Belgian ports, had not been, nor should be, molested, so long as the Belgians should not molest the vessels or property of the northern provinces of the Netherlands. "Convinced that although the king, in his good faith and wisdom, will not fail to accede to all the points of their demand, yet the plenipotentiaries are obliged to declare hereby, that the rejection of this demand would be considered by the five powers as an act of hostility against them; and that if, on the 20th, of January, the measures which impede the navigation of the Scheldt should not cease, conformably to the promises of his majesty himself, the five powers would reserve to themselves the adoption of such measures as they might consider necessary for the prompt execution of their engagements." That there are strong reasons obligations under which I act. "By a just reciprocity, the plenipotentiaries having been informed that acts of hostility had been resumed, chiefly in the environs of Maestricht; that the movements of the Belgian troops seem to indicate an intention of investing that fortress, and that the troops have quitted the positions which they were to occupy until the definitive line of the armistice should be fixed, in virtue of the enclosed declaration of the provisional government of Bel-peal to you; and, if it should be, to remain silent, as my only ob gium, dated, November 21, 1830, have resolved to authorise their delegates at Brussels to inform the provisional government of Belgium, that the acts of hostility just mentioned are to cease without the least delay, and that the Belgian troops are to return immediately, agree-ed-standing unsustained, except by the force of truth and jus ably to the declaration above mentioned, to the positions which they occupied on the 21st of November, 1830." "The delegates shall add, that if the Belgian troops have not returned to the said positions by the 20th of January, the five powers will regard the rejection of their demand on this point as an act of hostility against them, and reserve to themselves the adoption of such measures as they shall deem proper to cause the engage-sents a question of deep import for your consideration. The ments entered into with them to be respected and executed. The plenipotentiaries, moreover, renew, in the present protocol, the formal declaration, that the entire and reciprocal cessation of hostilities is placed under the guarantee of the five powers, that they will not allow the renewal of them on any supposition, and that they have formed the unchangeable resolution to obtain the accomplishment of their decisions, founded upon justice, and their wish to preserve to Europe the blessings of a gene-been actuated by a solemn sense of duty to you, uninfluenced by. ral peace. (Signed) ESTERHAZY, I am not ignorant of the trying position in which I am plac. tice; yet I cannot but look with confidence to your decision The question presented for your consideration is not that of a controversy of two individuals, between whom you are to decide: viewed in that light, it would bear the aspect of a mere personal difference, involving no principle, and unworthy of your notice; but regarded in a different light, as involving the character of an officer, occupying by your suffrage a distinguished official station, whose conduct in an interesting public transaction had been impeached, it assumes a far more important bearing, and premost sacred of all political relations is that between the representative and the constituent. When your suffrage places an. individual in a high official station, a most solemn obligation is, imposed on you and him, on the faithful discharge of which the existence of our free and happy institutions mainly depends; on him, so to act as to merit your confidence, and on you, not to. It is under a pro withdraw that confidence without just cause. found regard for this mutual and sacred obligation that I submit the whole affair to your determination, conscious that in. this, as well as every other public transaction of my life, I have fear, favor, or affection. I cannot but look forward to your en tire approbation. I owe it to myself to state, that I come before you under circumstances very painful to me, and a reluctance which nothing but a sense of duty to you and myself could overcome. Among these circumstances, is the necessity of being instrumental in. disclosing, in any degree, what I deem so highly confidential as the proceedings of the cabinet, and for which I feel myself justiI have not felt myself at liberty to go, even in self defence, befied only by absolute necessity. Acting under this impression, yond strict necessity, and have, accordingly, carefully avoided M. de Robaulx rose, and said-You answered nobly to the former protocol, let this also be treated consistently with the dignity of the nation, and repelled-speaking of the course of my associates in the administration, There is no longer any independence for Belgium-we are no longer tree. M. le Hon said it became a question of peace or war, which must be decided within five days. That decision should not entail responsibility upon any one, not even upon congress. The protocol required mature deliberation, and therefore it had been at once communicated. It could not be answered without being well considered, and for this time was necessary. The protocol was ordered to be printed. CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN GEN. ANDREW JACK- TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. I come before you as my constituents, to give an account of my conduct in an important political transaction, which has been called in question, and so erroneously represented, that neither justice to myself nor respect for you will permit me any longer to remain silent; I allude to my course, in the deliberations of the cabinet of Mr. Monroe, on the Seminole question. I know not how I can place more fully before you all the facts and circumstances of the case, than by putting you in possession of the correspondence between general Jackson and myself, which will show the difference between the views that we have respectively taken, and by what means, and through whose agency, this long gone-by affair has been revived. I have not taken this step, strictly defensive as it is, without mature deliberation, and a calm and careful estimate of all the and even of my own, beyond what appeared to be indispensable. I have not put even Mr. Crawford's statement of his course in statement of mine. It is no concern of mine, except in this inthe cabinet at issue, except only incidentally, as bearing on his cidental way, what representation he may choose to give of his course, as to this subject, now or formerly, or whether bis representation be correct or erroneous. Before I conclude these prefatory observations, I deem it proper to make a few additional remarks, as to the commencement and ruotive of this movement against me. The origin goes far back, beyond the date of the present cor. respondence, and had for its object, not the advantage of general Jackson, but my political destruction, with motives which I leave you to interpret. The enmity of Mr. Crawford to me, growing out of political controversies long since passed, afforded a ready and powerful instrument by which to operate; and it was early and myself in our present relations. With that motive, in the directed against me, with the view of placing general Jackson midst of the severe political struggle which ended in elevating him to the presidential chair, and in which I took a part so early and decided in his favor, a correspondence was opened at Nashville, unknown to, and unsuspected by me, in December, 1827, which commenced that chain of artful operations, that has terminated by involving general Jackson and myself in the present correspondence. A copy of the letter which opened this operation has been placed in my possession. It was written by Mr. Crawford to Alfred Balch, esq. of Nashville, and is dated the 14th December, 1827. That the nature and objects of the operations against me may be fully understood by you, I hereto annex the copy of Mr. Crawford's letter to Mr. Balch, and a copy of a letter from the honorable Wilson Lumpkin, a representative in congress from the state of Georgia, to me, dated the 27th January, 1829, in which it was enclosed, with an extract from the let ter of the honorable Daniel Newnan, member of congress elect from the same state. I submit them without comment. The movement thus commenced did not terminate with this about more flippantly than by H. Clay, and that the family He well knew letter. It was followed by other attacks from the same and friends of Mr. Calhoun were most active in giving it currency;' pretensions until Mr. Clay declared for him." other quarters, some of which are indicated in the correspon- and I know personally that Mr. Calhoun favored Mr. Adams' dence now laid before yon. It may be proper to state, that I remained ignorant and un-that Clay would not have declared for Adams, without it was suspicious of these secret movements against me, till the spring well understood that he, Calhoun, was to be put down if Adams' of 1828, when vague rumors reached me that some attempts influence could effect it. If he was not friendly to his election, were making at Nashville to injure me; but I treated them with why did he suffer his paper to be purchased up by Adams' prinsilent neglect, relying confidently for protection on the friendly ters, without making some stipulation in favor of Jackson? If son's election, you will do him a benefit by communicating the relation which bad so long existed between general Jackson and you can ascertain that Calhoun will not be benefitted by JackMake what use you please of this letter, myself, and the uniform and decided course which I had taken WM. H. CRAWFORD. in his favor, in the political struggle then pending. My sup information to me. port of him rested on a principle that I believe to be funda and show it to whom you please. I am, dear sir, your friend Alfred Balch, esq. mental in our political system, and the hope that bis deep root- and most obedient servant, A true and exact copy. [Noted in the handwriting of geneed popularity would afford the most effectual means of arrest ing the course of events, which, I could not but foresee, if not arrested, would bring the great interests of the country into a ral Newnan.] JOHN C. CALHOUN. deep and dangerous conflict. No. 1. May 13, 1830. Sir: That frankness, which, I trust, has always characterised me through life, towards those with whom I have been in the Copy of a letter from hon. Wilson Lumpkin, enclosing extract habits of friendship, induces me to lay before you the enclosed of a letter from general D. Newnan to him, covering a copy of copy of a letter from William H. Crawford, esq., which was placWilliam H. Grawford's letter to Alfred Balch, esq. of Nashed in my hands on yesterday. The submission, you will perville, Tennessee. Washington, 27th January, 1829. Dear sir: I herewith enclose you the copy of a letter received from my friend general Daniel Newnan, in whom 1 have great confidence. I also give you an extract from my friend's letter. ceive, is authorised by the writer. The statements and facts it presents being so different from what I had heretofore understood to be correct, requires that it should be brought to your consideration. They are different from your letter to governor ral Jackson is vested with full power to conduct the war in the Bibb, of Alabama, of the 13th May, 1818, where you state "genemanner he may judge best," and different, too, from your letters The great confidence and friendship which I have long entertained, and still entertain, for general Jackson, as well as your to me at that time, which breathe throughout a spirit of approself, induce me to take the liberty of making this communica-bation and friendship, and particularly the one in which you tion to you. I am confident the best interest of our common say, "I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your let My object in country requires, not only the harmonious and patriotic union ter of the 20th ultimo, and to acquaint you with the entire ap of the two first officers of the government, but of every patri- probation of the president of all the measures you have adoptotic citizen of the whole country, to frown indignantly upon all ed to terminate the rupture with the Indians." intriguera, managers, political jugglers, and selfish politicians, of making this communication is to announce to you the great surprise which is felt, and to learn of you whether it be possievery description, who are disposed to divide and conquer. I feel the more at liberty and authorised to make this comble that the information given is correct; whether it can be, unmunication, because I know, of my own knowledge, you and der all the circumstances of which you and I are both informed, your friends are misrepresented upon this subject. However, that any attempt seriously to affect me was moved and sustained but executing the wishes of the government, and clothed with general Jackson, himself, must see and know the object of these by you in the cabinet council, when, as is known to you, I was shallow efforts. the authority to "conduct the war in the manner I might judge best." I do not know one conspicuous friend of yours, but what has constantly, zealously, and uniformly supported general Jackson, from the day that Pennsylvania declared in his favor to the present time. How, then, can it be possible that general Jack son can suspect the friendship, constancy, or sincerity of you or your friends? No; he cannot-he will not-he does not. I have quite too much confidence in the general to believe such idle tales. Nevertheless, it is proper for you and him both to be appriz ed of the machinations of the mischievous. You are at liberty to use this communication in any way you please. With respect and esteem, your obedient servant, WILSON LUMPKIN. Hon. J. C. Calhoun. No. 2. Extract of a letter from the hon. Daniel Newnan to the hon. Wilson Lumpkin, dated near Nashville, Tennessee, 8th Janu ary, 1829, enclosing copy of a letter of W. H. Crawford to Alfred Balch. W. H. C. has done Mr. Calhoun a great deal of injury, as well by his private machinations as his extensive correspondence. In addition to the letter which he wrote to Mr. Balch, a copy of which I now enclose you, (and which has been seen by general Jackson), he, a short time since, wrote a letter to G. W. Campbell, proposing that Tennessee should vote for a third person for the vice-presidency, and requested Mr. Campbell to show the letter to general Jackson. I hope Mr. Calhoun will take the earliest opportunity of seeing general J., and putting all things straight; for I cannot believe for one moment the allegations of W. H C." No. 3. You can, if you please, take a copy: the one enclosed you will I am, sir, very respectfully, your bumble ANDREW JACKSON. please return to me. servant, The hon. J. C. Calhoun. Woodlawn, 30th April, 1830. My dear sir: Your letter of the 16th was received by Sunday's mail, together with its enclosure. I recollect baving conversed with you at the time and place, and upon the subject, in that enclosure stated, but I have not a distinct recollection of what I said to you, but I am certain there is one error in your statement of that conversation to Mr. -. 1 recollect distinctly what has passed in the cabinet meeting, referred to in your letter to Mr. - Copy of Mr. Crawford's letter to Mr. Forsyth, enclosed in the above. Mr. Calhoun's proposition in the cabinet was, that general Jackson should be punished in some form, or represented in some form; As Mr. Calhoun did not propose I am not positively certain which. to arrest general Jackson, I feel confident that I could not have made use of that word in my relation to you of the circumstances which transpired in the cabinet, as I have no recollection of ever having Mr. Crawford's assertion, that he knew personally what he bere affirms, renders it proper to make a few remarks. How he could have had any personal knowledge of what he states, I am at a loss to understand. Our political intercourse had ceased for We had none subsequent to the fall of 18/1, and in fact years. none of any kind after that, beyond the mere ordinary civilities of life. My course in relation to the point in question was very dif When my name was withdrawn ferent from what he states. neutral position between general Jackson and Mr. Adams. I was Copy of a letter from Wm. H. Crawford to Alfred Balch, esq.from the list of presidential candidates, I assumed a perfectly Woodlawn, 14th December, 1827. My dear sir: By the last mail I had the pleasure of receiv-decidedly opposed to a congressional caucus; as both these gentleing a letter from you. If I understand your letter, you appear men were also, and as I bore very friendly personal and politi to think a public expression of my opinion on the approaching cal relations to both, I would have been very well satisfied election to be proper. I cannot think a measure of this nature with the election of either. When they were both returned to In other words, it appears to me highly the house of representatives, I found myself placed in a new renecessary or proper. a sense of propriety forbade my interference in the election in improper, and could hardly fail to stamp the charge of intolera-lation to them. I was elected vice-president by the people, and the house; yet I could not avoid forming an opinion as to the ble arrogance upon me in indelible characters. But few men can ever expeet to arrive at that height that would justify a step of that kind, much less an individual who lives in the principles that ought to govern the choice of the house. This most absolate retirement, and who has no ambition to emerge opinion was early formed, long before I had the least intimafrom it. I am perfectly reconeiled to my situation, and would tion of the course of the prominent individual referred to by not willingly exchange it with Mr. Adams. But my opinions Mr. Crawford, and was wholly independent of what might be upon the next presidential election are generally known. When his course, or that of any other individual. What the principle Mr. Van Buren and Mr. Cambreleng made me a visit last is that in my opinion ought to govern the house of representa April, I authorised them upon every proper occasion to make tives in the case of a contested election, I leave to be inferred those opinions known. The vote of the state of Georgia will, from my subsequent course. So completely did my opinion de as certainly as that of Tennessee, be given to general Jackson, in pend on what I considered a sound principle in the abstract, opposition to Mr. Adams. The only difficulty that this state bas that, had the position of the two leading candidates before the upon that subject, is that, if Jackson should be elected, Calhoun house been reversed, it would not have influenced my course in will come into power. I confess I am not apprehensive of such the least degree. writes to me, Jack son ought to a result. For know, and, if he does not, he shall know, that, at the Calhoun caucus in Columbia, the term "military chieftain" was bandied As to the reason by which Mr. Crawford endeavors to sustain, what he affirms he personally knew, I deem them wholly upworthy of notice. designedly misstated any transaction in my life, and most sincerely ed for the first time, by Mr. Crawford's letter, that you and I plaebelieve I never did. My apology for having disclosed what passed ined different constructions on the orders under which you acted in the Seminole war; and that you had been led to believe, pre a cabinet meeting is this: In the summer after that meeting, an extract of a letter from Washington was published in a Nashville viously, by any letters to yourself and governor Bibb, that I conpaper, in which it was stated that I had proposed to arrest gene-curred with you in thinking that your orders were intended to au ral Jackson, but that he was triumphantly defended by Mr. Cal-thorise your attack on the Spanish posts in Florida. Under these houn and Mr. Adams. This letter, I always believed, was writ- impressions, you would seem to impute to me some degree of duten by Mr. Calhoun, or by his directions. It had the desired efplicity, or at least concealment, which required on my part explafeet. General Jackson became extremely inimical to me, and nation. I hope that my conception of your meaning is erroneous; friendly to Mr. Calhoun. In stating the arguments of Mr. but if it be not, and your meaning be such as I suppose, I must Adams to induce Mr. Monroe to support general Jackson's con- be permitted to express my surprise at the misapprehension, which, duct throughout, adverting to Mr, Monroe's apparent admission, I feel confident, it will be in my power to correct by the most de that if a young officer had acted so he might be sately punish cisive proof, drawn from the public documents, and the corresed. Mr. Adams said, that if general Jackson had acted so, that pondence between Mr. Monroe and yourself, growing out of the if he was a subaltern officer, shooting was too good for him. decision of the cabinet on the Seminole affair, which passedthrough my hands at the time, and which I now have his permission to This, however, was said with a view of driving Mr. Monroe to an unlimited support of what general Jackson had done, and not use, as explanatory of my opinion, as well as bis, and the other with an unfriendly view to the general. Indeed, my own views members of his administration. To save you the trouble of turning on the subject had undergone a material change after the cabinet to the file of your correspondence, I have enclosed extracts from had been convened. Mr. Calhoun made so ne allusion to a letter the letters, which clearly prove that the decision of the cabinet on the point that your orders did not authorise the occupation of the general had written to the president, who had forgotten that St. Mark's and Pensacola, was early and fully made known to you he had received such a letter. but said, if he bad received such an his cabinet, and and that I, in particular, concurred in the decision. one, he could find it; and went ouicuity brought the letter out. In it general Jackson approved of the Mr. Moures's letter of the 19th July, 18:8, the first of the series, determination of the government to break up Amelia island and Galveztown, and gave it also as his opinion that the Floridas and written immediately after the decision of the cabinets and ought to be taken by the United States. He added, it might be from which I have given a copious extract, enters fully into the a delicate matter for the executive to decide; but if the president views taken by the executive of the whole subject. In your reapproved of it, he had only to give a hint to some confidential Ply of the 19th of August, 1818, you object to the construction member of congress, say Johnny Ray, and he would do it, and which the administration had placed on your orders, and you take the respousibility of it on himself. I asked the president if assign your reasons at large, why you conceived that the orders the letter had been answered. He replied, no; for that he bad under which you acted authorised your operations in Florida. Mr. Monroe replied on the 20th October, 1818; and, after expressing no recollection of having received it. I then said that I had no doubt that general Jackson, in taking Pensacola, Lelieved he was his regret that you had placed a construction on your orders difdoing what the executive wished. After that letter was produc-ferent from what was intended, he invited you to open a cored, unanswered, I should have opposed the infliction of push- respondence with me, that your conception of the meaning of ment upon the general, who had considered the silence of the your orders, and that of the administration, might be placed, with the reasons on both sides, on the files of the war department. president as a tacit consent; yet it was after this letter was produced and read, that Mr. Calhoun made his proposition to the Your letter of the 15th of November, in answer, agrees to the cabinet for punishing the general. You may show this letter to correspondence as proposed, but declines commencing it; to which Mr. Monroe replied by a letter of the 21st December, stating With the foregoing corrections Mr. Calhoun, if you please. his reasons for suggesting the correspondence, and why he thought To these, I have added of what passed in the cabinet, your account of it to Mr. — is correct. Indeed, there is but one inaccuracy in it, and one that it ought to commence with you. omission. What I have written beyond them is a mere amplifica- an extract from your letter of the 7th December, approving of Mr. Monroe's message at the opening of congress, which, though tion of what passed in the cabinet. I do not know that I ever not constituting a part of the correspondence from which I have binted at the letter of the general to the president; yet that let under consideration. ter bad a most important bearing upon the deliberations of the extracted so copiously, is intimately connected with the subject cabinet, at least in my mind, and possibly in the minds of Mr. Adams and the president; but neither expressed any opinion upon the subject. It seems it bad none upon the mind of Mr. Calhoun, for it made no chauge in his conduct. I am, dear sir, your friend, and most obedient servant, Hon. John Forsyth. WM. H. CRAWFORD. A true copy of the original in my possession. JOHN FORSYTH. Mr. Calhoun to gen. Jackson. Washington, 13th May, 1830. Sir: Agreeably to your request, I herewith return the copy of a letter signed William H. Crawford, winch I received under cover of your note of this instant, handed to me this morning by Mr. Douelson, of which I have retained a copy, in conformity with your permission. As soon as my leisure will permit, you shall receive a communication from me on the subject to which it refers. In the mean time, I cannot repress the expression of my indignation at the affair; while at the same time, I cannot but express my gratification that the secret and mysterious attempts which have been making, by false insinuations, tor years, for political purposes, to injure my character are at length brought to light. To the president of the United States. J. C. CALHOUN. But it was not by private correspondence only, that the view which the executive took of your orders was made known. In his message to the house of representatives of the 25th March, 1818, long before information of the result of your operation in Florida was received, Mr. Monroe states, "orders had been given to the general in command not to enter Florida, unless it be in pure suit of the enemy, and, in that case, to respect the Spanish au thority, wherever it may be maintained; and he will be instructed to withdraw his forces from the province as soon as he has reduced that tribe, (the Seminoles), to order, and secured our fellow-citizens in that quarter, by satisfactory arrangements, against its unprovoked and savage hostilities in future." In his annual message at the opening of congress, in November of the same year, the president, speaking of your entering Florida, says "On authorising major general Jackson to enter Florida, in pursuit of the Seminoles, care was taken not to encroach on the rights of Spain." Again: "In entering Florida to suppress this combination, no idea was entertained of hostility to Spain, and, however justifiable the commanding general was, in consequence of the misconduct of the Spanish officers, in entering St. Mark's and Pensacola, to terminate it, by proving to the savages, and their associates, that they could not be protected, even there, yet the amicable relation between the United States and Spain could not be altered by that act alone. By ordering the restitution of those posts, those relations were preserved. To a chauge of them the power of the executive is deemed incompetent. It is vested in congress alone." The view taken of this subject met your entir approbation, as appears from the extract of your letter, of 7th December, 1818, above referred to. Mr. Calhoun to general Jackson. Washington, 29th May,-1830. Sir: In answering your letter of the 13th instant, I wish to be After such full and decisive proof, as it seems to me, of the viev dis inetly understood, that however high my respect is for your of the executive, I had a right, as I supposed, to conclude that personal character, and the exalted station which you occupy, I you long since knew that the adminsitration, and myself in par cannot recognise the right on your part to call in question my conduct on the interesting occasion to which your letter refers. 1 ticular, were of the opinion that the orders under which you actel acted, on that occasion, in the discharge of a high official duty, did not authorise you to occupy the Spanish posts; but I now irand under responsibility to my conscience and my country only. fer from your letter, to which this is in answer, that such corclusion was erroneous, and that you were of the impression, til In replying, then, to your letter, I do not place myself in the attitude of apologising for the part I may have acted, or of palliat. you received Mr. Crawford's letter, that I concurred in the of ing my conduct on the accusation of Mr. Crawford. My course, 1posite construction, which you gave to your orders, that they were intended to authorise you to occupy the posts. You rely trust, requires no apology; and if it did, I have too much self respect to make it to any one in a case touching the discharge of my for this impression, as I understand you, on certain general e:official conduct. I stand on very different ground. I embrace the pressions in my letter to governor Bibb, of Alabama of the 13th of May, 1818, in which I stated that "general Jackson is vestel opportunity which your letter offers, not for the purpose of makwith full powers to conduct the war in the manner he shall judge ing excuses, but as a suitable occasion to place my conduct in relation to an interesting public transaction in its proper light; and best," and also in my letter of the 6th February, 1818, in answer to yours of the 20th January of the same year in which I a I am gratified that Mr. Crawford, though far from iutending me a quainted you "with the entire approbation of the president of al kindness, has afforded me such an opportunity. the measures you had adopted to terminate the rupture with the Seminole Indians." I will not reason the point, that a letter to gov. Bibb, which was not communicated to you, which bears date long after you had In undertaking to place my conduct in its proper light, I deem it proper to premise that it is very far from my intention to defend mine by impeaching yours. Where we have differed, I have no doubt that we differed honestly; and in claiming to act on honorable and patriotic motives myself, 1 cheerfully accord the same to you. I know not that I correctly understood your meaning; but after a careful perusal, I would infer from your letter that you had learn See appendix from A, to F, inclusive, being an extract, from a private correspondence between Mr. Monroe and gen. Jackson in the Seminole campaign. occupied St. Mark's, and subsequent to the time you had deter If by wishes, which you have underscored, it be meant that there mined to occupy Pensacola, (see your letter of June 24, 1818, to was any intimation given by myself, directly or indirectly, of the me, published with the Seminole documents), to give you authority desire of the government that you should occupy the Spanists to occupy those posts. I know, that, in quoting the letters, you posts, so far from being "informed." I had not the slightest knowcould not intend such absurdity, to authorise such an inference; ledge of any such intimation, nor did I ever hear a whisper of an y and I must therefore conclude that it was your intention by the such before. But I cannot imagine that it is your intention to the government, as I find no such distinction in your corresponextract to show, that, at the time of writing the letter, it was my make a distinction between the wishes and the public orders of opinion that the orders under which you did act were intended to authorise the occupation of the Spanish posts. Nothing could dence with the president, nor in any of the public documents; have been more remote from my intention in writing the letter. but, on the contrary, it is strongly rebutted by your relying for It would have been in opposition to the view which I have at. your justification constantly and exclusively on your public orders. ways taken of your orders, and in direct contradiction to the Taking, then, the "wishes of the government" to be but another president's message of the 25th March, 1818, communicated but a expression for its orders, I must refer to the proof already offer few weeks before to the house of representatives, (already refer-ed, to show that the wishes of the government, in relation to the Having, I trust, satisfactorily established that there has not red to), and which gives a directly opposite construction to your Spanish posts, were not such as you assume them to be. orders. In fact, the letter on its face, proves that it was not the intention of the government to occupy the Spanish posts. By re- been the least disguise as to the construction of your orders, I will ferring to it, you will see that I enclosed to the governor a copy now proceed to state the part which I took in the deliberations of of orders to general Gaines, of the 16th December, 1817, authoris the cabinet. My statement will be confined strictly to myself, as ing him to cross the Spanish fine, and attack the Indians within the I do not feel myself justified to speak of the course of the other limits of Florida, unless they should take-shelter under a Spanish members of the administration; and, in fact, only of my own in post, in which event, he was directed to report immediately to the self-defence, under the extraordinary circumstances connected department, which order governor Bibb was directed to consider with this correspondence. as his authority for earrying the war into Florida, thus clearly establishing the fact that the order was considered still in rurce, and not superseded by that to you, directing you to assume the command in the Seminole war. And here I must premise that the object of a cabinet council is not to bring together opinions already formed, but to form opinions on the course which the government ought to pursue, after full and mature deliberation. Meeting in this spirit, the first object is a free exchange of sentiment, in which doubts and objeetions are freely presented and discussed. It is, I conceive, the and to support them by offering fully all of the arguments in duty of the members thus to present their doubts and objections, their power, but at the same time to take care not to form an opinion till all the facts and views are fully brought out, and every doubt and objection carefully weighed. In this spirit I came The questions involved were numerous and into the meeting. important: whether you had transcended your orders; if so, what course ought to be adopted; what was the conduct of Spain and her officers in Florida; what was the state of our relations with Spain, and, through her, with the other European powers-a question, at that time, of uncommon complication and difficulty. These questions had all to be carefully examined and weighed, both separately and in connexion, before a final opinion could be wisely formed; and never did I see a deliberation in which every point was more care fully examined, or a greater solicitude displayed to arrive at a correct decision. I was the junior member of the cabinet, and had been but a few months in the administration. As secretary of war, I was more immediately connected with the questions whether you had transcended your or ders, and, if so, what course ought to be pursued. I was of the impression that you had exceeded your orders, and had acted on your own responsibility; but I neither questioned your patriotism nor your motives. Believing that where orders were transcended, investigation, as a matter of course, ought to follow, as due in justice to the government and the officer, unless there be strong reasons to the contrary, I came to the meeting under the impression that the usual course ought to be pursued in this case, which I supported by presenting faily and freely all the arguments that occurred to me. They were met by other argu ments, growing out of a more enlarged view of the subject, as connected with the conduct of Spain and her officers, and the course of policy which honor and interest dictated to be pursued towards her, with which some of the members of the cabinet were more familiar than myself, and whose duty it was to present that aspect of the subject, as it was mine to present that more immediately connected with the military operations. After deliberately weighing every question, when the members of the cabinet came to form their fioal opinion; on a view of the whole ground, it was unanimously determined, as I understood, in favor of the course adopted, and which was fully made known to you by Mr. Monroe's letter of the 19th of July, 1818. I gave it stances, the public interest required to be adopted. my assent and support, as being that which, under all the circumI shall now turn to the examination of the version which Mr. Crawford has given of my course in this important deliberation, beginning with his "apology for having disclosed what took place in a cabinet mesting." He says; "In the summer after the meet ing, an extract of a letter from Washington was published in a Nashville paper, in which it was stated that I (Mr. Crawford) had proposed to arrest general Jackson, but that he was triumphantly defended by Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Adams. This letter, I always believed, was written by Mr. Calhoun, or by his direction. It had the desired effect; general Jackson became inimi Nor can my letter ofthe 6th of February be, by any sound rule of construction, interpreted into an authority to occupy the Spanish posts, or as countenancing, on my part, such an interpretation of the orders previously given to you. Your letter of the 20th Ja nuary, to which mine is an answer, bears date at Nashville, before you set out on the expedition, and consists of a narrative of the measures adopted by you, in order to bring your forces into the field, where they were directed to rendezvous, the time in tended for marching, the orders for supplies given to the contrac tors, with other details of the same kind, without the slightest indication of your intention to act against the Spanish posts; and the approbation of the president of the measures you had adopted could be intended to apply to those detailed in your letter. I do not think that your letter of the 13th instant presents the question, whether the executive or yourself placed the true construction, considered as a military question, on the orders under which you acted. But I must be permitted to say, that the construction of the former is in strict conformity with my intention in drawing up the orders; and that, if they be susceptible of a different construc I did tion, it was far from being my intention they should be. not then suppose, nor have Iever, that it was in the power of the president, under the constitution, to order the occupation of the posts of a nation with whom we were not at war; (whatever might be the right of the general, under the law of nations, to attack an enemy sheltered under the posts of a neutral power:) and bad I been directed by the president to issue such order, I should have been restrained from complying by the higher authority of the constitution, which I had sworn to support. Nor will I discuss the question, whether the order to general Gaines, prohi iting him frora attacking the Spanish posts, (a copy of which was sent to you), was in fact, and according to military usage, an order to you, and of course obligatory until rescinded. Such, ertainly, was my opinion. I know that yours was different. You acted on your construction, believing it to be right, and, in pursuing the course which I have done, I claim an equal right to act on the construction which I conceived to be corret, knowing it to conform to my intentions in issuing the orders. But, in waving now the question of the true construction of the orders, I wish it however to be understood, it is only because I do not think it presented by your letter, and not because I have now, or ever had, the least doubt of the correctness of the opinion which I entertain. I have always been prepared to discuss it on friendly terms with you, as appears by the extracts from Mr. Monroe's correspondence, and more re cently by my letter to you of the 30th of April, 1828, covering a copy of a letter of major H. Lee, in which I deciined a correspondence that he had requested on the subject of a construction of your orders. In my letter to major Lee I stated, that, "as you refer to the public documents only for the construction which the executive gave to the orders, I infer that on this subject you have not had access to the general's (Jackson's) private papers; but if I be in an error, and if the construction which the administration gave to the orders be not stated with sufficient distinctness in the then president's correspondence with him, I will cheerfully give, as one of the members of the administration, my own views fully in relation to the orders, if it be desired by general Jackson; but it is only with him, and at his desire, that, under existing circum-cal to me, and friendly to Mr. Calhoun." stances, I should feel myself justified in corresponding on this or any other subject connected with his public conduct:" to which I added, in my letter to you, covering a copy of the letter from which the above is an extract, "with you I cannot have the slightest objection to correspond on the subject, if additional information be desirable." You expressed no desire for further information, and I took it for granted that Mr. Monroe's correspondence with you, and the public documents, furnished you a full and clear conception of the construction which the executive gave to your orders; under which impression I remained till I received your letter of the 13th instant. I am not at all surprised that Mr. Crawford should feel that he stands in need of an apology for betraying the deliberations of the cabinet. It is, I believe, not only the first instance in our country, but one of a very few instances to be found in any country, or any age, that an individual has felt absolved from the high obligation which honor aud duty impose on one situated as he was. It is not, however, my intention to comment on the morality of his disclosure; that more immediately concerns himself; and I leave him undisturbed to establish his own rules of honor and fidelity, in order to proceed to the examination of a question in which I am more immediately concerned-the truth of his apology. I desired not to speak harshly of Mr. Crawford. I sincerely commiserate his misfortune. 1 may be warm in political contests, but it is not in me to retain enmity, particularly towards the unsuccessful. In the political contest which ended in 1825, Connected with the subject of your orders, there are certain ex- on his character. Mr. Crawford and myself took opposite sides; but whatever feel. ings of unkindness it gave rise to, have long since passed away on my part. The contest ended in an entire change of the political elements of the country; and, in the new state of things which followed, I found myself acting with many of the friends of Mr. Crawford, to whom I had been recently opposed, and opposed to many of my friends, with whom I had, till then, been associated. In this new state of things, my inclination, my regard for his friends who were acting with me, and the success of the cause for which we were jointly contending,-all contributes to remove from my bosom every feeling towards him, save that of pity for his misfortune. I would not speak a harsh word, if I could avoid it; and it is a cause of pain to me that the extraordinary position in which he has placed me, compels me, in selfdefence, to say any thing which must, in its consequence, bear I speak in this spirit when I assert, as I do, that his apology has no foundation in truth. He offers no reason for charging me with so dishonorable an act as that of betraying the proceedings of the cabinet, and that for the purpose of injuring one of my associates in the administration. The charge rests wholly on his suspicion, to which I oppose my positive assertion that it is wholly unfounded.. I had no knowledge of the letter, or connexion with it; nor do I recollect that I ever saw the extract. But why charge me, and not Mr. Adams?" I had then been but a few months in the administration, and Mr. Crawford and myself were on the best terms, withanta feeling. certainly on my part, of rivalry or jealousy. In assigning the motive that he does for the letters, he forgets the relation which existed then between you and himself. He says it had the desired effect; that you became friendly to me, and extremely inimical to him. He does not remember that your hostility to him long preceded this period, and had a very different origin. He certainly could not have anticipated that a copy of his letter would be placed in your band. These are not the only difficulties accompanying his apology: there are others still more formidable, and which must compel him to assign some other reason for disclosing the proceedings of the cabinet. what the executive wished. After that letter was produced, unanswered, I should have opposed the infliction of punishment on general Jackson, who had considered the silence of the president as a tacit consent; yet it was after the letter was produced and read, that Mr. Calhoun made the proposition to the cabinet for punishing the general." Again: "I do not know that I ever hinted at the letter to the president, yet that letter had a most important bearing on the deliberations of the cabinet, at least in my mind, and possibly on the minds of Mr. Adams and the president, but neither expressed any opinion on the subject. It seems it had none on the mind of Mr. Calhoun, for it made no change in bis conduct." Mr. McDuffie's lettert to me, of the 14th-instant, of which I en elose a copy, proves that Mr. Crawford spoke freely of the proof orders, as he now attempts to do, he asserted, positively, that ceedings of the cabinet on his way to Georgia, in the summer of 1818; and dates will show that he could not at that time have seen the extract from the Nashville paper, ou which he now rests his apology. The deliberation of the cabinet took place between the 14th and 25th July, 1818. On the former day, Mr. Monroe returned to Washington from Loudon, and on the latter a gene ral exposition of the views of the government in relation to the operations in Florida appeared in the Intelligencer. The letter of Mr. Monroe to you, of the 19th July, 1818, fixes probably the day of the final decision of the cabinet. Mr. Crawford passed through Augusta on the 11th August, as announced in the papers of that city, on which day, or the preceding, bis conversation, to which Mr. McDuffie's letter relates, must have taken place. On a comparison of these dates, you will see that it was impossible that Mr. Crawford could have seen the extract from the Nashville paper when he was in Edgefield, and he must consequently find some other apology for his disclosures. This was not the only instance of his making the disclosures before he saw the extract. He was at Milledgeville on the 16th of August, 1918, a few days after he passed through Augusta; and a little after, there appeared a statement in the Georgia Journal, somewhat varied from that made in Edgefield, but agreeing with it in most of the particulars. I cannot lay my hand on the article, but have a distinct recollection of it. You no doubt remember it. Circumstances fixed it on Mr. Crawford, and it has not, to my knowledge, been denied. With such evidence of inaccuracy, either from want of memory, or some other cause, in what relates to his own motives and actions, it would be unreasonable to suppose that Mr. Crawford's statements will prove more correct in what relates to me. I will now proceed to examine them. He first states that I proposed that you should be punished in some form, or reprimanded in some form;" and to make my course more odious, as 1 suppose, he adds, that "Mr. Calhoun did not propose to arrest general Jackson." I will not dwell on a statement, which, on its face, is so absurd. How could an officer under our law be punished without arrest and trial? And to suppose that I proposed such a course, would indeed be to rate my understanding very low. The next allegation requires much more attention. He says: "Indeed, my own views on the subject had undergone a material change after the cabinet had been convened. Mr. Calhoun made some allusion to a letter that general Jackson had written to the president, who had forgotten that he had received such a letter, but said if he had received such a one, he would find it, and went directly to his cabinet, and brought it out. In it general Jackson approves of the determination of the government to break up Amelia island and Galveztown; and gave it also as his opinion that Fiorida ought to be taken by the United States. He added, it might be a delicate matter for the executive to decide, but if the president approved of it, he had only to give a hint to some confidential member of congress, say Johnny Ray, and he would do it, and take the responsibility on himself. I asked the president if the letter had been answered: he replied, no; for that he had no recollection of receiving it. I then said that I had no doubt that general Jackson, in taking Pensacola, believed he was doing *I wish not to be understood as intimating that Mr. Adams had the least connexion with the affair. I believe him to be ut terly incapable of such ba eness. †The letter of the hon. George McDuffie, appendix marked G. It will be no easy matter for Mr. Crawford to reconcile the duct in relation to the Seminole affair, from the time of the de statement which he has thus circumstantially made, with his concision of the cabinet till the subject ceased to be agitated. field statement, of which Mr. McDuffie's letter gives an account? How will he, in the first instance, reconcile it with his EdgeThe contrast between that and the president is most striking: to illustrate which, I will give an extract from Mr. McDuffie's letter. Mr. McDuffie's letter says, that "he" (Mr. Crawford) stated that you" (Mr. Calhoun) had been in favor of an inquiry into the conduct of general Jackson, and that he was the only member of the cabinet that concurred with you. He spoke in strong terms of disapprobation of the course pursued by general Jackbringing the grounds of his defence before the country, and son, not only in his military proceedings, but in prematurely forestalling public opinion; thus anticipating the administration. On this point, he remarked, that, if the administration could not give direction to public opinion, but permitted a military of ficer, who had violated his orders, to anticipate them, they had no business to be at Washington, and had better return home." Such was the language then held, and such his tone of feeling at that time. We hear not one word of the letter which makes so conspicuous a figure in his present statement; not one word of the change it effected in his mind in relation to your conduct; not a word of his taking a course different from me: but, on the contrary, he then stated, directly, that he concurred with me in favoring an inquiry, and indicated no difference on any other point; and so far from exempting you from the charge of breach you had violated your orders. Shall we find the explanation of the contrast in the two statements in the difference of his motives then and now? Is his motive now to injure me, and was it then to attack another member of the administration? Or must it be attributed, as the more charitable interpretation, to the decay of memory? Whatever may be the true explanation, all will agree that a statement, when events were fresh in the memory, is to be trusted in preference to one made twelve years after the transaction, particularly if the former accords with after events, and the latter does not, as is the case in this instance. At the next session of congress, your conduct in the Seminole war was severely attacked in both branches of the legislature. Let us see if the course pursued by Mr. Crawford and his personal and confidential friends can be reconciled to the statement which he now gives of his course in the cabinet. Mr. Cobb of Georgia, now no more, was then a prominent member of the house of represen tatives. He was the particular, personal, and confidential friend of Mr. Crawford, his near neighbor, and formerly a law student under him. What part did he take? He led the attack; he mov. ed the resolution against you; he accused you expressly of the violation of your orders, and sustained the accusation with all his powers. All this accords with Mr. Crawford's statement of his sentiment and his course at the time, but how can it be recon. ciled to his present statement? How could he, on any principle of justice, stand by and hear you thus falsely accused, in the face of the world, when he, according to his showing now, knew that it was all false? And how can be reconcile his silence then, when you stood so much in need of his assistance, with his disclosures now, when the agitation has long since passed away, and his aid no longer required? But let us turn to the other branch of the legislature, and see whether any occurrence there can explain this apparent mystery. General Lacock, of Pennsylvania, the particular friend of Mr. Crawford, and in the habit of constant intercourse with him, was the chairman of the committee in that body to whom the part of the message which related to the Seminole war was referred. Mr. Forsyth, then and now a senator from Georgia, and who now acts a prominent part in the transaction which has given rise to the present correspondence, was also a member, and was then, as he is now, an intimate, personal, and political friend of Mr. Crawford. With two such able and influential friends on the committee, he had the most favorable opportunity that could be offered to do you justice. According to his own statement, he felt no sbligation to observe silence in relation to the proceedings of the cabinet. Why, then, did he not interpose with his friends on the committee to do you justice? That he did not, I need not offer you arguments to prove. The report of the committee is sufficient testimony. Should he say that he was restrained by feel. ings of delicacy from interfering with his friends on the com mitter, how will he reconcile, on the principles of justice and honor, his silence after the report so severely assailing your motives and conduct was made, when, admitting his present statement, it was completely in his power to shield you from censure? But why should I waste time and words to prove that Mr. Crawford's whole course is in direct conflict with his present statement of the proceedings of the cabinet, when there remaius an objection that cannot be surmounted? The statement is entirely destitute of foundation. It is not true. Strange as it may See appendix H-letters from hon. Robert Garnett. |