To James Madison from John Armstrong, 29 March 1807
From John Armstrong
| Duplicate |  |
| Private |
29 March 1807 Paris.
Burr’s business explains some of the difficulties we have met with here. From every[thing] I can learn the project appears to have been formed in the summer of the year 1804 and matured and adopted in the fall of 1805 and winter of 1806. Its professed1 objects were
1°. to separate the Western from the Eastern States and
2°. to create of the former a new Government of monarchical2 shape under the auspices of and in connection with France and Spain. In the Spring of the last of the beforementioned years a man of the name of Breuil (of Phila) was dispatched by Yrugo with it to Madrid. From Madrid Breuil came to Paris. Whether he was charged with ma[king]3 any personal communication to this government or was merely the bearer of dispatches to it I can not fully ascertain. I have however no doubt but that the papers brought from the United States by him4 were the very papers mentioned in my letter of the 4th5 of May 18066 which the Emperor had seen and which Talleyrand had not seen.
The subject opened and the impression began, means were to be employed to keep it up. Accordingly a person called Detmonet was dispatched by Turreau to this government for the purpose of illustrating the importance of sundry positions in the Floridas as naval stations and military posts and of shewing generally the bad policy of permitting these to pass into the hands of the United States. He was instructed also to feel the pulse7 of this government on the policy of repossessing itself of Louisiana and held out as means
1°. the local discontents of the inhabitants new as well as old of Louisiana
2°. the divided opinion of the United States on the utility of extending themselves westwardly8
3°. the disaffection that prevailed in the states of Tennessee Kentucky and Ohio and
4°. the introduction of an armed force into the Floridas.
This took place in the9 course of the last summer. However the plan might be relished, Dermonet10 met with no personal encouragement and was actually left to subsist himself by shewing the foot of a Mamoth which he had brought with him from the United States. Nor is it my opinion that this government entered farther into the plan than merely to suspend at the instance of Spain the negociations with us which she had before zealously promoted.
Mr. Talleyrand having got back to Berlin, I hope in a few days to receive answers to my successive letters of the 5th. of February and 5th. instant. If however I shall be disappointed in that expectation, I shall set out for that City and endeavor to terminate the business one way or another. I have hitherto said nothing under the new Authority given by the Presidents orders of the 10th. Decembr. nor shall I say anything unless (in the terms of your letter)11 I find the former limitation “an insuperable objection.” The circumstances of the moment are not unpropi[t]ious to our views.
The12 Decree of the Council of Prizes in the case of the Hibernia (the first case of a capture made from a porte of an ally of H.M. under the arretè of the 21st. of November last) is enclosed, and cannot fail to give satisfaction to the trading part of our community.13 To this decree14 I add the copy of a letter of the 20th. Instant from the Minister of Marine, which may be regarded as another illustration of the harmlesness of that arretè,15 as it is now understood.16 With very great respect, I have the honor to be, Sir, Your most Obedt. & very humble servt.
John Armstrong
P.S. Speculations to a very considerable amount have been made here (and I am told in England also) in17 French & British titles to lands in Louisiana. A man of the name of Seth Hunt is at the head of the trade and is pushing it very18 vigorously on both sides of the channel. To my mind this is a monstrous abuse of the indulgence of your Statute.19 That could never have been intended to cover expeditions of this kind—to enable these20 adventurers to run over half the globe—rummaging archives & offices and even advertizing for titles against ourselves.21
RC, two copies, and enclosures (DNA: RG 59, DD, France, vol. 10). Second RC marked “(Triplicate.).” Italicized words are those encoded by Armstrong in a State Department code. Key not found. JM interlined a decoded transcription on the first RC. The transcription is based on a combination of the editors’ decoding and JM’s interlinear decoding. For enclosures, see nn. 13 and 15.
1. Encoded “professan”; interlinearly decoded “professed.”
2. Encoded “Monroeical”; interlinearly decoded “monarchical.”
3. Encoded “1092,” the code for “join,” and interlinearly decoded as such; likely meant “1098,” the code for “king.”
4. Encoded “have”; interlinearly decoded “him.”
5. Encoded “four”; interlinearly decoded “4th.”
7. Encoded “lse”; interlinearly decoded “pulse.”
8. Encoded “whichwardly”; interlinearly decoded “westwardly.”
9. Encoded “that”; interlinearly decoded “the.”
10. Encoded “vermonet”; interlinearly decoded “Dermonet.”
11. The second RC has “the order itself” in place of “your letter” here.
12. The second RC has “An Extract from” inserted at the beginning of this paragraph.
13. The enclosure is an “Extrait de la decision rendue par le Conseil des Prises dans La Seance du 25 Mars. 1807 relative au Navire Americain L’Hibernia” (3 pp.). The prize court declared the capture of the Hibernia illegal because the Berlin Decree did not abrogate the U.S.-French convention of 1800.
14. The second RC has “Extract” in place of “decree” here.
15. The enclosure is a copy of Denis Decrès to Armstrong, 20 Mar. 1807 (1 p.; in French; marked “(Duplicate)”; docketed by a State Department clerk). Decrès updated Armstrong on the status of the U.S. ships Cyrus and Sibae. He also passed along assurances from the French ambassador at Madrid that he would press the consul at Alicante “to act with the greatest circumspection regarding American ships brought into that port.”
16. The second RC continues with “& practiced towards the Com⟨merce⟩ of the United States.”
17. The second RC has “old” inserted here.
18. “Very” is omitted from the second RC.
19. Armstrong referenced “An act for ascertaining and adjusting the titles and claims to land, within the territory of Orleans, and the district of Louisiana,” which Congress passed on 2 March 1805 (U.S. Statutes at Large, 2:324–29). The law confirmed land titles for everyone who held claims to such titles under the French or Spanish governments on 1 October 1800.
20. The second RC has “these” stricken out here.
21. The second RC has “the U.S.” in place of “ourselves.”