FOOTNOTES:

Such was Washington's greeting from a great body of his fellow citizens when he resumed his private station among them after almost twenty years of labor for them in both war and peace. Here rational imagination must supply what record does not reveal. What must Marshall have thought? Was this the fruit of such sacrifice for the people's welfare as no other man in America and few in any land throughout all history had ever made—this rebuke of Washington—Washington, who had been the soul as well as the sword of the Revolution; Washington, who alone had saved the land from anarchy; Washington, whose level sense, far-seeing vision, and mighty character had so guided the newborn Government that the American people had taken theirplace as a separate and independent Nation? Could any but this question have been asked by Marshall?

He was not the only man to whom such reflections came. Patrick Henry thus expressed his feelings: "I see with concern our old commander-in-chief most abusively treated—nor are his long and great services remembered.... If he, whose character as our leader during the whole war, was above all praise, is so roughly handled in his old age, what may be expected by men of the common standard of character?"[454]

And Jefferson! Had he not become the voice of the majority?

Great as he was, restrained as he had arduously schooled himself to be, Washington personally resented the brutal assaults upon his character with something of the fury of his unbridled youth: "I had no conception that parties would or even could go to the length I have been witness to; nor did I believe, until lately, that it was within the bounds of probability—hardly within those of possibility—that ... every act of my administration would be tortured and the grossest and most insidious misrepresentations of them be made ... and that too in such exaggerated and indecent terms as could scarcely be applied to a Nero—a notorious defaulter—or even to a common pickpocket."[455]

Here, then, once more, we clearly trace the development of that antipathy between Marshall and Jefferson, the seeds of which were sown in those desolating years from 1776 to 1780, and in the not less trying period from the close of the Revolution to the end of Washington's Administration. Thus does circumstance mould opinion and career far more than abstract thinking; and emotion quite as much as reason shape systems of government. The personal feud between Marshall and Jefferson, growing through the years and nourished by events, gave force and speed to their progress along highways which, starting at the same point, gradually diverged and finally ran in opposite directions.

FOOTNOTES:[351]When Jefferson resigned, Randolph succeeded him as Secretary of State, and continued in that office until driven out of public life by the famous Fauchet disclosure. William Bradford of Pennsylvania succeeded Randolph as Attorney-General.[352]Washington to Marshall, Aug. 26, 1795; Washington MSS., Lib. Cong.[353]Act of 1789,Annals, 1st Cong., 1st Sess., Appendix, 2238.[354]For Randolph's pathetic account of his struggles to subsist as Attorney-General, see Conway, chap. xv.[355]The Fairfax purchase. Seeinfra, chap.v.[356]Marshall to Washington, Aug. 31, 1795; Washington MSS., Lib. Cong.[357]Seeinfra, chap.v.[358]Executive Journal, U.S. Senate, i, 81, 82. And see Washington'sDiary: Lossing, 166. Carrington held both of these offices at the same time.[359]Referring to Marshall's title as General of Virginia Militia. He was called "General" from that time until he became Chief Justice of the United States.[360]Washington to Carrington, Oct. 9, 1795;Writings: Ford, xiii, 116.[361]Carrington to Washington, Oct. 2, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong.[362]Ib.[363]Carrington to Washington, Oct. 8, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong.[364]Ib., Oct. 13, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong.[365]Ib.A passage in this letter clearly shows the Federalist opinion of the young Republican Party and suggests the economic line dividing it from the Federalists. "In the present crisis Mr. H.[enry] may reasonably be calculated on as taking the side of Government, even though he may retain his old prejudices against the Constitution. He has indubitably an abhorrence of Anarchy.... We know too that he is improving his fortune fast, which must additionally attach him to the existing Government & order, the only Guarantees of property. Add to all this, that he has no affection for the present leaders of the opposition in Virga." (Carrington to Washington, Oct. 13, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong.)[366]Carrington to Washington, Oct. 20, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong. Carrington's correspondence shows that everything was done on Marshall's judgment and that Marshall himself personally handled most of the negotiations. (Seeib., Oct. 28; Oct. 30, 1795.)[367]American Remembrancer, i, 21et seq.John Thompson was nineteen years old when he delivered this address. His extravagant rhetoric rather than his solid argument is quoted in the text as better illustrating the public temper and prevailing style of oratory. (See sketch of this remarkable young Virginian,infra, chap.x.)[368]A favorite Republican charge was that the treaty would separate us from France and tie us to Great Britain: "A treaty which children cannot read without discovering that it tends to disunite us from our present ally, and unite us to a government which we abhor, detest and despise." ("An Old Soldier of '76";American Remembrancer, ii, 281.)[369]American Remembrancer, i, 27.[370]Seeinfra, chap.v.[371]Ames to Gore, March 11, 1796;Works: Ames, i, 189.[372]Annals, 4th Cong., 1st Sess., 1033-34.[373]Ib., 1063. See Anderson, 41-43. As one of the purchasers of the Fairfax estate, Marshall had a personal interest in the Jay Treaty, though it does not appear that this influenced him in his support of it.[374]The voting wasviva voce. Seeinfra, chap.x.[375]Undoubtedly this gentleman was one of the perturbed Federalist managers.[376]North American Review, xxvi, 22. While this story seems improbable, no evidence has appeared which throws doubt upon it. At any rate, it serves to illustrate Marshall's astonishing popularity.[377]Carrington's reports to Washington were often absurd in their optimistic inaccuracy. They are typical of those which faithful office-holding politicians habitually make to the appointing power. For instance, Carrington told Washington in 1791 that, after traveling all over Virginia as United States Marshal and Collector of Internal Revenue, he was sure the people were content with Assumption and the whiskey tax (Washington'sDiary: Lossing, footnote to 166), when, as a matter of fact, the State was boiling with opposition to those very measures.[378]The mingling, in the Republican mind, of the Jay Treaty, Neutrality, unfriendliness to France, and the Federalist Party is illustrated in a toast at a dinner in Lexington, Virginia, to Senator Brown, who had voted against the treaty: "The French Republic—May every power or party who would attempt to throw any obstacle in the way of its independence or happiness receive the reward due to corruption." (Richmond and Manchester Advertiser, Oct. 15, 1795.)[379]Carrington to Washington, Nov. 10, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong.[380]Ib., Nov. 13, 1795; MS.; Lib. Cong.[381]The resolution "was warmly agitated three whole days." (Randolph to Jefferson, Nov. 22, 1795;Works: Ford, viii, footnote to 197.)[382]Carrington to Washington, Nov. 20, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong.[383]See debates;Annals, 4th Cong., 1st Sess., 423-1291; also see Petersburg Resolutions;American Remembrancer, i, 102-07.[384]Thompson's address, Aug. 1, 1795, at Petersburg;ib., 21et seq.[385]Carrington to Washington, Nov. 20, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong.[386]Randolph to Jefferson, Nov. 22, 1795;Works: Ford, viii, footnote to 197.[387]Randolph to Jefferson, Nov. 22, 1795;Works: Ford, viii, footnote to 197.[388]Ib.[389]Ib.See Hamilton's dissertation on the treaty-making power in numbers 36, 37, 38, of his "Camillus";Works: Lodge, vi, 160-97.[390]Marshall to Hamilton, April 25, 1796;Works: Hamilton, vi, 109.[391]Randolph to Jefferson, Nov. 22, 1795;Works: Ford, viii, 198.[392]Journal, H.D. (Nov. 20, 1795), 27-28.[393]Journal, H.D. (Nov. 20, 1795), 28.[394]Carrington to Washington, Nov. 20, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong.[395]The italics are mine. "The word 'wisdom' in expressing the confidence of the House in the P.[resident] was so artfully introduced that if the fraudulent design had not been detected in time the vote of the House, as to its effect upon the P. would have been entirely done away.... A resolution so worded as to acquit the P. of all evil intention, but at the same time silently censuring his error, was passed by a majority of 33." (Letter of Jefferson's son-in-law, enclosed by Jefferson to Madison;Works: Ford, viii, footnote to 198.)[396]Journal, H.D. (Nov. 21, 1795), 29.[397]Ib.[398]Journal, H.D. (Nov. 21, 1795), 29.[399]Jefferson to Madison, Nov. 26, 1795;Works: Ford, viii, 197-98.[400]Randall, ii, 36.[401]Journal, H.D. (1795), 72.[402]Journal, H.D. (1795), 50.[403]Ib., 53.[404]Ib., 79.[405]Ib., 90.[406]Ib., 91-92.[407]Carrington to Washington, Dec. 6, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong.[408]Journal, H.D. (Dec. 12, 1795), 91-92.[409]Carrington to Washington, Feb. 24, 1796; MS., Lib. Cong.[410]Dodd, 39.[411]Lee to Washington, July 7, 1796;Writings: Sparks, xi, 487.[412]Washington to Marshall, July 8, 1796; Washington MSS., Lib. Cong.[413]Marshall to Washington, July 11, 1796;ib.[414]Washington to Marshall, July 15, 1796; Washington's Private Letter Book; MS., Lib. Cong.[415]Washington to Marshall, Oct. 10, 1796;ib.[416]Marshall to Washington, Oct. 12, 1796; Washington MSS., Lib. Cong.[417]Genêt's successor as French Minister to the United States.[418]Interesting State Papers, 48et seq.[419]Interesting State Papers, 55.[420]For able defense of Randolph see Conway, chap. xxiii; butcontra, see Gibbs, i, chap. ix.[421]Patterson of New Jersey, Johnson of Maryland, C. C. Pinckney of South Carolina, Patrick Henry of Virginia, and Rufus King of New York. (Washington to Hamilton, Oct. 29, 1795;Writings: Ford, xiii, 129-30.) King declined because of the abuse heaped upon public officers. (Hamilton to Washington, Nov. 5, 1795;ib., footnote to 130.)[422]Washington to Hamilton, Oct. 29, 1795;Writings: Ford, xiii, 131.[423]For debate seeAnnals, 4th Cong., 1st Sess., 423-1291.[424]Carrington to Washington, May 9, 1796; MS., Lib. Cong.[425]Oliver Wolcott to his father, Feb. 12, 1791; Gibbs, i, 62.[426]Hamilton to King, June 20, 1795;Works: Lodge, x, 103.[427]Washington to Knox, Sept. 20, 1795;Writings: Ford, xiii, 105-06.[428]Carrington to the President, April 22, 1796;Writings: Ford, xiii, footnote to 185.[429]Washington to Carrington, May 1, 1796;ib., 185.[430]Ib., 186.[431]Story, in Dillon, iii, 352.[432]Senator Stephen Thompson Mason wrote privately to Tazewell that the Fairfax purchasers and British merchants were the only friends of the treaty in Virginia. (Anderson, 42.)[433]Alexander Campbell. (Seeinfra, chap.v.)[434]Randolph to Madison, Richmond, April 25, 1796; Conway, 362. Only freeholders could vote.[435]Marshall to Hamilton, April 25, 1796;Works: Hamilton, vi, 109.[436]Author unknown.[437]Richmond and Manchester Advertiser, April 27, 1796.[438]Carrington to the President, April 27, 1796; MS., Lib. Cong.[439]Marshall to King, April 25, 1796; King, ii, 45-46.[440]Washington to Thomas Pinckney, May 22, 1796;Writings: Ford, xiii, 208.[441]Robert Morris to James M. Marshall, May 1, 1796; Morris's Private Letter Book; MS., Lib. Cong.[442]Story, in Dillon, iii, 350.[443]Marshall to King, April 19, 1796; Hamilton MSS., Lib. Cong. Hamilton, it seems, had also asked Marshall to make overtures to Patrick Henry for the Presidency. (King, ii, footnote to 46.) But no correspondence between Hamilton and Marshall upon this subject has been discovered. Marshall's correspondence about Henry was with King.[444]Marshall to King, May 24, 1796; King, ii, 48.[445]For an accurate description of the unparalleled abuse of Washington, see McMaster, ii, 249-50, 289-91, 302-06.[446]Marshall, ii, 391-92. Also see Washington to Pickering, March 3, 1797;Writings: Ford, xiii, 378-80; and to Gordon, Oct. 15;ib., 427.[447]Journal, H.D. (1796), 46-47; MS. Archives, Va. St. Lib.[448]Journal, H.D. (1796), 153; MS. Archives, Va. St. Lib.[449]Ib.[450]Ib.This amendment is historically important for another reason. It is the first time that the Virginia Legislature refers to that Commonwealth as a "State" in contra-distinction to the country. Although the Journal shows that this important motion was passed, the manuscript draft of the resolution signed by the presiding officer of both Houses does not show the change. (MS. Archives, Va. St. Lib.)[451]Story, in Dillon, iii, 355. Marshall's account was inaccurate, as we have seen. His memory was confused as to the vote in the two contests (supra), a very natural thing after the lapse of twenty years. In the first contest the House of Delegates voted overwhelmingly against including the word "wisdom" in the resolutions; and on the Senate amendment restored it by a dangerously small majority. On the second contest in 1796, when Marshall declares that Washington's friends won "by a very small majority," they were actually defeated.[452]Journal, H. D., 153-90.[453]Aurora, Monday, March 5, 1797. This paper, expressing Republican hatred of Washington, had long been assailing him. For instance, on October 24, 1795, a correspondent, in the course of a scandalous attack upon the President, said: "The consecrated ermine of Presidential chastity seems too foul for time itself to bleach." (See Cobbett, i, 411; andib., 444, where theAurorais represented as having said that "Washington has the ostentation of an eastern bashaw.") From August to September theAurorahad accused Washington of peculation. (See "Calm Observer" inAurora, Oct. 23 to Nov. 5, 1795.)[454]Henry to his daughter, Aug. 20, 1796; Henry, ii, 569-70. Henry was now an enemy of Jefferson and his dislike was heartily reciprocated.[455]Washington to Jefferson, July 6, 1796;Writings: Ford, xiii, 230-31. This letter is in answer to a letter from Jefferson denying responsibility for the publication of a Cabinet paper in theAurora. (Jefferson to Washington, June 19, 1796;Works: Ford, viii, 245; and see Marshall, ii, 390-91.) Even in Congress Washington did not escape. In the debate over the last address of the National Legislature to the President, Giles of Virginia declared that Washington had been "neither wise nor firm." He did not think "so much of the President." He "wished him to retire ... the government of the United States could go on very well without him." (Annals, 4th Cong., 2d Sess. (Dec. 14, 1796), 1614-18.) On the three roll-calls and passage of the address Giles voted against Washington. (Ib., 1666-68.) So did Andrew Jackson, a new member from Tennessee. (Ib.)The unpopularity of Washington's Administration led to the hostile policy of Bache's paper, largely as a matter of business. This provident editor became fiercely "Republican" because, as he explained to his relative, Temple Franklin, in England, he "could not [otherwise] maintain his family," and "he had determined to adopt a bold experiment and to come out openly against the Administration. He thought the public temper would bear it." (Marshall to Pickering, Feb. 28, 1811, relating the statement of Temple Franklin to James M. Marshall while in England in 1793.)

[351]When Jefferson resigned, Randolph succeeded him as Secretary of State, and continued in that office until driven out of public life by the famous Fauchet disclosure. William Bradford of Pennsylvania succeeded Randolph as Attorney-General.

[352]Washington to Marshall, Aug. 26, 1795; Washington MSS., Lib. Cong.

[353]Act of 1789,Annals, 1st Cong., 1st Sess., Appendix, 2238.

[354]For Randolph's pathetic account of his struggles to subsist as Attorney-General, see Conway, chap. xv.

[355]The Fairfax purchase. Seeinfra, chap.v.

[356]Marshall to Washington, Aug. 31, 1795; Washington MSS., Lib. Cong.

[357]Seeinfra, chap.v.

[358]Executive Journal, U.S. Senate, i, 81, 82. And see Washington'sDiary: Lossing, 166. Carrington held both of these offices at the same time.

[359]Referring to Marshall's title as General of Virginia Militia. He was called "General" from that time until he became Chief Justice of the United States.

[360]Washington to Carrington, Oct. 9, 1795;Writings: Ford, xiii, 116.

[361]Carrington to Washington, Oct. 2, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong.

[362]Ib.

[363]Carrington to Washington, Oct. 8, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong.

[364]Ib., Oct. 13, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong.

[365]Ib.A passage in this letter clearly shows the Federalist opinion of the young Republican Party and suggests the economic line dividing it from the Federalists. "In the present crisis Mr. H.[enry] may reasonably be calculated on as taking the side of Government, even though he may retain his old prejudices against the Constitution. He has indubitably an abhorrence of Anarchy.... We know too that he is improving his fortune fast, which must additionally attach him to the existing Government & order, the only Guarantees of property. Add to all this, that he has no affection for the present leaders of the opposition in Virga." (Carrington to Washington, Oct. 13, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong.)

[366]Carrington to Washington, Oct. 20, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong. Carrington's correspondence shows that everything was done on Marshall's judgment and that Marshall himself personally handled most of the negotiations. (Seeib., Oct. 28; Oct. 30, 1795.)

[367]American Remembrancer, i, 21et seq.John Thompson was nineteen years old when he delivered this address. His extravagant rhetoric rather than his solid argument is quoted in the text as better illustrating the public temper and prevailing style of oratory. (See sketch of this remarkable young Virginian,infra, chap.x.)

[368]A favorite Republican charge was that the treaty would separate us from France and tie us to Great Britain: "A treaty which children cannot read without discovering that it tends to disunite us from our present ally, and unite us to a government which we abhor, detest and despise." ("An Old Soldier of '76";American Remembrancer, ii, 281.)

[369]American Remembrancer, i, 27.

[370]Seeinfra, chap.v.

[371]Ames to Gore, March 11, 1796;Works: Ames, i, 189.

[372]Annals, 4th Cong., 1st Sess., 1033-34.

[373]Ib., 1063. See Anderson, 41-43. As one of the purchasers of the Fairfax estate, Marshall had a personal interest in the Jay Treaty, though it does not appear that this influenced him in his support of it.

[374]The voting wasviva voce. Seeinfra, chap.x.

[375]Undoubtedly this gentleman was one of the perturbed Federalist managers.

[376]North American Review, xxvi, 22. While this story seems improbable, no evidence has appeared which throws doubt upon it. At any rate, it serves to illustrate Marshall's astonishing popularity.

[377]Carrington's reports to Washington were often absurd in their optimistic inaccuracy. They are typical of those which faithful office-holding politicians habitually make to the appointing power. For instance, Carrington told Washington in 1791 that, after traveling all over Virginia as United States Marshal and Collector of Internal Revenue, he was sure the people were content with Assumption and the whiskey tax (Washington'sDiary: Lossing, footnote to 166), when, as a matter of fact, the State was boiling with opposition to those very measures.

[378]The mingling, in the Republican mind, of the Jay Treaty, Neutrality, unfriendliness to France, and the Federalist Party is illustrated in a toast at a dinner in Lexington, Virginia, to Senator Brown, who had voted against the treaty: "The French Republic—May every power or party who would attempt to throw any obstacle in the way of its independence or happiness receive the reward due to corruption." (Richmond and Manchester Advertiser, Oct. 15, 1795.)

[379]Carrington to Washington, Nov. 10, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong.

[380]Ib., Nov. 13, 1795; MS.; Lib. Cong.

[381]The resolution "was warmly agitated three whole days." (Randolph to Jefferson, Nov. 22, 1795;Works: Ford, viii, footnote to 197.)

[382]Carrington to Washington, Nov. 20, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong.

[383]See debates;Annals, 4th Cong., 1st Sess., 423-1291; also see Petersburg Resolutions;American Remembrancer, i, 102-07.

[384]Thompson's address, Aug. 1, 1795, at Petersburg;ib., 21et seq.

[385]Carrington to Washington, Nov. 20, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong.

[386]Randolph to Jefferson, Nov. 22, 1795;Works: Ford, viii, footnote to 197.

[387]Randolph to Jefferson, Nov. 22, 1795;Works: Ford, viii, footnote to 197.

[388]Ib.

[389]Ib.See Hamilton's dissertation on the treaty-making power in numbers 36, 37, 38, of his "Camillus";Works: Lodge, vi, 160-97.

[390]Marshall to Hamilton, April 25, 1796;Works: Hamilton, vi, 109.

[391]Randolph to Jefferson, Nov. 22, 1795;Works: Ford, viii, 198.

[392]Journal, H.D. (Nov. 20, 1795), 27-28.

[393]Journal, H.D. (Nov. 20, 1795), 28.

[394]Carrington to Washington, Nov. 20, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong.

[395]The italics are mine. "The word 'wisdom' in expressing the confidence of the House in the P.[resident] was so artfully introduced that if the fraudulent design had not been detected in time the vote of the House, as to its effect upon the P. would have been entirely done away.... A resolution so worded as to acquit the P. of all evil intention, but at the same time silently censuring his error, was passed by a majority of 33." (Letter of Jefferson's son-in-law, enclosed by Jefferson to Madison;Works: Ford, viii, footnote to 198.)

[396]Journal, H.D. (Nov. 21, 1795), 29.

[397]Ib.

[398]Journal, H.D. (Nov. 21, 1795), 29.

[399]Jefferson to Madison, Nov. 26, 1795;Works: Ford, viii, 197-98.

[400]Randall, ii, 36.

[401]Journal, H.D. (1795), 72.

[402]Journal, H.D. (1795), 50.

[403]Ib., 53.

[404]Ib., 79.

[405]Ib., 90.

[406]Ib., 91-92.

[407]Carrington to Washington, Dec. 6, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong.

[408]Journal, H.D. (Dec. 12, 1795), 91-92.

[409]Carrington to Washington, Feb. 24, 1796; MS., Lib. Cong.

[410]Dodd, 39.

[411]Lee to Washington, July 7, 1796;Writings: Sparks, xi, 487.

[412]Washington to Marshall, July 8, 1796; Washington MSS., Lib. Cong.

[413]Marshall to Washington, July 11, 1796;ib.

[414]Washington to Marshall, July 15, 1796; Washington's Private Letter Book; MS., Lib. Cong.

[415]Washington to Marshall, Oct. 10, 1796;ib.

[416]Marshall to Washington, Oct. 12, 1796; Washington MSS., Lib. Cong.

[417]Genêt's successor as French Minister to the United States.

[418]Interesting State Papers, 48et seq.

[419]Interesting State Papers, 55.

[420]For able defense of Randolph see Conway, chap. xxiii; butcontra, see Gibbs, i, chap. ix.

[421]Patterson of New Jersey, Johnson of Maryland, C. C. Pinckney of South Carolina, Patrick Henry of Virginia, and Rufus King of New York. (Washington to Hamilton, Oct. 29, 1795;Writings: Ford, xiii, 129-30.) King declined because of the abuse heaped upon public officers. (Hamilton to Washington, Nov. 5, 1795;ib., footnote to 130.)

[422]Washington to Hamilton, Oct. 29, 1795;Writings: Ford, xiii, 131.

[423]For debate seeAnnals, 4th Cong., 1st Sess., 423-1291.

[424]Carrington to Washington, May 9, 1796; MS., Lib. Cong.

[425]Oliver Wolcott to his father, Feb. 12, 1791; Gibbs, i, 62.

[426]Hamilton to King, June 20, 1795;Works: Lodge, x, 103.

[427]Washington to Knox, Sept. 20, 1795;Writings: Ford, xiii, 105-06.

[428]Carrington to the President, April 22, 1796;Writings: Ford, xiii, footnote to 185.

[429]Washington to Carrington, May 1, 1796;ib., 185.

[430]Ib., 186.

[431]Story, in Dillon, iii, 352.

[432]Senator Stephen Thompson Mason wrote privately to Tazewell that the Fairfax purchasers and British merchants were the only friends of the treaty in Virginia. (Anderson, 42.)

[433]Alexander Campbell. (Seeinfra, chap.v.)

[434]Randolph to Madison, Richmond, April 25, 1796; Conway, 362. Only freeholders could vote.

[435]Marshall to Hamilton, April 25, 1796;Works: Hamilton, vi, 109.

[436]Author unknown.

[437]Richmond and Manchester Advertiser, April 27, 1796.

[438]Carrington to the President, April 27, 1796; MS., Lib. Cong.

[439]Marshall to King, April 25, 1796; King, ii, 45-46.

[440]Washington to Thomas Pinckney, May 22, 1796;Writings: Ford, xiii, 208.

[441]Robert Morris to James M. Marshall, May 1, 1796; Morris's Private Letter Book; MS., Lib. Cong.

[442]Story, in Dillon, iii, 350.

[443]Marshall to King, April 19, 1796; Hamilton MSS., Lib. Cong. Hamilton, it seems, had also asked Marshall to make overtures to Patrick Henry for the Presidency. (King, ii, footnote to 46.) But no correspondence between Hamilton and Marshall upon this subject has been discovered. Marshall's correspondence about Henry was with King.

[444]Marshall to King, May 24, 1796; King, ii, 48.

[445]For an accurate description of the unparalleled abuse of Washington, see McMaster, ii, 249-50, 289-91, 302-06.

[446]Marshall, ii, 391-92. Also see Washington to Pickering, March 3, 1797;Writings: Ford, xiii, 378-80; and to Gordon, Oct. 15;ib., 427.

[447]Journal, H.D. (1796), 46-47; MS. Archives, Va. St. Lib.

[448]Journal, H.D. (1796), 153; MS. Archives, Va. St. Lib.

[449]Ib.

[450]Ib.This amendment is historically important for another reason. It is the first time that the Virginia Legislature refers to that Commonwealth as a "State" in contra-distinction to the country. Although the Journal shows that this important motion was passed, the manuscript draft of the resolution signed by the presiding officer of both Houses does not show the change. (MS. Archives, Va. St. Lib.)

[451]Story, in Dillon, iii, 355. Marshall's account was inaccurate, as we have seen. His memory was confused as to the vote in the two contests (supra), a very natural thing after the lapse of twenty years. In the first contest the House of Delegates voted overwhelmingly against including the word "wisdom" in the resolutions; and on the Senate amendment restored it by a dangerously small majority. On the second contest in 1796, when Marshall declares that Washington's friends won "by a very small majority," they were actually defeated.

[452]Journal, H. D., 153-90.

[453]Aurora, Monday, March 5, 1797. This paper, expressing Republican hatred of Washington, had long been assailing him. For instance, on October 24, 1795, a correspondent, in the course of a scandalous attack upon the President, said: "The consecrated ermine of Presidential chastity seems too foul for time itself to bleach." (See Cobbett, i, 411; andib., 444, where theAurorais represented as having said that "Washington has the ostentation of an eastern bashaw.") From August to September theAurorahad accused Washington of peculation. (See "Calm Observer" inAurora, Oct. 23 to Nov. 5, 1795.)

[454]Henry to his daughter, Aug. 20, 1796; Henry, ii, 569-70. Henry was now an enemy of Jefferson and his dislike was heartily reciprocated.

[455]Washington to Jefferson, July 6, 1796;Writings: Ford, xiii, 230-31. This letter is in answer to a letter from Jefferson denying responsibility for the publication of a Cabinet paper in theAurora. (Jefferson to Washington, June 19, 1796;Works: Ford, viii, 245; and see Marshall, ii, 390-91.) Even in Congress Washington did not escape. In the debate over the last address of the National Legislature to the President, Giles of Virginia declared that Washington had been "neither wise nor firm." He did not think "so much of the President." He "wished him to retire ... the government of the United States could go on very well without him." (Annals, 4th Cong., 2d Sess. (Dec. 14, 1796), 1614-18.) On the three roll-calls and passage of the address Giles voted against Washington. (Ib., 1666-68.) So did Andrew Jackson, a new member from Tennessee. (Ib.)The unpopularity of Washington's Administration led to the hostile policy of Bache's paper, largely as a matter of business. This provident editor became fiercely "Republican" because, as he explained to his relative, Temple Franklin, in England, he "could not [otherwise] maintain his family," and "he had determined to adopt a bold experiment and to come out openly against the Administration. He thought the public temper would bear it." (Marshall to Pickering, Feb. 28, 1811, relating the statement of Temple Franklin to James M. Marshall while in England in 1793.)

The unpopularity of Washington's Administration led to the hostile policy of Bache's paper, largely as a matter of business. This provident editor became fiercely "Republican" because, as he explained to his relative, Temple Franklin, in England, he "could not [otherwise] maintain his family," and "he had determined to adopt a bold experiment and to come out openly against the Administration. He thought the public temper would bear it." (Marshall to Pickering, Feb. 28, 1811, relating the statement of Temple Franklin to James M. Marshall while in England in 1793.)

Tall, meagre, emaciated, his muscles relaxed, his joints loosely connected, his head small, his complexion swarthy, his countenance expressing great good humor and hilarity. (William Wirt.)Mr. Marshall can hardly be regarded as a learned lawyer. (Gustavus Schmidt.)His head is one of the best organized of any I have known. (Rufus King.)

Tall, meagre, emaciated, his muscles relaxed, his joints loosely connected, his head small, his complexion swarthy, his countenance expressing great good humor and hilarity. (William Wirt.)

Mr. Marshall can hardly be regarded as a learned lawyer. (Gustavus Schmidt.)

His head is one of the best organized of any I have known. (Rufus King.)

On a pleasant summer morning when the cherries were ripe, a tall, ungainly man in early middle life sauntered along a Richmond street. His long legs were encased in knee breeches, stockings, and shoes of the period; and about his gaunt, bony frame hung a roundabout or short linen jacket. Plainly, he had paid little attention to his attire. He was bareheaded and his unkempt hair was tied behind in a queue. He carried his hat under his arm, and it was full of cherries which the owner was eating as he sauntered idly along.[456]Mr. Epps's hotel (The Eagle) faced the street along which this negligently appareled person was making his leisurely way. He greeted the landlord as he approached, cracked a joke in passing, and rambled on in his unhurried walk.

At the inn was an old gentleman from the country who had come to Richmond where a lawsuit, to which he was a party, was to be tried. The venerable litigant had a hundred dollars to pay to the lawyer who should conduct the case, a very large fee for thosedays. Who was the best lawyer in Richmond, asked he of his host? "The man who just passed us, John Marshall by name," said the tavern-keeper. But the countryman would have none of Marshall. His appearance did not fill the old man's idea of a practitioner before the courts. He wanted, for his hundred dollars, a lawyer who looked like a lawyer. He would go to the court-room itself and there ask for further recommendation. But again he was told by the clerk of the court to retain Marshall, who, meanwhile, had ambled into the court-room.

But no! This searcher for a legal champion would use his own judgment. Soon a venerable, dignified person, solemn of face, with black coat and powdered wig, entered the room. At once the planter retained him. The client remained in the court-room, it appears, to listen to the lawyers in the other cases that were ahead of his own. Thus he heard the pompous advocate whom he had chosen; and then, in astonishment, listened to Marshall.

The attorney of impressive appearance turned out to be so inferior to the eccentric-looking advocate that the planter went to Marshall, frankly told him the circumstances, and apologized. Explaining that he had but five dollars left, the troubled old farmer asked Marshall whether he would conduct his case for that amount. With a kindly jest about the power of a black coat and a powdered wig, Marshall good-naturedly accepted.[457]

This not too highly colored story is justified by all reports of Marshall that have come down to us. It is some such picture that we must keep before us as we follow this astonishing man in the henceforth easy and giant, albeit accidental, strides of his great career. John Marshall, after he had become the leading lawyer of Virginia, and, indeed, throughout his life, was the simple, unaffected man whom the tale describes. Perhaps consciousness of his own strength contributed to his disregard of personal appearance and contempt for studied manners. For Marshall knew that he carried heavier guns than other men. "No one," says Story, who knew him long and intimately, "ever possessed a more entire sense of his own extraordinary talents ... than he."[458]

Marshall's most careful contemporary observer, William Wirt, tells us that Marshall was "in his person, tall, meagre, emaciated; his muscles relaxed and his joints so loosely connected, as not only to disqualify him, apparently, for any vigorous exertion of body, but to destroy everything like elegance and harmony in his air and movements.

"Indeed, in his whole appearance, and demeanour; dress, attitudes, gesture; sitting, standing, or walking; he is as far removed from the idolized graces of lord Chesterfield, as any other gentleman on earth.

"To continue the portrait; his head and face are small in proportion to his height; his complexion swarthy; the muscles of his face being relaxed; ...his countenance has a faithful expression of great good humour and hilarity; while his black eyes—that unerring index—possess an irradiating spirit which proclaims the imperial powers of the mind that sits enthroned within....

"His voice is dry, and hard; his attitude, in his most effective orations, often extremely awkward; as it was not unusual for him to stand with his left foot in advance, while all his gesture proceeded from his right arm, and consisted merely in a vehement, perpendicular swing of it from about the elevation of his head to the bar, behind which he was accustomed to stand."[459]

During all the years of clamorous happenings, from the great Virginia Convention of 1788 down to the beginning of Adams's Administration and in the midst of his own active part in the strenuous politics of the time, Marshall practiced his profession, although intermittently. However, during the critical three weeks of plot and plan, debate and oratory in the famous month of June, 1788, he managed to do some "law business": while Virginia's Constitutional Convention was in session, he received twenty fees, most of them of one and two pounds and the largest from "ColọW. Miles Cary 6.4." He drew a deed for his fellow member of the Convention, James Madison, while the Convention was in session, for which he charged his colleague one pound and four shillings.

But there was no time for card-playing during this notable month and no whist or backgammon entries appear in Marshall's Account Book. Earlier in the year we find such social expenses as "Card table 5.10 Cards 8/ paper 2/-6" and "expenses and loss at billiards at difttimes 3" (pounds). In September, 1788, occurs the first entry for professional literature, "Law books 20/-1"; but a more important book purchase was that of "Mazai's book sur les etats unis[460]18" (shillings), an entry which shows that some of Marshall's family could read French.[461]

Marshall's law practice during this pivotal year was fairly profitable. He thus sums up his earnings and outlay, "Recḍin the year 1788 1169.05; and expended in year 1788, 515-13-7" which left Marshall more than 653 pounds or about $1960 Virginia currency clear profit for the year.[462]

The following year (1789) he did a little better, his net profit being a trifle over seven hundred pounds, or about $2130 Virginia currency. In 1790 he earned a few shillings more than 1427 pounds and had about $2400 Virginia currency remaining, after paying all expenses. In 1791 he did not do so well, yet he cleared over $2200 Virginia currency. In 1792 his earnings fell off a good deal, yet he earned more than he expended, over 402 pounds (a little more than $1200 Virginia currency).

In 1793 Marshall was slightly more successful, buthis expenses also increased, and he ended this year with a trifle less than 400 pounds clear profit. He makes no summary in 1794, but his Account Book shows that he no more than held his own. This business barometer does not register beyond the end of 1795,[463]and there is no further evidence than the general understanding current in Richmond as to the amount of his earnings after this date. La Rochefoucauld reported in 1797 that "Mr. Marshall does not, from his practice, derive above four or five thousand dollars per annum and not even that sum every year."[464]We may take this as a trustworthy estimate of Marshall's income; for the noble French traveler and student was thorough in his inquiries and took great pains to verify his statements.

In 1789 Marshall bought the tract of land amounting to an entire city "square" of two acres,[465]on which, four years later, he built the comfortable brick residence where he lived, while in Richmond, during the remainder of his life. This house still stands (1916) and is in excellent repair. It contains nine rooms, most of them commodious, and one of them of generous dimensions where Marshall gave the "lawyer dinners" which, later, became so celebrated. This structure was one of a number of the important houses of Richmond.[466]Near by were the residences of Colonel Edward Carrington, Daniel Call, an excellent lawyer, and George Fisher, a wealthy merchant; these men had married the three sisters of Marshall's wife. The house of Jacquelin Ambler was also one of this cluster of dwellings. So that Marshall was in daily association with four men to whom he was related by marriage, a not negligible circumstance; for every one of them was a strong and successful man, and all of them were, like Marshall, pronounced Federalists. Their views and tastes were the same, they mutually aided and supported one another; and Marshall was, of course, the favorite of this unusual family group.

In the same locality lived the Leighs, Wickhams, Ronalds, and others, who, with those just mentioned, formed the intellectual and social aristocracy of the little city.[467]Richmond grew rapidly during the first two decades that Marshall lived there. From the village of a few hundred people abiding in small wooden houses, in 1783, the Capital became, in 1795, a vigorous town of six thousand inhabitants, dwelling mostly in attractive brick residences.[468]This architectural transformation was occasioned by a fire which, in 1787, destroyed most of the buildings in Richmond.[469]Business kept pace with the growth of the city, wealth gradually and healthfully accumulated, and the comforts of life appeared. Marshall steadily wove his activities into those of the developing Virginia metropolis and his prosperity increased in moderate and normal fashion.

Back to Index Next