CHAPTER XII

THE STRATEGY OF VICTORY

Washington's influence carried this government [Virginia's ratification of the Constitution]. (Monroe to Jefferson, July 12, 1788.)

If I shall be in the minority, I shall have those painful sensations which arise from a conviction of _being overpowered in a good cause_. Yet I will be a peaceable citizen. (Henry, in his last debate.)

Now came the real tug-of-war. The debate on the Judiciary was the climax of the fight. And here John Marshall was given the place of chief combatant. The opposition felt that again they might influence one or two delegates by mere debate, and they prepared to attack with all their might. "Tomorrow the Judiciary comes on when we [Anti-Constitutionalists] shall exert our whole force. It is expected we shall get two Votes if the point is conducted in an able & masterly manner," Grayson advised the opposition headquarters in New York.[1298]

The Judiciary was, indeed, the weakest part of the Constitutionalists' battle line. The large amount of the British debts; the feeling, which Virginia's legislation against the payment of them had fostered, that the day would be far distant and perhaps would never come when those debts would have to be paid; the provision of the Constitution concerning the making of treaties, which were to be the supreme law of the land; the certainty that the Treaty of Peace would be covered by the new fundamental law; the fear that another treaty would be negotiated governing the British obligations more specifically, if the Constitution were adopted; the fact that such a treaty and all other National laws would be enforced by National Courts--all these and many other germane considerations, such as land grants and confused titles, were focused on the fears of the planters.

The creditor class were equally anxious and alarmed. "If the new Constitution should not be adopted or something similar, we are of the opinion that such is the interest and influence of Debtors in our State that every thing ... will be at Risk" was the opinion of the legal representatives in Virginia of the Collins mercantile house.[1299]

Great quantities of land granted under the Royal Government by Great Britain, but which the State had confiscated, had been bought and settled by thousands of men whose families now lived upon this land; and these settlers felt that, in some way, their titles would be in danger if they were dragged before a National Court.[1300]

The Constitutionalists did not underestimate their peril, and at no point during the three weeks' debate did they prepare for battle with greater care. They returned to their original tactics and delivered the first blow. Pendleton, of course, was the ideal man to lead the Constitutionalist attack. And never in his whole life did that extraordinary man make a more convincing argument.[1301] Mason tried his best to answer Pendleton, although he admitted that the Judiciary "lies out of my line." Still he was clear, in his own mind, that the National Judiciary was "so constructed as to destroy the dearest rights of the community," and thought it would "destroy the state governments, whatever may have been the intention."

While Mason spoke with uncertainty, it was in this brief speech that this eminent Virginian uncovered the hidden thought and purpose of many of the Constitutionalists; and uttered an unconscious prophecy which it was the destiny of John Marshall to realize. "There are," said Mason, "many gentlemen in the United States who think it right that we should have one great, national, consolidated government, and that it was better to bring it about slowly and imperceptibly rather than all at once. This is no reflection on any man, for I mean none. To those who think that one national, consolidated government is best for America, this extensive judicial authority will be agreeable"; and he further declared, "I know from my own knowledge many worthy gentlemen" of this opinion. Madison demanded of Mason "an unequivocal explanation." Mason exonerated Madison, personally, and admitted that "neither did I ever hear any of the delegates from this state advocate it." Thus did the extreme courtesy of the Virginia debate cause the opposition to yield one of its most effective weapons.[1302]

But Mason made the most out of the Constitution's proposed Judiciary establishment. Take it at its best, said he: "Even suppose the poor man should be able to obtain judgment in the inferior court, for the greatest injury, what justice can he get on appeal? Can he go four or five hundred miles? Can he stand the expense attending it?"[1303] As to the jurisdiction of National Courts in controversies between citizens of different States, "Can we not trust our state courts with a decision of these?" asked Mason. "What!" cried he, "carry me a thousand miles from home--from my family and business--to where, perhaps, it will be impossible for me to prove that I paid" the money sued for.

"Is not a jury excluded absolutely?" by the Constitution, asked Mason. And even if a jury be possible in National Courts, still, under the Constitution, where is there any right to challenge jurors? "If I be tried in the Federal Court for a crime which may effect my life, have I a right of challenging or excepting to the jury?" This omission was a serious and immediate peril to great numbers of Virginians, said he. "I dread the ruin that will be wrought on thirty thousand of our people [deriving their titles through Fairfax] with respect to disputed lands. I am personally endangered as an inhabitant of the Northern Neck." Under the Constitution "the people of that part will be obliged ... to pay the quit rent of their lands." This was to Mason, "a most serious alarm...."

"Lord Fairfax's title was clear and undisputed," he continued. The State had "taxed his lands as private property"; but "after his death" Virginia, in 1782, "sequestered the quit rents due at his death, in the hands of his debtors. The following year" they were restored to his executor. Then came the Treaty of Peace providing against "further confiscation"; but, "after this, an act of Assembly passed, confiscating his [Fairfax's] whole property."

So, concluded Mason, "as Lord Fairfax's title was indisputably good, and as treaties [under the Constitution] are to be the supreme law of the land, will not his representatives be able to recover all in the federal court? How will gentlemen like to pay an additional tax on lands in the Northern Neck?" Yet that was what they would be compelled to do if the Constitution were adopted. Thus they would be "doubly taxed." "Were I going to my grave, I would appeal to Heaven that I think it [this] true," fervently avowed the snowy-haired Mason.

Thus Mason made one of the cleverest appeals of the whole debate to the personal and pecuniary interests of a considerable number of the people and to several members of the Convention. In this artful and somewhat demagogic argument he called attention to the lands involved in other extensive land grants. As we have seen, John Marshall was then personally interested in the Fairfax title,[1304] and he was soon to possess it; in after years, it was to develop one of the great legal contests of history; and the court over which Marshall was to preside was to settle it definitively.

Although not a lawyer,[1305] Madison now made an argument which was one of the distinguished intellectual performances of the Convention. But he did not comprehend the sweep of the National Judiciary's power. "It is not in the power of individuals," said Madison, "to call any state into court." It may be that this statement influenced John Marshall, who soon followed, to repeat it.[1306]

But it was Henry who gave the subject of the Judiciary that thrill, anticipation of which filled every seat on the floor and packed the galleries. "Mournful," to Henry, were the recollections which the debate already had produced. "The purse is gone; the sword is gone," and now the scales of Justice are to be given away. Even the trial by jury is to be abandoned. Henry spoke long and effectively; and, extravagant as most of his statements were, his penetrating mind was sometimes more nearly right in its forecast than even that of Madison.

As he closed, the daring of the Patrick Henry of 1765 and 1775 displayed itself. "Shall Americans give up that [jury trial] which nothing could induce the English people to relinquish?" he exclaimed. "The idea is abhorrent to my mind. There was a time when we should have spurned at it.... Old as I am, it is probable I may yet have the appellation of _rebel_.... As this government [Constitution] stands, I despise and abhor it," cried the unrivaled orator of the people.[1307]

Up now rose John Marshall, whom the Constitutionalist leaders had agreed upon for the critical task of defending the Judiciary article. Marshall, as we have seen, had begun the practice of law in Richmond only five years before; and during much of this period his time and attention had been taken by his duties as a delegate in the Legislature. Yet his intellectual strength, the power of his personality, his likableness, and all the qualities of his mind and character had so impressed every one that, by common consent, he was the man for the hour and the work at hand. And Marshall had carefully prepared his speech.[1308]

The Judiciary provided by the Constitution was, said Marshall "a great improvement on that system from which we are now departing. Here [in the Constitution] are tribunals appointed for _the decision of controversies_ which were before either not at all, or improperly, provided for. That many benefits will result from this to the members of the collective society, every one confesses." The National Judiciary deserved the support of all unless it was "defectively organized and so constructed as to injure, instead of accommodate, the convenience of the people."

After the "fair and able" discussion by its supporters, Marshall supposed that its opponents "would be convinced of the impropriety of some of their objections. But," he lamented, "they still continue the same opposition." And what was their complaint? This: That National Courts would not be as fair and impartial as State Courts.

But why not? asked Marshall. Was it because of their tenure of office or the method of choosing them? "What is it that makes us trust our [State] judges? Their independence in office and manner of appointment."[1309] But, under the Constitution, are not National judges "chosen with as much wisdom as the judges of the state governments? Are they not equally, if not more independent? If so," will they not be equally fair and impartial? "If there be as much wisdom and knowledge in the United States as in a particular state," will they "not be equally exercised in the selection of [National] judges?" Such were the questions which Marshall poured upon the Anti-Constitutionalists.

The kernel of the objection to National Courts was, declared Marshall, "a belief that there will not be a fair trial had in those courts." But it was plain, he argued, that "we are as secure there as anywhere else. What mischief results from some causes being tried there [in the National Courts]?" Independent judges "wisely appointed ... will never countenance an unfair trial." Assuming this to be true "what are the subjects of the jurisdiction" of National Courts? To Mason's objection that Congress could create any number of inferior courts it might deem necessary, Marshall replied that he had supposed that those who feared Congress would say that "no inferior courts" would be established, "but that we should be dragged to the centre of the Union." On the contrary, the greater the number of these inferior courts, the less danger "of being dragged to the centre of the United States."

Mason's point, that the jurisdiction of National Courts would extend to all cases, was absurd, argued Marshall. For "has the government of the United States power to make laws on every subject?... laws affecting the mode of transferring property, or contracts, or claims, between citizens of the same state? Can" Congress "go beyond the delegated powers?" Certainly not. Here Marshall stated the doctrine which, fifteen years later, he was to announce from the Supreme Bench:--

"If," he asserted, "they [Congress] were to make a law not warranted by any of the powers enumerated, it would be considered by the [National] judges as an infringement of the Constitution which they are to guard. They would not consider such a law as coming under their jurisdiction. _They would declare it void_.... To what quarter will you look for protection from an infringement of the Constitution, if you will not give the power to the judiciary? There is no other body that can afford such a protection."

The National Courts would not supplant the State tribunals. The Constitution did not "exclude state courts" from those cases which they now possess. "They have concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal courts in those cases in which the latter have cognizance," expounded the nascent jurist. "Are not controversies respecting lands claimed under the grants of different states the only controversies between citizens of the same state which the Federal Judiciary can take [exclusive] cognizance of?"

The work of the National Courts would make the State Courts more efficient because it would relieve them of a mass of business of which they were not able to dispose. "Does not every gentleman know that the causes in our [State] courts are more numerous than they can decide?" asked Marshall. "Look at the dockets," he exclaimed. "You will find them crowded with suits which the life of man will not see determined.[1310] If some of these suits be carried to other courts, will it be wrong? They will still have business enough."

How vain and fanciful, argued Marshall, the contention that National judges would screen "officers of the [National] government from merited punishment." Does anybody really believe that "the Federal sheriff will go into a poor man's house and beat him or abuse his family and the Federal court will protect him," as Mason and Henry had said would be the case? Even if a law should be passed authorizing "such great insults to the people ... it would be void," declared Marshall. Thus he stated for the second time the doctrine which he was, from the Supreme Bench, to put beyond controversy.

Why, asked Marshall, "discriminate [in the Constitution] between ... chancery, admiralty and the common law" as the Anti-Constitutionalists insisted upon doing? "Why not leave it to Congress? They ... would not wantonly infringe your rights." If they did, they would "render themselves hateful to the people at large." Therefore, "something may be left to the legislature [Congress] freely chosen by ourselves from among ourselves, who are to share the burdens imposed upon the community and who can be changed at our pleasure. Where power may be trusted and there is no motive to abuse it, it ... is as well to leave it undetermined as to fix it in the Constitution."

These sentences had prophecy in them. Indeed, they were to be repeated almost without change by the same man that now uttered them in debate, when he should ascend to the ultimate place of official interpretation of our fundamental law. While Hamilton's immortal state papers profoundly impressed Marshall, as we shall see, they were not, as many have supposed, the source of his convictions. In the Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1788 Marshall stated in debate the elements of most of his immortal Nationalist opinions.

But there was one exception. As to "disputes between _a state and the citizens of another state_," Marshall hoped "that no gentleman will think that a state will be called at the bar of a Federal court.... It is not rational to suppose that the Sovereign power should be dragged before a court. The intent is to enable states to recover claims of individuals residing in other states." If there were partiality in this--"if an individual cannot ... obtain judgment against a state, though he may be sued by a state"--it was a difficulty which could "not be avoided"; let the claimant apply to the State Legislature for relief.

The objection to suits in the National Courts between citizens of different States went "too far," contended Marshall. Such actions "may not in general be absolutely necessary," but surely in some such cases "the citizen ... ought to be able to recur to this [National] tribunal." What harm could it do? "Will he get more than justice there? What has he to get? Justice! Shall we object to this because the citizen of another state can obtain justice without applying to our state courts?" Indeed, "it may be necessary" in causes affected by "the laws and regulations of commerce" and "in cases of debt and some other controversies."... "In claims for land it is not necessary--but it is not dangerous."

These suits between citizens of different States "will be instituted in the state where the defendant resides, and nowhere else," expounded the youthful interpreter of the Constitution; and the case "will be determined by the laws of the state where the contract was made. According to those laws, and those only, can it be decided." That was no "novelty," but "a principle" long recognized in the jurisprudence of Virginia. "The laws which governed the contract at its formation, govern it in its decision." National Courts, in such controversies, would "preserve the peace of the Union," because if courts of different States should not give justice between citizens of those States, the result would be "disputes between the states." Also the jurisdiction of National Courts in "controversies between a state and a foreign state ... will be the means of preventing disputes with foreign nations"; for since "the previous consent of the parties is necessary ... each party will acquiesce."

As to "the exclusion of trial by jury, in this case," Marshall asked, "Does the word _court_ only mean the judges? Does not the determination of the jury necessarily lead to the judgment of the court? Is there anything" in the Constitution "which gives the [National] judges exclusive jurisdiction of matters of fact? What is the object of a jury trial? To inform the court of the facts." If "a court has cognizance of facts," it certainly "can make inquiry by a jury," dryly observed Marshall.

He ridiculed Mason's and Henry's statement that juries, in the ten miles square which was to be the seat of the National Government, would be "mere tools of parties with which he would not trust his person or property." "What!" exclaimed Marshall, "Will no one stay there but the tools and officers of the government?... Will there not be independent merchants and respectable gentlemen of fortune ... worthy farmers and mechanics" in the National Capital just as there were in Richmond? And "will the officers of the government become improper to be on a jury? What is it to the government whether this man or that man succeeds? It is all one thing."

As to jury trial not being guaranteed by the National Constitution in civil cases, neither did Virginia's Constitution, said Marshall, "direct trials by jury"; and the provision was "merely recommendatory" concerning jury trials in the Bill of Rights, which, as everybody knew, was no part of the State Constitution. "Have you a jury trial when a judgment is obtained on a replevin bond or by default?" Or "when a motion is made by the Commonwealth against an individual ... or by one joint obligor against another, to recover sums paid as security." Of course not! "Yet they are all civil cases.... The Legislature of Virginia does not give a trial by jury where it is not necessary, but gives it wherever it is thought expedient." And Congress would do the same, he reassured the Convention.

Mason's objection, that the right to challenge jurors was not guaranteed in the Constitution, was trivial, said Marshall. Did Virginia's Constitution make such a guaranty? Did the British Constitution do so by any express provision? Was jury challenge secured by Magna Charta? Or by the Bill of Rights?[1311] Every Virginian knew that they were not. "This privilege is founded in their [English people's] laws," Marshall reminded the Convention. So why insert it in the American Constitution?

Thus the inhabitants of the Northern Neck or anybody else were not in danger on that score. Neither were they placed in jeopardy in any other way by the Constitution. Here Marshall made a curious argument. Mason, he said, had "acknowledged that there was no complete title[1312] [in Fairfax].... Was he [Mason] not satisfied that the right of the legal representatives of the proprietor [to collect quitrents] did not exist at the time he mentioned [the date of the Treaty of Peace]? If so, it cannot exist now," declared Marshall. "I trust those who come from that quarter [the Northern Neck] will not be intimidated on this account in voting on this question" he pleaded; for let them remember that there was "a law passed in 1782 [sequestration of quitrents] which secured this."

Let the "many poor men" who Mason had said might "be harassed by the representatives of Lord Fairfax" rest assured on that point; for "if he [Fairfax] has no right," they could not be disturbed. "If he has this right [to collect quitrents] and comes to Virginia, what laws will his claims be determined by?" By Virginia's laws. "By what tribunals will they be determined? By our state courts."[1313] So the "poor man" who was "unjustly prosecuted" would "be abundantly protected and satisfied by the temper of his neighbors."[1314]

The truth was, said Marshall, that justice would be done in all cases by both National and State Courts. Laws would not be "tyrannically executed" as the opposition feared; the "independency of your judges" would prevent that. "If," he argued, "a law be exercised tyrannically in Virginia, to whom can you trust? To your Judiciary! What security have you for justice? Their independence! Will it not be so in the Federal court?"

Like other objections to the power of Congress and the conduct of National Courts, the criticism that men might be punished for their political opinions was, declared Marshall, groundless and absurd; for, "the good opinion of the people at large must be consulted by their representatives--otherwise mischiefs would be produced which would shake the government to its foundations." Of course, then, he contended, neither Congress nor the courts would abuse their power. The charge that "unjust claims will be made, and the defendant had better pay them than go to the Supreme Court" was unthinkable. Would anybody incur great expense to oppress another? "What will he gain by an unjust demand? Does a claim establish a right? He must bring his witnesses to prove his claim"; otherwise "the expenses must fall on him." Will he take the chances that the injured man will not appear and defend the unjust suit? "Those who know human nature, black as it is," sarcastically observed Marshall, "must know that mankind are too attached to their own interest to run such a risk."

"The Federal Government," exclaimed Marshall, "has no other motive, and has every reason for doing right which the members of our state legislature have. Will a man on the eastern shore be sent to be tried in Kentucky, or a man from Kentucky be brought to the eastern shore to have his trial? A government, by doing this, would destroy itself."[1315]

This, in effect, was John Marshall's exposition of the second section of article three of the Constitution. Although Grigsby, whose accuracy on such details is not questioned, says that the speech was prepared, Robertson's report would not indicate that such was the case. The address is wanting in that close-knit continuity of reasoning and in that neatness of thought and expression which were Marshall's peculiar excellence. Like his first debate in the Convention, his speech on the Judiciary is disjointed. A subject is half treated in one part of his remarks and resumed in another.[1316] But he makes his principal points with clearness and power. His argument is based on the independence of the courts as the best guaranty against unjust decisions; the responsibility of Congress to the people as the strongest safeguard against oppressive laws; and the similarity of Virginia's Constitution and Courts to the National Constitution and Courts as proof of the security, fairness, and justice of the National Judiciary.

Marshall's effort really closed the case for the Constitution on the Judiciary. That night Madison wrote to Hamilton that "a great effort is making" against the Judiciary. "The retrospection to cases antecedent to the Constitution, such as British debts and an apprehended revival of Fairfax--Indiana, Vandalia, &c., claims are also brought into view in all the terrific colours which imagination can give them.... Delay & an adjournment will be tried if the adverse party find their numbers inferior.... At present it is calculated that we still retain a majority of 3 or 4; and if we can weather the storm ag^{st}" the Judiciary, "I shall hold the danger to be pretty well over. There is nevertheless a very disagreeable uncertainty in the case; and the more so as there is a possibility that our present strength may be miscalculated."[1317]

Marshall's speech alarmed the opposition, and Grayson used all his learning, wit, and cleverness in an attempt to break its force. Randolph replied. Thus the second week closed. Neither side was certain of the exact number of votes it had, though every member was observed with the politician's anxiety and care.[1318] The Constitutionalists had the greater confidence. Madison wrote his father that "The calculations on different sides do not accord;... I think however, the friends of the Constitution are most confident of superiority.... It is not probable that many proselytes will be made on either side."[1319]

On Sunday Madison made his weekly report to Hamilton: "The Judiciary Department has been on the anvil for several days; and I presume will still be a further subject of disquisition. The attacks on it have apparently made less impression than was feared. But they may be secretly felt by particular interests that would not make the acknowledgment, and w^d chuse to ground their vote ag^{st} the Constitution on other motives."[1320]

The Anti-Constitutionalists were becoming desperate. If they could not amend the Constitution as a condition of ratifying it, their game now was either an adjournment or a delay until the Legislature, scheduled to meet on the following Monday and known to be, in the main, opposed to the Constitution, should afford them relief.

If these expedients should fail, there was open talk of secession.[1321] The Constitutionalists arranged for the utmost dispatch and planned to "withhold, by a studied fairness in every step on the side of the Constitution, every pretext for rash experiments." They hoped to avoid previous amendment by proposing "to preface the ratification with some plain & general matters that cannot effect the validity of the" Constitution. They felt that "these expedients are rendered prudent by the nice balance of members, and the scruples entertained by some who are in general well affected." But whether these devices "will secure us a majority," wrote Madison, "I dare not positively to declare."

So small was their expected majority likely to be, that the Constitutionalists felt that "ordinary casualties ... may vary the result." They were exceedingly alarmed over the coming to town of the members of the Legislature who "as individuals ... may have some influence and as coming immediately from the people at large they can give any colour they please to the popular sentiments at this moment, and may in that mode throw a bias on the representatives of the people in Convention."[1322]

From the adjournment on Saturday until the Convention again assembled on the following Monday, June 23, the opposition decided that something more must be done to counteract Marshall's exposition of the Judiciary article. For this purpose their leader and strongest men took the floor. The shorthand reporter was not present on this day, but the printer of the debates took notes.[1323]

Nothing so well shows the esteem in which Marshall's ability was held as Patrick Henry's compliment to his young associate. "I have," said Henry, "the highest veneration and respect for the honorable gentleman, and I have experienced his candor on all occasions"; but "in this instance" Henry felt that Marshall was mistaken. "It is not on that paper before you we have to rely.... It is on those who may be appointed under it. It will be an empire of men, and not of laws."

Marshall interrupted Henry to explain that the latter had not clearly understood him as to the trial by jury. Henry responded that "the gentleman's candor, sir, as I informed you before, I have the highest opinion of, and am happy to find he has so far explained what he meant; but, sir, has he mended the matter?" Then Henry enlarged upon what he thought was the Constitution's sacrifice of rights of trial by jury. What would become of this, that, and the other? What would be the end of this contract and that? And "what is to become of the _purchases of the Indians_?--those unhappy nations who ... by being made drunk, have given a thousand, nay I might say, ten thousand acres, for the trifling sum of sixpence!" And what of those who owed the British debts?--they will "be ruined by being dragged into Federal courts and the liberty and happiness of our citizens gone, never again to be recovered."[1324]

The Constitutionalists had anticipated that Henry would touch on his hobby, the Indians; and they were ready with an answer far more effective on the votes of the members than any argument, however weighty. Hardly had Henry closed when a giant old man got upon his feet. For more than thirty years this bluff and ancient veteran had been a soldier. Since 1755 he had been one of the boldest and ablest of Virginia's famous Indian fighters and often had commanded the Virginia rangers that defended the frontier from the savages. His utter fearlessness and tremendous physical strength had made him the terror of the red man, and his name was a household word throughout Virginia as a bulwark against the savages. Throughout the Revolution he had borne himself as a hero. So when Colonel Adam Stephen spoke, his words were sword-thrusts.[1325]

Henry, growled Stephen, "means to frighten us by his bugbears of hobgoblins, his sale of lands to pay taxes, Indian purchases and other horrors that I think I know as much about as he does." Colonel Stephen then described the Indian country, the Indian tribes, and Indian trade. He also knew "of several rich mines of gold and silver in the western country" which would pay the taxes Henry was so worried about. "If the gentleman [Henry] does not like this government, let him go and live among the Indians. I know of several nations that live very happily; and I can furnish him with a vocabulary of their language."[1326]

Nothing can be plainer than that this personal assault on Henry was prearranged; for George Nicholas followed it up with what came near being an open insult. Answering Henry's insinuation about Indian lands being fraudulently purchased, Nicholas retorted, looking directly at Henry, "there are gentlemen who have come by large possessions that it is not easy to account for." This was taken as a reflection on some of Henry's land speculations. The latter felt the sting; for "here Mr. Henry interfered and hoped the honorable gentleman meant nothing personal." Nicholas snapped back, "I mean what I say, sir."

The extremes to which the opposition went in lobbying with members and the nature of their conversation are shown by an acid sentence of Nicholas in this speech. He referred to "an observation I have heard out of doors; which was that, because the New England men wore black stockings and plush breeches, there can be no union with them."

Henry was instantly on his feet when Nicholas finished. He thought the Convention floor "an improper place" to make "personal insinuations, or to wound my private reputation.... As to land matters, I can tell how I came by what I have ... I hold what I hold in right, and in a just manner." Henry was most courteous and dignified in this discussion, disclaiming any intention to offend any one. Nicholas responded that he "meant no personality ... nor ... any resentment." But, said he, "If such conduct meets the contempt of that gentleman [Henry] I can only assure him it meets with an equal degree of contempt from me."

Here the President of the Convention interfered and "hoped the gentlemen would not be personal; that they would proceed to investigate the subject calmly, and in a peaceable manner." Thereupon Nicholas admitted that he had not referred to Henry when he first spoke, but to "those who had taken up large tracts of land in the western country"; Nicholas had not, however, explained this before because he felt that Henry had said some things that one gentleman ought not to say to another. Thus ended the second of the only two instances in Virginia's long and masterful debate which approached a personal quarrel or displayed even the smallest discourtesy.[1327]

The debate now drew swiftly to a close. Excitement ran high. The Anti-Constitutionalists, tense and desperate, threatened forcible opposition to the proposed National Government if it should be established. Mason "dreaded popular resistance" to the Constitution and was "emphatic" in his fears of "_the dreadful effects_ ... should the people resist." Gentlemen should pause before deciding "a question which involved such awful consequences." This so aroused Lee that he could "no longer suppress" his "utterance." Much as he liked and admired Mason, Lee asked him "if he has not pursued the very means to bring into action the horrors which he deprecates?"

"Such speeches within these walls, from a character so venerable and estimable," declared Lee, "easily progress into overt acts, among the less thinking and the vicious." Lee implored that the "God of heaven avert from my country the dreadful curse!" But, he thundered, "if the madness of some and the vice of others" should arouse popular resistance to the Constitution, the friends of that instrument "will meet the afflicting call"; and he plainly intimated that any uprising of the people against the proposed National Government would be met with arms.[1328] The guns of Sumter were being forged.

On the night of June 23, the Constitutionalists decided to deliver their final assault. They knew that it must be a decisive one. The time had arrived for the meeting of the Legislature which was hostile to the Constitution;[1329] and if the friends of the proposed new Government were to win at all, they must win quickly. A careful poll had shown them that straight-out ratification without amendment of some kind was impossible. So they followed the plan of the Massachusetts Constitutionalists and determined to offer amendments themselves--but amendments merely by way of recommendation and subsequent to ratification, instead of previous amendments as a condition of ratification. The venerable Wythe was chosen to carry out the programme. On Tuesday morning, June 24, Pendleton called to the chair Thomas Mathews, one of the best parliamentarians in the Convention, a stanch Constitutionalist, a veteran of the Revolution, and a popular man.

Instantly Mathews recognized Wythe; for Henry was ready with his amendments, and, had an Anti-Constitutionalist been in the chair, would have been able to offer them before Wythe could move for ratification. Wythe, pale and fatigued, was so agitated that at first he could not speak plainly.[1330] After reviewing the whole subject, he said that to insist on previous amendments might dissolve the Union, whereas all necessary amendments could easily be had after ratification. Wythe then moved the Constitutionalists' resolution for ratification.

In a towering rage, Henry rose for what, outside of the courtroom, was the last great speech of his life.[1331] He felt that he had been unjustly forestalled and that the battle against the Constitution was failing because of the stern and unfair tactics of his foes.[1332] The Constitutionalists admitted, said Henry, that the Constitution was "capitally defective"; yet they proposed to ratify it without first remedying its conceded faults. This was so absurd that he was "sure the gentleman [Wythe] meant nothing but to amuse the committee. I know his candor," said Henry. "His proposal is an idea dreadful to me.... The great body of yeomanry are in decided opposition" to the Constitution.

Henry declared that of his own personal knowledge "nine tenths of the people" in "nineteen counties adjacent to each other" were against the proposed new National Government. The Constitutionalists' plan of "subsequent amendments will not do for men of this cast." And how do the people feel even in the States that had ratified it? Look at Pennsylvania! Only ten thousand out of seventy thousand of her people were represented in the Pennsylvania Convention.

If the Constitution was ratified without previous amendments, Henry declared that he would "have nothing to do with it." He offered the Bill of Rights and amendments which he himself had drawn, proposing to refer them to the other States "for their consideration, previous to its [Constitution's] ratification."[1333] Henry then turned upon the Constitutionalists their own point by declaring that it was their plan of ratification without previous amendments which would endanger the Union.[1334] Randolph followed briefly and Dawson at great length. Madison for the Constitutionalists, and Grayson for the opposition, exerted themselves to the utmost. Nature aided Henry when he closed the day in an appeal such as only the supremely gifted can make.

"I see," cried Henry, in rapt exaltation, "the awful immensity of the dangers with which it [the Constitution] is pregnant. I see it. I feel it. I see beings of a higher order anxious concerning our decision. When I see beyond the horizon that bounds human eyes, and look at the final consummation of all human things, and see those intelligent beings which inhabit the ethereal mansions reviewing the political decisions and revolutions which, in the progress of time, will happen in America, and the consequent happiness or misery of mankind, I am led to believe that much of the account, on one side or the other, will depend on what we now decide. Our own happiness alone is not affected by the event. All nations are interested in the determination. We have it in our power to secure the happiness of one half of the human race. Its adoption may involve the misery of the other hemisphere."[1335]

In the midst of this trance-like spell which the master conjurer had thrown over his hearers, a terrible storm suddenly arose. Darkness fell upon the full light of day. Lightnings flashed and crashing thunders shook the Convention hall. With the inspiration of genius this unrivaled actor made the tempest seem a part of his own denunciation. The scene became insupportable. Members rushed from their seats.[1336] As Henry closed, the tempest died away.

The spectators returned, the members recovered their composure, and the session was resumed.[1337] Nicholas coldly moved that the question be put at nine o'clock on the following morning. Clay and Ronald opposed, the latter declaring that without such amendments "as will secure the happiness of the people" he would "though much against his inclination vote against this Constitution."

Anxious and prolonged were the conferences of the Constitutionalist managers that night. The Legislature had convened. It was now or never for the friends of the Constitution. The delay of a single day might lose them the contest. That night and the next morning they brought to bear every ounce of their strength. The Convention met for its final session on the historic 25th of June, with the Constitutionalists in gravest apprehension. They were not sure that Henry would not carry out his threat to leave the hall; and they pictured to themselves the dreaded spectacle of that popular leader walking out at the head of the enraged opposition.[1338]

Into the hands of the burly Nicholas the Constitutionalists wisely gave command. The moment the Convention was called to order, the chair recognized Nicholas, who acted instantly with his characteristically icy and merciless decision. "The friends of the Constitution," said Nicholas, "wish to take up no more time, the matter being now fully discussed. They are convinced that further time will answer no end but to serve the cause of those who wish to destroy the Constitution. We wish it to be ratified and such amendments as may be thought necessary to be subsequently considered by a committee in order to be recommended to Congress." Where, he defiantly asked, did the opposition get authority to say that the Constitutionalists would not insist upon amendments after they had secured ratification of the Constitution? They really wished for Wythe's amendments;[1339] and would "agree to any others which" would "not destroy the spirit of the Constitution." Nicholas moved the reading of Wythe's resolution in order that a vote might be taken upon it.[1340]

Tyler moved the reading of Henry's proposed amendments and Bill of Bights. Benjamin Harrison protested against the Constitutionalists' plan. He was for previous amendment, and thought Wythe's "measure of adoption to be unwarrantable, precipitate, and dangerously impolitic." Madison reassured those who were fearful that the Constitutionalists, if they won on ratification, would not further urge the amendments Wythe had offered; the Constitutionalists then closed, as they had begun, with admirable strategy.

James Innes was Attorney-General. His duties had kept him frequently from the Convention. He was well educated, extremely popular, and had been one of the most gifted and gallant officers that Virginia had sent to the front during the Revolution. Physically he was a colossus, the largest man in that State of giants. Such was the popular and imposing champion which the Constitutionalists had so well chosen to utter their parting word.[1341] And Innes did his utmost in the hardest of situations; for if he took too much time, he would endanger his own cause; if he did not make a deep impression, he would fail in the purpose for which he was put forward.[1342]

Men who heard Innes testify that "he spoke like one inspired."[1343] For the opposition the learned and accomplished Tyler closed the general debate. It was time wasted on both sides. But that nothing might be left undone, the Constitutionalists now brought into action a rough, forthright member from the Valley. Zachariah Johnson spoke for "those who live in large, remote, back counties." He dwelt, he said, "among the poor people." The most that he could claim for himself was "to be of the middle rank." He had "a numerous offspring" and he was willing to trust their future to the Constitution.[1344]

Henry could not restrain himself; but he would better not have spoken, for he admitted defeat. The anxious Constitutionalists must have breathed a sigh of relief when Henry said that he would not leave the hall. Though "_overpowered in a good cause_, yet I will be a peaceable citizen." All he would try to do would be "to remove the defects of that system [the Constitution] in a constitutional way." And so, declared the scarred veteran as he yielded his sword to the victors, he would "patiently wait in expectation of seeing that government changed, so as to be compatible with the safety, liberty, and happiness, of the people."

Wythe's resolution of ratification now came to a vote. No more carefully worded paper for the purposes it was intended to accomplish ever was laid before a deliberative body. It reassured those who feared the Constitution, in language which went far to grant most of their demands; and while the resolve called for ratification, yet, "in order to relieve the apprehensions of those who may be solicitous for amendments," it provided that all necessary amendments be _recommended_ to Congress. Thus did the Constitutionalists, who had exhausted all the resources of management, debate, and personal persuasion, now find it necessary to resort to the most delicate tact.

The opposition moved to substitute for the ratification resolution one of their own, which declared "that previous to the ratification ... a declaration of rights ... together with amendments ... should be referred by this Convention to the other states ... for their consideration." On this, the first test vote of the struggle, the Constitutionalists won by the slender majority of 8 out of a total of 168. On the main question which followed, the Anti-Constitutionalists lost but one vote and the Constitution escaped defeat by a majority of only 10.

To secure ratification, eight members of the Convention voted against the wishes of their constituents,[1345] and two ignored their instructions.[1346] Grayson openly but respectfully stated on the floor that the vote was the result of Washington's influence. "I think," said he, "that, were it not for one great character in America, so many men would not be for this government."[1347] Followers of their old commander as the members from the Valley were, the fear of the Indians had quite as much to do with getting their support for a stronger National Government as had the weight of Washington's influence.[1348]

Randolph "humbly supplicated one parting word" before the last vote was taken. It was a word of excuse and self-justification. His vote, he said, would be "ascribed by malice to motives unknown to his breast." He would "ask the mercy of God for every other act of his life," but for this he requested only Heaven's justice. He still objected to the Constitution, but the ratification of it by eight States had now "reduced our deliberations to the single question of _Union_ or no _Union_."[1349] So closed the greatest debate ever held over the Constitution and one of the ablest parliamentary contests of history.

A committee was appointed to report "a form of ratification pursuant to the first resolution"; and another was selected "to prepare and report such amendments as by them shall be deemed necessary."[1350] Marshall was chosen as a member of both these important committees.

The lengths to which the Constitutionalists were driven in order to secure ratification are measured by the amendments they were forced to bring in. These numbered twenty, in addition to a Bill of Rights, which also had twenty articles. The ten amendments afterwards made to the Constitution were hardly a shadow of those recommended by the Virginia Convention of 1788.

That body actually proposed that National excise or direct tax laws should not operate in any State, in case the State itself should collect its quota under State laws and through State officials; that two thirds of both houses of Congress, present, should be necessary to pass navigation laws or laws regulating commerce; that no army or regular troops should be "raised or kept up in time of peace" without the consent of two thirds of both houses, present; that the power of Congress over the seat of the National Government should be confined to police and administrative regulation. The Judiciary amendment would have imprisoned the Supreme Court within limits so narrow as to render that tribunal almost powerless and would have absolutely prevented the establishment of inferior National Courts, except those of Admiralty.[1351] Yet only on such terms could ratification be secured even by the small and uncertain majority that finally voted for it.

On June 25, Clinton's suppressed letter to Randolph was laid before the House of Delegates which had just convened.[1352] Mason was so furious that he drew up resolutions for an investigation of Randolph's conduct.[1353] But the deed was done, anger was unavailing, and the resolutions never were offered.[1354]

So frail was the Constitutionalist strength that if the news of the New Hampshire ratification had not reached Virginia, it is more than probable that Jefferson's advice would have been followed and that the Old Dominion would have held back until all the amendments desired by the opposition had been made a part of the fundamental law;[1355] and the Constitution would have been a far different and infinitely weaker instrument than it is.

Burning with wrath, the Anti-Constitutionalists held a meeting on the night of the day of the vote for ratification, to consider measures for resisting the new National Government. The character of Patrick Henry never shone with greater luster than when he took the chair at this determined gathering of furious men. He had done his best against the Constitution, said Henry, but he had done it in the "_proper place_"; the question was settled now and he advised his colleagues that "as true and faithful republicans, they had all better go home!"[1356] Well might Washington write that only "conciliatory conduct" got the Constitution through;[1357] well might he declare that "it is nearly impossible for anybody who has not been on the spot (from any description) to conceive what the delicacy and danger of our situation have been."[1358]

And Marshall had been on the spot. Marshall had seen it all. Marshall had been a part of it all. From the first careful election programme of the Constitutionalists, the young Richmond lawyer had been in every meeting where the plans of the managers were laid and the order of battle arranged. No man in all the country knew better than he, the hair's breadth by which the ordinance of our National Government escaped strangulation at its very birth. No one in America better understood how carefully and yet how boldly Nationalism must be advanced if it were to grow stronger or even to survive.

It was plain to Marshall that the formal adoption of the Constitution did not end the battle. That conflict, indeed, was only beginning. The fight over ratification had been but the first phase of the struggle. We are now to behold the next stages of that great contest, each as dramatic as it was vital; and we shall observe how Marshall bore himself on every field of this mighty civil strife, note his development and mark his progress toward that supreme station for which events prepared him. We are to witness his efforts to uphold the National Government, not only with argument and political activity, but also with a readiness to draw the sword and employ military force. We shall look upon the mad scenes resulting in America from the terrific and bloody convulsion in Europe and measure the lasting effect the French Revolution produced upon the statesmen and people of the United States. In short, we are to survey a strange swirl of forces, economic and emotional, throwing to the surface now one "issue" and now another, all of them centering in the sovereign question of Nationalism or States' Rights.

FOOTNOTES:

[1298] Grayson to Dane, June 18, 1788; Dane MSS., Lib. Cong.

[1299] Logan and Story to Stephen Collins, Petersburg, Nov. 2, 1787; Collins MSS., Lib. Cong.

[1300] See Grigsby, i, 278-79, for an able and sympathetic account from the point of view of the settler and debtor.

[1301] _Ib._, 280-84; Elliott, iii, 517-21.

[1302] Elliott, iii, 522; Grigsby, i, 284. So overwhelming was the popular feeling against a strong National Government that, if the Anti-Constitutionalists had concentrated their attack upon this secret purpose of the leading Constitutionalists to make it such by easy stages, it is more than probable that the Constitution would have been defeated.

[1303] Elliott, iii, 524.

[1304] His own and his father's lands in Fauquier County were derived through the Fairfax title.

[1305] Grigsby, i, 290.

[1306] Elliott, iii, 530-39. For Marshall's repetition see _ib._, 551-62.

[1307] Elliott, iii, 539-46.

[1308] Grigsby, i, 297.

[1309] Virginia judges were, at this period, appointed by the General Assembly. (Constitution, 1776.)

[1310] "There are upwards of 4,000 suits now entered on the docket in the General Court; and the number is continually increasing. Where this will end the Lord only knows--should an Act pass to extend the term of the Courts sitting--it is thought that the number of Executors [executions] that would issue ... would be too heavy for our government to bear and that such a rapid transfer of Property would altogether stop the movement of our Machine." (Logan and Story, to Stephen Collins, Petersburg, Nov. 2, 1787; Collins MSS., Lib. Cong.)

[1311] This form of argument by asking questions to which the answers must needs be favorable to his contention was peculiarly characteristic of Marshall.

[1312] The reporter makes Mason assert the reverse.

[1313] It is hard to see how Marshall arrived at this conclusion. But for the fact that Marshall prepared this speech, one would think the reporter erred.

[1314] See Marshall's argument in Hite _vs._ Fairfax, chap, V, _supra_; and see vol. III of this work.

Randolph made the clearest statement of the whole debate on the Fairfax question:--

"Lord Fairfax ... died during the war. In the year 1782, an act passed sequestering all quitrents, then due, in the hands of the persons holding the lands, until the right of descent should be known, and the General Assembly should make final provision therein. This act directed all quitrents, thereafter becoming due, to be paid into the public treasury; so that, with respect to his descendants, this act confiscated the quitrents. In the year 1783, an act passed restoring to the legal representative of the proprietor the quitrents due to him at the time of his death. But in the year 1785 another act passed, by which the inhabitants of the Northern Neck are exonerated and discharged from paying composition and quitrents to the commonwealth." But Randolph then asserted that: "This last act has completely confiscated this property. It is repugnant to no part of the treaty, with respect to the quitrents confiscated by the act of 1782." So, continued he, "I ask the Convention of the free people of Virginia if there can be honesty in rejecting the government because justice is to be done by it? I beg the honourable gentleman to lay the objection to his heart." (Elliott, iii, 574-75.)

[1315] Elliott, iii, 551-62.

[1316] In summarizing Marshall's speech, it is necessary to collect his arguments on any given point, and present them consecutively. In Robertson's (Elliott) report Marshall scatters his points in distracting fashion.

[1317] Madison to Hamilton, June 20, 1788; Hamilton MSS., Lib. Cong.

[1318] The members of the Convention were carefully watched and each side made, every night, a minute estimate of its votes.

[1319] Madison to his father, June 20, 1788; _Writings_: Hunt, v, footnote to 216.

[1320] Madison to Hamilton, June 22, 1788; Hamilton MSS., Lib. Cong.

[1321] _Ib._

[1322] Madison to Hamilton, June 22, 1788; Hamilton MSS., Lib. Cong.

[1323] Elliott, iii, 576.

[1324] Elliott, iii, 577-80.

[1325] Grigsby, i, 300. See Washington's letters to Stephen during the year of Marshall's birth, when Stephen, under Washington, was fighting the French and Indians. (_Writings_: Ford, i, 227, 322, 332, 360; also _Proceedings_, Council of War, Oct. 30, 1756; _ib._, 364-71; in which Colonel Adam Stephen was presiding officer.)

[1326] Elliott, iii, 580.

[1327] Elliott, iii, 581-82.

[1328] Elliott, iii, 585-86.

[1329] "Virginia is the only instance among the ratifying states in which the Politics of the Legislature are at variance with the sense of the people, expressed by their Representatives in Convention." (Madison to Washington, Nov. 5, 1788; _Writings_: Hunt, v, 302.)

[1330] Grigsby, i, 307.

[1331] The two amazing speeches which Henry made that day should be taken together. While both were inspired by what happened on the floor, yet they are in reality one. The reports give no idea of the tremendous effect which those who heard Henry tell us these speeches had.

[1332] Grigsby, i, 307-08.

[1333] Henry's amendments were practically the same as those which the Convention finally adopted as recommendations subsequent to ratification instead of previous amendment on which ratification was conditioned.

[1334] Elliott, iii, 587-96.

[1335] Elliott, iii, 625. This extract is badly mangled. The reporter confesses that he could take only a little of Henry's peroration. Elliott's reprint of Robertson's reports gives scarcely a suggestion of its dramatic appeal. We are indebted to Grigsby's patient work in collecting from eye and ear witnesses first-hand accounts, for a reasonably accurate description of the scene.

[1336] Grigsby, i, 316-17; also Wirt, 313; Henry, ii, 370-71; and Conway, 113.

[1337] Grigsby, i, 316-17.

[1338] Grigsby, i, 317.

[1339] Very few of the Constitutionalists wanted any amendments; and Madison sorrowfully offered in Congress the following year those that were reluctantly adopted. See vol. II, chap. II, of this work.

[1340] Elliott, iii, 627.

[1341] Grigsby, i, 323-29.

[1342] _Ib._, 328.

[1343] _Ib._, 332.

[1344] Elliott, iii, 644-49.

[1345] Henry, ii, 377. "At least ten members voted, either in disobedience of positive instructions of their constituents, or in defiance of their well known opinions." (Grigsby, i, 41.)

[1346] Scott, 235-38.

[1347] Elliott, iii, 616. Madison frankly admitted that only the prominence of the framers of the Constitution secured even a consideration of it by many of its warmest friends, much less by the people. "Had the Constitution been framed and recommended by an obscure individual," wrote Madison, "instead of a body possessing public respect and confidence, there cannot be a doubt, that, although it would have stood in the identical words, it would have commanded little attention from those who now admire its wisdom." (Madison to Randolph, Jan. 10, 1788; _Writings_: Hunt, v, 81.)

[1348] Grigsby, i, footnote to 110.

[1349] Elliott, iii, 652.

[1350] Elliott, iii. 653-63.

[1351] _Ib._, 659-61.

[1352] Clinton's letter was not read, however, because all the members of the Legislature had gone to hear Henry's last great speech. (Conway, 112.)

[1353] Conway, 114; Henry, ii, 363.

[1354] For Mason's resolutions and a careful review of the incident, see Rowland, ii, 274-80.

[1355] Henry, ii, 377.

[1356] _Southern Literary Messenger_, i, 332; also quoted in Rowland, ii, 274.

[1357] Washington to Pinckney, June 28, 1788; _Writings_: Ford, xi, 285.

[1358] Washington to Jefferson, Aug. 31, 1788; _ib._, 321.

END OF VOLUME I

APPENDIX

I

WILL OF THOMAS MARSHALL, "CARPENTER"

In the Name of God Amen! I, Thomas Marshall of the County of Westmoreland of Washington Parish, Carpenter, being very weak but of perfect memory thanks be to God for it doth ordain this my last will and testament in manner and form following, first I give and bequeath my soul into the hands of my blessed Creator & Redeemer hoping through meritts of my blessed Saviour to receive full pardon and remission of all my sins and my body to the Earth to be decently bur-yed according to the discretion of my Executrix which hereafter shall be named. Imps. I make and ordain my well beloved wife Martha Marshall to be my full and whole Executrix--Item, I will that my estate shall remain in the hands of my wife as long as she remain single but in case she marrys then she is to have her lawful part & the rest to be taken out of her hands equally to be divided among my children--Item, I will that if my wife marry, that David Brown Senr. and Jno. Brown to be guardians over my children and to take the estate in their hands bringing it to appraisement giving in good security to what it is valued and to pay my children their dues as they shall come to age. Item--I will that Elizabeth Rosser is to have a heifer delivered by my wife called White-Belly to be delivered as soon as I am deceast--Item, I will that my son William Marshall shall have my plantation as soon as he comes to age to him and his heirs forever, but in case that my son William die before he comes to age or die without issue then my plantation is to fall to the next heir apparent at law.

THOMAS MARSHALL (Seal)

Test EDW: TAYLOR, JOHN HEARFORD, JOHN TAYLOR.

{ At a Court held for the said County the WESTMORLD: SS. { 31st day of May 1704.

The last will and testament of Thomas Marshall within written was proved by the oaths of John Oxford and John Taylor two of the witnesses thereto subscribed and a Probat thereof granted to Martha Marshall his relict and Executrix therein named.

Test IA: WESTCOMB Cler. Com. Ped.

Record aty: sexto die Juny: 1704. Pr. _Eundm Clerum._

A Copy. Teste: ALBERT STUART, Clerk. By: F. F. CHANDLER, Deputy Clerk.

[A Copy. Will of Thomas Marshall. Recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Westmoreland County, in Deed and Will Book no. 3 at page 232 _et seq._]

II

WILL OF JOHN MARSHALL "OF THE FOREST"

The last will and testament of John Marshall being very sick and weak but of perfect mind and memory is as followeth.

First of all I give and recommend my soul to God that gave it and my Body to the ground to be buried in a Christian like and Discent manner at the Discretion of my Executors hereafter mentioned? Item I give and bequeath unto my beloved daughter Sarah Lovell one negro girl named Rachel now in possession of Robert Lovell. Item I give and bequeath unto my beloved daughter Ann Smith one negro boy named Danniel now in possession of Augustine Smith. Item I give and bequeath unto my beloved daughter Lize Smith one negro boy named Will now in possession of John Smith. Item I give and bequeath unto my well beloved wife Elizabeth Marshall one negro fellow named Joe and one negro woman named Cate and one negro woman named pen after Delivering the first child next born of her Body unto my son John until which time she shall remain in the possession of my wife Likewise I leave my Corn and meat to remain unappraised for the use of my wife and children also I give and bequeath unto my wife one Gray mair named beauty and side saddle also six hogs also I leave her the use of my land During her widowhood, and afterwards to fall to my son Thomas Marshall and his heirs forever. Item I leave my Tobacco to pay my Debts and if any be over for the clothing of my small children. Item I give and bequeath unto my well Beloved son Thomas Marshall one negro woman named hanno and one negroe child named Jacob? Item I give and bequeathe unto my well beloved son John Marshall one negroe fellow named George and one negroe child named Nan. Item. I give and bequeathe unto my beloved son Wm. Marshall one negro woman named Sall and one negro boy named Hanable to remain in the possession of his mother until he come to the age of twenty years. Item I give and Bequeath unto my Beloved son Abraham Marshall one negro boy named Jim and one negroe girl named bett to remain in the possession of his mother until he come to the age of twenty years. Item I give and Bequeath unto my Beloved daughter Mary Marshall one negro girl named Cate and negro boy Gus to remain in possession of her mother until she come to the age of Eighteen years or until marriage. Item, I give and Bequeath unto my beloved Daughter Peggy Marshall one negro boy named Joshua and one negro girl named Liz to remain in possession of her mother until she come to the age of Eighteen or until marriage! Item. I leave my personal Estate Except the legacies abovementioned to be equally Divided Between my wife and six children last above mentioned. Item I constitute and appoint my wife and my two sons Thos. Marshall and John Marshall Executors of this my last will & testament In witness hereof I have hereunto set my hand and fixed my seal this first day of April One thousand seven hundred and fifty two.

JOHN MARSHALL (Seal) Interlined before assigned.

BENJAMIN RALLINS } WILLIAM HOUSTON } AUGUSTINE SMITH }

{ At a Court held for the said County the WESTMORLAND SCT. { 26th day of May 1752.

This Last will and testament of John Marshall decd. was presented into Court by Eliza. his relict and Thomas Marshall two of his Executors therein named who made oath thereto and being proved by the oaths of Benja. Rallings and Augustine Smith two of the witnesses thereto is admitted to record, and upon the motion of the said Eliza. & Thos. and their performing what the Law in such cases require Certificate is granted them for obtaining a probate thereof in due form.

Test GEORGE LEE C. C. C. W.

Recorded the 22d. day of June 1752. Per G. L. C. C. W. C.

A Copy. Teste:

FRANK STUART, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Westmoreland County, State of Virginia.

[A copy. John Marshall's Will. Recorded in the Clerk's Office of Westmoreland County, State of Virginia, in Deeds and Wills, no. 11, at page 419 _et seq._]

III

DEED OF WILLIAM MARSHALL TO JOHN MARSHALL "OF THE FOREST"

This indenture made the 23d day of October in ye first year of ye reign of our sovereign Lord George ye 2d. by ye. grace of God of Great Brittain France & Ireland King defendr. of ye faith &c. and in ye year of our Lord God one thousand seven hundred & twenty seven, between William Marshall of ye. County of King & Queen in ye. Colony of Virginia planter of the one part & John Marshall of ye. County of Westmoreland Virginia of the other part: WITNESSETH that ye sd. William Marshall for and in consideration of ye. sum of five shillings sterling money of England to him in hand paid before ye sealing & delivery hereof ye. receipt whereof he doth hereby acknowledge & thereof & of every part thereof doth hereby acquit & discharge ye. sd John Marshall his heirs Exectrs & administrators by these presents, hath granted bargained & sold & doth hereby grant bargain & sell John Marshall his heirs Exectrs administrs & assigns all that tract or parsel of land (except ye parsel of land wch was sold out of it to Michael Hulburt) scitute lying & being in Westmoreland County in Washington parish on or near Appamattox Creek & being part of a tract of land containing 1200 acres formerly granted to Jno: Washington & Tho: Pope gents by Patent dated the 4th Septbr. 1661 & by them lost for want of seating & since granted to Collo. Nicholas Spencer by Ordr. Genll. Court dated Septbr. ye 21st 1668 & by ye said Spencer assign'd to ye. sd. Jno: Washington ye 9th of Octobr. 1669 which sd. two hundred acres was conveyed & sold to Thomas Marshall by Francis Wright & afterwards acknowledged in Court by John Wright ye. 28th day of May 1707 which sd two hundred acres of land be ye. same more or less and bounded as follows beginning at a black Oak standing in ye. southermost line of ye sd. 1200 acres & being a corner tree of a line that divideth this two hundred acres from One hundred acres of Michael Halbarts extending along ye. sd southermost lines west two hundred poles to a marked red Oak, thence north 160 poles to another marked red Oak thence east 200 poles to a black Oak of ye sd. Halberts to ye place it began, with all houses outhouses Orchards water water courses woods under woods timbers & all other things thereunto belonging with the revertion & revertions remainder & remainders rents issues & yearly profits & every part & parcell thereof. To have and to hold ye. sd. land & premises unto ye. sd John Marshall his heirs Executors Administrs & assignes from ye. day of ye date thereof for & during & untill the full end & term of six months from thence next ensuing fully to be compleat & ended to ye. end that by virtue thereof & of the statutes for transferring uses into possessions ye. sd John Marshall might be in actual possession of ye premises & might be enabled to take and accept of a grant release of the same to him ye. sd John Marshall his heires & assignes forever. In Witness whereof the parties to these present Indentures interchangeably have set----hands & seals ye. day & year first above written.

WM MARSHALL (seal)

Signd. Seald & d'd in sight & presence of-- } FRANCIS LACON, JANE LACON, THOMAS THOMPSON }

WESTMORLD. SS. } At a Court held for the sd. County the 27th } day of March 1728.

William Marshall personally acknowledged this lease of land by him passed to John Marshall to be his proper act and deed, which at the instance of the sd. John Marshall is admitted to record.

Test G. TURBERVILE, C.C.W.

Recorded the 29th day of March 1728. Pr. G. T. C. C. W.

A Copy. Teste:

FRANK STUART, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Westmoreland County, State of Virginia.

[A copy. William Marshall to John Marshall. Deed. Recorded in the Clerk's Office of Westmoreland County, State of Virginia, in Deeds and Wills, no. 8-1, at page 276.]

IV

MEMORIAL OF THOMAS MARSHALL FOR MILITARY EMOLUMENTS

To the Honorable the Speaker and members of the house of Delegates, the Memorial of Thomas Marshall humbly sheweth.

That your Memorialist in Aug^t 1775 was appointed Major to the first minute Battalion raisd within this Commonwealth and early in October the same year enterd into actual service in which he continued during the following winter campaign. That while your memorialist commanded at the Great Bridge he was appointed Major to the 3^d Virginia Continental Regim^t he did not however retire from service but retaind his command and continued at his post till the latter end of March 1776 when the troops under his command were relieved by those of the continent rais'd in this State, by which time the 3^d Virginia Regim^t was rais'd and your Memorialist immediately called on to take command in it. That in Aug^t 1776 he together with the regiment to which he belonged in obedience to the orders they had rec^d began their march to New York, where they join'd the Grand-Army. That your Memorialist continued in hard and unremitting service from this time till the close of the campaign of 1777. That in the latter end of November 1777 your Memorialist was informed by an official letter from the then Governor, of his haveing been appointed by the General Assembly of Virginia to the command of the State regiment of Artillery;--a command he was only induced to take by a preference he ever felt for Artillery Service. That your Memorialist however retain'd his command and continued his service in the Northern Army till the end of the Campaign when the Troops were ordered into winter quarters. That your Memorialist then return'd to Virginia and about the middle of January following took command of his Regim^t of Artillery, which command he rataind till the 26th of February 1781 at which time, the term of enlistment of most of the soldiers of the Regim^t having expired, they were discharged and your Memorialist became a reduced officer. Your Memorialist conceived from the Laws existing at the time he enter'd into the particular service of this State and from the different acts respecting the State Troops which have since passd the Legislature, that he should be intitled to every emolument to which he would have had a just claim had he remaind in the Continental Service. If however only particular discriptions of State Officers are to receive such emoluments as Continental are intitled to, your Memorialist humbly presumes to hope that his haveing made three of the severest campaigns in the last war before he took command of the State Regim^t of Artillery, his haveing rendered, as he trusts, some services as commanding officer of that Regiment, his haveing remaind in service till there was no longer a command for him, his having held himself in readiness to return to service, had his regiment been recruited, give him as fair a claim to military emoluments as any officer who has been in the particular service of this State. Your memorialist therefore humbly prays that your honorable house will take his services into consideration and allow him those emoluments which may be given to other State Officers whose services may not be superior to his.

T. MARSHALL.

A true copy H. R. MCILWAIN, State Librarian. June 20, 1916.

[Marshalls Pet^n Nov. 25th 1784 Referred to Propositions Props. discharged and ref^d to whole on Bill for giving Commutation to Officers of 1st and 2d State Regiments.]

WORKS CITED IN THIS VOLUME

WORKS CITED IN THIS VOLUME

_The material given in parentheses and following certain titles indicates the form in which those titles have been cited in the footnotes._

ADAMS, CHARLES FRANCIS, _editor_. _See_ Adams, John. Works.

ADAMS, HENRY. The Life of Albert Gallatin. Philadelphia. 1879. (Adams: _Gallatin_.)

_See also_ Gallatin, Albert. Writings.

ADAMS, JOHN. Works. Edited by Charles Francis Adams. 10 vols. Boston. 1856. (_Works_: Adams.)

---- Old Family Letters. Copied from the originals for Alexander Biddle. Philadelphia. 1892. _(Old Family Letters.)_

ALLEN, ETHAN. Narrative of the Capture of Ticonderoga, and his Captivity in England, written by himself. Burlington. 1854. (Ethan Allen.)

ALLEN, GARDNER WELD. A Naval History of the American Revolution. 2 vols. New York. 1913. (Allen: _Naval History of Revolution_.)

---- Our Navy and the Barbary Corsairs, Boston. 1905. (Allen: _Our Navy and the Barbary Corsairs_.)

AMBLER, CHARLES HENRY. Sectionalism in Virginia, from 1776 to 1861. Chicago. 1910. (Ambler.)

_American Historical and Literary Curiosities._ _See_ Smith, John Jay, and Watson, John Fanning, _joint editors_.

_American Historical Review._ Managing editor, J. Franklin Jameson. Vols. 1-21. New York. 1896-1916. _(Amer. Hist. Rev.)_

_American Journal of Education._ Edited by Henry Barnard. Vols. 1-30. Hartford. 1856-80.

_American Museum_ or Repository of Ancient and Modern Fugitive Pieces, Philadelphia. 1788. _(American Museum.)_

ANBUREY, THOMAS. Travels through the Interior Parts of America, in a Series of Letters, by An Officer. 2 vols. London. 1789. (Anburey.)

AVERY, ELROY MCKENDREE. A History of the United States and its people. 7 vols. Cleveland. 1904-10. (Avery.)

BAILY, FRANCIS. Journal of a Tour in Unsettled Parts of North America, in 1796 and 1797. London. 1856. (Baily's _Journal_.)

BASSETT, JOHN SPENCER, _editor._ _See_ Byrd, Colonel William, of Westover. Writings.

BAYARD, JAMES A. Papers, from 1796 to 1815. Edited by Elizabeth Donnan. Washington. 1915. (Volume 2 of _Annual Report of the American Historical Association for 1913_.) (_Bayard Papers_: Donnan.)

BEARD, CHARLES A. An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. New York. 1913. (Beard: _Econ. I. C._)

---- Economic Origins of Jeffersonian Democracy. New York. 1915. (Beard: _Econ. O. J. D._)

BELCHER, ROBERT HENRY. The First American Civil War. 2 vols. London. 1911. (Belcher.)

BINNEY, HORACE. Eulogy on John Marshall, reprinted. _See_ Dillon, John F.

BOLTON, CHARLES KNOWLES. The Private Soldier Under Washington. New York. 1902. (Bolton.)

BOUDINOT, ELIAS. Journal of Events in the Revolution, or Historical Recollections of American Events during the Revolutionary War. Philadelphia. 1894. (Boudinot's _Journal_.)

BRANCH, JOHN P. Historical Papers, issued by the Randolph-Macon College, Ashland, Virginia. Richmond. 1901. (_Branch Historical Papers._)

BRISSOT DE WARVILLE, JEAN PIERRE. New Travels in the United States of America, performed in 1788. Dublin. 1792. (De Warville.)

BROGLIE, _Duc_ DE, _editor_. _See_ Talleyrand, Prince de. Memoirs.

BRUCE, PHILIP ALEXANDER. Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century. 2 vols. New York. 1896. (Bruce: _Econ._)

---- Institutional History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century. 2 vols. New York. 1910. (Bruce: _Inst._)

BURGESS, JOHN WILLIAM. Political Science and Comparative Constitutional Law. 2 vols. Boston. 1890.

BURK, JOHN DALY. The History of Virginia, from its First Settlement to the Present Day. Continued by Skelton Jones and Louis Hue Girardin. 4 vols. Richmond. 1804-16. (Burk.)

BURKE, JOHN, _and_ _Sir_ JOHN BERNARD. Peerages of England, Ireland, and Scotland, Extinct, Dormant, and in Abeyance. London. 1846. (Burke: _Extinct Peerages_.)

BURKE, _Sir_ JOHN BERNARD. Dictionary of Peerage and Baronage. Edited by Ashworth P. Burke. New York. 1904. (Burke: _Peerage_.)

BURNABY, ANDREW. Travels Through North America. [Reprinted from the Third Edition of 1798.] New York. 1904. (Burnaby.)

BUTLER, MANN. A History of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Louisville. 1834. (Butler: _History of Kentucky_.)

BYRD, _Colonel_ WILLIAM, of Westover. Writings. Edited by John Spencer Bassett. New York. 1901. (Byrd's _Writings_: Bassett.)

CABOT, GEORGE. _See_ Lodge, Henry Cabot. Life and Letters of George Cabot.

_Calendar of Virginia State Papers and Other Manuscripts._ Preserved in the Capitol at Richmond. Vols. 1-11. Richmond. 1875-1893. _(Cal. Va. St. Prs.)_

CAMPBELL, CHARLES. History of the Colony and Ancient Dominion of Virginia. Philadelphia. 1860. (Campbell.)

CARLYLE, THOMAS. History of Friedrich II of Prussia, called Frederick the Great. 6 vols. London. 1858-65. (Carlyle: _Frederick the Great_.)

CHALKLEY, LYMAN. Chronicles of the Scotch-Irish Settlement in Virginia, Extracted from the Original Court Records of Augusta County [Virginia], 1745-1800. 3 vols. Rosslyn, Virginia. 1912-13. _(Chalkley's Augusta County (Va.) Records.)_

CHANNING, EDWARD. A History of the United States. [Vols. 1-3.] New York. 1912-16. (Channing.)

CHASTELLUX, _Marquis_ F. J. DE. Travels in North America in the years 1780-81-82. New York. 1828. (Chastellux.)

CHEETHAM, JAMES. Letters, From 1801 to 1806. Printed in Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, April and May, 1907.

CHRISTIAN WILLIAM ASBURY. Richmond, Her Past and Present. Richmond. 1912. (Christian.)

COLLINS, LEWIS. History of Kentucky. Enlarged by his son, Richard H. Collins. 2 vols. Covington, Kentucky, 1874. (Collins: _History of Kentucky_.)

CONWAY, MONCURE DANIEL. Omitted Chapters of History, disclosed in the Life and Papers of Edmund Randolph. New York. 1888. (Conway.)

---- _Also see_ Paine, Thomas. Writings.

CRÈVECOEUR, MICHEL GUILLAUME SAINT JOHN DE. Letters from an American Farmer. By J. Hector St. John Crèvecoeur. _[pseud.]_ New York. 1904. (Crèvecoeur.)

DANDRIDGE, DANSKE. American Prisoners of the Revolution. Richmond. 1911. (Dandridge: _American Prisoners of the Revolution_.)

DAVIS, JOHN. Travels of Four Years and a half in the United States of America. 1798-1802. London. 1803. (Davis.)

DAWSON, HENRY B. The Assault on Stony Point by General Anthony Wayne. Morrisania. 1863. (Dawson.)

DEFOE, DANIEL. Novels and Miscellaneous Works. Preface and Notes attributed to Sir Walter Scott. Moll Flanders [vol. 3.] [Bohn's British Classics.] 7 vols. London. 1854-66. (Defoe: _Moll Flanders_.)

DILLON, JOHN F., _compiler_. John Marshall, Life, Character, and Judicial Services. (Including the Classic Orations of Binney, Story, Phelps, Waite, and Rawle.) 3 vols. Chicago. 1903. (Story, in Dillon; and Binney, in Dillon.)

DODD, WILLIAM E. Statesmen of the Old South, or From Radicalism to Conservative Revolt. New York. 1911. (Dodd.)

DONNAN, ELIZABETH, _editor_. _See_ Bayard, James A. Papers.

DOUGLAS, _Sir_ ROBERT. Peerage of Scotland. Edinburgh. 1764. (Douglas: _Peerage of Scotland_.)

ECKENRODE, H. J. The Revolution in Virginia. Boston. 1916. (Eckenrode: _R. V._)

---- Separation of Church and State in Virginia. A Study in the Development of the Revolution. Richmond. 1910. [Special Report of the Department of Archives and History of the Virginia State Library.] (Eckenrode: _S. of C. and S._)

_Eighty Years' Progress of the United States, from the Revolutionary War to the Great Rebellion._ [By Eminent Literary Men.] New York. 1864. _(Eighty Years' Progress.)_

ELLIOTT, JONATHAN, _compiler_. The Debates in the Several State Conventions of the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. 5 vols. Philadelphia. 1896. (Elliott.)

FITHIAN, PHILIP VICKERS. Journal and Letters, 1767-1774. Edited by John Rogers Williams. Princeton University Library. 1900. (Fithian.)

FLANDERS, HENRY. The Lives and Times of the Chief Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. 2 vols. Philadelphia. 1881. (Flanders.)

FOOTE, REV. WILLIAM HENRY. Sketches of Virginia, Historical and Biographical. 2 vols. Philadelphia. 1850-55. (Foote: _Sketches of Virginia_.)

FORD, PAUL LEICESTER, _editor._ Essays on the Constitution of the United States. New York. 1892. (Ford: _Essays on the Constitution_.)

---- Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States. New York. 1888. (Ford: _P. on C._)

_See also_ Jefferson, Thomas. Works.

FORD, WORTHINGTON CHAUNCEY, _editor_. _See_ Jefferson, Thomas. Correspondence.

_Also see_ Washington, George. Writings.

FRANKLIN, BENJAMIN. Writings. Edited by Albert Henry Smyth. 10 vols. New York. 1907. (_Writings_: Smyth.)

FRENEAU, PHILIP. Poems of Philip Freneau. Edited by Fred Lewis Pattee. 3 vols. Princeton. 1902-07. (Freneau.)

GALLATIN, ALBERT. Writings. Edited by Henry Adams. 3 vols. Philadelphia. 1879. (Gallatin's _Writings_: Adams.)

_See also_ Adams, Henry. Life of Albert Gallatin.

GARLAND, HUGH A. Life of John Randolph of Roanoke. 2 vols. New York. 1851. (Garland: _Randolph_.)

GIBBS, GEORGE, _editor_. _See_ Wolcott, Oliver. Memoirs of the Administrations of Washington and John Adams. (Gibbs.)

GOODRICH, SAMUEL G. Recollections of a Lifetime, or Men and Things I Have Seen. 2 vols. New York. 1856. (Goodrich.)

GOSSE, EDMUND. A History of Eighteenth Century Literature. London. 1889. (Gosse: _History of Eighteenth Century Literature_.)

GRAYDON, ALEXANDER. Memoirs of His Own Time, with Reminiscences of the Men and Events of the Revolution. Edited by John Stockton Littell. Philadelphia. 1846. (Graydon.)

_Green Bag, The_; an Entertaining Magazine for Lawyers. Edited by Horace W. Fuller. Vols. 1-26. Boston. 1889-1914. [After 1914 consolidated with _The Central Law Journal_.] _(Green Bag.)_

GRIGSBY, HUGH BLAIR. The History of the Virginia Federal Convention of 1788. Virginia Historical Society. Richmond. 1815. [Volume 1 is volume 9, new series. Volume 2 is volume 10, new series.] (Grigsby.)

HALSEY, FRANCIS WHITING. The Old New York Frontier. New York. 1901. (Halsey: _Old New York Frontier_.)

HAMILTON, ALEXANDER. Works. Edited by John C. Hamilton. 7 vols. New York. 1851. (_Works_: Hamilton.)

---- Works. Edited by Henry Cabot Lodge. [Federal Edition.] 12 vols. New York. 1904. (_Works_: Lodge.)

HAMILTON, JOHN C., _editor_. History of the Republic of the United States, as traced in the Writings of Alexander Hamilton and his Contemporaries. 6 vols. New York. 1857-60. (Hamilton: _History of the Republic_.)

_See also_ Hamilton, Alexander. Works.

HAMILTON, STANISLAUS MURRAY, _editor_. _See_ Monroe, James. Writings.

HARDING, SAMUEL BANNISTER. The Contest over the Ratification of the Federal Constitution in the State of Massachusetts. New York. 1896. (Harding.)

HART, ALBERT BUSHNELL. American History told by Contemporaries. 4 vols. New York. 1897-1901. (Hart.)

HATCH, LOUIS CLINTON. Administration of the American Revolutionary Army. New York. 1904. (Hatch.)

HAZEN, CHARLES DOWNER. Contemporary American Opinion of the French Revolution. Baltimore. 1897. (Hazen.)

HEITMAN, FRANCIS BERNARD. Historical Register of Officers of the Continental Army, during the War of the Revolution. Washington, D.C. 1893.

---- Same. Revised and Enlarged Edition. Washington. 1914. (Heitman.)

HENING, WILLIAM WALLER. _See_ Virginia. Laws.

HENRY, PATRICK. Life, Correspondence, and Speeches. Edited by William Wirt Henry. 3 vols. New York. 1891. (Henry.)

_See also_ Wirt, William. Sketches of Life and Character of Patrick Henry.

HENRY, WILLIAM WIRT, _editor_. _See_ Henry, Patrick. Life, Correspondence, and Speeches.

HINSDALE, B. A. The Old Northwest. 2 vols. New York. 1891. (Hinsdale.)

_Historical Magazine and Notes and Queries Concerning the Antiquities, History, and Biography of America._ [1st Series.] Vols. 1-10. New York. 1857-75. _(Hist. Mag.)_

_History of William and Mary College_, from its foundation, 1693, to 1870. Baltimore. 1870.

HOWE, HENRY. Historical Collections of Virginia. Charleston, S.C. 1845. (Howe.)

HUDSON, FREDERIC. Journalism in the United States from 1690 to 1872. New York. 1873. (Hudson: _Journalism in the United States._)

HUNT, GAILLARD, _editor_. _See_ Madison, James. Writings.

IREDELL, JAMES. _See_ McRee, Griffith J. Life and Correspondence of James Iredell.

IRVING, WASHINGTON. The Life of George Washington. 5 vols. New York. 1855. (Irving.)

JAMESON, J. FRANKLIN, _editor_. Essays in the Constitutional History of the United States, 1775-1789, by Graduates and Former Members of Johns Hopkins University. Boston. 1889. (Jameson.)

JAY, JOHN. Correspondence and Public Papers. Edited by Henry P. Johnston. 4 vols. New York. 1890. (_Jay_: Johnston.)

JEFFERSON, THOMAS. Correspondence, from originals in the collections of William K. Bixby. Edited by Worthington Chauncey Ford. Boston. 1916. (_Thomas Jefferson Correspondence_: Ford.)

---- Works. Edited by Paul Leicester Ford. Federal Edition. 12 vols. New York. 1904. (_Works_: Ford.)

---- Writings. Edited by H. A. Washington. 9 vols. Washington, D.C. 1853-54. (Jefferson's _Writings_: Washington.)

_See_ Morse, John T. Thomas Jefferson. _And see_ Randall, Henry S. Life of Thomas Jefferson. _Also see_ Tucker, George. Life of Thomas Jefferson.

JOHNSTON, HENRY P., _editor_. _See_ Jay, John. Correspondence and Public Papers.

JONES, HUGH. The Present State of Virginia. London. 1724. (Jones.)

KAPP, FRIEDRICH. Life of Major-General Von Steuben. New York. 1859. (Kapp.)

KEITH, _Sir_ WILLIAM, _Bart._ The History of the British Plantations in America, Part I, containing the History of Virginia. London. 1738. (Keith: _History of Virginia_.)

KING, CHARLES R., _editor_. _See_ King, Rufus. Life and Correspondence.

KING, RUFUS. Life and Correspondence. Edited by Charles R. King. 6 vols. New York. 1894. (King.)

LAMB, _General_ JOHN. Memoir and Life. _See_ Leake, Isaac Q.

LANG, ANDREW. History of English Literature. New York. 1912. [2d edition.] (Lang: _History of English Literature_.)

LA ROCHEFOUCAULD-LIANCOURT, FRANÇOIS ALEXANDRE FRÉDÉRIC, _Duc_ DE. Travels through the United States of North America. 4 vols. London. 1800. (La Rochefoucauld.)

LEAKE, ISAAC Q. Memoir of the Life and Times of General John Lamb, an Officer of The Revolution, and his Correspondence with Washington, Clinton, Patrick Henry, and other Distinguished Men. Albany. 1850. (Leake: _Lamb_.)

LEE, EDMUND JENNINGS. Lee of Virginia. 1642-1892. Biographical and Genealogical Sketches of the Descendants of Colonel Richard Lee. Philadelphia. 1895. (Lee: _Lee of Virginia_.)

LEE, _Colonel_ RICHARD. Lee of Virginia. _See_ Lee, Edmund Jennings.

LODGE, HENRY CABOT. Life and Letters of George Cabot. Boston. 1878. (Lodge: _Cabot_.)

---- George Washington. 2 vols. Boston. 1889. [American Statesmen.] (Lodge: _Washington_.)

_See also_ Hamilton, Alexander. Works.

LOSSING, BENSON J. The Pictorial Field-Book of the Revolution. 2 vols. New York. 1851. (Lossing.) _See also_ Washington, George. _Diary._

LOWDERMILK, WILL H. History of Cumberland (Maryland). Washington, D.C. 1878. (Lowdermilk.)

M'CLUNG, JOHN ALEXANDER. Sketches of Western Adventure. Philadelphia. 1832. (M'Clung: _Sketches of Western Adventure_.)

MCCRADY, EDWARD. The History of South Carolina. 4 vols. New York. 1897-1902. (McCrady.)

MCHENRY, JAMES. Life and Correspondence. _See_ Steiner, Bernard C.

MCMASTER, JOHN BACH, _and_ STONE, FREDERICK D. Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution. Philadelphia. 1888. (McMaster and Stone.)

MCREE, GRIFFITH, J. Life and Correspondence of James Iredell. 2 vols. New York. 1857. (McRee.)

MADISON, JAMES. Writings. Edited by Gaillard Hunt. 9 vols. New York. 1900. (_Writings_: Hunt.)

_See also_ Rives, William C. History of Life and Times.

_Magazine, The, of American History, with Notes and Queries._ Vols. 1-42. New York. 1877-1913. (_Mag. Am. Hist._)

_Magazine of Western History._ Cleveland, Ohio. Edited by William W. Williams. Vols. 1-14. 1885-94. (_Mag. Western Hist._)

MARSHALL, HUMPHREY. The History of Kentucky. 2 vols. Frankfort. 1824. (Humphrey Marshall.)

MARSHALL, JOHN. Autobiography. _See_ Smith, John Jay _and_ Watson, John Fanning, _joint editors_. American Historical and Literary Curiosities. (_Autobiography._)

---- Same. In National Portrait Gallery of Eminent Americans. Paintings by Alonzo Chappel, and Biographical and Historical Narratives by Evert A. Duyckinck. 2 vols. New York. 1862.

---- Same, reprinted. _See_ Dillon, John F.

---- Life of George Washington. [1st Edition.] 5 vols. Philadelphia. 1805. [2d Edition.] 2 vols. Philadelphia. 1840. [The 2d Edition is cited in this work unless otherwise stated in the notes.] (Marshall.)

_See also_ Thayer, James Bradley. John Marshall.

_And see_ Flanders, Henry. Lives of the Chief Justices.

_Also see_ Van Santvoord, George. Sketches of the Lives of the Chief-Justices.

MASON, GEORGE. Life. _See_ Rowland, Kate Mason.

MEADE, _Bishop_ WILLIAM. Old Churches, Ministers, and Families of Virginia. 2 vols. Richmond. 1910. (Meade.)

MINER, CHARLES. History of Wyoming, in a series of letters, from Charles Miner, to his son, William Penn Miner, Esq. Philadelphia. 1845. (Miner: _History of Wyoming_.)

MINOT, GEORGE RICHARDS. The History of the Insurrections in Massachusetts, in 1786, and the Rebellion consequent thereon. Boston. 1810. (Minot: _History of the Insurrections in Massachusetts_.)

MONROE, JAMES. Writings. Edited by Stanislaus Murray Hamilton. 7 vols. [Unfinished work.] New York. 1898-1903. (Monroe's _Writings_: Hamilton.)

MOORE, FRANK. Diary of the American Revolution, from Newspapers and Original Documents. 2 vols. New York. 1809. (Moore's _Diary_.)

MORDECAI, SAMUEL. Richmond in By-Gone Days, Being Reminiscences of An Old Citizen. Richmond. 1856. (Mordecai.)

MORRIS, GOUVERNEUR. Diary and Letters. Edited by Anne Cary Morris. 2 vols. London. 1889. (Morris.)

MORSE, JOHN T. Thomas Jefferson. Boston. 1795. [American Statesmen.] (Morse.)

MUNFORD, WILLIAM. _See_ Virginia, Law Reports.

NEW JERSEY HISTORICAL SOCIETY. Proceedings. Vols. 1-10. Newark. 1847-1905. (_Proc._, N.J. Hist. Soc.)

NILES, HEZEKIAH. Centennial Offering, Republication of the Principles and Acts of the Revolution in America. New York. 1876. (Niles: _Principles and Acts of the Revolution_.)

NOTT, ELIPHALET. Memoirs. _See_ Van Santvoord, C.

PAINE, THOMAS. Writings. Edited by Moncure Daniel Conway. 4 vols. New York. 1894-96. (_Writings_: Conway.)

PAXTON, WILLIAM M. The Marshall Family, or a Genealogical Chart of the Descendants of John Marshall and Elizabeth Markham. Cincinnati. 1885. (Paxton.)

PECQUET DU BELLET, LOUISE. Some Prominent Virginia Families. 4 vols. Lynchburg, Va. 1909. (Pecquet du Bellet.)

_Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography._ Published by the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Vols. 1-40. Philadelphia. 1877-1916. (_Pa. Mag. Hist. and Biog._)

PICKERING, OCTAVIUS. Life of Timothy Pickering, by his son and continued by Charles W. Upham. 4 vols. Boston. 1867-73. (Pickering: _Pickering_.)

PICKERING, TIMOTHY. Life. _See_ Pickering, Octavius.

QUINCY, JOSIAH. Figures of the Past, from the leaves of Old Journals. Boston. 1883. (Quincy: _Figures of the Past_.)

RANDALL, HENRY S. Life of Thomas Jefferson. 3 vols. New York. 1858. (Randall.)

RANDOLPH, EDMUND. Life and Papers. _See_ Conway, Moncure Daniel.

RANDOLPH, JOHN. Life. _See_ Garland, Hugh A.

RIVES, WILLIAM C. The History of the Life and Times of James Madison. 3 vols. Boston. 1859. (Rives.)

ROWLAND, KATE MASON. Life of George Mason. 2 vols. New York. 1892. (Rowland.)

SARGENT, WINTHROP. The History of an Expedition against Fort Du Quesne, in 1755, under Major-General Edward Braddock. Philadelphia. 1855. (Sargent.)

SCHOEPF, JOHANN DAVID. Travels in the Confederation, 1783-1784. Translated and edited by Alfred J. Morrison. 2 vols. Philadelphia. 1911. (Schoepf.)

SCOTT, JOHN, of Fauquier County, Va. The Lost Principle. By "Barbarossa" [_pseud._]. Richmond. 1860. (Scott.)

SLAUGHTER, _Rev._ PHILIP. A History of St. Mark's Parish, Culpepper County, Virginia. Baltimore. 1877. (Slaughter.)

---- A History of Bristol Parish, Virginia. Richmond. 1879. (Slaughter: _Bristol Parish_.)

SMITH, JOHN JAY, _and_ WATSON, JOHN FANNING, _joint editors_. _American Historical and Literary Curiosities._ New York. 1852. (_Am. Hist and Lit. Curiosities._)

SMYTH-STUART, J. FERDINAND D. A Tour in the United States of America. 2 vols. London. 1784. (Smyth: _Tour of the United States_.)

_Southern Literary Messenger._ Vols. 1-38. New York and Washington. 1834-64.

SPARKS, JARED. The Life of George Washington. Boston. 1839. [Same plates, 1842.] (Sparks.)

---- Correspondence of the American Revolution [being letters of eminent men to George Washington]. 4 vols. Boston. 1853. (_Cor. Rev._: Sparks.)

_See also_ Washington, George. Writings.

STANARD, MARY NEWTON. The Story of Bacon's Rebellion. New York. 1907. (Stanard: _Story of Bacon's Rebellion_.)

STEINER, BERNARD C. The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry. Cleveland. 1907. (Steiner.)

STEPHEN, LESLIE. Alexander Pope. New York. 1880. (Stephen: _Alexander Pope_.)

STEUBEN, FREIDRICH WILHELM AUGUST HEINRICH FERDINAND, _Baron_ VON. Life. _See_ Kapp, Friedrich.

STILLÉ, CHARLES J[ANEWAY]. Major-General Anthony Wayne, and the Pennsylvania Line in the Continental Army. Philadelphia. 1893. (Stillé.)

STORY, JOSEPH. Discourse on John Marshall, reprinted.

_See_ Dillon, John F. _Also see_ Story, William Wirt.

STORY, WILLIAM WIRT. Life and Letters of Joseph Story. 2 vols. Boston. 1851. (Story.)

TALLEYRAND-PÉRIGORD, CHARLES MAURICE DE, _Prince_ DE BÉNÉVENT. Memoirs. Edited by the Duc de Broglie. 5 vols. New York. 1891. (_Memoirs of Talleyrand_: Broglie's Ed.)

TERHUNE, MARY VIRGINIA HAWES. Some Colonial Homesteads and their Stories. By Marion Harland [_pseud._]. 2 vols. New York. 1912. (Terhune: _Colonial Homesteads_.)

THAYER, JAMES BRADLEY. John Marshall. Boston. 1904. [Riverside Biographical Series, No. 9.] (Thayer.)

TRAILL, H. D., _editor_. Social England. A Record of the Progress of the People. By Various Writers. 7 vols. London. 1896. (Traill: _Social England_.)

TREVELYAN, _Sir_ GEORGE OTTO, _Bart._ The American Revolution. 4 vols. New York. 1907. (Trevelyan.)

TUCKER, GEORGE. Life of Thomas Jefferson. 2 vols. Philadelphia. 1837. (Tucker.)

TURNER, FREDERICK JACKSON. The Old West. [Printed in Wisconsin Historical Society, _Proceedings_ for 1908.] Madison, Wis. 1909. (Turner: _The Old West_.)

TYLER, LYON G. Letters and Times of the Tylers. 2 vols. Richmond. 1884. (Tyler.)

---- Williamsburg, the Old Colonial Capital. Richmond. 1907. (Tyler: _Williamsburg_.)

VAN BUREN, MARTIN. Inquiry into the Origin and Course of Political Parties in the United States. New York. 1867. (Van Buren.)

VAN SANTVOORD, C. Memoirs of Eliphalet Nott. New York. 1876. (Van Santvoord: _Memoirs of Eliphalet Nott_.)

VAN SANTVOORD, GEORGE. Sketches of the Lives and Judicial Services of the Chief-Justices of the Supreme Court of United States. New York. 1854. (Van Santvoord.)

_Virginia Historical Papers._ Manuscripts now in the Virginia Historical Society Library, at Richmond. (_Va. Hist. Prs._)

VIRGINIA. House of Burgesses. Journal of the Virginia House of Burgesses. 1619-1776. Now in the Archives of the Virginia State Library. (Journal, H.B.)

VIRGINIA. House of Delegates. Journal of the Virginia House of Delegates. 1776-1916. Now in the Archives of the Virginia State Library. (Journal, H.D.)

VIRGINIA. Laws. Hening, William Waller. The Statutes at Large. Being a Collection of the Laws of Virginia from 1619 to 1808. 13 vols. New York. 1819-23. (Hening.)

VIRGINIA. Law Reports. Call, Daniel. Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia. 6 vols. Richmond. 1824-33. (Call.)

---- Munford, William. Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Appeals, of Virginia. 15 vols. New York. 1812. (Munford).

_Virginia Magazine of History and Biography._ Published by the Virginia Historical Society. Vols. 1-24. Richmond. 1893-1916. (_Va. Mag. Hist. and Biog._)

WALDO, _Surgeon_ ALBIGENCE. Diary at Valley Forge from Nov. 1, 1777 to Jan. 15, 1778. [In _Historical Magazine_, vol. 5, pp. 129-34, 169-72.]

WALLACE, DAVID DUNCAN. The Life of Henry Laurens, with Sketch of the Life of Lieutenant-Colonel John Laurens. New York. 1915. (Wallace.)

WARVILLE. _See_ Brissot de Warville.

WASHINGTON, GEORGE. Diary from 1789 to 1791. Edited by Benson J. Lossing. New York. 1860. (Washington's _Diary_: Lossing.)

---- Writings. Edited by Worthington Chauncey Ford. 14 vols. New York. 1889-1893. (_Writings_: Ford.)

---- Writings. Edited by Jared Sparks. 12 vols. Boston. 1834-1837. (_Writings_: Sparks.)

_See_ Irving, Washington. Life of George Washington. _And_ Lodge, Henry Cabot. George Washington. _Also_ Marshall, John. Life of George Washington. _Also see_ Sparks, Jared. Life of George Washington.

WASHINGTON, H. A., _editor_. _See_ Jefferson, Thomas. Writings.

WATSON, WINSLOW C. Men and Times of the Revolution, or Memoirs of Elkanah Watson, by his son. New York. 1856. (Watson.)

WEEDON, _General_ GEORGE. Valley Forge Orderly Book. New York. 1902. (Weedon.)

WELD, ISAAC. Travels Through the States of North America, and the Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada During the Years 1795, 1796, and 1797. [3d Edition.] 2 vols. London. 1800. (Weld.)

WERTENBAKER, THOMAS J. Patrician and Plebeian in Virginia, or the Origin and Development of the Social Classes of the Old Dominion. Charlottesville, Va. 1910. (_Wertenbaker_: _P. and P._)

---- Virginia Under the Stuarts, 1607-1688. Princeton University. 1914. (Wertenbaker: _V. U. S._)

WILD, EBENEZER. Diary in the Revolutionary War from 1776 to 1781. [In Massachusetts Historical Society, _Proceedings_ (2d Series), vol. 6, pp. 78-160.]

WILKINSON, _General_ JAMES. Memoirs of my Own Times. 3 vols. Philadelphia. 1816. (Wilkinson: _Memoirs_.)

_William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine._ Richmond. Vols. 1-16. 1892-1908. (_W. and M. C. Q._)

WIRT, WILLIAM. The Letters of the British Spy. [9th Edition.] Baltimore. 1831. (Wirt: _British Spy_.)

---- Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry. Philadelphia. 1818. (Wirt.)

WISE, JENNINGS CROPPER. Ye Kingdome of Accawmacke, or the Eastern Shore of Virginia, in the Seventeenth Century. Richmond. 1911. (Wise.)

WOLCOTT, OLIVER. Memoirs of the Administrations of Washington and John Adams. Edited from the papers of Oliver Wolcott, by George Gibbs. 2 vols. New York. 1846. (Gibbs.)

WOOD, WILLIAM. The Fight for Canada. Westminster, 1904. (Wood.)

* * * * *

Transcriber's Notes:

1. Passages in italics are surrounded by _underscores_.

2. Obvious errors in spelling and punctuation have been corrected.

3. Footnotes have been renumbered and moved from the page end to the end of their respective chapters.

4. Images have been moved from the middle of a paragraph to the closest paragraph break.

5. Certain words use an oe ligature in the original.

6. Carat character (^) followed by a single letter or a set of letters in curly brackets is indicative of subscript in the original book.