To Thomas Jefferson from James Madison, 17 October 1784
From James Madison
Philada. Octr. 17. 1784.
Dear Sir
On my arrival here I found that Mr. Short had passed through on his way to N. York and was there at the date of my last. I regret much that I missed the pleasure of seeing him. The inclosed was put into my hands by Mrs. House, who received it after he left Philada. My two last, neither of which were in cypher, were written as will be all future ones in the same situation, in1 expectation of their being read by the postmasters. I am well assured that this is the fate of all letters at least to and from public persons not only in France but all the other Countries of Europe. Having now the use of my cypher I can write without restraint. In my last I gave you a sketch of what past at Fort Schuyler during my stay there, mentioning in particular that the Marquis had made a speech to the Indians with the sanction of the Commissioners, Wolcot, Lee, Butler. The question will probably occur how a foreigner and a private one, could appear on the theatre of a public treaty between United States and the Indian nations and how the Commissioners could lend a sanction to it. Instead of offering an opinion of the measure I will state the manner in which it was brought about. It seems that most of the Indian tribes particularly those of the Iroquois retain a strong predilection for the French and most of the latter an enthusiastic idea of the marquis. This idea has resulted from his being a Frenchman, the figure he has made during the war and the arrival of several important events which he foretold to them soon after he came to this country. Before he went to Fort Schuyler it had been suggested, either in compliment or sincerity that his presence and influence might be of material service to the treaty. At Albany the same thing had been said to him by general Wolcot. On his arrival at Fort S. Mr. Kirkland recommended an exertion of his influence as of essential consequence to the treaty, painting in the strongest colours the attachment of the Indians to his person, which seemed indeed to be verified by their caresses and the artifices employed by the British partizans to frustrate the objects of the treaty, among which was a pretext that the alliance between the United States and France was insincere and transitory and consequently the respect of the Indians for the later ought to be no motive for their respecting the former. Upon these circumstances the M. grounded a written message to the Commissioners before they got up intimating his disposition to render the United States any service his small influence over the Indians might put in his power and desiring to know what the Commissioners would chuse him to say. The answer in Mr. Lee’s hand consisted of polite acknowledgments and information that the Commissioners would be happy in affording him an opportunity of saying what ever he might wish forbearing to advise or suggest what it would be best for him to say. The M. perceived the caution but imputed it to Lee alone. As his stay however was to be very short it was necessary for him to take provisional measures before the arrival of the commissioners and particularly for calling in the Oneida Cheifs who were at their town. It fell to my lot to be consulted in his dilemma. My advice was that he should invite the chiefs in such a way as would give him an opportunity of addressing them publicly, if on a personal interview with the Commissioners it should be judged expedient; or of satisfying their expectations with a friendly entertainment in return for the civilities his visit to their town had met with. This advice was approved; but the Indians brought with them such ideas of his importance as no private reception would probably have been equal to. When the Commissioners arrived the M. consulted them in person. They were reserved, he was embarrassed. Finally they changed their plan and concurred explicitly in his making a Speech in form. He accordingly prepared one, communicated it to the Commissioners and publicly pronounced it, the Commissioners premising such an one as was thought proper to introduce his. The answer of the sachems, as well as the circumstances of the audience denoted the highest reverence for the orator. The cheif of the Oneidas said that the words which he had spoken to them early in the war had prevented them from being misled to the wrong side of it. During this scene and even during the whole stay of the M. he was the only conspicuous figure. The Commissioners were eclipsed. All of them probably felt it. Lee complained to me of the immoderate stress laid on the influence of the M., and evidently promoted his departure. The M. was not insensible of it, but consoled himself with the service which he thought the Indian speech would witness that he had rendered to the United States. I am persuaded that the transaction is also pleasing to him in another view as it will form a bright column in the gazettes of Europe, and that he will be impatient for its appearance there without seeing any mode in which it can happen of course.2 As it is blended with the proceedings of the Commissioners, it will probably not be published in America very soon, if at all.3 The time I have lately passed with the M. has given me a pretty thorough insight into his character. With great natural frankness of temper he unites much address; with very considerable talents, a strong thirst of praise and popularity.4 In his politics he says his three hobby-horses are the alliance between France and the United States, the Union of the latter and the manumission of the slaves. The two former are the dearer to him as they are connected with his personal glory. The last does him real honor, as it is a proof of his humanity. In a word, I take him to be as amiable a man as his vanity will admit,5 and as sincere an American as any Frenchman can be; one whose past services gratitude obliges us to acknowledge and whose future friendship prudence requires us to cultivate.
The Committee of the States have never reassembled. The case of Longchamps has been left both by the Legislature and Executive of this State to its Judiciary course. He is sentenced to a fine of 100 Crowns, to 2 years imprisonment, and Security for good behaviour for 7 years. On teusday morning I set off for Richmond, where I ought to be tomorrow, but some delays have put it out of my power. The ramble I have taken has rather inflamed than extinguished my curiosity to see the Northern and N.W. Country. If circumstances be favorable I may probably resume it next Summer. Present my compliments to Miss Patsy, for whom as well as yourself Mrs. House charges me with hers. She has lately received a letter from poor Mrs. Trist, every syllable of which is the language of affliction itself. She had arrived safe at the habitation of her deceased husband, but will not be able to leave that Country till the Spring at the nearest. The only happiness she says she is capable of there is to receive proofs that her friends have not forgotten her. I do not learn what is likely to be the amount of the effects left by Mr. T. Former accounts varied from 6 to 10,000 dollars. I am Dear Sir Yrs. very affectly.,
J. Madison Jr.
RC (DLC: Madison Papers); at head of text: “No. (5)”; partly in code; addressed: “The Honble Thomas Jefferson Paris.” Noted in SJL as received 1 Feb. 1785. The enclosure may have been a letter to Short, possibly from TJ, but it has not been identified.
The best account of Lafayette’s dramatic appearance before the Indian conference is to be found in Gottschalk, Lafayette, 1783–89, p. 96–108. Madison’s prediction that Lafayette’s speech probably would not be published in America very soon, if at all was not well grounded and Lafayette’s hope that it would form a bright column in the Gazettes of Europe turned out to be a distressing reality when the speech appeared in American newspapers before the commissioners had reported to Congress. As indicated in Madison’s letter to TJ of 11 Oct. 1784, Marbois had been so busy transcribing the proceedings of the treaty that Madison was unable to see the originals in order to make copies for TJ. Somehow, probably from Marbois or even from Lafayette himself (though possibly from the Rev. Dr. Samuel Kirkland, missionary to the Oneidas and secretary of the conference), St. John de Crèvecœur obtained copies of Lafayette’s speech and the Indians’ replies and published them in Penna. Packet, 17 and 19 Nov. 1784, whence they were copied by other newspapers (Penna. Jour., 24 and 27 Nov. 1784; Va. Gaz. & Weekly Advertiser, 11 Dec. 1784; Conn. Courant, 30 Nov. 1784; Mass. Centinel, 29 Nov. and 1 Dec. 1784). “Lafayette, embarrassed or pretending to be embarrassed by the publication of this account before an official report had been made by the commissioners, apologized to Congress” (Gottschalk, Lafayette, 1783–89, p. 107, 128–9). He wrote a protest to Crèvecœur who published a note to the effect that the speeches had been printed without Lafayette’s knowledge (Penna. Packet, 11 Dec. 1784; , xxvii, 672; DNA: PCC, No. 156, p. 396).
Lafayette’s concern was needless and, as Gottschalk suggests, may have been feigned. His speech was actually made before the serious negotiations of the treaty got under way, though it was, of course, made after the commissioners arrived and with their somewhat reluctant permission—the more reluctant because under the circumstances of Lafayette’s early arrival and the Indians’ attitude it could not have been denied. The treaty as reported to Congress and as published officially in 1785 contained neither the commissioners’ nor Lafayette’s speeches, and consisted only of the terms agreed upon with the Six Nations (, xxviii, 423–4; xxix, 923, No. 480). The commissioners felt an understandable resentment at being “eclipsed” by the glamorous figure of the marquis who, despite his having been adopted by the Iroquois in 1778 with the name Kayewla, was only a private figure at the treaty. But there is no reason to suppose that their failure to include speeches in their report of the treaty was based on such grounds. The great period of the classic Indian treaty, with savage protocol determining the manner and to some extent the substance of reports of treaty conferences, was over by 1784. The Treaty of Fort Stanwix of 1768 had been the climax. In the half century that preceded it, when the Six Nations occupied a strategic position between the English colonies and New France, Indian treaties assumed a form and texture different in many respects from what preceded or followed (Julian P. Boyd and Carl Van Doren, Indian Treaties Printed by Benjamin Franklin, Philadelphia, 1938). From the time of the Revolution on, reports or minutes of treaties came to read more and more like contracts and less and less like forest literature. Marbois, who seems to have been unimpressed by Indian eloquence, was nevertheless acting on a colonial precedent of long standing when he submitted to Vergennes a full transcript of all of the proceedings at the conference, including speeches filled with native imagery; the commissioners, in reporting to Congress, were acting in accord with the newer trend when they deliberately excluded the colorful and dramatic features of Indian treaties in favor of prosaic matters agreed upon. Though no text of any of the speeches appears to be preserved in PCC, the copy sent by Marbois to Vergennes is in Arch. Aff. Etr., Paris, Corr. Pol., E-U, vol. xxviii, 322–6 (Tr in DLC). A translation of Lafayette’s speech, signed by him and attested as a “Free Translation,” is printed in , xiv (1890), 319–20, and also N. B. Craig, ed., Olden Time, &c. (Pittsburgh, 1846–48), ii, 428–9; see also 512–22. This version agrees in substance though not in phraseology with that published in Penna. Jour. and other newspapers, but in his letter to Congress Lafayette described the latter as “inaccurate.”
The newspaper publication of Lafayette’s speech must be reinterpreted in the light of new matter presented in the text of the present letter as described in notes 2–5 below. Gottschalk, who employed the text that had been tampered with and revised by Madison some four decades after the letter was written, nevertheless clearly understood that everything Lafayette did “seemed to turn into a golden opportunity, although sometimes only as a result of careful burnishing on his part” (Gottschalk, Lafayette, 1783–89, p. 107). He also conjectured that Crèvecœur had obtained his copy of the speech “perhaps from Marbois, conceivably from Lafayette himself” and that Lafayette’s embarrassment at the newspaper publication may have been pretended (same, p. 107, 128–9). This conjecture is given additional plausibility by the observation made by Madison in 1784 and suppressed by him later—that Lafayette would be impatient for the appearance of the speech in the gazettes of Europe “without seeing any mode in which it can happen of course” (see note 2). It is not unlikely nor uncharacteristic that Lafayette, in these circumstances, should have set in course through Crèvecœur the mode by which his performance at the treaty should become known to a wider public.
This becomes all the more credible when it is pointed out that newspapers had in fact already published the substance of the treaty itself before Lafayette’s speech appeared in print. A New York paper of 16 Nov. 1784 informed its readers “upon undoubted authority”—perhaps that of the commissioners themselves—“that the Commissioners of the United States have concluded a treaty, at Fort Stanwix, with the six Indian nations, and have given peace to the Seneca, Mohawk, Onondaga, and Cayuga tribes, and received them into the protection of the United States, in consequence of their having delivered into the hands of the Commissioners six hostages (who are sachems and warriors) to remain in the power of the United States until the people, which have been captured by those late hostile tribes shall be delivered up‥‥We are also to inform the public that, by an article of the treaty, a boundary line is established between the United States and the possessions of the six Indian nations, by which a very considerable territory is yielded up to the United States, to compensate them, in some measure, for the injuries which they have received from the said late hostile tribes, during the late war” (Penna. Jour., 20 Nov. 1784). The chief difference between this account and the commissioners’ report to Congress was that the former did not point out that the Indians had given up lands between Lake Erie and the Ohio in return for confirmation to them of their lands in New York; both were alike in omitting all speeches and formalities and in being confined to matters agreed upon by the two parties to the treaty. On the two succeeding issues of the Penna. Jour. following this quasi-official release of the results of the treaty, there appeared the more colorful “Relation of what passed at the opening of the Treaty between the United States and the Indian Nations at Fort Schuyler, Oct. 3” (the caption given to Lafayette’s speech and replies to it). Because of Lafayette’s possible connection with the appearance of this “Relation” and because Crèvecœur’s version of the proceedings appears not to have been published since 1784, the Penna. Jour. account in its issues of 24 and 27 Nov. 1784 is here given in full:
“The Deputies of Congress, those from Pennsylvania, the Marquis de la Fayette, M. de Marbois, Consul-General of France, and the Chev. de Caraman* [Footnote: * This gentleman was named by the Indians Saganah-Houssy—a great warrior.], went in a body to the Council-Room, where the Marquis pronounced in French the following Discourse:
“‘WHILST I am thus drawing near unto my children, I thank the Great Manitow who has brought me to this spot of peace, where I find you all smoaking the calumet of friendship; if you remember the voice of Kayewlaah, remember also the belts and good counsels which he so often sent you. I am come to thank my faithful children, the chiefs of nations, the warriors, the bearers of my words; and if the memory of a good Parent was not more inclined to forget evil than good, I might now punish those who (whilst they were opening their ears, kept their hearts shut up) with a blind hand lifting up the hatchet very high struck their Father.
“‘The cause of the Americans was a just one, did I then say to you, it is that of humanity, it is therefore peculiarly yours; remain neutral at least, and let the brave Americans take care of their independence and liberty: Your Father over the great lake will take them by the hand, the white birds will soon cover their shores, the great Onontbio like the sun will clear away the clouds which hang over your heads, and the schemes of your enemies will vanish like smoke.
“‘Listen not to Kayewlaah, did other people tell you, listen not to what he says: An army from the North will enter triumphantly into Boston, another will seize on Virginia, and the great warrior Washington, at the head of your fathers and brothers, be obliged to abandon their country. This, and a great deal more was said by people, who though they had their eyes opened, yet kept yours shut. Peace is made, you are acquainted with its conditions, and in pity to some of you I shall not repeat them.—My predictions are accomplished; listen then to the fresh advices of your Father Kayewlaah, and let my voice resound throughout the nation.
“‘What have you ever gained, or rather what have you not lost by meddling with the quarrels of the whites?—Be wiser than they, keep peace among yourselves, and make use of the favourable dispositions which the Council of the great Congress seem to manifest. The Americans are brothers to the French, your ancient fathers.—This union will be as permanent as it is advantageous and useful;—henceforth the great Onontbio will always hold them by the hand, and they wish to with the Americans your brethren, and with such of your fathers as have crossed the great lake. In selling your lands take care you do not fool them away for brandy; dispose of them to the Council of the Congress for valuable considerations. If you have listened well to my words, I have said enough—repeat them one to another. I shall hear from you from the other side of the great lake; and until I come again to smoke with you and lye on your matts, I wish you health, fortunate huntings, peace and plenty, and the fulfilling of such of your dreams as foretel good luck.‘
“The Chief of the Mohawks rose, and holding up a Belt of Wampum, said,
“‘LET the last of Kayewlaah (a great chief from Onontbio) our father be obeyed; to receive my words father, we have heard thy voice; and we are glad thee hast revisited thy children, in order to give them good and wholesome advices. Thee hast said that we had listened to the wicked, and shut our ears against thy voice; that is true father; we the Mohawks have quitted the good path, we have been surrounded with a black cloud, but we are returned, and desire thee should find in us good and dutiful children.
“‘Truely father it pleaseth us to hear thy manly voice amongst us, which without wounding us, does us a great deal of good: It seemeth as though Manitow had led thee hither on purpose to smoke with thy newly found children.
“‘Kayewlaah our father, as to our situation, thee hast said right, but we hope that the great Kitchy Manitow will henceforth lead our feet in the good path, and that our past follies may be forgot, to the end we may enjoy peace and be unanimous in all our doings. Our father, we feel that all thy words are the words of truth, and experience hath shewed us that all thy foretellings are come to pass. Thee talk of peace; that is our wish, and the main point which lead us here. Kayewlaah our father, ’tis of old that children must obey their fathers, and that it belongs to them to chastise and reprove them when they do wrong; we know it, and the Great Spirit will so purify our hearts that thee shall be glad to have spared our lives which we have forfeited.
“‘Our Father, we remember thy words seven years ago, all, all are come to pass; yes, all thee has said is true, and that is the reason we are now come to smoke together the pipe of peace and friendship. Thee observeth that the alliance between the French and the Americans is an indissoluable chain; we believe it, our father.—Thee hast advised us not to trifle our land away for strong drinks, we sadly want this salutary advice, for that is the source of all our follies and calamities, and we wish that in this Great Council nothing bad may ensue. Our Father, thy words of this day shall be heard among the Six Nations, and they will serve to strengthen and brighten the chain which is going to unite us together.—Our Father, we shall say no more to day, because it is not fitting for us to multiply our words; we enjoy the present moment, and we will assist at the Great Council of the United states, and we felicitate the Members thereof on their safe arrival here.—Thee hast said that thee departest tomorrow, may be, we shall add something more then.’
“On the next day there was another Meeting, when the Orators of the Friendly Nations thus addressed the Marquis:
“‘Kayewlaah our Father.
“‘LET all the Nations here present open their ears, as well as the great warriors of our father Onontbio. Thy speech of yesterday, hold forth felicitations, reproofs, and counsels—we receive them all in good part, because we well remember thy words seven years ago—they preserved us in the right path.—Behold this belt, received from our father Montcalm, some twenty years ago, by our fathers—he told us we should always hold it fast. “‘Keyewlaah our father, all thy words are come to pass, therefore we receive with pleasure those of yesterday.’
“The Marquis delivering back the great belt, said, ‘I am glad to see you have so faithfully preserved this ancient belt, and that it has had so good an effect on many nations which it has prevented from taking up the hatchet against the United States. France shall always hold one end of that belt, whilst the other end shall be held by the great Congress. I thank you for your fidelity in following my counsels, and shutting your ears against the enemies of this great Island.’
“A Huron Chief arose and said,
“‘Kayewlaah our father, open thy ears to the few words I am going to address thee before thy departure.—The children of the North have long been those of the great Onontbio,—thy words have pleased us because they are true.—First, thee beginneth with thanking the Great Manitow for bringing thee here—we thank him also for the same, and wish, that through his influence, thy counsels may become as so many blessings. We thank thee for all thy words, and in thanking thee thus, we bid thee farewel. Kayewlaah our father, one word more. When we left the people of the North the Governor of Canada gave us exortations analogous to thy words. He advised us to behave decently, and to bring with us none but words of peace in the great council of the Thirteen United States,—saying, that peace was made between the English and the Americans. Is not that like thy speech? He advised us likewise, to live in friendship with all the nations who may come to Niagara.’
“Towanoganda, a Seneca Chief, arose and said,
“‘Kayewlaah our father, great warrior of Onontbio—open thy ears to the few words I have to say. Thou acknowledge the superintending power of the Great Manitow which has brought thee to this place of peace and friendship. Then thee sayeth that as a good father thee loves to forget and to forgive. We well remember thy words seven years ago at Fort Johnson, which were, that thee knewest well the ground of the dispute between England and America, and that the cause of the latter was just, and that the great Onontbio would establish a bright chain which would last for ever.—Thee has called on our memory for the fulfilling of thy words. Thee has given us also good and important counsels for our conduct at this great Council. Our father, open thy ears once more.—We had no time yesterday to deliberate on thy words.—Every nation is liable to err, and we have committed a great many faults, at the instigation of Great Britain. We have been overcome, but it becomes all wise nations to forgive, and particularly the victorious one. Thee has heard our voice, all our thoughts are re-united round this great fire, kindled by the Congress, the representatives of which are here present. We hope, and our confidence is founded on this treaty. If the Americans address us with the words of peace, all will go well, and peace cover all the nations.—Father, carry with thee this belt, and remember our words.’
“The Marquis’s Answer.
“‘WE return thanks to the Governor of Canada for his good wishes for the success of this treaty; you ought also to thank him for his good counsels, in telling you to make the best peace you can with the Great Congress. I rejoice to see my children reprobating their ancient errors; I wish sincerely that all the nations may forget all past animosities, and bury the hatchet;—with equal sincerity, I wish, that in the present situation of things, every circumstance may coincide to render the ensuing treaty advantageous to the nations as well as to the United States. Full of that strong confidence, I feel for you all an entire return of my paternal affection.—With these words, and with these sentiments, which are those of my heart, I bid you farewell, in order to return across the Great Lake to the great Onontbio.’”
The Indian sachem who presented the belt of wampum that had been received from Montcalm was Great Grasshopper, an Oneida, who was still dressed in a Bavarian hunting costume that the French minister had presented to him in Philadelphia in 1781 (Gottschalk, same, p. 100, 104). Lafayette, Marbois, Madison, Caraman, and seven others left the conference on the same day and proceeded down the Mohawk; the commissioners then settled down to business and, contrary to general expectations and perhaps in consequence of Lafayette’s influence, were able to conclude the negotiations as early as 22 Oct. Fort Schuyler: After the Revolution Fort Stanwix was renamed Fort Schuyler, but newspapers, reports in Congress, and popular usage continued for a while to employ the older and more famous designation.
1. This and subsequent words in italics were written in code and were decoded interlineally by TJ; his decoding has been verified by the editors, employing Code No. 3. As indicated in notes 2–5, Madison tampered with the text when this letter was returned to him after TJ’s death, but the original text has been restored and the extent of revision made by Madison late in life has been indicated in the following notes. The obscured matter in these passages has not been published heretofore.
2. Preceding twenty-one words deleted by Madison late in life; TJ’s interlinear decoding was obliterated at the same time.
3. Preceding three words, along with TJ’s interlinear decoding, were deleted by Madison late in life.
4. Preceding eleven words, along with TJ’s interlinear decoding, were deleted by Madison late in life.
5. In Madison, Writings, ed. Hunt, II, p. 82–6; Madison, Letters and Writings, i, 104–7; Brant, Madison, i, 335; Gottsehalk, Lafayette, 1783–89, p. 107, and all other sources in which it is quoted, this sentence reads: “In a word, I take him to be as amiable a man as can be imagined.” But this was the revised reading made by Madison over four decades later, and the reading given above is what he wrote in 1784. The tampering in the present instance differed from that described in the preceding notes both in its substitution of another text for that deleted and in the manner in which Madison sought to cover up what he had done. In this instance he did not delete TJ’s interlinear decoding, but merely superimposed the words “can be imagined” on TJ’s words “his vanity will” (the code symbols for “admit” and TJ’s decoding of this word were merely deleted by Madison). In making this new interlinear “decoding” Madison obviously attempted to imitate TJ’s hand, for his “m” and “n” and other letters are more vertical and much more rounded than his own. This, however, still left the code symbols untouched, threatening exposure of the stratagem by which the aged statesman had sought to cover up his comment on Lafayette’s vanity. To strike them out as had been done in the three preceding instances without striking out the corresponding decoding would have been merely to invite attention to the deceit. Faced with this dilemma, Madison decided to superimpose new code symbols on the old. This, of course, could not be done so easily with numbers as with words, but it appeared to be the only alternative. Madison, therefore, did the best he could. He carefully altered the initial symbol 706 to 786, and overwrote the next four symbols with less deceptive changes. At the end of the line he boldly inserted a fresh symbol “d” — 359. This represented the final letter of his substitute phrase “can be imagined,” but neither the symbol nor its equiva]ent had been in the letter in 1784. No doubt he hoped that this would allay the suspicions of anyone who might have access both to the letter and to the code. The decoding for “can be imagined” should have read: “936. 219. 997. 576. 1053. 989” or, if Madison chose to leave out the “e” before “d,” the last symbol would be replaced by “359.” But when he had finished his alteration of the original symbols, they read: “786. 640. 997. 476. 405. 359,” which makes a nonsense reading as follows: “nine—them—im—turn—total—d.” What stood originally on the line, as can be deciphered by a correlation of remaining traces of the digits with minute unobscured portions of TJ’s decoding, was this: “706. 648. 734. 460. 429,” which reads: “his vanity will.” Madison had evidently hoped that no one would suspect his carefully covered traces, and until now his hope has been justified.
In all of these tamperings with the text, Madison must have been prompted by a desire to avoid giving offense. His early characterization of Lafayette, as he must have known, was both perceptive and accurate, but even in 1784 the Lafayette legend was well on the road to being established. Lafayette himself had helped Brissot de Warville, Crèvecœur, Mazzei “and perhaps some other writers of the day to give the correct impression of his share in America’s glory,” thus managing to obtain “‘a good press’ while preserving his reputation for modesty” (Gottschalk, same, p. 437). After 1824, following his triumphal tour through the states, Lafayette was forever enshrined in the hearts of his adoptive countrymen, and Madison must have had no desire to detract from a figure so beloved, whom everyone knew, moreover, to be “modest.”