed that he 1 ? did not know the "few men of any weight" in the House, c he did know Patrick Henry. The famous orator was about to re­ tire from public life, thus completing the process of his faction's disintegration by leaving the members of the old guard to shift for themselves; nevertheless, he undoubtedly encouraged the members of his weakened but still influential

^ Virginia Federal Convention» II, 2l4n; see also Monroe to Jefferson, 20 and 22 Oct. 1790, TJ, Papers (Boyd), XVII, 607 and 621; and Journal of the House of Delegates for 9 Nov. 1790, p. 49.

11Cf. McCarrell, "Jeffersonian Party," pp. 84 and 133-34; Pole, Political Representation, p. l6l; Ammon, "Jef­ fersonian Republicans in Virginia," pp. 155 and 164; and Ammon, "Formation of the Republican Party," p. 285- 12 Monroe to Jefferson, 20 Oct. 1790, TJ, Papers (Boyd), XVII, 607. 172 group to vote for Monroe. A letter which Henry sent to Mon­ roe at the time of his retirement indicates in part why he supported his young colleague for his newly-acquired Senate seat: showing obvious friendship and charm, the older man wrote that

altho1 the Form of Gover[n]m[en]t into which my Countrymen determined to place themselves, had my Enmity, yet as we are one & all imbarked [sic], it is natural to care for the crazy Machine, at least so long as we are out of Sight of a Port to refit. . . . Do give me the News when your Leisure permits— with your opinions on such matters as may be the Subject of Letters— And in Return I will try to find out something, & spin it out into the Size of [a] Letter & send it to you. . .

The Antifederalists had begun to lose power in Vir­ ginia when supporters of the Constitution took office in 1789 and prevented Henry from getting his way in the state con­ cerning amendments to the newly-adopted Constitution. They were also hurt when Thomas Jefferson, who had not been direct­ ly involved in the ratification struggle, joined with Madison rather than with Henry upon his return from Paris to become

Washington's secretary of state.^ Many influential Feder­ alists, particularly John Marshall— formerly closely associ­ ated with Monroe— and Henry Lee, opposed Monroe's successful bid for the Senate; and Monroe may even have wondered about

■^Letter of 24 Jan. 1791, Monroe Papers (LC), Ser. 1, Reel 1.

■^McCarrell, "Jeffersonian Party,” p. 134; Ammon, "Formation of the Republican Party," pp. 287-88; Dodd, Statesmen, p. 43. 173 15 Madison's position as well.

On the other hand, Madison's associate, the busy

new Secretary of State, remained publicly neutral In this

affair, even though he probably desired to have such an old

friend as Monroe nearby In the Senate. John Walker was also an old friend of Jefferson's, although he later became alien­ ated from Jefferson and caused him a great deal of embar- rasment over a youthful indiscretion in connection with

Walker's wife. This alienation may have begun with Walker's defeat by Monroe, a former prot^g^ of Jefferson. Walker probably did not know that Jefferson actually chose to think that Monroe was being "pressed into the service, really a- gainst his will" and felt that William Short would have been

the obviously better choice had he not been away in Europe at the time.^

Vice-President John Adams administered the oath of office to Walker's replacement, James Monroe, on 6 December

1790. The newly-elected senator from Virginia was suffering with a bad cold picked up on his journey northward to Phila­ delphia and so was for sometime "unable to form acquain-

15 Monroe to Jefferson, 20 Oct. 1790, TJ, Papers (Boyd), XVII, 607.

l6Malone, Jefferson. I, 447-51 and II, 325.

-*-7jefferson to Short, 30 Sept. 1790, T J, Papers (Boyd), XVII, 5^4. 174 1 8 tances, or in fact do anything but attend Congress."

Despite his late arrival he soon fitted into the group.

Probably the most famous name in the Senate before Monroe took his seat was that of his old colleague and consistent opponent, Rufus King. Monroe also knew many of the other early senators personally. Moreover, his past experience was similar to most of theirs. Like Monroe, of the 94 senators who served before 1801, about 58 had been in uni­ form during the Revolutionary War, mostly as officers; 42 had been in the Continental or Confederation Congresses; and nearly all of them had held state office. Also like

Monroe, 65 of the early senators were lawyers. They were also relatively young when they entered the Senate, the average age being *15; but Monroe, at 32, was one of the youngest. He also differed from most of the other senators,

Federalists and Republicans alike, in that he was not wealthy as most of them were; but he usually identified with the members of the upper class. 19

It is also significant to note that Monroe was the only senator serving at this time, other than Andrew Jackson,

18 Monroe to Gov. Beverley Randolph, 10 Dec. 1790, Calendar of Virginia State Papers and Other Manuscripts . . . Preserved in the Capitol at Richmond, ed. by William P. Palmer et al. (11 vols; Richmond: Superintendent of Public Printing^ IB75-93), V, 229; see also The Debates and Proceed­ ings in the Congress of the United States . . . [Annals of the Congress of the United Statesj, comp, by Joseph Gales, Sr., II (Washington: Ga1es and Seaton, 1834), col. 1727.

■^Swanstrom, U.S. Senate, pp. 36-45. 175 who rose to the presidency. Neither of them became president

as a direct result of being in the Senate because during its

formative years that body was considerably different from what it later became. The Senate played a quieter role in

the politics of the Federal Period than did the House of

Representatives. Its activities were usually not as in­

teresting as those of the lower house because it rarely in­

itiated legislation, acting more like a revisory council to the House. Moreover, in comparison with the more contentious 20 House, its atmosphere was one of politeness and harmony.

In addition, for most of the time that Monroe served in the

Senate, the members of that chamber were not as much in the public eye because they met behind closed doors.

This custom continued the tradition of previous

Congresses and was in accordance with the Federalist policy of keeping the new government high-toned, but those who be­ came Republicans came to consider the practice aristocratic, especially because the House of Representatives permitted the public to observe its deliberations. Even though one could discuss Senate actions freely outside the chamber (unless a special rule of secrecy was imposed), the Virginian sena­ tors were particularly opposed to the Senate’s doors being closed as they stressed the duty of their colleagues to obey instruction from the state legislatures which they

20Ibid., pp. 78, 80, 88, and 195-97. 176

represented and felt that this obligation required open

sessions so that the people at home could note whether their

senators complied with their instructions. Senator Richard

Henry Lee had moved that the Senate open its doors in April

of 1790, but he was unsuccessful: One of Monroe's first

significant motions in the Senate was therefore to propose

a similar motion in February of 1791- This likewise failed

to pass but remained an issue for the Virginian senators

to stress until the idea was finally accepted early in 179*J, 21 just before Monroe resigned from the Senate.

Taking the oath of office before the end of the

First Congress and continuing in the Senate until his de­

parture for Paris in the spring of 179*1, Monroe arrived on

the national scene early and remained there during the period

when the first American party system was beginning to form.

From his seat in the Senate he was in an excellent position

to observe these significant political developments. More­

over, he was closely associated with other Virginians like

Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, William Branch Giles, John

Beckley, and John Taylor in their opposition to Federalist

? i Sketches of Debate in the First Senate of the United States, in 1789-90-91, by William Maclay, A Senator from Pennsylvania, ed. by George W. Harris (Harrisburg: Lane S. Hart L1BB0]), p. 296, hereinafter referred to as Maclay, Sketches; R. H. Lee and Monroe to Gov. of Va., 9 May 1792, "Letters of James Monroe, 1790-1827," ed. by Worthing­ ton Chauncey Ford, Proceedings of the Mass. Historical Soci­ ety , 3d Ser., II (May, 1909), 320-21, hereinafter referred to as Monroe, "Letters"; Swanstrom, U.S. Senate, pp. 3*1, *J9, 68, 162, and 238-52. 177 proposals and thus helped them lay the foundation of what 22 became the Republican Party.

Monroe found that he was by now usually In agree­ ment with Madison even though they had been on opposite sides during 1788 and early 1789- When, in the autumn of 1792,

Melancton Smith and Marinus Willet wrote to Madison and Mon­ roe together, they were recognizing that these Virginians closely collaborated as leaders of a loose association of

"friends of republicanism" in the South. The New Yorkers suggested in their letter that Aaron Burr replace George

Clinton as their common candidate for the vice-presidency, an idea which Madison and Monroe rejected. Monroe told his colleague that he was "disposed to concurr with you in what­ ever you think best, & will subscribe any letter you may write [to Smith and Willet], for I am persuaded from past 2? conversations we shall not disagree."

During these important early years Monroe was able to exert a strong influence upon the developing Republican ideology, bringing to it some of the concepts which he had previously expressed when he, alone among the key Republican founders, had actively opposed the ratification of the Con-

22Brant, James Madison, III, 32^; Broadus Mitchell, Alexander Hamilton: The National Adventure, 1788-180*1 (New York: Macmillan Company, 1962), p. 267; Morgan, Life of James Monroe, p. 211. 2S Monroe to Madison, 9 Oct. 1792, Madison Papers, Ser. 1, Reel 5; see also Smith and Willet to Madison and Monroe, 30 Sept. 1792, Monroe Papers (LC), Ser. 2, Reel 9. 178 stitution. Just as he had done when he argued against Madi­ son at the Richmond convention, he continued to emphasize the Antifederalists' fear of aristocratic and centralizing tendencies in the new Federal Government, telling Jefferson:

Upon political subjects we perfectly agree, & par­ ticularly in the reprobation of all measures that may be calculated to elevate the government above the people, or place it in any respect without its natural boundary.24

Like many other statesmen who became members of the

Republican Party, Monroe expressed adverse opinions of Ham­ ilton's program quite early. This antagonism is noticeable, even before his election to the Senate, when he kept Madison and Jefferson informed about public opinion in Virginia on these proposals. (Forwarding useful local information was one of his first partisan duties in the period when national parties were in the process of developing.) Monroe advised

Madison that "a satisfactory adjustment" of the location of the national capital would make Assumption "palatable here" but warned him that Virginians really would not like As­ sumption "under any shape it can assume," mentioning "the above fact as one of those circumstances to be taken into the calculation in any final determination on the subject.2-*

He reinforced this warning by telling Jefferson that to him

22

^Letters of 2 and 26 July 1790, Madison Papers, Ser. 1, Reel 4. 179

Assumption was "in every point of view impoliticly"

When he reached the Senate, where he became one of the main Republican spokesmen, Monroe vigorously objected to

Hamilton's proposals. He opposed the National Bank on the classic Jeffersonian grounds that the plan exceeded the powers of Congress "given in the enumeration of the powers in the constitution, nor does it appear to me to flow from any that 27 are enumerated." ' When the bill passed the Senate ten to six, Monroe was one of the six. (The politically well- informed Monroe, knew, "It will likewise pass the H[ouse] of

R[epresentatives] tho1 all our members there [from Virginia] are against it.")2^

Like many other Virginians of his acquaintance

Monroe also disliked Hamilton's proposed excise tax, but he privately warned Madison and Jefferson "that in the present state of things the soundest deliberations must be used, before any attempt for a change is made" because no one can

2^Letter of 3 July 1790, TJ, Papers (Boyd), XVI, 596-97.

^Monroe to Nicholas Lewis, 7 Feb. 1791, U. of Va. Library, MSS Div. Ac. No. 3^19 (Jay W. Johns Deposit), UVa Microfilm, Roll 12, Ser. 2; see also Maclay, Sketches, p. 278; and Hamilton to Washington, Feb. 1791, Hamilton, Papers (Syrett), VIII, 1^3*

“^Monroe to Nicholas Lewis, 7 Feb. 1793, U. of Va. Library, MSS Div. Ac. No. 3^19 (Jay W. Johns Deposit), UVa Microfilm, Roll 12, Ser. 2. 180

suggest any better source of revenue.^ He convinced the

Republican leadership to be careful, for another mode of

taxation suggested by Republicans "might bring upon its

authors the odium w[hic]h now belongs to the fathers of this and if the publick censure is to be fix’d on any, who are

fitter objects for it than those who have made the tax neces-

sary[?]"-^

Besides giving counsel to their leaders and fighting their opponents from the Senate floor, Monroe also served the

early Republican organization ably as a polemicist. Accord­

ing to Harry Ammon:

He was highly valued as a political essayist whose services were widely used. He excelled in . . . direct attacks on the opposition relating to specific measures and politics. He had none of Madison's ability in handling abstract augmenta­ tion. 31

Monroe first demonstrated this talent against Alexander

Hamilton after the Federalist leader began, in the summer of 1792, an anonymous newspaper attack on Philip Freneau and, through him, on Thomas Jefferson, accusing the latter of having opposed the Constitution and of having made an almost treasonable foreign financial proposal while serving the

2Q Monroe to Madison, 27 June 1792, Madison Papers, Ser. 1, Reel 5; cf. Monroe to Jefferson, 17 June 1792, Mon- roe, Writings, I, 230-33-

^°Monroe to Jefferson, 27 June 1792, Monroe, Writings, I, 233-^0.

31"Agricola Versus Aristides," p. 320. nation in France. This semi-official Federalist Party at­

tempt to drive Jefferson from office in disgrace resulted

in a letter-writing duel which is noteworthy because it

completed the split between Republican and Federalist leaders

and made Jefferson the leading Republican in the popular view

(It preceded a similar duel in Congress over the Giles

Resolutions.) Freneau made his reply to Hamilton on 8 August

and Edmund Randolph, as "Aristides," defended Jefferson on

8 September; but Jefferson’s main vindication was published

anonymously in six parts beginning on 22 September and

continuing through 31 December 1792. In this vindication,

as cne scholar has phrased it, "a new voice was heard, calm,

in contrast to the general excitement, and well informed."^2

The writer was Monroe, assisted by Madison; for Jefferson

chose not to answer the attack directly but aided his friends

in their public defense of him. The portions attributed to

Monroe are considered more effective than those attributed

to Madison because Monroe demonstrated a "sharper temper and

greater force" in comparison with his collaborator's "calm,

slow logic."33 in this series Monroe, with Madison's and

Jefferson's help, easily defended the Secretary of State.

■^Philip [M.] Marsh, "'The Vindication of Mr. Jefferson,'" South Atlantic Quarterly, XLV (Jan., 19*16), 62; see also McCarrell, 11 Jeffersonian Party," p. 142.

^ Monroe's Defense of Jefferson and Freneau Against Hamilton, ed. and with Introduction by Philip M. Marsh" (Ox- ford, Ohio: Philip M. Marsh, 1946), p. 6. 182

Hamilton’s charges were essentially false and thus he ulti­ mately had to admit defeat by failing to reply. (He also failed to mention the subject again in later political let­ ters.) Monroe not only hurt Hamilton by successfully arguing against his accusations but also worried him by hinting in his last letter of the series at Hamilton's affair with

Mrs. Reynolds.

Monroe was in a good position to sneer at the anony­ mous Federalist writer, wanting him to reveal himself to the public so that "we might behold in him a living monument of that immaculate purity to which he pretends.Along with

Speaker Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg and Congressman Abraham

Venable, he had been a member of a self-appointed committee which had investigated rumors about Hamilton's alleged cor­ ruption and then, without warning, confronted Hamilton on

15 December 1792 with what they had learned from Mr. and

Mrs. James Reynolds. This confrontation illustrates Monroe's great antagonism toward his former comrade-in-arms. In a second meeting with the committee that day Hamilton was able to explain himself by revealing his indiscretions with Maria

Reynolds and the subsequent blackmail, for the three inquis­ itors appeared satisfied and promised to keep quiet about the affair. When the scandal became public knowledge in 1797,

Hamilton falsely believed that Monroe had betrayed his trust,

^Quoted in ibid. , p. 12. 183

partly because Hamilton recalled how, in his meeting In 1792,

Monroe had remained relatively cold even after he had offered

his embarrassing explanations to him.^

Following the failure of the Republicans in the House

to censure the Secretary of the Treasury by passing the Giles

Resolutions in the spring of 1793, Monroe continued the at­

tack on Hamilton by publishing on 9 April 1793 a widely-read

pamphlet entitled An Examination of the Late Proceedings in

Congress respecting the Official Conduct of the Secretary of

the Treasury. Monroe's close friend, John Beckley, who as­

sisted him in the preparation of this piece, wrote to Mon­

roe from Philadelphia to report that the pamphlet merited

"all the attention bestowed upon it— altho' it only appeared

yesterday the demand has nearly exhausted the 250 copies

received for this place" and then indicated the number of

copies which he was having distributed in other cities.

Coming immediately after Republicans had published a report

and discussion of the Giles Resolutions in the National Ga­ zette y the pamphlet remained so popular throughout the summer

^Hamilton, Papers (Syrett), X, 375£f; John C. Miller, Alexander Hamilton: Portrait in Paradox (New York: Harper & Brothers [1959]), PP- 338-40 and 460; George Adams Boyd, Elias Boudinot: Patriot and Statesman, 1740-1821 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1952), p. 200; Philip [M. ] Marsh, "Hamilton and Monroe," Miss. Valley His- torical Review, XXXIV (Dec., 1947), 464. Mitchell, in Alexander Hamilton, pp. 416-17, labels Monroe "one of the most active and vocal of his [i.e. Hamilton's] political enemies."

^Letter of 10 April 1793, Monroe Papers (LC), Ser. 2, Reel 10. that the last printing was not made until 20 October 179 3.

This long popularity was even more influential on the

political climate due to the lack of Federalist activity;

for, as Jefferson told Monroe, the "fiscal party" was pre­

serving after their success in defeating the Giles Resolu­

tions "a triumphant silence, notwithstanding the attack of 37 the pamphlet."

During this same year Monroe also aided his life­

long friend, John Taylor (who had replaced Richard Henry

Lee in the Senate) to write another attack on Hamilton.

Monroe was one of the first to see Taylor's unfinished work, qo finding in it "many useful & judicious observations."

Entitled A Definition of Parties, this famous criticism of the National Bank was eventually published in 1794 after circulating among Republican leaders for almost a year. One of the reasons why it took so long to get this pamphlet published was the feeling of many early Republicans that they were not on very secure ground when they condemned the

Federalists' domestic plans. Not only were Hamilton's fiscal

37 Letter of 5 May 1793> The Writings of Thomas Jef­ ferson , ed. by Andrew A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh (lit erary ed., 20 vols; Washington: issued under the aus­ pices of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1003), IX, 75-78, hereinafter referred to as TJ, Writings (Lipscomb) see also Edmund Berkeley and Dorothy Smith Berkeley, "'The Piece Left Behind': Monroe's Authorship of a Political Pam­ phlet Revealed," Va. Mag. of History and Biography, LXXV (April, 1967), 17^-180.

3^Monroe to Madison, 18 May 1793, Monroe, Writings, I, 254-55. 185 policies difficult to follow; but, as Monroe pointed out in

connection with the excise, the absolute condemnation of these

policies required suggesting acceptable alternatives.

Making objections to the Administration's foreign

policy seemed to offer the Republicans more room for criti­

cism. Monroe realized that there was universal sentiment in

Virginia favoring the French Revolution and believed that

Virginians did not like Washington's so-called neutrality

proclamation. Accordingly he wrote a pro-French article

in the Alexandria (Virginia) newspaper of 31 July 1793.39

This was before the Reign of Terror caused many Americans to

reconsider their enthusiasm. It was also before Citizen

Edmund Genet's quarrel with the President became common know­

ledge. The Federalists were quick to take advantage of Genet's

unfortunate behavior, Hamilton, King, and Jay organizing

public meetings to condemn the French minister's conduct.

Monroe and Madison, who were in Virginia going over the Taylor

pamphlet, were caught off guard; but the two eventually

realized the truth of the Federalist charges after Jefferson wrote them an uncoded letter on the subject. Mounting a

counter-campaign, they warned their Virginian colleagues to

^Monroe to Jefferson, 8 May 1793, ibid. , pp. 250- 53; Ammon, "Formation of the Republican Party," p. 310; McCarrell, "Jeffersonian Party," p. 110. 186

"put the friends of republican government on their guard"**0

and composed a series of model resolutions to be adopted at

various public meetings in Virginia. Monroe, who was re­

luctant to abandon Gen^t absolutely and openly, went to

•Staunton himself with a set of resolutions. These he got

adopted under the patronage of Archibald Stuart, preventing

the meeting from adopting the pro-Administration resolutions

proposed under John Marshall's influence. In his Staunton

address Monroe almost turned the tables on the Federalists

by lumping Jay and King in with Gen£t, calling all three of Zi i them troublemakers.

That autumn, In several essays which did not circu­

late widely, Monroe continued the Republican newspaper cam­

paign against the Federalist foreign policy. As "Agricola,"

he developed his previous attack on Jay and King and made a

bold innovation in the Republicans' public arguments by

criticizing George Washington himself. He protested the

President's nomination of Gouverneur Morris and his handling

of Edmund Gen£t as Illustrating the monarchist and pro-British

nature of the Federalists. At this time Monroe also wrote an article containing an attack on John Marshall's dealings

**°Monroe to John Brackenridge, 23 Aug. 179 3, Monroe, Writings, I, 272-73; cf. Monroe to John Taylor, 29 Aug. 1793, Monroe, "Letters," pp. 321-22.

^Madison to Jefferson, 2 Sept. 1793, Madison, Writ­ ings (Hunt), VI, 190-97; see also Ammon, "Genit Mission,11 passim; McCarrel, "Jeffersonian Party," pp. 114-121; and Malone, Jefferson, III, 139; cf. Marsh, "James Monroe as ' Agricola, ' " p . 4*74 . 187 with the Morrises, but he then suppressed it because it was too, severe. l\2 c

Gouverneur Morris had virtually been Washington's secret envoy to Great Britain where this outspoken aristocrat had plotted with French royalists. Although historians now generally regard Morris's conduct there as inept, Washington wanted to reward him with an important diplomatic post but knew that the Senate probably would not confirm this Anglo­ phile's appointment to Great Britain, especially as there was a possibility that the United States might soon declare war on that country. Washington therefore nominated Morris for France and managed to obtain his confirmation. Monroe unsuccessfully opposed the nomination as an unfit one be­ cause of Morris' "known attachment to monarchic gov[ernmen]t

& contempt of the Republican" and because of his general

"facility in making enemies & losing friends"; moreover,

Morris was "at present abroad as a vendor of publick secur- Jl o ities." J Henry Tazewell, an Antifederalist friend of Mon­ roe's (who was evidently unaware that Monroe had made his peace with Madison) reminded him that the Morris appointment

^Ammon, "Agricola Versus Aristides," passim; Marsh, "James Monroe as ' Agricola , ' " passim; McCarrell, TTJefferson- ian Party," p. 12^. ^Monroe to St. George Tucker, 2*1 Jan. 1792, U. of Va. Library, MSS Div. Ac. No. 7262, UVa Microfilm, Roll 12, Ser. 2; cf. Monroe to Archibald Stuart, 14 March 1792, Va. Historical Society, Monroe Papers No. 88^7-A, ibid. DeConde, in Entangling Alliance, p. 317, declares: "Opposition to Morris appeared soundly based." 188 was

a thing predicted at the moment the constitution was adopted. There are but two prophecies of that day remaining unfulfilled— The one as to our ac­ quaintance and Countryman Mr. Madison's appoint­ ment to some splendid office— The other as to the duration of the Government itself.^

Monroe also objected strongly to the possibility

that Washington might nominate Hamilton for a special mission

to Great Britain. As the result of a meeting which Oliver

Ellsworth, George Cabot, and Caleb Strong had with Hamilton

on 10 March 179*1, these three Federalist senators from New

England suggested to Washington that he select his secretary

of the treasury for the post. While the President was con­

sidering the matter, Senators Robert Morris and Rufus King, as well as Chief Justice John Jay, also added their support to Hamilton's secret ambition. When Republicans heard rumors about this possible nomination, some of them reacted intense­

ly. One Virginian congressman, fired off a particularly vio­

lent letter to Washington on 6 April, and then two days later

Senator Monroe likewise protested the idea of appointing

Hamilton and requested a private interview with Washington on the matter. As this was the first time that such a sita- ation had arisen, Washington asked for advice from Edmund

Randolph (who had recently replaced Jefferson as secretary of state, after Madison turned down the position). Randolph

^Letter of 1*1 Feb. 1792, Monroe Papers (LC), Ser. 1, Reel 1. 189

refused to tell Hamilton what was going on and informed

Washington that, in his opinion, senators were entitled to

an interview with the chief executive on such matters. In

Washington's cold reply to Monroe, however, he told him that

he alone was responsible for a proper nomination, that he

would grant the interview, but that he wanted Monroe's ob­

jections first, in writing. Monroe did not wish to fulfill

this condition, and so the interview did not take place. In

the meantime, at Washington's request, Hamilton had reluctant­

ly suggested Jay for the important post. When Washington

accepted this suggestion, Monroe unsuccessfully opposed the lie Jay appointment from the Senate floor. J

Monroe's Influence on Washington's decision was

obviously great. One of the reasons why the President ul­

timately nominated Jay rather than Hamilton was his policy

of carefully preserving the executive's appointment power by making reasonably sure before he sent a name to the Senate

that that body would not reject his nomination. Monroe was

well aware of Washington's usual practice because previously,

on the occasion of a military appointment, Jefferson had told him how Washington had asked him whether there would be any

opposition; after Jefferson replied that Monroe was of the

opinion that there would be none, he took it "for granted this

^Mitchell, Alexander Hamilton, pp. 332-3*1; Miller, Alexander Hamilton, pp^ 393-9*1; Monroe to Washington, 8 April 179*1, Monroe, Writings, I, 291-92; Washington to Monroe, 9 April 179*1, Monroe Papers (LC), Ser. 1, Reel 1. weighed with the President.

Washington was faced with a similar problem when

Republican and French opposition eventually forced him to find a suitable replacement for Gouverneur Morris. At first he thought of Thomas Pinckney, and then he tentatively offered the post to Robert R. Livingston. In the meantime, some leading Republicans in the Senate and House held a caucus and decided to propose to Washington the name of Aaron Burr.

Madison and Monroe represented the group in several meetings with the Administration. Washington saw them twice and on the second occasion told them point-blank that Burr was abso­ lutely unacceptable to him but added, "I will nominate you, li 7 Mr. Madison, or you, Mr. Monroe." (Previously Hamilton had unenthusiastically suggested Madison's name to the Pres­ ident.) Both of these gentlemen refused to be considered for the post at that time. Madison was most vehement in his objections because he feared ocean travel and because he U O was about to marry and, hopefully, to retire from politics.

H6 Jefferson to Monroe, 11 April 1792, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. by Paul Leicester Ford"j (10 volsT; New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1892-1899)s V, 503. i| 7 Memoirs of Aaron Burr, with Miscellaneous Selections from His Correspondence, ed. by Matthew L. Davis (2 vols.; New York: Harper & Brothers, 1836), I, 408. 48 Brant, James Madison, III, 400ff.; Brown, Alex­ ander Hamilton, p. 95. 191

As the members of the caucus remained adamantly in favor of Burr, the Secretary of State refused to let their representatives see the President again; but, shortly after this, Chancellor Livingston definitely declined Washington's repeated request that he accept the position; and Edmund

Randolph then called on Monroe. He told him that the Presi­ dent, although objecting to Burr, did want to appoint a Re­ publican to France. According to the Secretary, Washington found Monroe's active opposition to his administration no objection "as he had never ascribed it to other than upright and honorable motives," and wanted him to accept the posi- 49 tion.

In his memoirs, Monroe uses Washington's incredible offer to prove that the relation "which had been formed be- 50 tween them in his early youth was not shaken," but this does not explain sufficiently why Washington considered

Monroe for France. Undoubtedly Monroe's recent interference in the appointment to Britain remained in Washington's mind; but the President, while annoyed, was still trying to maintain a balanced administration. Monroe's appointment to France would certainly balance Jay's appointment to Great Britain.

It might also keep the French pacified during Jay's mission

^Monroe, Autobiography, pp. 57-58. 5°Ibid.; see also Washington to Livingston, 14 May 1794, Washington, Writings (Fitzpatrick), XXXIII, 264; and Livingston to Monroe j 16 May 1794, Monroe Papers (LC), Ser. 1, Reel 1. 192

there as well as help repair the damage which Morris had

caused in Franco-American relations. In addition, Monroe's appointment might serve to make the Republicans responsible

for the future conduct of French affairs. Moreover, as the

Republicans now controlled the House, the Senate had become 51 more important as a Federalist check upon the legislature.

Consequently Monroe's appointment to France would remove a

consistently loud opposition voice from the Senate just at a

time when Republican influence there reached a highwater mark

which would not be surpassed until the Jefferson Administra­

tion. Perhaps this last reason was the major one influencing

Washington to ignore his usual policy of avoiding the appear­ ance of executive-legislative collusion by not selecting 52 senators for executive posts.

The pro-Federalist historian, Richard Hildreth, says

that Monroe "did not hesitate to accept" Washington's o f f e r ; - ^

but, on the contrary, Monroe's first reaction was to decline.

He consulted many of his friends before agreeing to the ap-

^DeConde, Entangling Alliance, pp. 342-44; McCarrell, "Jeffersonian Party,1' p. 157; Schouler, History, I, 286, 309* and 332; Samuel Flagg Bemis, "Washington's Farewell Address: A Foreign Policy of Independence," American Historical Review, XXXIX (Jan. ,1934), 254; John C. Miller, The Federalist Era, 1789-1801, New American Nation Series, (New York: Harper & Brothers [i960]), pp. 193-94.

-^Swanstrom, U.S. Senate, pp. 80 and 283.

^ The History of the United States of America . . • (2 vols; New York: Harper & Brothers, 1851)3 II, 490. ” 193 Kii pointment.-' Burr later told him he was right to have ac­ cepted: "I am satisfied that it is in every View a better arrangement than any other which could have been made."55

Monroe probably appreciated the high honor of representing his country in the sister republic of revolutionary France.

Perhaps he thought it was a great opportunity to further republicanism in both countries. He undoubtedly also appre­ ciated the high remuneration which he would receive, for he was promised the maximum permitted by law. (As a senator he had been receiving six dollars a day during the sessions; now his salary would rise to $9,000 a year, plus more than that amount for his expenses.) Perhaps Monroe's fundamental reason for going to France was more simple. Like Madison he had for some time been thinking of making a change. The

Federalists had managed to maintain their bare majority in the Senate, causing many Republicans to lose heart and leave the capital before the end of the session. That his friends

5^0n 27 May 179*1 the Senate read Washington's letter (dated the same day) nominating Monroe and the next day con­ sented to the appointment; see U.S., Congress, Senate, Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the Senate of the United States of America: From the Commencement of the First, to the Ter­ mination of the Nineteenth Congress, I(Washington: Duff Green, 1826), 157-

"^Letter of 30 May 179*1, Monroe Papers (LC), Ser. 1, Reel 1, see also Monroe, Autobiography, pp. 57-58; and Monroe to Madison, 26 May 179*1, Monroe, Writings, I, 299.

^Brown, First Republicans, p. 106; Wilmerding, James Monroe, pp. 28-26 and 135n. 194 knew Monroe was weary of the Senate is clearly established by an earlier letter from Spencer Roane, who declared:

I hope you & your republican Colleague may find it convenient to remain in office, 'till our affairs are put upon a proper footing. I should fear much as to a successor to either of you— of those who would probably offer, very few would answer, in my opinion.57

Exhausted by years of partisan activity, however,

Monroe decided to abandon the struggle and departed for

France as soon as possible. The Republicans would find him difficult to replace.

57;Letter of 24 Feb. 1794, Monroe Papers (LC), Ser. 1, Reel 1; see also Swanstrom, U.S. Senate, p. 285. CHAPTER IX

CONCLUDING REMARKS

By 179^ James Monroe had already had a long and distinguished career in public service. Despite the fact that he held many important state and national offices dur­ ing the period when the United States was being founded and despite the fact that a knowledge of his political actions during this eventful early period can aid our understand­ ing of his more famous later years, scholars have written very little of significance about Monroe’s activities, especially during the years immediately after the Revolu­ tionary War. To his acquaintances— and hence to the later scholars who virtually ignored him— the young Monroe often appeared immature and unsophisticated; but it was probably

Monroe's political enemies who influenced the development of the characterization of Monroe as a mediocrity; for quite early in his career the Important statesmen who were friends of the likeable and trustworthy Monroe began to rely on his sound judgment and the great knowledge of the details of current political issues which came as the result of his dedicated and Industrious governmental service. Monroe's lifelong desire for public office, which developed during

195 196

this early period, forced him to abandon his law career,

the drudgery of which he disliked, and to rely essentially

on his governmental salary for his livelihood. Being almost

constantly in elected office meant that he could not con­ veniently earn a private income and thus he was in financial difficulties nearly all of his life. This constant reliance upon governmental office also made him one of the first

American statesmen who can be categorized as a professional politician.

Scholars should find it useful to examine the begin­ nings of Monroe's political career, if only because that career well illustrates the political tendencies of one of the most significant states during the period when basic

American republican institutions were being created. Be­ cause the state barely altered its colonial governmental structure and because the deferential freeholders remained satisfied with the leadership of the hardworking patrician class, independence did not bring about intense faction turmoil in Virginia. The Revolution, however, did gradually divide Virginians into more significant factions or parties than the Old Dominion had experienced as a colony and also gave more power to the lesser planters than they had pos­ sessed before. In this situation Monroe therefore had a greater chance to rise to political prominence than he might have had earlier; but, in the fashion typical of 197 pre-Revolutionary Virginia, he discovered that his family's

background and the influence of important people made it

possible for him to be elected to the House of Delegates

in 1782 and that having Washington's recommendation and

being considered Jefferson's protege were just as important

as possessing talents, being Industrious, and having an

honorable character in enabling him to rise quickly to

Virginia's Council and then to the Congress of the Confed­

eration .

Monroe's distinguished service in Congress permits

us to examine that body more closely as well as to look at

some of the nearly insurmountable problems confronting the

Confederation during the so-called Critical Period. The

distance of the relatively weak and generally ignored Con­ gress from the real source of political power in Virginia

provided the young and inexperienced Monroe with another

opportunity to demonstrate his abilities. Soon after Jef­

ferson and Madison introduced him to the other members of

Congress and guided him during the initial stage of his

term, they left Monroe alone in that body, thus enabling him (during his three years there) to become one of the

leading representatives of one of the most important states in the Confederation.

In particular Monroe impressed his fellow congress­ men with his expertise in Western matters. There are 198 several reasons for this development: Congress had more power to act In this field; Monroe's state was more involved in Western legislation than most other states; Monroe had personal economic Interests in the West; and he had better knowledge of the West than most congressmen from his cor­ respondence with George Rogers Clark and from his two ex­ peditions to that region. As a result of his first trip

Monroe became one of the first American statesmen to draw attention to the British failure to evacuate the Western posts. As a result of his second trip he influenced the development of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787- His revision of Jefferson's original concepts suggested many of the basic ideas of what became America's policy toward governing the West. His support of colonial-style govern­ ments for Western territories, his opposition to separating

Kentucky from Virginia, and his decision to remain in Vir­ ginia rather than settle in the West, reveal that Monroe’s interest in the West had a definite Eastern bias.

The matter which best illustrates Monroe's great importance in Congress, as well as his attitude toward the

West during this period, grew out of the crisis in American negotiations with Spain. Monroe helped insure that the

United States would not barter away American claims to navigate the lower Mississippi— so important to Westerners— when Congress haltingly authorized John Jay to negotiate 199 with Gardoqui. Unlike many other Virginian statesmen Monroe had early realized the importance of reopening the lower

Mississippi to American commerce, but his opposition to

Jay's proposals was basically anti-North rather than pro-

West. The prolonged debate in Congress over Jay's request that his restrictions be eliminated endangered the Confed­ eration. Monroe led the five Southern states in their op­ position to Jay's proposals and Rufus King led the seven

Northern states in their support of them. King's faction, who thought that the West would develop much more slowly than it did, seemed unconcerned that the public debt would be difficult to eliminate when the Mississippi's remaining closed hurt the sale of public lands in the West. Besides favoring the retention of Jay's restrictions Monroe also tried to get the negotiations into the hands of Jefferson, even seeking the aid of the French charge d'affaires in order to accomplish this. When the Southerners lost the vote in Congress, they challenged the constitutionality of having seven states change what nine had agreed to. Monroe also helped rouse the people of Virginia against Jay's proposals and used this incident effectively when he argued against Virginia's ratification of the Federal Constitution.

While in Congress Monroe favored strengthening the union, but the attitude of colleagues and constituents, his feelings of dubiousness toward the North (growing out of 200

Jay's proposals), and his classical republican objections to many of the provisions of the Federal Constitution gradu­ ally led him to oppose Virginia's ratification of that document. The moderate criticism of a man who would later obtain high office in the government established by the

Constitution contained some typical Antifederalist arguments as well as some rarely used ones. He helped make the vote in the Richmond convention a close call for the new plan of union.

Many of the characteristics necessary for the devel­ opment of modern national political parties were present in the Confederation even before the adoption of the new Consti­ tution. The sectional division of congressmen in the sig­ nificant dispute over Jay's proposals was a forerunner of the later sectional divisions of the first American party system. As most of the congressmen of 1786 remained on the same side during the 1790's, Monroe's leadership of the

Southern congressmen anticipated his important involvement in the development of the Republican Party. Another way in which Monroe influenced the development of national political parties in the next decade was through his par­ ticipation in an important network of correspondents during the 1780's. Being something like a small party of notables, his correspondents protected each other from potential troubles, provided each other with the information which 201 they needed In order to have political power, and were particularly important to the development of the United

States government under the Constitution by providing some of the necessary links between the various levels and branches of government.

The Antifederalists, who remained strong in Virginia for a while after their defeat over ratification, persuaded

Monroe to run against Madison, the leading supporter of the

Constitution, in his successful race for Congress and also helped elect Monroe to the United States Senate in 1790.

There he was soon one of the most outstanding early members, being one of the most vocal opponents of Washington's

Administration in that body. He associated with other

Virginians who opposed Federalist programs and through private counsel and through his polemics brought to the developing Republican ideology some of the arguments which

Antifederalists had expressed earlier about the Constitution.

He was also one of the first Republicans to attack Hamilton and Washington publicly. Washington's unusual appointment of a leader of the opposition to an important post in Paris was thus a fitting reward for Monroe's worthy service in state and national governments for over a decade. BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SOURCES CITED

Manuscript Collections on Microfilm

James Madison Papers. U.S. Library of Congress. Presiden­ tial Papers Microfilm. With accompanying Index. Washington: Library of Congress, 1965.

James Monroe Papers. U.S. Library of Congress. Presiden­ tial Papers Microfilm. With accompanying Index. Washington: Library of Congress, 1963.

James Monroe Papers in Virginia Repositories. University of Virginia Library Microfilm Publication No. 7. With accompanying Guide. Edited by Curtis W. Garrison with the assistance of David L. Thomas. [Charlottesville, Va.:] University of Virginia Library, 1969.

Official and Semi-Official Documents

The Debates in the Several State Conventions, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, As Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia, in 1787. Edited by Jonathan Elliot. 5 vols. 2d ed. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1836.

The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws of the United States. Compiled by Ben[jamin] Perley Poore under an order of the U.S. Senate. 2 vols. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1877-

U.S. Congress. The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States . . . [Annals of the CongressT of the United States~T Compiled by Joseph Gales, Sr. 42 vols. Washington: Gales and Seaton, 183^-56.

U.S. Congress. Journals of the Continental Congress, 177*1- 1789■ Edited by Worthington Chauncey Ford, Galllard Hunt, John C. Fitzpatrick, and Roscoe R. Hill. 3^ vols. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1904- 37. 202 203

U.S. Congress. Senate. Journal of the Executive Proceed­ ings of the Senate of the United States of America: From the Commencement of the First, to the Termina­ tion of the Nineteenth Congress. Printed by order of the Senate of the United States. Vol. I. Washington: Duff Green, 1828.

Virginia. Calendar of Virginia State Papers and Other Manu­ scripts . . . Preserved in the Capitol at Richmond. Edited by William Palmer, Sherwin McRae, Raleigh Colston, and H. W. Flournoy. 11 vols. Richmond: Various printers, usually the Superintendent of Public Printing, 1875-93.

Virginia. Journal of the House of Delegates . . . [Rich­ mond! Various public printers, 1780-1828].

Virginia. Journals of the Council of the State of Virginia. Edited by H. R. Mcllwaine and (Vol. Ill) Wilmer L. Hall. 3 vols. Richmond: Virginia State Library, 1931-32 and 1952.

Virginia. The Statutes at Large; Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature, in the Year 1619. Edited by William Waller Hening. Vol. XI. Richmond: Geo. Cochran, 1823

Published Correspondence

Atkinson, Roger. "Letters of Roger Atkinson, 1769-1776." Edited by A[lfred] J. Morrison. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, XV (April, 1908), 345-59.

Bland, Theodorick, Jr. The Bland Papers: Being a Selection from the Manuscripts of Colonel Theodorick Bland Jr. of Prince George County, Virginia. Edited by Charles Campbell. 2 vols. Petersburg, Va.: Edmund & Julian C. Ruffin, 1840.

Cabell, William. Letter to Colonel James Higginbotham in 1788. William and Mary Quarterley, 2d Ser., IX (April, 1929), 124-25.

Clark, George Rogers. George Rogers Clark Papers, 1781-1784. Edited and with an Introduction and Notes by James Alton James. Collections of the Illinois State Historical Library, Vol. XIX (Virginia Series, Vol. IV). Springfield, 111.: Trustees of the Illinois State Historical Library [1926]. 204

Hamilton, Alexander. The Papers of Alexander Hamilton. Edited by Harold C. Syrett with Jacob E. Cooke, Associate Editor. 11 vols. to date. New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1961—.

Henry, Patrick. Patrick Henry: Life, Correspondence and Speeches. Edited by William Wirt Henry. 3 vols. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1891.

Jefferson, Thomas. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. Edited by Julian P. Boyd with Lyman H. Butterfield, Mina R. Bryan et. al. , Associate Editors. 17 vols. to date. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1950— .

______. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Edited by Paul Leicester Ford. 10 vols. New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1892-1899.

The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Edited by Andrew A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh. Liter­ ary ed. 20 vols. Washington: Issued under the auspices of Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903.

Jones, Joseph. "Letters from Joseph Jones to Madison." Edited by Worthington Chauncey Ford. Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, 2d Ser., XV (June, 1901), 116-61.

______. Letters of Joseph Jones of Virginia, 1777-1787. [Edited by Worthington Chauncey Ford.} Washington: Department of State, 1889.

Lee, Richard Henry. The Letters of Richard Henry Lee. Edited by James Curtis Ballagh. Vol. II. New York: Macmillan Company, 1941.

Lee, William. Letters of William Lee, Sheriff and Alderman of London; Commercial Agent of the Continental Con­ gress in France; and Minister to the Courts of Vien­ na and Berlin. 1776-1763. Edited by_Worthington Chauncey Ford. 3 vols. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Historical Printing Club, 1891.

Letters of Members of the Continental Congress. Edited by Edmund C[ody] Burnett. 8 vols. Washington: Carne­ gie Institution of Washington, 1921-36. 205

Madison, James. The Papers of James Madison. Edited by William T. Hutchinson and William M. E. Rachal. Sponsored by the University of Chicago and the University of Virginia. 5 vols. to date. [Chicago and London:] University of Chicago Press [1962— ].

______. The Writings of James Madison: Comprising His Public Papers and His Private Correspondence, Includ­ ing Numerous Letters and Documents Now For the First Time Printed. Edited by Gaillard Hunt. 9 vols. New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1900-10.

Mercer, James. "Letters of James Mercer to John Francis Mer­ cer." Edited by John Melville Jennings. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, LIX (January and April, 1951), 89-102 and 184-94.

Monroe, James. "Letter from James Monroe." Virginia Mag- azine of History and Biography, IX (October, 1901), 221- 22.

"Letters of James Monroe, 1790-1827." [Edited by Worthington Chauncey Ford] Proceedings of the Massa­ chusetts Historical Society, 3d Ser., II (May, 1909 ) 318-41.

______. The Writings of James Monroe, Including a Collec­ tion of His Public and Private Papers and Correspon­ dence Now For the First Time Printed. Edited by Stanislaus Murray Hamilton. 7 vols. New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1898-1903.

Pendleton, Edmund. The Letters and Papers of Edmund Pendle­ ton, 1734-1803- Edited by David John Mays. 2 vols. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia for the Virginia Historical Society, 1967.

St. Clair, Arthur. The St. Clair Papers: The Life and Pub­ lic Services of Arthur St. Clair; Soldier of the Revolutionary War; President of the Continental Con­ gress; and Governor of the North-Western Territory; with His Correspondence and Other Papers. Edited by William Henry Smith. 2 vols. Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Co., 1882.

Washington, George. The Writings of. George Washington from the Original Manuscript SourcesV 1745-1799T Edited by John C. Fitzpatrick. Prepared under the direction of the United States George Washington Bicentennial Commission and published by authority of Congress. 39 vols. Washington: United States Government Print­ ing Office, 1931-44. 206

Published Diaries, Memoirs, and Contemporary Works

Adams, John Quincy. An Eulogy: on the Life and Character of James Monroe, Fifth President of the United States Delivered at the Request of the Corporation of the City of Boston, on the 25th of August, 1831. Boston: J. FT! Eastburn, City Printer, 1831.

Brooke, Francis T. "Some Contemporary Accounts of Eminent Characters: From 'A Narrative Of My Life For My Family,1 by Judge Francis T. Brooke." William and Mary Quarterly, 1st Ser., XVII (July, 1908), 1-4.

Burr, Aaron. Memoirs of Aaron Burr, with Miscellaneous Selections from His Correspondence. Edited by Matthew L. Davis. 2 vols. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1836.

Bevan, Edith Rossiter, ed. "Thomas Jefferson in Annapolis, November 25, 1783— May 11, 1784." Maryland Histor­ ical Magazine, XLI (June, 1946), 115-24.

Exposition of Motives for Opposing the Nomination of Mr. Monroe for the Office of President of the United States. Washington: Jonathan Elliot, 1816.

Grigsby, Hugh Blair. The History of the Virginia Federal Convention of 17&8^ with Some Account of the Eminent Virginians of That Era Who Were Members of the Body. Additional material edited by R. A. Brock* Collec­ tions of the Virginia Historical Society, New Series, Vols. IX and X. Richmond, Va.: Virginia Historical Society, 1890-91.

"Instructions to a Delegate to the Virginia Convention in 1788." Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, XL (July, 1932), 280-82.

Lee, Richard Henry. Life of Arthur Lee, LL.D. . . .Boston: Wells and Lilly, 1929*

Macaulay, Alexander. "Journal of Alexander Macaulay." William and Mary Quarterly, 1st Ser., XI (January, 1903), 180-91? Maclay, William. Sketches of Debate in the First Senate of the United States, in 1789-90-91 * by William Maclay, a Senator from Pennsylvania. Edited by George W. Harris. Harrisburg: Lane S. Hart [1880]. 207

Monroe, James. Autobiography of James Monroe. Edited and with an Introduction by Stuart Gerry Brown with the assistance of Donald G. Baker. [Syracuse:] Syracuse University Press [1959].

______. Monroe's Defense of Jefferson and Freneau Against Hamilton. Edited and with an Introduction by Philip M. Marsh. Oxford, Ohio: By the Editor, 1948.

Morse, Jedidiah. The American Geography; or, A View of the Present Situation of the United States of America. Elizabethtown, N.J.: Shepard Kollack [1789].

Ramsay, Davis. The History of the American Revolution. 2 vols. Philadelphia.: R] Aitken & Son, 1789".

Rives, William C[abell]. History of the Life and Times of James Madison. 3 vols. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 10 59-68.

Schoeph, Johann Davis. Travels in the Confederation [1783- 84]. Edited and translated by Alfred J. Morrison. 2 vols. Philadelphia: William J. Campbell, 1911.

[Wirt, William.] The Letters of the British Spy. 8th ed. Baltimore: Fielding Lucas, Jun. [18277].

Biographies

(With Subject's Name in Solid Capitals)

Anderson, Dice Robins. WILLIAM BRANCH GILES: A Study in the Politics of Virginia and the Nation from 1790 to 1830. Menasha, Wise.: George Banta Publishing Co., 1914.

Beveridge, Albert J. The Life of JOHN MARSHALL. 4 vols. in 2. 2d ed. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company [1944].

Brant, Irving. JAMES MADISON. Vol. I subtitled The Virginia Revolutionist. Vol II subtitled The Nationalist, 1780-17877 Vol. Ill subtitled Father of the Consti­ tution, 1787-1800. Indianapolis and New York: Bobbs-Merrill Company [1941-50].

Brown, Stuart Gerry. ALEXANDER HAMILTON. The Great American Thinkers Series. New York: Washington Square Press, Inc., 1967. 208

Boyd, George Adams. ELIAS BOUDINOT: Patriot and Statesman, 17^0-1821. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1952.

Chitwood, Oliver Perry. RICHARD HENRY LEE: Statesman of the Revolution. Morgantown: West Virginia University Library, 1967.

Cresson, W[illiam] P[enn]. JAMES MONROE. With an Intro­ duction by M. A. De Wolfe Howe. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press [19*16].

Davis, Richard Beale. FRANCIS WALKER GILMER: Life and Learning in Jefferson's Virginia; A Study in Vir­ ginia Literary Culture in the First Quarter of the Nineteenth Century. Richmond, Va.: Dietz Press, 1939.

Elliott, Ian, ed. JAMES MONROE, 1758-1831. Chronology— Documents— Biographical Aids. Oceana Presidential Chronology Series. Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.: Oceana Publications, Inc., 1969.

Ernst, Robert. RUFUS KING, American Federalist. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press for the Institute of Early American History and Culture at Williams­ burg, Va. [1968].

Gay, Sydney Howard. JAMES MADISON. American Statesmen Series. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company [1912].

Gilman, Daniel C[oit]. JAMES MONROE: In His Relations to the Public Service During Half a CentTury, 1776 to~ 18267 American Slat esmen Series , Vol XIV. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1883.

Goolrick, John T[ackett]. The Life of General HUGH MERCER . . . New York and Washington: Neale Publishing Company, 1906.

Hunt, Gaillard. The Life of JAMES MADISON. New York: Double­ day, Page & Co., 1902.

Malone, Dumas. JEFFERSON and His Time. Vol. I: Jefferson the Virginian. Vol. II: Jefferson and the Rights of Man. Vol. Ill: Jefferson and the Ordeal of Liberty. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 19^8-62.

Mays, Davis John. EDMUND PENDLETON, 1721-1803: A Biography. 2 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1952. 209

Miller, John C. ALEXANDER HAMILTON: Portrait in Paradox. New York: Harper & Brothers [1959].

Mitchell, Broadus. ALEXANDER HAMILTON: The National Adven­ ture, 1788-1804. New York: Macmillan Company, 1962.

Morgan, George. The Life of JAMES MONROE. Boston: Small, Maynard and Company [1921].

Peterson, Merrill D. THOMAS JEFFERSON and the New Nation: A Biography. New York: Oxford University Press, 1970.

Roosevelt, Theodore. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. American Statesmen Series, Vol. VIII. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin and Company, 1889.

Rowland, Kate Mason. The Life of GEORGE MASON, 1725-1792. 2 vols. New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1892.

Rutland, Robert Allen. GEORGE MASON, Reluctant Statesman. Foreword by Dumas Malone. Williamsburg in America Series, Vol. IV. Williamsburg, Va.: Colonial Williamsburg [1961].

Shepard, Edward M. MARTIN VAN BUREN. American Statesmen Series, Vol. XVIII. Revised ed. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin and Company [1899].

Smith, Page. JOHN ADAMS. 2 vols. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1962.

Styron, Arthur [Herman] The Last of the Cocked Hats: JAMES MONROE & The Virginia Dynasty. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 19*15.

Welch, Richard E., Jr. THEODORE SEDGWICK. Federalist: A Political Portrait. Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press [1965]•

Wilmerding, Lucius, Jr. JAMES MONROE: Public Claimant. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press [i960].

General Works

Abernethy, Thomas Perkins. Western Lands and the American Revolution. New York and London: D. Appleton-Century Company, Incorporated, for the Institute for Research in the Social Sciences, University of Virginia, 1937. 210

Agar, Herbert. The Price of Union. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1950.

Bancroft, George. History of the Formation of the Constitu­ tion of the United States of America. 2 vols. New York: D[ Appleton and Company, 1882.

Binkley, Wilfred E[llsworth]. American Political Parties: Their Natural History. 2d ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 194 9-

Borden, Morton. Parties and Politics in the Early Republic, 1789-1815• The Crowell American History Series. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company [1967 3 -

Brown, Robert E. and Brown, B. Katherine. Virginia, 1705- 1786: Democracy or Aristocracy? East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University Press [1964],

Brown, Stuart Gerry. The First Republicans: Political Phil­ osophy and Public Policy in the Party of Jefferson and Madison. [Syracuse:] Syracuse University Press, 1 9 W .

Bruce, Philip Alexander. The Virginia Plutarch. 2 vols. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1929.

Burnett, Edmund Cody. The Continental Congress. New York: W. W. Norton & Company L1964].

Charles, Joseph. The Origins of the American Party System: Three Essays. Foreward by Frederick Merk. Harper Torchbooks— The Academy Library. New York: Harper & Brothers [1956],

Davis, Richard Beale. Intellectual Life in Jefferson's Vir­ ginia, 1790-1830. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press [1964].

DeConde, Alexander. Entangling Alliance: Politics & Diplo­ macy under George Washington. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1958.

Dodd, William E. Statesmen of the Old South, or From Radi­ calism to Conservative Revolt. New York: Macmillan Company, 1911.

Ford, Henry Jones. The Rise and Growth of American Politics: A Sketch of Constitutional Development. New York: Macmillan Company, 1898. 211

Hildreth, Richard. The History of the United States of Am- erica . . . 2 vols. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1951.

Hofstadter, Richard. The Idea of a Party System: The Rise of Legitimate Opposition in the United States, 178~0- 1840. Berkeley and Los Angeles! Univers11 y of California Press, 1969.

Irelan, John Robert. The Republic; or, A History of the United States of America in the Administrations, Prom the Monarchic Colonial Days to the Present Times. Vol. V. subtitled History of the Life, Administration, and Times of James Monroe, Fifth President of the United States. Chicago: Fairbanks and Palmer Publishing Co., 1888.

Jensen, Merrill. The New Nation: A History of the United States During the Confederation, 1781-1789. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1950.

Johnson, Allen. Jefferson and His Colleagues: A Chronicle of the Virginia Dynasty. The Yale Chronicle of America Series. Textbook ed. New York: United States Publishers Association, Inc. [1921].

Koch, Adrienne. Jefferson and Madison: The Great Collabora­ tion. Galaxy Book. New York: Oxford University Press, 1964.

Leiserson, Avery. Parties and Politics: An Institutional and Behavioral Approach. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 19W- McDonald, Forrest. E Pluribus Unum: The Formation of the American Republic, 1776-1790. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company [1965]•

Main, Jackson Turner. The Antifederalists: Critics of bhe Constitution, 1781-1788. Chapel Hill: Universiby of North Carolina Press for the Institute of Early American History and Culture at Williamsburg, V a . [ 1961].

______. The Upper House in Revolutionary America, 1763- 1788: Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1967•

Mason, Alpheus Thomas. The States Rights Debate: Anti­ federalism and the Constitution. Spectrum Book. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc. [1964]. 212

Michels, Robert. Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy. Translated by Eden and Cedar Paul. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press [1958].

Miller, John C. The Federalist Era. 1789-1801. The New American Nation Series. New York: Harper & Brothers [I960].

Pole, J. R.j Political Representation in England and the Origins of the American Republic. London and New York: Macmillan and St. Martin's Press, 1966.

Robinson, Edgar E. The Evolution of American Political Parties: A Sketch of Party Development. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company [1924],

Rutland, Robert Allen. The Ordeal of the Constitution: The Antifederalists and the Ratification Struggle of 1787-1788. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1 9 ^ -----

Schouler, James. History of the United States of America, under the Constitution. 7 vols. Revised ed. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company [1880-1913].

Stoddard, William 0. Makers of American History: James Madison, James Monroe, and John Quincy Adams. New York: J. A"! Hill & Company, 1904.

Swanstrom, Ray. The United States Senate, 1787-1801: A Dissertation on the First Fourteen Years of the Upper Legislative Body. (67th Cong., 1st Sess., Senate Doc. No. 6*4) Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962.

Syndor, Charles S. American Revolutionaries in the Making: Political Practices in Washington's Virginia. [Originally published in 1952 as Gentlemen Free­ holders ] New York: Free Press [1966]. 1

Van Everly, Dale. Ark of Empire: The American Frontier, 1784-1803. New York: William Morrow and Company, X9&T.

Weber, Max. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Trans­ lated, edited, and with Introduction by H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford University Press, 19*46. 213

Wood, Gordon S. The Creation of the American Republic, 1776- 1787. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press for the Institute of Early American History and Culture at Williamsburg, Va., 1969*

Articles

Ammon, Harry. "Agricola Versus Aristides: James Monroe, John Marshall, and the Genet Affair in Virginia." Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, LXXIV (July, 1966), 312-20.

______. "The Formation of the Republican Party in Virginia, 1789-1796." Journal of Southern History, XIX (1953), 283-310.

______. "The Gen§t Mission and the Development of American Political Parties." Journal of American History, LII (March, 1966), 725-41.

______. "James Monroe and the Election of 1808 in Vir­ ginia." William and Mary Quarterly, 3d Ser., XX (January, 1963), 33-5 6 .

______. "James Monroe and the Era of Good Feelings." Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, LXVI (October, 1958), 387-98.

______. "The Jeffersonian Republicans in Virginia: An Interpretation." Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, LXXI (April, 1963), 153-67-

______. "The Richmond Junto, 1800-1824." Virginia Maga­ zine of History and Biography, LXI (October, 1953), 395-418.

Bemis, Samuel Flagg. "John Jay." The American Secretaries of State and Their Diplomacy. Edited by Samuel Flagg Bemis. Vol. I. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1927-29.

______. "WashingtonTs Farewell Address: A Foreign Policy of Independence." American Historical Review, XXXIX (January, 1934), 250-268”

Berkeley, Edmund and Berkeley, Dorothy Smith. "'The Piece Left Behind': Monroe's Authorship of a Political Pamphlet Revealed." Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, LXXV (April, 1967), 174-80. 214

Burnham, Walter Dean. "Party Systems and the Political Pro­ cess." The American Party Systems: Stages of Politi­ cal Development. Edited by William Nisbet Chambers and Walter Dean Burnham. New York: Oxford Univer­ sity Press, 1967.

Chambers, William N[isbet]. "Parties and Nation-Building in America." Political Parties and Political Devel­ opment . Edited by Joseph LaPalombara and Myron Weiner. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1966.

Dodd, William E. "John Taylor of Caroline, Prophet of Seces­ sion." John P. Branch Historical Papers of Randolph- Macon College, II (June, 190b), 214-252.

Goodman, Paul. "The First American Party System." The Amer­ ican Party Systems: Stages of Political Development. Edited by William Nisbet Chambers and Walter Dean Burnham. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967.

Greene, Jack P. "Foundations of Political Power in the Vir­ ginia House of Burgesses, 1720-1776." William and Mary Quarterly, 3d Ser., XVI (October, 1959 ), 485- 506.

Grodzins, Morton. "Political Parties and the Crisis of Succession in the United States: The Case of 1800." Political Parties and Political Development. Edited by Joseph LaPalombara and Myron Weiner. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1966.

Jensen, Merrill. "Idea of a National Government during the American Revolution." Political Science Quarterly, LVIII (September, 1943)', 356-79-

Kenyon, Cicilia M. "Men of Little Faith: The Antifederalists on the Nature of Representative Government." William and Mary Quarterly, 3d Ser., XII (January, 1955), 3-43.

LaPalombara, Joseph and Weiner, Myron. "The Origin and Development of Political Parties." Political Parties and Political Development. Edited by these authors. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1966'.

Lewis, Edward S. "Ancestry of James Monroe." William and Mary Quarterly, 2d Ser., Ill (July, 1923), 173-79".~

Lovat-Fraser, J. A. "President James Monroe and His Doctrine." London Quarterly and Holborn Review, CLX or 6th Ser., IV (July, 1935), 372-81. 215 McCormick, Richard P. "Political Development and the Second Party System." The American Party Systems: Stages of Political Development. Edited by William Nisbet Chambers and Walter Dean Burnham. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967-

McDonald, Forrest. "The Anti-Federalists, 1781-1789." Wisconsin Magazine of History, XLVI (Spring, 1963), 206-14.

Main, Jackson Turner. "Government by the People: The Ameri­ can Revolution and the Democratization of the Legis­ latures." William and Mary Quarterly, 3d Ser., XXIII (July, 1966)", 391-407.

Malone, Dumas. "The Great Generation." Virginia Quarterly Review, XXIII (Winter, 1947), 108-22.

Marsh, Philip [M.] "Hamilton and Monroe." Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XXXIV (December, 1947), 459-68.

______. "James Monroe as 'Agricola' in the Gen§t Contro­ versy, 1793." Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, LXII (October, 1954), 472-76.

______. "'The Vindication of Mr. Jefferson.1" South Atlantic Quarterly, XLV (January, 1946), 61-67.

Paullin, C. 0. "The First Elections under the Constitution." Iowa Journal of History and Politics, II (January, 1904), 3-33.

Smelser, Marshall. "The Jacobin Phrenzy: Federalism and the Menace of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity." Review of Politics, XIII (October, 1951), 457-82.

Stone, Frederick D. "The Ordinance of 1787." Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XIII (1889 ), 309- W7

Sumner, W. G. "Politics In America, 1776-1876." North American Review, CXXII (January, 1876), 47-87.

Thomas, Robert E. "The Virginia Convention of 1788: A Criticism of Beard's An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution." Journal of Southern History, XIX (February, 1953), 63-72.

Tyler, Lyon G. "James Monroe." William and Mary Quarterly, 1st. Ser., IV (April, 1896), 272-75. 216

Unpublished Dissertations

Ammon, Harry. "The Republican Party in Virginia, 1789 to 1824." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Virginia, 19*18.

McCarrell, David K. "The Formation of the Jeffersonian Party in Virginia." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University, 1937.

Scott, Margaret Phelan. "Virginia's Reaction to the Federal Question, c. 1780-1788, with Especial Reference to the Growth of Antifederalism." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Virginia, 19*10.