The Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776
When in the course of human events, it becomes
necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected
them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and
equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitles them, a
decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the
causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any
form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the
people to alter or to abolish it and to institute new government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them
shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Prudence, indeed,
will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light
and transient causes; and accordingly, all experience hath shown that mankind
are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves
by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of
abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design
to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty,
to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future
security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is
now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of
governments. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of
repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the
establishment of an absolute tyranny over these States. To prove this, let
facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his assent to laws, the most
wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass laws of
immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his
assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to
attend to them.
He has refused to pass other laws for the
accommodation of large districts of people unless those people would relinquish
the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and
formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places
unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public
records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his
measures.
He has dissolved representative Houses repeatedly
for opposing with manly firmness his invasion on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such
dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers,
incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their
exercise; the State remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of
invasion from without and convulsions within.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these
States; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners;
refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the
conditions of new appropriations of lands.
He has obstructed the administration of justice by
refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.
He has made judges dependent on his will alone for
the tenure of their offices and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of new offices and sent
hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing
armies without the consent of our legislature.
He has affected to render the military independent
of and superior to the civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a
jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving
his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among
us:
For protecting them, by a mock trial, from
punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these
States:
For cutting off our trade with all parts of the
world:
For imposing taxes on us without our consent:
For depriving us in many cases of the benefits of
trial by jury:
For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for
pretended offenses:
For abolishing the free system of English laws in a
neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and
enlarging its boundaries so as to ren-der it at once an example and fit
instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our charters, abolishing our most
valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:
For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves
invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated government here, by declaring us
out of his protection and waging war against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt
our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large armies of
foreign mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny,
already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in
the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive
on the high Seas to bear Arms against their country, to become the executioners
of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us,
and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless
Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction
of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these oppressions we have
petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated petitions have
been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked
by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free
people.
Nor have we been wanting in attentions to our
Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their
legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded
them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have
appealed to their native justice and magnanimity and we have conjured them by
the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations which would
inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They, too, have been
deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore,
acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation and hold them, as we
hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United
States of America, in general Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme
Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by
the authority of the good people of these Colonies, solemnly publish and
declare that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and
independent States; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British
Crown and that all political connection between them and the State of Great
Britain is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent
States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliance,
establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent States
may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance
on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our
lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.
----------------------------------------------------------
The
First Supreme Court Chief Justice and former President of the Confederacy of
the United States, John Jay on the right to war and its circumstance justifications:
Hat Tip to David Barton @ Wallbuilders
That
all those wars and fightings are unlawful, which proceed from culpable desires
and designs (or in Scripture language from lusts), on the one side or on the
other, is too clear to require proof. As to wars of an opposite description,
and many such there have been, I believe they are as lawful to the unoffending
party in our days, as they were in the days of Abraham. He waged war against
and defeated the five kings. He piously dedicated a tenth of the spoils; and,
instead of being blamed, was blessed.
What
should we think of a human legislator who should authorize or encourage
infractions of his own laws ? If wars of every kind and description are
prohibited by the moral law, I see no way of reconciling such a prohibition
with those parts of Scripture which record institutions, declarations, and
interpositions of the Almighty which manifestly evince the contrary. If every
war is sinful, how did it happen that the sin of waging any war is not
specified among the numerous sins and offenses which are mentioned and reproved
in both the Testaments?
To
collect and arrange the many facts and arguments which relate to this subject
would require more time and application than I am able to bestow. The
aforegoing are hinted merely to exhibit some of the reasons on which my opinion
rests.
It
certainly is very desirable that a pacific disposition should prevail among all
nations. The most effectual way of producing it is by extending the prevalence
and influence of the gospel. Real Christians will abstain from violating the
rights of others, and therefore will not provoke war.
Almost
all nations have peace or war at the will and pleasure of rulers whom they do
not elect, and who are not always wise or virtuous. Providence has given to our
people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege
and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.
[elsewhere he continued in greater detail]
...
The moral or natural law was given by
the Sovereign of the universe to all mankind; with them it was co-eval, and
with them it will be co-existent. Being rounded by infinite wisdom and goodness
on essential right, which never varies, it can require no amendment or
alteration.
Divine positive ordinances and
institutions, on the other hand, being founded on expediency, which is not
always perpetual or immutable, admit of, and have received, alteration and
limitation in sundry instances.
There were several Divine positive
ordinances and institutions at very early periods. Some of them were of limited
obligation, as circumcision; others of them were of universal obligation, as
the Sabbath, marriage, sacrifices, the particular punishment for murder.
…. I advert to this distinction between
the moral law and positive institutions, because it enables us to distinguish
the reasonings which apply to the one, from those which apply only to the
other—ordinances being mutable, but the moral law always the same.
To this you observe, by way of
objection, that the law was given by Moses, but that grace and truth came by
Jesus Christ; and hence that, even as it relates to the moral law, a more
perfect system is enjoined by the gospel than was required under the law, which
admitted of an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, tolerating a spirit of
retaliation.
… Mercy, and grace, and favor did come
by Jesus Christ; and also that truth which verified the promises and
predictions concerning him, and which exposed and corrected the various errors
which had been imbibed respecting the Supreme Being, his attributes, laws, and
dispensations. Uninspired commentators have dishonored the law, by ascribing to
it, in certain cases, a sense and meaning which it did not authorize, and which
our Savior rejected and reproved.
The inspired prophets, on the contrary,
express the most exalted ideas of the law. They declare that the law of the
Lord is perfect, that the statutes of the Lord are right; and that the
commandment of the Lord is pure; that God would magnify the law and make it
honorable, etc.
Our Savior himself assures us that he
came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill; that whoever
shall do and teach the commandments, shall be called great in the kingdom of
heaven; that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the
law to fail. This certainly amounts to a full approbation of it. Even after the
resurrection of our Lord, and after the descent of the Holy Spirit, and after the
miraculous conversion of Paul, and after the direct revelation of the Christian
dispensation to him, he pronounced this memorable encomium on the law, viz.:
“The law is holy, and the commandments holy, just, and good.”
It is true that one of the positive
ordinances of Moses, to which you allude, did ordain retaliation, or, in other
words, a tooth for a tooth. But we are to recollect that it was ordained, not
as a rule to regulate the conduct of private individuals towards each other,
but as a legal penalty or punishment for certain offenses. Retaliation is also
manifest in the punishment prescribed for murder—life for life. Legal
punishments are adjusted and inflicted by the law and magistrate, and not by
unauthorized individuals. These and all other positive laws or ordinances
established by Divine direction, must of necessity be consistent with the moral
law. It certainly was not the design of the law or ordinance in question, to
encourage a spirit of personal or private revenge. On the contrary, there are
express injunctions in the law of Moses which inculcate a very different
spirit; such as these: “Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the
children of thy people; but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” “Love the
stranger, for ye were strangers in Egypt.” “If thou meet thy enemy’s ox or his
ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him,” etc., etc.
… That the patriarchs sometimes
violated the moral law, is a position not to be disputed. They were men, and
subject to the frailties of our fallen nature. But I do not know nor believe,
that any of them violated the moral law by the authority or with the
approbation of the Almighty. I can find no instance of it in the Bible. Nor do
I know of any action done according to the moral law, that is censured or
forbidden by the gospel. On the contrary, it appears to me that the gospel
strongly enforces the whole moral law, and clears it from the vain traditions
and absurd comments which had obscured and misapplied certain parts of it.
As, therefore, Divine ordinances did
authorize just war, as those ordinances were necessarily consistent with the
moral law, and as the moral law is incorporated in the Christian dispensation,
I think it follows that the right to wage just and necessary war is admitted,
and not abolished, by the gospel.
You seem to doubt whether there ever
was a just war, and that it would puzzle even Solomon to find one.
Had such a doubt been proposed to
Solomon, an answer to it would probably have been suggested to him by a very
memorable and interesting war which occurred in his day. I allude to the war in
which his brother Absalom on the one side, and his father David on the other,
were the belligerent parties. That war was caused by, and proceeded from, “the
lusts” of Absalom, and was horribly wicked. But the war waged against him by
David was not caused by, nor did proceed from, “the lusts” of David, but was
right, just, and necessary. Had David submitted to be dethroned by his
detestable son, he would, in my opinion, have violated his moral duty and
betrayed his official trust.
Although just war is not forbidden by
the gospel in express terms, yet you think an implied prohibition of all war,
without exception, is deducible from the answer of our Lord to Pilate, viz.:
“If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight,” etc.
At the conclusion of the Last Supper,
our Lord said to his disciples: “He that hath no sword, let him now sell his
garment and buy one,” They answered: “Lord, here are two swords.” He replied:
“It is enough.”
It is not to be presumed that our Lord
would have ordered swords to be provided, but for some purpose for which a
sword was requisite; nor that he would have been satisfied with two, if more
had been necessary.
Whatever may have been the purposes for
which swords were ordered, it is certain that the use of one of those swords
soon caused an event which confirmed the subsequent defense of our Lord before
Pilate, and also produced other important results. When the officers and their
band arrived, with swords and with staves, to take Jesus, they who were about
him saw what would follow. “They said unto him: Lord, shall we smite with the
sword?” It does not appear that any of the eleven disciples who were with him, except
one, made the least attempt to defend him. But Peter, probably inferring from
the order for swords, that they were now to be used, proceeded to “smite a
servant of the high-priest, and cut off his right ear.” Jesus (perhaps, among
other reasons, to abate inducements to prosecute Peter for that violent attack)
healed the ear.
He ordered Peter to put his sword into
its sheath, and gave two reasons for it. The first related to himself, and
amounted to this, that he would make no opposition, saying: “The cup which my
Father hath given me, shall I not drink?” The second related to Peter, viz.,
they who take the sword, shall perish by the sword; doubtless meaning that they
who take and use a sword, as Peter had just done, without lawful authority, and
against lawful authority, incur the penalty and risk of perishing by the sword.
This meaning seems to be attached to those words by the occasion and
circumstances which prompted them. If understood in their unlimited latitude,
they would contradict the experience and testimony of all ages, it being
manifest that many military men die peaceably in their beds.
The disciples did believe and expect
that Jesus had come to establish a temporal kingdom. “They trusted that it had
been he which should have redeemed Israel.” “They knew not the Scripture, that
he must rise again from the dead; questioning one with another what the rising
from the dead should mean.” Even after his resurrection, they appear to have
entertained the same belief and expectation; for on the very day he ascended,
they asked him: “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”
The order for swords, and the
declaration that two were enough, tended to confirm that belief and
expectation, and to inspire a confidence that he who had commanded the winds
and the waves, and had raised the dead to life, was able, as well as willing,
to render the two swords sufficient to vanquish his enemies. Could anything
less than such a firm belief and confidence have prompted eleven such men, and
with only two swords among them, to offer to “smite with the sword” the armed
band, which, under officers appointed by the Jewish rulers, had come to
apprehend their Master?
Great must have been the disappointment
and astonishment of the disciples, when Jesus unexpectedly and peaceably
submitted to the power and malice of his enemies, directing Peter to sheath his
sword, and hinting to him the danger he had incurred by drawing it: amazed and
terrified, they forsook him and fled. This catastrophe so surprised and subdued
the intrepidity of Peter, that he was no longer “ready to go with his Master to
prison and to death.”
It seems that perplexity,
consternation, and tumultuous feelings overwhelmed his faith and reflection,
and that his agitations, receiving fresh excitement from the danger and dread
of discovery, which soon after ensued, impelled him with heedless precipitation
to deny his Master. This denial proved bitter to Peter, and it taught him and
others that spiritual strength can be sustained only by the spiritual bread
which cometh down from heaven.
The Jews accused Jesus before Pilate of
aspiring to the temporal sovereignty of their nation, in violation of the legal
rights of Caesar. Jesus, in his defense, admitted that he was king, but
declared that his kingdom was not of this world. For the truth of this
assertion, he appealed to the peaceable behavior of his adherents, saying:” If
my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not
be delivered to the Jews, but now is my kingdom not from hence.”
Pilate, who doubtless well knew what
had been the conduct of Jesus, both before and at the time of his apprehension,
was satisfied, but the Jews were not. They exclaimed: “If thou let this man go,
thou art not Caesar’s friend; whosoever maketh himself a king, speaketh against
Caesar.” “We have no king but Caesar.”
You and I understand the words in
question very differently. Is there the least reason to infer from the belief
and conduct of the disciples, that they were restrained from fighting by the
consideration that their Master’s kingdom was not of this world? On the
contrary, did they not believe and expect that he had come to restore one of
the kingdoms of this world to Israel? The fact is, that they were ready and
willing to fight. Did they not ask him: “Lord, shall we smite with the sword?”
It was his will, therefore, and not their will, which restrained them from
fighting; and for that restraint he assigned a very conclusive reason, viz.,
because his kingdom was not of this world.
To the advancement and support of his
spiritual sovereignty over his spiritual kingdom, soldiers and swords and
corporeal exertions were inapplicable and useless. But, on the other hand,
soldiers and swords and corporeal exertions are necessary to enable the several
temporal rulers of the states and kingdoms of this world to maintain their
authority and protect themselves and their people; and our Savior expressly
declared that if his kingdom had been of this world, then would his servants
fight to protect him; or, in other words, that then, and in that case, he would
not have restrained them from fighting. The lawfulness of such fighting,
therefore, instead of being denied, is admitted and confirmed by that
declaration.
This exposition coincides with the
answer given by John the Baptist (who was “filled with the Holy Ghost”) to the
soldiers who asked him what they should do, viz.: “Do violence to no man,
neither accuse any falsely, and be content with your wages.” Can these words be
rationally understood as meaning that they should receive wages for nothing; or
that, when ordered to march against the enemy, they should refuse to proceed;
or that, on meeting the enemy, they should either run away, or passively submit
to be captured or slaughtered? This would be attaching a meaning to his answer
very foreign to the sense of the words in which he expressed it.
Had the gospel regarded war as being in
every case sinful, it seems strange that the apostle Paul should have been so
unguarded as, in teaching the importance of faith, to use an argument which
clearly proves the lawfulness of war, viz.: “That it was through faith that
Gideon, David, and others waxed valiant in fight, and turned to flight the
armies of aliens”; thereby confirming the declaration of David, that it was God
who had “girded him with strength to battle; and had taught his hands to war,
and his fingers to fight.”
The gospel appears to me to consider
the servants of Christ as having two capacities or characters, with
correspondent duties to sustain and fulfill.
Being subjects of his spiritual
kingdom, they are bound in that capacity to fight, pursuant to his orders, with
spiritual weapons, against his and their spiritual enemies.
Being also subjects and partakers in
the rights and interests of a temporal or worldly state or kingdom, they are in
that capacity bound, whenever lawfully required, to fight with weapons in just
and necessary war, against the worldly enemies of that state or kingdom.
Another view may be taken of the
subject. The depravity which mankind inherited from their first parents,
introduced wickedness into the world. That wickedness rendered human government
necessary to restrain the violence and injustice resulting from it. To
facilitate the establishment and administration of government, the human race
became, in the course of Providence, divided into separate and distinct
nations. Every nation instituted a government, with authority and power to
protect it against domestic and foreign aggressions. Each government provided
for the internal peace and security of the nation, by laws for punishing their
offending subjects. The law of all the nations prescribed the conduct which
they were to observe towards each other, and allowed war to be waged by an
innocent against an offending nation, when rendered just and necessary by
unprovoked, atrocious, and unredressed injuries.
Thus two kinds of justifiable warfare
arose: one against domestic malefactors; the other against foreign aggressors.
The first being regulated by the law of the land; the second by the law of
nations; and both consistently with the moral law.
As to the first species of warfare, in
every state or kingdom, the government or executive ruler has, throughout all
ages, pursued, and often at the expense of blood, attacked, captured, and
subdued murderers, robbers, and other offenders; by force confining them in
chains and in prisons, and by force inflicting on them punishment; never
rendering to them good for evil, for that duty attaches to individuals in their
personal or private capacities, but not to rulers or magistrates in their
official capacities. This species of war has constantly and universally been
deemed just and indispensable. On this topic the gospel is explicit. It
commands us to obey the higher powers or ruler. It reminds us that “he beareth
not the sword in vain”; that “he is the minister of God, and a revenger to
execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” Now, if he is not to bear the sward in
vain, it follows that he is to use it to execute wrath on evildoers, and
consequently to draw blood and to kill on proper occasions.
As to the second species of warfare, it
certainly is as reasonable and as right that a nation be secure against
injustice, disorder, and rapine from without as from within; and therefore it
is the right and duty of the government or ruler to use force and the sword to
protect and maintain the rights of his people against evildoers of another
nation. The reason and necessity of using force and the sword being the same in
both cases, the right or the law must be the same also.
We are commanded to render to our
government, or to our Caesar, “the things that are Caesar’s” that is, the
things which belong to him, and not the things which do not belong to him. And
surely this command cannot be construed to intend or imply that we ought to
render to the Caesar of another nation more than belongs to him.
In case some powerful Caesar should
demand of us to receive and obey a king of his nomination, and unite with him
in all his wars, or that he would commence hostilities against us, what answer
would it be proper for us to give to such a demand? In my opinion, we ought to
refuse, and vigorously defend our independence by arms. To what other expedient
could we have recourse? I cannot think that the gospel authorizes or encourages
us, on such an occasion, to abstain from resistance, and to expect miracles to
deliver us.
A very feeble unprepared nation, on
receiving such a demand, might hesitate and find it expedient to adopt the
policy intimated in the gospel, viz.: “What king, going to war against another
king, sitteth not down first and consulteth whether he be able with ten
thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand; or else he
sendeth an embassage, and desireth conditions of peace “—that is, makes the
best bargain he can.
If the United States should unanimously
resolve never more to use the sword, would a certified copy of it prove to be
an effectual Mediterranean passport? Would it reform the predatory rulers of
Africa, or persuade the successive potentates of Europe to observe towards us
the conduct of real Christians? On the contrary, would it not present new
facilities, and consequently produce new excitements, to the gratification of
avarice and ambition?
It is true that even just war is
attended with evils, and so likewise is the administration of government and of
justice; but is that a good reason for abolishing either of them? They are
means by which greater evils are averted. Among the various means necessary to
obviate or remove, or repress, or to mitigate the various calamities, dangers,
and exigencies, to which in this life we are exposed, how few are to be found
which do not subject us to troubles, privations, and inconveniences of one kind
or other. To prevent the incursion or continuance of evils, we must submit to
the use of those means, whether agreeable or otherwise, which reason and
experience prescribe.
It is also true, and to be lamented, that
war, however just and necessary, sends many persons out of this world who are
ill prepared for a better. And so also does the law in all countries. So also
does navigation, and other occupations. Are they therefore all sinful and
forbidden?
However desirable the abolition of all
wars may be, yet until the morals and manners of mankind are greatly changed,
it will be found impracticable. We are taught that national sins will be
punished, and war is one of the punishments. The prophets predict wars at so late
a period as the restoration of the Israelites. Who or what can hinder the
occurrence of those wars?
I nevertheless believe, and have
perfect faith in the prophecy, that the time will come when “the nations will
beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; when
nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any
more.” But does not this prophecy clearly imply, and give us plainly to
understand, that in the meanwhile, and until the arrival of that blessed
period, the nations will not beat their swords into plowshares, nor their
spears into pruning-hooks; that nation will not forbear to lift up sword
against nation, nor cease to learn war?
It may be asked, Are we to do nothing
to hasten the arrival of that happy period? Literally, no created being can
either accelerate or retard its arrival. It will not arrive sooner nor later
than the appointed time.
There certainly is reason to expect,
that as great providential events have usually been preceded and introduced by
the intervention of providential means to prepare the way for them, so the
great event in question will be preceded and introduced in like manner. It is,
I think, more than probable, that the unexpected and singular cooperation and
the extra ordinary zeal and efforts of almost all Christian nations to extend
the light and knowledge of the gospel, and to inculcate its doctrines, are
among those preparatory means. It is the duty of Christians to promote the
prevalence and success of such means, and to look forward with faith and hope
to the result of them.
But whatever may be the time or the
means adopted by Providence for the abolition of war, I think we may, without
presumption, conclude that mankind must be prepared and fitted for the
reception, enjoyment, and preservation of universal permanent peace, before
they will be blessed with it. Are they as yet fitted for it? Certainly not.
Even if it was practicable, would it be wise to disarm the good before “the
wicked cease from troubling?” By what other means than arms and military force
can unoffending rulers and nations protect their rights against unprovoked
aggressions from within and from without? Are there any other means to which
they could recur, and on the efficacy of which they could rely? To this
question I have not as yet heard, nor seen, a direct and precise answer.
. . . .
Source: The Correspondence and Public
Papers of John Jay, Henry Johnston, editor (New York: G. P. Punam's Sons,
1893), Vol. IV, pp. 391-393, 403-419, letters to John Murray, October 12, 1816
and April 15, 1818.
-------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment