From Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Harrison Smith, 19 July 1804
To Samuel Harrison Smith
[19 July 1804]
Th:J. to mr Smith.
Is it worth while to contradict the barefaced falsehoods of Coleman in the 2d. page 5th. column of the inclosed paper.
It is false that I ever drew such a paper as is there ascribed to me.
It is false that I ever signed such a paper drawn by another.
the appeal to the records of any state for a paper so signed is without foundation. I believe that such a paper was drawn by a very timid, honest man, long since dead, (the father of the present Nicholases) and passed the H. of Delegates of Virginia; but I do not recollect it with certainty, nor what part I took in it: but probably I opposed it with Patrick Henry, the Lees & the Masons as we all moved in concert; tho’ it is possible we may have merely let the thing pass to gratify the drawer and secure him with us. I leave this to your own judgment.
RC (DLC: J. Henley Smith Papers); undated; addressed: “Mr. Samuel H. Smith”; note by Smith at foot of text: “Received above July 19. 1804. which relates to charge of his having drawn or Signed ‘the Address to the King of Great Britain’—Noticed in Nat. Intel. of July 23. 1804”; endorsed by Smith. Enclosure: New-York Evening Post, 6 July.
barefaced falsehoods: the 6 July issue of William Coleman’s New-York Evening Post asserted that TJ probably authored, and certainly signed, the 1775 appeal to George III that is often called the second “olive branch” petition. Coleman stated that the document, with TJ’s original signature, was “preserved on the public records of the country.”
TJ, confused about which document Coleman referred to, was mistaken when he claimed not to have signed the petition (Vol. 1:219-23).
the father: Robert Carter Nicholas, who in 1775 strove to moderate the Virginia assembly’s response to the royal government. He was not in Congress or involved with the olive branch petition ( 1:15-18).
your own judgment: in the 23 July issue of the National Intelligencer under the title “New Series of Federal Misrepresentations. No. XV,” Smith reprinted and refuted the item from the Evening Post. Citing “the authority of a friend of Mr. Jefferson, who has long enjoyed his confidence, & acted with him in many of the important scenes of the revolution,” the Intelligencer pronounced the 6 July piece a “libel” and categorically denied that TJ had written or signed the paper addressed to the British monarch. “We will not forego this opportunity of remarking,” the rebuttal stated, “that there is a kind of infuriated malice, with which, on all occasions, the character of Mr. Jefferson is attacked by this Print”—the Evening Post—“that looks more like personal hatred than party violence.” Detecting an attempt by the Post to question TJ’s role in the composition of the Declaration of Independence, Smith in his anonymous commentary stated that he had seen “the original draft of this eloquent instrument” and “perceived that it was, in the first instance, drawn by Mr. Jefferson.”