Chapter XX (1)

The repeal of the embargo, which received the President’s signature March 1, closed the long reign of President Jefferson; and with but one exception the remark of John Randolph was destined to remain true, that “never has there been any Administration which went out of office and left the nation in a state so deplorable and calamitous.” That the blame for this failure rested wholly upon Jefferson might be doubted; but no one felt more keenly than he the disappointment under which his old hopes and ambitions were crushed.

Loss of popularity was his bitterest trial. He who longed like a sensitive child for sympathy and love left office as strongly and almost as generally disliked as the least popular President who preceded or followed him. He had undertaken to create a government which should interfere in no way with private action, and he had created one which interfered directly in the concerns of every private citizen in the land. He had come into power as the champion of State-rights, and had driven States to the verge of armed resistance. He had begun by claiming credit for stern economy, and ended by exceeding the expenditure of his predecessors. He had invented a policy of peace, and his invention resulted in the necessity of fighting at once the two greatest Powers in the world.

The feelings of the New England Democrats have been described in their own words. Angry as Ezekiel Bacon and Joseph Story were, their bitterness against Jefferson was hardly so great as that of the Clintonians in New York; but the same irritation extended even into the compact democracy of Pennsylvania. In the preceding summer, before the Presidential election, A. J. Dallas said to Gallatin:[381] “I verily believe one year more of writing, speaking, and appointing would render Mr. Jefferson a more odious President, even to the Democrats, than John Adams.” So far as could be judged from the conduct of the party, the prophecy became truth. The Southern Republicans, always loyal to a Southern President, would not openly turn against their old leader, but the Northern Democrats made no disguise of their aversion.

Not even in 1798 had factiousness been so violent as in the last month of President Jefferson’s power; in 1800 the country in comparison had been contented. Feb. 23, 1809, nearly three weeks after the disastrous overthrow of the embargo in Congress, the Connecticut legislature met in special session to “interpose” between the people and the national government. In a Report echoing the words of Governor Trumbull’s speech, the House instantly approved his refusal to aid in carrying out the “unconstitutional and despotic” Enforcement Act, and pledged itself to join the legislature of Massachusetts in the measures proposed “to give to the commercial States their fair and just consideration in the Union.”[382] The spirit in which Massachusetts meant to act was shown in a formal Address to the People issued by her Legislature March 1, bearing the official signatures of Harrison Gray Otis, President of the Senate, and Timothy Bigelow, Speaker of the House.

“Protesting in the sight of God the sincerity of their attachment to the Union of the States, and their determination to cherish and preserve it at every hazard until it shall fail to secure to them those blessings which alone give value to any form of government,” the Massachusetts legislature laid before the people of the State certain Reports and measures adopted for the purpose of impeding the embargo laws, and apologized for having done no more, on the ground that more could not have been done “without authorizing a forcible resistance to Acts of Congress,--an ultimate resource so deeply to be deprecated that the cases which might justify it should not be trusted even to the imagination until they actually happen.” Less than forty years before, Massachusetts had used much the same language in regard to Acts of Parliament, and the world knew what then followed; but even in the bitterest controversies over Stamp Act or Port Bill, the General Court of Massachusetts had never insulted King George as they insulted President Jefferson. The Address at great length asserted that his Government was laboring under “an habitual and impolitic predilection for France;” and even in making this assertion it apologized for England in terms which echoed the words of Canning and Castlereagh:--

“Without pretending to compare and adjust the respective injuries sustained from the two nations, it cannot be disguised that in some instances our nation has received from Great Britain compensation; in others offers of atonement, and in all the language of conciliation and respect.”

On the other hand, war with England must lead to alliance with France; and that a connection with France “must be forever fatal to the liberty and independence of the nation is obvious to all who are not blinded by partiality and passion.”

Such reasoning had the merits of its emphasis. The case of forcible resistance which could not be trusted to the imagination until it happened pointed designedly to a war with England, which, being equivalent to a connection with France, must be forever fatal to the liberty and independence of the United States. The dogma that a British war must dissolve the Union had become more than ever an article of Federalist faith. Even Rufus King, writing to Pickering, January 31, said:[383] “The embargo, as we are now told, is to give way to war. If the project be to unite with France against England, the Union cannot be preserved.” To prevent war with England was to prevent a dissolution of the Union; and the legislature of Massachusetts, acting on that idea, closed what it called its “Patriotick Proceedings,” by declaring to the people of the Commonwealth the measures by which alone the Union could be saved:--

“As the malady is deep, you will still be deceived by trusting to any temporary relief. You must realize and comprehend the nature of your peculiar interests, and by steady, persevering, and well-concerted efforts rise into an attitude to promote and preserve them. The farmer must remember that his prosperity is inseparable from that of the merchant; and that there is little affinity between his condition and habits and those of a Southern planter. The interests of New England must be defined, understood, and firmly represented. A perfect intelligence must be cultivated among those States, and a united effort must be made and continued to acquire their just influence in the national government. For this purpose the Constitution should be amended, and the provision which gives to holders of slaves a representation equal to that of six hundred thousand free citizens should be abolished. Experience proves the injustice, and time will increase the inequality, of this principle, the original reason for which has entirely failed. Other amendments to secure commerce and navigation from a repetition of destructive and insidious theories are indispensable.”

Such were the conditions on which Massachusetts must insist:--

“The Legislature are aware that their measures and sentiments will encourage their opponents in propagating the foul imputation of a design to dismember the Union. But when did party malice want a theme to excite popular prejudice? When did it have recourse to one more absurd and unfounded?”

The object of the Federalist majority was to strengthen the Union,--so they protested and so they doubtless believed; but in truth they insisted upon creating a new Union as a condition of their remaining in the old. The fatal word “must” ran through all their demands:--

“If the Southern States are disposed to avail themselves of the advantages resulting from our strength and resources for common defence, they must be willing to patronize the interests of navigation and commerce without which our strength will be weakness. If they wish to appropriate a portion of the public revenue toward roads, canals, or for the purchase of arms and the improvement of their militia, they must consent that you who purchase your own arms, and have already roads, canals, and militia in most excellent order, shall have another portion of it devoted to naval protection. If they in the spirit of chivalry are ready to rush into an unnecessary and ruinous war with one nation, they must suffer you to pause before you bid an eternal adieu to your independence by an alliance with another.”

Union of New England against the national Union--an idea hitherto confined to the brain of Timothy Pickering--had become the avowed object of the Massachusetts and Connecticut legislatures. “Nothing less than a perfect union and intelligence among the Eastern States” could answer the objects of Pickering; but side by side with the perfect union of the Eastern States went a perfect intelligence between those States and the British government. On one side, Pickering maintained relations with Rose; on the other, Sir James Craig kept a secret agent at Boston. January 26, at the moment when the crisis of war or peace was about to be decided at Washington, Mr. Ryland at Quebec, on behalf of the Governor-General of Canada, sent for John Henry to undertake another winter journey through New England.[384] His instructions, dated February 6 and signed by Sir James, Craig himself, enjoined the utmost secrecy, and restricted Henry to the task of ascertaining how far, in case of war, the Federalists of the Eastern States would look to England for assistance, or be disposed to enter into a connection with the British government.[385] Only in case the Federalist leaders should express a wish to that effect was Henry cautiously to avow his official character, and to receive any communication for transmittal. February 10 Henry started on this errand, but before he reached Boston the news that Congress had decided to repeal the embargo without declaring war left him little to do. He remained quietly in Boston, in familiar relations with the Federalist leaders,[386] without betraying his errand; and the substance of his reports to the governor-general amounted only to a decided opinion that the Federalists were not yet ready to act: “I can assure you that at this moment they do not freely entertain the project of withdrawing the Eastern States from the Union, finding it a very unpopular topic.”[387] Until midsummer, when the last fear of war vanished, this accredited agent of the governor-general waited at Boston for events. “His manners being gentlemanly and his letters of introduction good,” said Josiah Quincy, “he was admitted freely into society and heard the conversation at private tables.”

Had Jefferson known that a British emissary was secretly waiting at Boston to profit by the result of eight years’ Republican policy, he could not but have felt deep personal mortification mingled with his sense of wrong. Of all Jefferson’s hopes, perhaps the warmest had been that of overthrowing the power of his New England enemies,--those whom he had once called the monarchical Federalists,--the clergy and the Essex Junto. Instead of overthrowing them he had given them, for the first time in their lives, unlimited power for mischief; he had overthrown only the moderate Federalists, who when forced to choose between treason and embargo submitted to the embargo and hated its author. The Essex Junto became supreme in New England; and behind it stood the power of Great Britain, ready to interpose, if necessary, for its defence.

Jefferson submitted in silence, and even with an air of approval, to the abrupt abandonment of his favorite measure. He admitted that the embargo had failed; he even exaggerated its evils, and described it as more costly than war. His language implied that the failure of peaceable coercion was no longer a matter of doubt in his mind.

“The belligerent edicts,” he wrote to Armstrong,[388] “rendered our embargo necessary to call home our ships, our seamen, and property. We expected some effect, too, from the coercion of interest. Some it has had, but much less on account of evasions and domestic opposition to it. After fifteen months’ continuance, it is now discontinued because, losing fifty million dollars of exports annually by it, it costs more than war, which might be carried on for a third of that, besides what might be got by reprisal.”

To Dupont de Nemours Jefferson wrote in the same strain.[389] He signed without the betrayal of a protest the bill repealing the embargo, and talked of war as a necessary evil. Not until more than a year afterward did he admit the bitterness of his disappointment and mortification; but July 16, 1810, he wrote to his old Secretary of War a letter which expressed, in his familiar note of irritability, the feelings he had pent up:[390]--

“The Federalists during their short-lived ascendency have nevertheless, by forcing us from the embargo, inflicted a wound on our interests which can never be cured, and on our affections which will require time to cicatrize. I ascribe all this to one pseudo-Republican,--Story. He came on in place of Crowninshield, I believe, and stayed only a few days,--long enough, however, to get complete hold of Bacon, who, giving in to his representations, became panic-struck, and communicated the panic to his colleagues, and they to a majority of the sound members of Congress. They believed in the alternative of repeal or civil war, and produced the fatal measure of repeal.... I have ever been anxious to avoid a war with England unless forced by a situation more losing than war itself; but I did believe we could coerce her to justice by peaceable means; and the embargo, evaded as it was, proved it would have coerced her had it been honestly executed. The proof she exhibited on that occasion that she can exercise such an influence in this country as to control the will of its government and three fourths of its people is to me the most mortifying circumstance which has occurred since the establishment of our government.”

In truth, the disaster was appalling; and Jefferson described it in moderate terms by admitting that the policy of peaceable coercion brought upon him mortification such as no other President ever suffered. So complete was his overthrow that his popular influence declined even in the South. Twenty years elapsed before his political authority recovered power over the Northern people; for not until the embargo and its memories faded from men’s minds did the mighty shadow of Jefferson’s Revolutionary name efface the ruin of his Presidency. Yet he clung with more and more tenacity to the faith that his theory of peaceable coercion was sound; and when within a few months of his death he alluded for the last time to the embargo, he spoke of it as “a measure which, persevered in a little longer, we had subsequent and satisfactory assurance would have effected its object completely.”[391]

A discomfiture so conspicuous could not fail to bring in its train a swarm of petty humiliations which for the moment were more painful than the great misfortune. Jefferson had hoped to make his country forever pure and free; to abolish war, with its train of debt, extravagance, corruption, and tyranny; to build up a government devoted only to useful and moral objects; to bring upon earth a new era of peace and good-will among men. Throughout the twistings and windings of his course as President he clung to this main idea; or if he seemed for a moment to forget it, he never failed to return and to persist with almost heroic obstinacy in enforcing its lessons. By repealing the embargo, Congress avowedly and even maliciously rejected and trampled upon the only part of Jefferson’s statesmanship which claimed originality, or which in his own opinion entitled him to rank as a philosophic legislator. The mortification he felt was natural and extreme, but such as every great statesman might expect, and such as most of them experienced. The supreme bitterness of the moment lay rather in the sudden loss of respect and consideration which at all times marked the decline of power, but became most painful when the surrender of office followed a political defeat at the hands of supposed friends.

The last days of his authority were embittered by a personal slight which wounded him deeply. After the peace of Tilsit the Emperor Alexander of Russia expressed a wish to exchange ministers with the United States government. In every point of view America must gain by winning the friendship of Russia; and much as Jefferson disliked multiplying diplomatic offices, he could not but feel that at a time when his ministers were likely at any moment to be driven from France and England, nothing could be more useful than to secure a foothold at St. Petersburg. Without loss of time he created the mission, and appointed his old personal friend William Short to the new post. In August, 1808, during the recess of Congress, he sent Short to Europe, with orders to stop at Paris until the Senate should confirm his appointment. For political reasons Jefferson waited till the close of the session, and then, February 24, made this appointment the subject of his last Message to the Senate, explaining the motives which had induced him to create a diplomatic agency at St. Petersburg, and announcing that Short had received his commission and had gone to Europe six months before on this errand.

No sooner had the Senate, on receiving this Message, gone into executive session than Senator Bradley of Vermont offered a Resolution that any intercourse with Russia, such as the President suggested, might “be carried on with equal facility and effect by other public agents of the United States without the expense of a permanent minister plenipotentiary;” or in case of sudden negotiations for peace in Europe, “the permanent minister at any of the Courts thereof may be instructed to attend on the same;” and that for these reasons the proposed appointment was at present inexpedient and unnecessary. After much secret debate, Senator Bradley, February 27, withdrew his motion, and the Senate then abruptly and unanimously rejected Short’s nomination.

The discourtesy was flagrant. As a matter of policy the new mission might fairly be subject for argument; and the Senate had a right, if it chose, to follow its own opinions on such a subject. Unreasonable as was the idea of sending hither and thither the American ministers “at any of the Courts of Europe,” when every senator knew that on the continent of Europe America had but one minister, and even he was on the verge of dismissal or recall; ill-judged as was the assertion that a consular agent could carry on “with equal facility and effect” at a Court like that of St. Petersburg a diplomatic intercourse which would need every resource of public and private influence; narrow as was the policy of refusing “the expense of a permanent minister plenipotentiary” to the only nation in the world which offered her friendship at a moment when England and France were doing their utmost to spare America the expense of legations at London and Paris,--yet these objections to Jefferson’s wish were such as the Senate might naturally make, for they were the established creed of the Republican party, and no one had done more than Jefferson himself to erect them into a party dogma. Dislike of diplomacy was a relic of the old colonial status when America had been dependent on Europe,--a prejudice rising chiefly from an uneasy sense of social disadvantage. Whenever America should become strong and self-confident, these petty jealousies were sure to disappear, and her relations with other Powers would be controlled solely by her wants; but meanwhile the Senate in every emergency might be expected to embarrass the relations of the Executive with foreign governments, and to give untenable reasons for its conduct. That the Senate should object, could have been no surprise to Jefferson; but that it should without even a private explanation reject abruptly and unanimously the last personal favor asked by a President for whom every Republican senator professed friendship, and from whom most had received innumerable favors, seemed an unpardonable insult. So Jefferson felt it. He wrote to Short in accents of undisguised mortification:--

“It is with much concern I inform you that the Senate has negatived your appointment. We thought it best to keep back the nomination to the close of the session, that the mission might remain secret as long as possible, which you know was our purpose from the beginning. It was then sent in with an explanation of its object and motives. We took for granted, if any hesitation should arise, that the Senate would take time, and that our friends in that body would make inquiries of us and give us the opportunity of explaining and removing objections; but to our great surprise and with an unexampled precipitancy they rejected it at once. This reception of the last of my official communications to them could not be unfelt.”[392]

Senators attempted explanations: Short had been too long in the diplomatic service or resident abroad; the diplomatic connections of the United States with Europe were already too extensive, and rather than send more ministers those actually abroad should be recalled; “riveted to the system of unentanglement with Europe,” the Senate, though sensible of “the great virtues, the high character, the powerful influence, and valuable friendship of the Emperor,” declined the honor of relations with him. Yet these reasons showed only that the Senate felt as little regard for Jefferson’s opinions and feelings as for those of the Czar. The manner of the rejection, even more than the rejection itself, proved the willingness of the President’s oldest friends to inflict what they knew to be a painful wound on the self-respect of a fallen leader.

These mortifications, which rapidly followed each other in the last days of February, were endured by Jefferson with dignity and in silence. Perhaps senators would have better understood and might have more respected a vigorous burst of anger, even at some cost of dignity, than they did the self-restraint of the sensitive gentleman who had no longer a wish but to escape from Washington and seek peace in the calm of Monticello. He could with only a pang of mortified pride write his excuses to the Emperor Alexander and to William Short, and dismiss the matter forever from his mind. Public annoyances were for him nearly at an end, and could never recur; but unfortunately these public trials came upon him at a moment when his private anxieties were extreme.

In his style of life as President, Jefferson had indulged in such easy and liberal expenses as suited the place he held. Far from showing extravagance, the White House and its surroundings had in his time the outward look of a Virginia plantation. The President was required to pay the expenses of the house and grounds. In consequence, the grounds were uncared for, the palings broken or wanting, the paths undefined, and the place a waste, running imperceptibly into the barren fields about it. Within, the house was as simple as without, after the usual style of Virginia houses, where the scale was often extravagant but the details plain. Only in his table did Jefferson spend an unusual amount of money with excellent results for his political influence, for no President ever understood better than Jefferson the art of entertaining; yet his table cost him no excessive sums. For the best champagne he paid less than a dollar a bottle; for the best Bordeaux he paid a dollar; and the Madeira which was drunk in pipes at the White House cost between fifty and sixty cents a bottle. His French cook and cook’s assistant were paid about four hundred dollars a year. On such a scale his salary of twenty-five thousand dollars was equivalent to fully sixty thousand dollars of modern money; and his accounts showed that for the first and probably the most expensive year of his Presidency he spent only $16,800 which could properly be charged to his public and official character.[393] A mode of life so simple and so easily controlled should in a village like Washington have left no opening for arrears of debt; but when Jefferson, about to quit the White House forever, attempted to settle his accounts, he discovered that he had exceeded his income. Not his expenses as President, but his expenses as planter dragged him down. At first he thought that his debts would reach seven or eight thousand dollars, which must be discharged from a private estate hardly exceeding two hundred thousand dollars in value at the best of times, and rendered almost worthless by neglect and by the embargo. The sudden demand for this sum of money, coming at the moment of his political mortifications, wrung from him cries of genuine distress such as no public disaster had called out. He wrote to his commission-merchant entreating him to borrow the money:--

“Since I have become sensible of this deficit I have been under an agony of mortification, and therefore must solicit as much urgency in the negotiation as the case will admit. My intervening nights will be almost sleepless, as nothing could be more distressing to me than to leave debts here unpaid, if indeed I should be permitted to depart with them unpaid, of which I am by no means certain.”[394]

Large as it was, this estimate of the debt fell far short of the reality. The arrears amounted in truth to twenty thousand dollars.[395] Nothing but immediate and rigid economy could restore the loss, and even with every advantage Jefferson could never hope to live again upon his old scale without incurring bankruptcy; he must cease to be a _grand seigneur_, or drag his family into the ruin which seemed to be the fate of every Virginian.

Under the weight of these troubles, public and private, Jefferson’s longing to escape became intense; and his letters repeated, in accents more and more earnest, the single wish that filled his mind.

“I shall within a few days,” he wrote February 25,[396] “divest myself of the anxieties and the labors with which I have been oppressed, and retire with inexpressible delight to my family, my friends, my farms, and books. There I may indulge at length in that tranquillity and those pursuits from which I have been divorced by the character of the times in which I have lived, and which have forced me into the line of political life under a sense of duty and against a great and constant aversion to it.”

March 2 he wrote to Dupont de Nemours,[397] in stronger terms of weariness and disgust: “Never did a prisoner released from his chains feel such relief as I shall on shaking off the shackles of power. Nature intended me for the tranquil pursuits of science by rendering them my supreme delight.” March 4 he rode once more on horseback to the Capitol, and stood by the side of Madison while John Marshall administered the oath of office. The weight of administration was at last removed, but the longing for home became only the greater. March 5 he wrote to Armstrong:[398] “Within two or three days I retire from scenes of difficulty, anxiety, and of contending passions, to the elysium of domestic affections and the irresponsible direction of my own affairs.” A week afterward Jefferson quitted Washington forever. On horseback, over roads impassable to wheels, through snow and storm, he hurried back to Monticello to recover in the quiet of home the peace of mind he had lost in the disappointments of his statesmanship. He arrived at Monticello March 15, and never again passed beyond the bounds of a few adjacent counties.

With a sigh of relief which seemed as sincere and deep as his own, the Northern people saw him turn his back on the White House and disappear from the arena in which he had for sixteen years challenged every comer. In the Northern States few regrets were wasted upon his departure, for every mind was intent on profiting by the overthrow of his system; but Virginia was still loyal to him, and the citizens of his own county of Albemarle welcomed with an affectionate address his final return. His reply, dignified and full of grateful feeling, seemed intended as an answer to the attacks of partisan grossness and a challenge to the judgment of mankind:--

“The anxieties you express to administer to my happiness do of themselves confer that happiness; and the measure will be complete if my endeavors to fulfil my duties in the several public stations to which I have been called have obtained for me the approbation of my country. The part which I have acted on the theatre of public life has been before them, and to their sentence I submit it; but the testimony of my native county, of the individuals who have known me in private life, to my conduct in its various duties and relations is the more grateful as proceeding from eye-witnesses and observers, from triers of the vicinage. Of you, then, my neighbors, I may ask in the face of the world, ‘Whose ox have I taken, or whom have I defrauded? Whom have I oppressed, or of whose hand have I received a bribe to blind mine eyes therewith?’ On your verdict I rest with conscious security.”

FOOTNOTES:

[381] Dallas to Gallatin, July 30, 1808; Adams’s Gallatin, p. 372.

[382] Report and Resolutions, National Intelligencer, March 10, 1809.

[383] King to Pickering, Jan. 31, 1809; Pickering MSS.

[384] Ryland to John Henry, Jan. 26, 1809; State Papers, iii. 546.

[385] Sir James Craig to John Henry, Feb. 6, 1809; State Papers, iii. 546.

[386] Quincy’s Life of Quincy, p. 250.

[387] Henry to Sir J. Craig, March 7, 1809; State Papers, iii. 549.

[388] Jefferson to Armstrong, March 5, 1809; Works, v. 433.

[389] Jefferson to Dupont de Nemours, March 2, 1809; Works, v. 432.

[390] Jefferson to Dearborn, July 15, 1810; Works, v. 529.

[391] Jefferson to W. B. Giles, Dec. 25, 1825; Works, vii. 424.

[392] Jefferson to W. Short, March 8, 1809; Works, v. 435.

[393] Jefferson’s Financial Diary. Harper’s Magazine, March, 1885, pp. 534-542.

[394] Domestic Life of Thomas Jefferson, p. 400.

[395] Randall’s Jefferson, iii. 326.

[396] Jefferson to Warden, Feb. 25, 1809; Jefferson MSS.

[397] Jefferson to Dupont de Nemours, March 2, 1809; Works, v. 432.

[398] Jefferson to Armstrong, March 5, 1809; Works, v. 434.

INDEX TO VOLS. I. AND II.

Abbot, Charles, ii. 97.

Acts of Congress: of Jan. 30, 1799, called Logan’s Act, ii. 236;
of March 3, 1805, regulating trade with St. Domingo, i. 88;
of Feb. 13, 1806, called the Two Million Act, 138, 139, 147, 170;
of Feb. 28, 1806, prohibiting trade with St. Domingo, 140, 141;
of April 18, 1806, prohibiting the importation of certain goods
from Great Britain, 175;
of March 29, 1806, for laying out the Cumberland Road, 181;
of April 21, 1806, for continuing the Mediterranean Fund, 183;
of Dec. 19, 1806, for suspending the Non-importation Act of April
18, 1806, 349;
of March 3, 1807, repealing the salt-tax and continuing the
Mediterranean Fund, 349, 367, 369;
of Feb. 10, 1807, establishing a coast survey, 355;
of March 2, 1807, prohibiting the importation of slaves, 356-365;
of Dec. 18, 1807, providing for the building of one hundred and
eighty-eight gunboats, ii. 161;
of Dec. 22, 1807, for laying an embargo, 168-176;
of Jan. 9, 1808, supplementary to the embargo, 200;
of March 12, 1808, supplementary to the embargo, 201-204;
of April 12, 1808, to raise eight new regiments, 212-218;
of April 22, 1808, authorizing the President under certain
conditions to suspend the embargo, 223, 306;
of Jan. 9, 1809, to enforce the embargo, 398-400;
of Jan. 30, 1809, calling an extra session on the fourth Monday in
May, 424;
of March 1, 1809, to interdict commercial intercourse between the
United States and Great Britain and France, 444-453.

Adair, John, senator from Kentucky, i. 127, 139;
in Wilkinson’s confidence, 220, 223, 241, 255, 274;
refuses to testify, 282;
accompanies Burr to Nashville, 287;
his remarks on Andrew Jackson, 288;
starts for New Orleans by land, 291;
Burr’s despatches to, 295;
arrives in New Orleans, and is arrested, 324;
discharged from custody, 340.

Adams, John, ii. 455;
his description of Pickering, 402.

Adams, John Quincy, senator from Massachusetts, his interview’s with
Jefferson, i. 129, 430, 431;
his part in the Non-importation Resolutions, 151;
his remarks on Yrujo, 188;
attends “Chesapeake” meetings in Boston, ii. 29;
pledged to support opposition to England, 146;
chairman of the committee on the embargo, 171;
urges the passage of the Embargo Act, 173;
offers a resolution for removing the embargo, 187;
votes for Clinton and replies to Pickering’s letter, 240 _et
seq._;
resigns his seat in the Senate, 242, 255, 283, 401.

Alexander, Czar of Russia, i. 425;
signs treaty of Tilsit, ii. 62;
wishes diplomatic relations with Jefferson, 465.

Alfred, Maine, the town of, protests against the embargo, ii. 415.

Allston, Joseph, Burr’s son-in-law, i. 220, 240;
guarantees Blennerhassett from loss, 260;
with Burr in Kentucky, 260, 268;
to go with recruits from Charleston, 265, 266;
his part in Burr’s trial, 463 _et seq._

Allston, Mrs. (Theodosia Burr), accompanies Burr on his expedition,
i. 255;
at Blennerhassett’s island, 257;
to be queen of Mexico, 259;
infatuation of Luther Martin for, 444.

Alston, Willis, member of Congress from North Carolina, i. 354;
on war with England, ii. 376.

Ames, Fisher, ii. 348.

Anderson, Patton, i. 287.

Anderson, Joseph, senator from Tennessee, i. 139.

“Aristides,” i. 209.

Armstrong, John, minister to France, notifies Monroe of Napoleon’s
decision on Spanish claims and boundaries, i. 31, 32;
recommends a course toward Texas and Florida, 39;
to be employed in the Florida negotiation, 78;
receives Talleyrand’s conditions for an arrangement with Spain,
104;
attacked in the Senate, 153;
opposition to his appointment with Bowdoin to conduct the Florida
negotiation, 153, 172;
watching Napoleon in Paris, 370;
offers to execute Talleyrand’s plan, 376;
approaches Napoleon through Duroc, 386;
asks Decrès for an explanation of the Berlin Decree, 390;
refused passports for Napoleon’s headquarters, ii. 105;
protests against the “Horizon” judgment, 110;
reports Napoleon’s order relating to the Berlin Decree, 112;
well informed with regard to Napoleon’s projects, 113;
remonstrates against the Milan Decree, 292;
receives from Champagny an offer of the Floridas as the price of
an
alliance with France, 294;
replies to Champagny, 294;
refuses to present the case of the burned vessels to the French
government, 313.

Auckland, Lord, i. 407.

“Aurora,” the, 119.

Austerlitz, battle of, i. 163, 370.

Bacon, Ezekiel, determined to overthrow the embargo, ii. 432, 436,
441, 450, 455, 463.

Bailen, capitulation at, ii. 315, 341.

Baldwin, Abraham, senator from Georgia, i. 126.

Barclay, John, i. 231.

Baring, Alexander, i. 52; ii. 69;
his reply to “War in Disguise,” 317.

Baring, Sir Francis, at the dinner to the Spanish patriots, ii. 331.

Barron, Captain James, appointed Commodore of the Mediterranean
squadron, ii. 5;
replies to Captain Humphrey’s note, 13;
orders his flag to be struck, 19;
blamed by his brother officers, 20;
trial of, 21;
result of the trial, 22.

Bastrop grant, the, Burr’s proposal to Blennerhassett to buy, i.
256;
bought by Burr, 260, 274.

Bath, town-meeting in December, 1808, ii. 409.

Bathurst, Lord, President of the
Board of Trade, disapproves of Perceval’s general order, ii. 93 _et
seq._, 100, 325.

Bayard, James A., senator from Delaware, i. 339, 461; ii. 146.

Bayonne Decree of April 17, 1808, ii. 304, 312.

Bellechasse, M., of New Orleans, i. 300, 305 _et seq._

Berkeley, Admiral George Cranfield, issues orders to search the
“Chesapeake” for deserters, ii. 3;
approves the attack on the “Chesapeake,” 25;
recalled and his attack on the “Chesapeake” disavowed, 51.

Berlin Decree of Nov. 21, 1806, i. 389, 412, 416, 427;
enforced in August, 1807, ii. 82, 109;
Napoleon’s defence of, 221, 295;
his persistence in, 295.

Beverly, town-meeting in January, 1809, ii. 413.

Bidwell, Barnabas, i. 127;
supports Jefferson’s Spanish message in committee, 132, 137;
urged by Jefferson to take the leadership of the Democrats in
Congress, 207;
in slave-trade debate, 360, 363.

Bigelow, Timothy, speaker of Massachusetts legislature, ii. 456.

Bissell, Captain, of the First Infantry, i. 284, 290;
welcomes Burr at Fort Massac, 291;
receives a letter from Andrew Jackson warning him to stop
expedition, 291.

Blennerhassett, Harman, i. 220, 233;
duped by Burr, 247, 256 _et seq._;
his indiscreet talk, 259, 275, 281;
returns to his home, 276;
driven from his island, 286;
rejoins Burr, 291;
indicted, 457;
keeps a record of Burr’s trial, 462 _et seq._;
Allston tries to conciliate, 464;
Duane visits, 464.

Blennerhassett, Mrs., i. 220;
sends a warning letter to Burr, 275.

Blockade, of New York, i. 91 _et seq._; ii. 144;
preferred by Bathurst to commercial restrictions, 95;
Fox’s, of the French and German coast, 398.

Bollman, Eric, to be sent to London by Burr, i. 248, 251;
starts for New Orleans, 255;
arrives, 296, 306;
reports to Burr, 309;
sees Wilkinson, 318;
arrested, 319, 338;
discharged from custody, 340.

Bonaparte, Joseph, crowned King of Spain, ii. 300.

Bonaparte, Lucien, offered the crown of Spain, ii. 113;
his story of the offer, 124.

Boré, M., of New Orleans, i. 300.

Boston town-meeting in January, 1809, ii. 411.

Botts, Benjamin, Burr’s counsel, i. 444.

Bowdoin, James, appointed minister to Madrid, i. 57;
Jefferson’s letter announcing appointment, 57;
suggestions of plans for his negotiations, 59-61, 71;
reveals Talleyrand’s plan for a settlement with Spain, 378;
letter to, 436.

Bradley, Captain, of the “Cambrian,” recall and promotion, i. 48.

Bradley, Stephen R., senator from Vermont, i. 126, 139;
offers a resolution opposing the appointment of a minister to
Russia, ii. 466.

Breckenridge, John, of Kentucky, appointed attorney-general, i. 11,
127;
his death, 444.

Brougham, Henry, his speculations on the cause of English prejudice
against America, ii. 73;
his hostility to Perceval’s orders, 318;
at the bar of the House opposing the Orders in Council, 321.

Brown, James, secretary of the Louisiana Territory, i. 219, 280.

Bruff, James, Major of Artillery, sounded by General Wilkinson, i.
222, 241;
his charge against Wilkinson, 454.

Bruin, Judge, i. 325.

Bryant, William Cullen, his poem, “The Embargo,” ii. 279.

Bullus, Dr., on the “Chesapeake,” ii. 11, 13, 21.

Burling, Colonel, i. 313.

Burr, Aaron, Vice-President, gives the casting vote against Dr.
Logan’s amendment, i. 88;
jealous of Miranda, 189, 218;
his scheme and connections, 219;
on his way to New Orleans, 220;
his plans notorious in New Orleans, 224 _et seq._;
returns and visits Andrew Jackson and Wilkinson, 227;
his expectations of aid from England disappointed, 229;
his report to Merry, 231;
received at the White House, 233;
his advances to Yrujo and the Spanish government, 234;
his plot to seize the heads of government and the public money,
239;
his contempt for Jefferson, 244;
his communications with Yrujo, 247;
rebuffed by Fox, 250;
his imposture, 251;
his cipher despatch to Wilkinson, 253;
starts for New Orleans with Mrs. Allston and De Pestre, 255;
secures Blennerhassett’s fortune, 256;
arouses opposition in Kentucky, 268;
orders the purchase of supplies, 274;
denies intention to separate the Eastern from the Western States,
276;
attacked in court by District-Attorney Daveiss, 277;
a second time accused, 282;
acquitted, 282;
repeats his disavowal to Andrew Jackson, 287;
escapes from Nashville, 289;
received at Fort Massac, 291;
his relations in New Orleans, 296;
his visit to New Orleans in 1805, 302;
denounced by Wilkinson, surrenders to Governor Meade, 325 _et
seq._;
deserts his friends, 327;
arrested and sent to Richmond, Va., 327;
brought to trial before Chief-Justice Marshall, 441;
committed for misdemeanor only, 446;
indicted, 459;
his demeanor under trial, 464;
acquitted, 469.

Cabinet, new arrangement of, in March, 1805, i. 10-12;
approves embargo, ii. 170;
Madison’s intended, 429.

Cabot, George, i. 95, 144; ii. 29;
letters from, given to Rose by Pickering, ii. 235, 412.

“Cambrian,” British frigate, i. 48.

Campbell, George Washington, member of Congress from Tennessee,
chairman of Ways and Means Committee, ii. 153;
challenged by Gardenier, 203, 217;
his argument for the embargo, 267;
his report to Congress, 370;
defends his report, 380;
his Resolution adopted, 383;
opposes fitting out the navy, 426, 441;
speech of, on the Non-intercourse Act, 448.

Campbell, John, member of Congress from Maryland, i. 356.

Canals proposed by Gallatin, ii. 364.

Canning, George, becomes Foreign Secretary, ii. 56;
his character, 57, 73;
his opinion of democrats, 59;
his wit, 60;
his eloquence, 61;
his negotiation with Monroe respecting the “Chesapeake” affair, 40
_et seq._;
his reasons for disavowing Berkeley’s act, 76 _et seq._;
his opinion on Spencer Perceval’s proposed Order in Council, 92,
97;
instructs Erskine with regard to the Orders in Council, 99;
instructions to Rose, 178 _et seq._;
opposes interference with the effect of the embargo, 326;
his confidence in Napoleon’s overthrow in 1808, 331;
on the causes of the embargo, 332;
replies to Pinkney’s conditional proposition to withdraw the
embargo, 334 _et seq._;
letter of, to Pinkney published in the “New England Palladium,”
419.

Cantrelle, M., i. 300.

Capitol at Washington, the south wing completed, ii. 152, 209.

Casa Calvo, Marquis of, i. 71, 73, 74, 79.

Castlereagh, Lord, on Howick’s Order in Council, ii. 80, 81;
becomes War Secretary, 81;
urges retaliation on France, 83, 90, 325, 421.

Cazeneau, Mr., i. 379.

Cevallos, Don Pedro, Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs, his
negotiation with Monroe, i. 24-36;
refuses to countenance Burr’s designs, 249.

Champagny, Jean Baptiste de, succeeds Talleyrand as Minister of
Foreign Affairs, ii. 107;
his letter of Jan. 15, 1808, declaring war to exist between
England
and the United States, 221.

Charles IV. of Spain, abdication of, ii. 117, 298.

Cheetham, James, i. 272, 273.

“Chesapeake,” frigate, the desertion of British seamen to, ii. 2;
delay in getting her ready for sea, 5;
starts for sea, 9;
fired on by the “Leopard,” 16;
strikes her flag, 19;
returns to Norfolk, 20.

“Chesapeake Affair,” measures taken by the Cabinet after the, ii.
31,
163;
Madison’s instructions on, 39, 45;
its effect on English society, 44;
attack disavowed by the British Ministry, 51, 149;
Canning’s instructions on, 178-182;
Rose’s negotiation on, ii. 187-197;
laid aside, 199;
Gallatin’s plan for settling, 388.

Chickasaw Bluff, i. 284, 290, 325.

Claiborne, W. C. C., governor of Orleans Territory, character of, i.
297 _et seq._;
his anxieties, 304;
his ignorance of Burr’s conspiracy, 308;
warned by Wilkinson and Andrew Jackson, 316 _et seq._

Claims against Spain, i. 23-26, 28-30, 32, 35, 107.

Clark, Daniel, of New Orleans, i. 222;
in sympathy with Burr and the Mexican Association, 223, 236;
his letter to Wilkinson complaining of Burr’s indiscretion, 224;
Burr’s drafts to be drawn in his favor, 231;
a correspondent of Burr in New Orleans, 296, 322;
his hatred for Claiborne, 300;
delegate to Congress, 302, 303;
secures affidavits in evidence of his innocence, 306 _et seq._;
in Washington, 307;
preserves silence respecting the conspiracy, 308;
Wilkinson’s letters to, 321, 322;
turns against Wilkinson, 454.

Clark, William, explores Louisiana Territory with Captain Lewis, i.
12, 215.

Clay, Henry, Burr’s counsel, i. 278, 282.

“Clermont,” Fulton’s steamboat, makes her first voyage August 17,
1807, ii. 135.

Clinton, George, Vice-President, i. 126;
by his casting vote confirms Armstrong, 153, 172;
renominated for Vice-President in 1808, ii. 226, 287;
his hostility to Madison, 227;
supported by Cheetham for the Presidency, 227, 284;
his opinions reported by Erskine, 385;
his opposition to Madison, 428, 430.

Clinton, DeWitt, presides over a “Chesapeake” meeting in New York,
ii. 28;
his attitude towards the embargo, 283;
takes electoral votes from Madison, 287.

Clopton, John, ii. 212.

Coast survey, appropriation for by Congress, i. 355.

Coasting trade under the embargo, ii. 251 _et seq._

Cobbett, William, on the “Chesapeake” affair, ii. 44, 73, 329.

Colonial trade, rule of, established by case of “Essex,” i. 45;
distress of, 49;
arrangement of, in Monroe’s treaty, 409, 412;
parliamentary report on, ii. 67;
the only object of Perceval’s Orders in Council, 95.

Congress, Session of 1804-1805, i. 9;
problems before, December, 1805, 91;
meeting of the Ninth, Dec. 2, 1805, 126;
close of first session, 196;
opening of second session, Dec. 1, 1806, 328;
close of, 369;
Tenth, character of, ii. 146;
meeting of, Oct. 26, 1807, 152;
close of the first session, 223;
meeting of second session, Nov. 7, 1808, 354, 361;
close of, 453, 454.

Connecticut legislature, action of, in February, 1809, ii. 418, 455.

“Constitution,” the, ii. 5.

Cook, Orchard, member of Congress from Massachusetts, his letter
describing Gallatin’s plan, ii. 369.

Copenhagen, the British expedition against, ii. 63;
bombardment of, 65.

Cordero, Governor, i. 311.

Cotton, export to France prohibited by England, ii. 101, 219, 322,
323.

Craig, Sir James, governor-general of Canada, calls on the Indians
for assistance in case of war with the United States, ii. 137;
governor of Lower Canada, 243;
warned by Erskine to be on his guard against attacks from the
United States, 395;
his instructions to John Henry, 460.

Creoles in Louisiana, Claiborne’s treatment of, i. 298.

Crowninshield, Jacob, member of Congress from
Massachusetts,--declines Navy Department, appointed Secretary,
refuses office, remains on records as Secretary of Navy, i.
10,
11;
speech of, in favor of non-importation, 157, 200;
ii. 109;
his death, 209;
succeeded by Joseph Story, 463.

Cuba, Jefferson’s policy toward, ii. 340, 341.

Cumberland Road, i. 181, 355.

Cushing, T. H., Lieutenant-Colonel of Second Infantry, i. 246, 311;
Wilkinson communicates Burr’s designs to, 313;
orders to, 315.

Dallas, A. J., i. 9;
his opinion of Jefferson’s second administration, ii. 455.

Dana, Samuel, member of Congress from Connecticut, i. 143, 242;
ii. 436.

Dautremont, M., i. 379.

Daveiss, Joseph H., United States District Attorney, i. 268;
writes to Jefferson denouncing the Spanish plot, 270;
accuses Burr in court of setting on foot a military expedition,
277;
renews his motion, 282;
removed from office by Jefferson, 294, 309;
and censured, 337.

Davis, Judge John, his opinion on the constitutionality of the
embargo, ii. 268 _et seq._

Dayton, Jonathan, in Miranda’s confidence, i. 189;
informs Yrujo of Miranda’s expedition, 192;
his connection with Burr, 219;
attempts to obtain funds from Yrujo, 234 _et seq._;
funds received by him from the Spanish treasury, 245;
his letter to Wilkinson, 252;
at Burr’s trial, 463.

Dearborn, Henry, Secretary of War, i. 10, 454;
ignorant of Jefferson’s instructions to Monroe, ii. 163.

Debt, National. (See Finances.)

Decatur, Stephen, on Barron’s court-martial, ii. 21, 24.

Decrees of France. (See Berlin, Milan, Bayonne.)

Decrès, Duc, writes to Armstrong respecting the Berlin Decree, i.
391.

Denmark, Napoleon’s demands upon, ii. 63. (See Copenhagen.)

De Pestre, one of Burr’s officers, i. 252;
starts with Burr as his chief of staff, 255;
sent by Burr to report to Yrujo, 261;
his message, 264.

Deposit, right of, discussed by Cevallos, i. 26, 27.

Derbigny, Pierre, i. 219, 301, 305.

Destréhan, Jean Noel, i. 301.

Detroit, isolation of, i. 14, 15.

Dexter, Samuel, his argument against the constitutionality of the
embargo, ii. 268, 270;
takes the lead in Boston town-meeting, 411, 412.

Dos de Maio, the, ii. 300 _et seq._;
its effect in America, 339 _et seq._

Douglas, Captain John Erskine, of the “Bellona,” ii. 4;
reports the affair of the “Chesapeake” to Admiral Berkeley, 25;
his letter to the Mayor of Norfolk, 28.

Dreyer, M., Danish minister at Paris, ii. 106, 107.

Duane, William, opposes Governor McKean, i. 9;
hostile to Gallatin, 210;
visits Blennerhassett in prison, ii. 464.

Dundas. (See Melville.)

Dupiester. (See De Pestre.)

Dupont, General, ordered to enter Spain, ii. 121, 122.

Duroc, Marshal, i. 386.

Early, Peter, member of Congress from Georgia, chairman of the
committee on the slave-trade, i. 356;
his bill for the sale of slaves captured on a slave-ship, 357,
362.

Easton, Judge, writes concerning Wilkinson’s connection with
Miranda,
i. 241.

Eaton, General William, Burr reveals his plot to, i. 239;
attempts to put Jefferson on his guard, 242, 244, 279, 462.

Education, public, favored by Jefferson, i. 346.

Eldon, Lord, his anecdote of King George and F. J. Jackson, ii. 65,
96;
defends the Orders in Council, 320.

Election, Presidential, of 1804, in Massachusetts, i. 8;
Jefferson’s satisfaction in, 8;
of April, 1805, in Massachusetts, 9;
autumn, of 1805 in Pennsylvania, 9;
of April, 1806, in Massachusetts, 207;
of April, 1807, in Massachusetts, ii. 146;
of April, 1808, in Massachusetts, 237-242;
of May, 1808, in New York, 283;
Presidential, of 1808, 285-287;
of October, 1808, in Pennsylvania, 286;
congressional, of 1808, 287.

Embargo, suggested by Armstrong, approved by Madison, i. 75;
favored by Senator Jackson in 1805, 149;
by John Randolph, 149;
Jefferson’s first draft of Embargo Message, ii. 168;
Madison’s draft, 169, 170;
bill reported and passed in Senate, 172, 173;
moved by Randolph in House, 173;
becomes law, Dec. 22, 1807, 175, 176;
object of 175, 176, 186, 332;
Senator Adams’s resolution on, 187;
Jefferson’s determination to enforce, 249-271, 273;
difficulties of Governor Sullivan regarding, 253-256;
difficulties of Governor Tompkins in New York, 259;
dissatisfaction of Robert Smith with, 261;
demand of “powers equally dangerous and odious” by Gallatin, 262;
interference of Justice Johnson in South Carolina, 263, 264;
arguments on constitutionality of, 266, 267;
decision of Judge John Davis, 268-270;
opinion of Joseph Story on, 270;
its economical cost, 274, 275;
its moral cost, 276;
its political cost, 277-284, 288;
its failure to coerce, 288, 344;
Jefferson’s opinion of its relative prejudice to England and
France, 309;
Jefferson’s opinion of its cost, 309, 462;
approved by Napoleon, 313;
Armstrong’s opinion of, 314;
its pressure on England, 324, 327-329;
Canning’s note on, 334-336;
W. C. Nicholas’s letter on, 345;
the alternative to war, 354, 355;
repeal of, 438. (See Acts of Congress.)

“Embargo, The,” a satire, by William Cullen Bryant, ii. 279.

Enforcement Act. (See Embargo and Acts of Congress.)

England, cordial friendship with, i. 8;
change of policy by Pitt in 1804-1805, 43-53 (see Pitt, Perceval,
Canning);
alliance with, urged by Jefferson, 62-65, 70;
Pitt’s policy reversed by Fox, 393, 397;
unfriendly policy carried to an extreme by Perceval and Canning,
ii. 55 _et seq._;
unfriendly feeling in 1808, 331.

Eppes, John W., member of Congress from Virginia, i. 339, 351.

Erskine, Lord Chancellor, i. 393;
his speech against the Orders in Council, ii. 320.

Erskine, David Montague, succeeds Merry as British minister at
Washington, i. 250, 423;
takes Monroe’s treaty to Madison, 429;
at the White House, ii. 35, 36;
his reports on the “Chesapeake” excitement, 37, 78, 142, 143;
reports intended commercial restrictions, 144;
reports Jefferson’s conversation on the “Chesapeake” negotiation,
December, 1807, 162;
reports an embargo to be imposed in expectation of a retaliatory
Order in Council declaring a blockade of France, 175, 176,
332;
accompanies Rose, 193;
reported by Rose, 199;
interview with Jefferson, Nov. 9, 1808, 351-353;
reports the opinion of members of Jefferson’s cabinet on the
situation in November, 1808, 384;
informs Canning of the warlike attitude of the government, 386;
reports Gallatin’s remarks as to foreign relations, 389;
advises Canning that war is imminent, 392, 393;
reports Madison for war, 394;
his account of the struggle for the repeal of the embargo, 443 _et
seq._

Erving, George W., as _chargé d’affaires_ replaces Pinckney at
Madrid, i. 37, 377, 388.

Erwin, Dr., i. 263, 265.

“Essex,” Sir William Scott’s judgment in the case of, i. 44, 45;
received in the United States, 96, 97;
Madison’s remarks on, reported by Merry, 98;
remarks of “a confidential person,” 99;
result of, in America, 143;
Boston memorial against, 144;
Philadelphia and Baltimore memorials, 144.

Essex Junto, ii. 29, 401, 403, 405, 412, 442, 462.

Evans, Oliver, his experiments with a stern-wheel steamboat, i. 217.

“Evening Post,” Gardenier’s supposed letter in, ii. 203.

Eylau, the battle of, ii. 62, 105.

Ferdinand, Prince of the Asturias, ii. 290;
intrigues against his father, 291;
described by Napoleon, 299.

Ferrand, General, protests against the contraband trade with St.
Domingo, i. 88.

Finances, national, in 1805, i. 12, 18;
in 1806, 210, 345;
in 1807, ii. 148, 156;
in 1808, 366.

Florida, West, desire of the southern people to acquire, i. 22;
negotiation for, in 1805 (see Monroe);
Madison’s opinion of claim to, 55, 56;
not to be turned into a French job, 70, 77;
Cabinet decides to offer five millions for, 78;
Talleyrand’s plan for obtaining, 103;
Talleyrand’s plan adopted by Jefferson, 106;
opposed in Congress, 133 _et seq._;
passage of Two Million Act for purchasing, 138;
Burr’s designs upon, 232, 234;
source of Talleyrand’s plan, 373;
Napoleon’s attitude, 374, 375;
Madison’s instructions, 375;
Napoleon defeats Talleyrand’s plan, 376-385, 424, 428; ii. 114;
Turreau’s views on, i. 426;
American occupation invited by Napoleon, ii. 293, 294, 296, 297,
307;
invitation acknowledged by Madison, 306;
invitation denied by Napoleon, 311;
seizure of, intended by Jefferson, 340.

Folch, Governor, of West Florida, i. 300.

Fontainebleau, treaty of, ii. 121.

Fortifications, i. 179, 350.

Fox, Charles James, accession of, to Foreign Office, i. 163, 211;
recalls Merry, and refuses to listen to Burr’s schemes, 250;
opens negotiations with Monroe, 394;
his blockade, 398;
illness of, 406;
death of, 407.

France, perfect understanding with, i. 8. (See Napoleon.)

Freeman, Constant, Lieutenant-Colonel of Artillery, in command at
New
Orleans, warned by Wilkinson, i. 314, 315.

Friedland, the battle of, ii. 62, 105.

Fulton, Robert, his steamboat, i. 20, 216; ii. 135.

Gaines, E. P., First Lieutenant of Second Infantry, commanding at
Fort Stoddert, arrests Burr, i. 327.