MS (DLC: TJ Papers, 9: 1525, 1525a); entirely in TJ’s hand, in his abbreviated style but here expanded, with some words being conjecturally supplied in brackets; misdated (see note 1). As now arranged in DLC, MS appears as two separate sheets, long and narrow, with f.1525 being two inches shorter than f.1525a (although no text is lost). These sheets were once conjugate (and of course the same size) as proved by the fact that “N.Lond.” appears part on one and part on other, so that the text on the verso of one belongs to the text on the recto of the other. Reconstructed as a single sheet having the text in parallel columns on both recto and verso, Commodore Hopkins’ excuse appears as the left-hand column in each case and TJ’s argument in rebuttal appears on the right. The former is designated as part i and the latter as part ii (numbers supplied).

The orders to Esek Hopkins (1718–1802), first commander of the navy, were issued to him on 5 Jan. 1776, and, although permitting him some latitude in case bad weather “or any other unforeseen accident or disaster” prevented their execution, directed him to proceed southward to the Chesapeake Bay where a flotilla under Ld. Dunmore was harassing the commerce of his former province, then to continue to the Carolina coast to oppose British naval units in those waters, and finally to return northward for similar operations off Rhode Island. Ice delayed Hopkins’ departure for a month, during which time he instructed the captains of his eight vessels, in case of separation, to proceed to Abacco, one of the Bahamas, and to wait there a fortnight for the arrival of the other vessels. Hopkins had learned of powder and military supplies on the British island of New providence, another of the Bahamas, and even sympathetic accounts concede that this base was his objective from the beginning (Edward Field, Esek Hopkins, Providence, R.I., 1898, p.94–7, 101). Leaving Philadelphia on 17 Feb. 1776, he arrived at the rendezvous on 1 Mch. with six vessels, the hornet and the fly having become separated by storms from the fleet. He then seized Forts Montague and Nassau on New Providence, employing a force of marines under Major Nicholas (Captain Samuel Nichols, who was promoted by Congress on 25 June 1776), and captured 103 cannon, a large quantity of shot and other military supplies, but only 24 barrels of gunpowder, the British governor having removed the greater part of the 200 barrels before capitulating. Hopkins then sailed directly to New England, took several prizes on the way, including the bomb brig Bolton, engaged the 20-gun Glasgow off Newport on 6 Apr.—the affair in which little skill and activity was displayed-put in at New London on 8 Apr., unloaded most of the stores, and sent some of the cannon to his old seafaring friend, Gov. Cook of Rhode Island, instead of turning all of them over to Gov. Trumbull of Connecticut as ordered by Congress (Field, Hopkins, 120–4; G. W. Allen, A Naval History of the American Revolution, New York, 1913, i, 96–100; Malcolm Lloyd, Jr., “Taking of the Bahamas by the Continental Navy in 1776,” PMHB description begins Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, 1877- description ends , xlix [1925], 349–66).

The result of this enterprise brought some acclaim to Hopkins, but complaints from his seamen, reports of sickness, insubordination, and generally bad conditions in the fleet, and espe cially the commander’s continued inactivity caused an outburst of criticism. On 8 May 1776 Congress appointed a special committee of seven, headed by John Adams, to “enquire how far commodore Hopkins has complied with … instructions.” A month later the marine committee reported receiving complaints against Hopkins and two of his captains for “breaches of orders, and other mal-practices.” Congress ordered the three officers “immediately to repair to Philadelphia, to answer for their conduct.” The marine committee reported that the charges against Captain Dudley Saltonstall were not well founded and that Captain Abraham Whipple was guilty of “nothing more than a rough, indelicate mode of behaviour to his marine officers,” where upon Congress, on 11 July, ordered those officers to resume their commands. The next day the special committee was discharged and the marine committee, including one member from each state, was given the powers formerly granted the special committee, plus the task of investigating complaints received against Hopkins. On 2 Aug. the committee brought in its report, which was ordered to lie on the table, and three days later Hopkins petitioned Congress to be heard in his own defense. The hearing was granted, and on 12 Aug. Hopkins appeared, heard the record of the examination and the report of the marine committee read to him, and then, on his withdrawal, Congress began its debate. This was resumed on 15 Aug. and concluded on the following day.

There is no doubt that in this debate much sectional feeling was displayed. John Adams, who was Hopkins’ chief defender, thought that he had “done great service” and that he was being “pursued and persecuted by that anti-New-England spirit which haunted Congress in many other of their proceedings” (Adams, Works, ed. C. F. Adams, iii, 65). Edward Rutledge of South Carolina found Hopkins “totally unfit for the Department” and thought his “Excuses … trifling to the last Degree” (Rutledge to Robert R. Livingston, [19 Aug. 1776], Burnett, Letters of Members description begins Edwin C. Burnett, ed., Letters of Members of the Continental Congress, Washington, 1921–1936, 8 vols. description ends , ii, No. 85). There was some hostility in New England, but the fact that the representative of Rhode Island in Congress and on the marine committee was Stephen Hopkins, brother of the commodore, created in some members “a tenderness or rather a weakness” on the question of censure lest he resign from Congress in “Consequence of the Thunder of the House” (same). But on 16 Aug. Congress found that “the conduct of Commodore Hopkins deserves the censure of this house.” Six states supported the motion to censure, three opposed it, and three were divided (John Adams to Abigail Adams, 18 Aug. 1776; same, ii, No.84). Three days later Congress ordered Hopkins to resume his command, and he continued in service until further charges of neglect and insubordination brought about his dismissal early in 1778 (JCC description begins Worthington C. Ford and others, eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789, Washington, 1904–1937, 34 vols. description ends , iv, 335–7; v, 439, 545, 628, 641, 648, 658–9, 662; Field, Hopkins, p. 154–6).

TJ’s searching brief for his argument against Hopkins is evidently the most extended record of any part of the debate that has survived. Jefferson was not a member of the special committee or of the marine committee, but he could have obtained the commodore’s answers to the marine committee at any time after that committee reported on 2 Aug. 1776 (or perhaps before, through Benjamin Harrison, representative of Virginia on the committee). With these in hand, he had some days in which to prepare the summary of Hopkins’ answers that he set down in the left-hand column of the MS as it was in its original state, opposing them with the elaborate rebuttal that he evidently delivered on the day that Hopkins appeared in his own defense. This, like the similar outline of argument in support of his resolution later in 1776 in the Virginia Assembly to discontinue the establishment of the church, provides one of the few records available of his forensic efforts as a legislator (see Vol. i: 535–9).