Founding Documents of the United States

The United States Constitution & Bill of Rights

The United States Constitution & Bill of Rights The Bill of Rights, and Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as Agreed to by the Convention of the State of Rhode-Island and Providence-Plantations, at South-Kingstown, in the County of Washington, on the First Monday of March, A.D. 1790. … Declaration of Rights. … Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. … In Convention, March 6, 1790. Voted, That the Bill of Rights and Amendments proposed to the Federal Constitution, be referred to the Freemen of the several towns, at their meetings on the Third Wednesday of April next, for their consideration. That one copy thereof be sent to each Town Clerk in this State, one to each Member of the Convention, and one to each Member of the Upper and Lower Houses of Assembly; and that they be sent to the Sheriffs of the several Counties, to be distributed. The foregoing is a true Copy. By Order of the Convention, Daniel Updike, Secretary. [Providence: John Carter, 1790] Folio letterpress broadside (440 x 350 mm, untrimmed). Text in three columns with five-line headline, endorsed on the verso, directing this copy to the town clerk of Portsmouth; some short separations and minor wear at old folds, some reinforced on verso, some light browning and mottled foxing. Matted, framed, and glazed. With the Constitution already ratified and the Bill of Rights not only proposed but adopted by seven of the necessary nine states, Rhode Island continues to try to make her voice heard. The present remarkable and very rare broadside shows Rhode Island, wary of entering a compact with larger states that she feared would threaten her independence, suggesting reforms to a Constitution that she had not yet agreed to abide by. Rhode Island was the only state not to send delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. When asked to convene a state ratification convention, Rhode Island’s leaders instead sent the question of to the individual towns for a vote. When on 21 June 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the Constitution, the new federal government was set in motion. In September the Confederation Congress certified that the new Constitution had been ratified by more than enough states for it to go into effect (Virginia and New York had ratified in the interim). The opening of the First Congress on 4 March 1789 and the inauguration of President George Washington on 30 April signaled a new system of federal government Among the first pieces of business taken up by the newly elected representatives and senators was the perceived deficiency of the Constitution in lacking a bill of rights. In late September, after four months’ consideration, the Congress proposed twelve amendments to the Constitution. On 2 October President Washington sent the amendments as a one-page engrossed manuscript to the states for their adoption. Over the next two years, all of the state legislatures considered the amendments—even Rhode Island, which had not yet ratified the Constitution, although she was ostensibly bound by it. Finally, faced with threats of secession by Providence, Newport, and Bristol, a well as a Congressional ban on trade with the state, Rhode Island leaders gathered in convention and debated the proposed Constitution. They decided to propose a Bill of Rights and amendments and send the Constitution and their amendments to the towns of Rhode Island before taking a final vote. When the Rhode Island legislature convened on 11 January 1790, the delegates understood that Congress had set 15 January as the date when economic sanctions against Rhode Island would begin if the state had not called a ratifying convention. On that date, the lower house passed a convention bill by a vote of 34 to 29, but the upper house rejected it the following day by a vote of 5 to 4. The next day, the lower house passed another convention bill, and again the upper house rejected it. In an extraordinary session on Sunday, 17 January, the House of Deputies passed its third convention bill by a vote of 32 to 11, and the House of Magistrates divided evenly 4 to 4, as one of the opposing members was absent. Governor John Collins, who was friendly to the Constitution, cast the deciding vote in favor of calling a convention. The freemen of Portsmouth met at the house of Robert Fish on 27 February 1790, in a town meeting to discuss the Constitution. The freemen chose Burrington Anthony (1745–1824), Job Durfee (1735–1810), Giles Slocum (1750–1826), and Peter Barker (1765–1852) as delegates to the upcoming Convention from the Town of Portsmouth. The town meeting adopted a lengthy preamble and the following instruction, “you are hereby required and directed, to proceed, as speedily as may be to the said State Convention … there and then to use all your Influence & Ability, in order to accomplish the Adoption of the said Constitution, & that, in as short a Time as the Nature of the Business will admit, so that the Town you represent, and the State at large, may no longer suffer the Injuries mentioned by the Legislature: and which we too sensibly feel the truth of.” The town meeting also urged their delegates to prevent any adjournment. (Proceedings of Town Meeting in Portsmouth, February 27, 1790, Proceedings of Town Meetings and Instructions to Town Delegates, May 1790, Rhode Island State Digital Archives.) The Convention of seventy delegates convened in South Kingstown, Rhode Island on 1 March 1790. A committee drafted and reported this “Bill of Rights and Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.” Federalists wanted to vote on the Constitution, but the leaders of the Country party wanted to delay the vote. On 6 March, the Convention voted 41 to 28 to adjourn without taking a vote on the Constitution and reconvene in Newport eleven weeks later, after the spring elections. All four delegates from Portsmouth voted with the majority for adjournment, which was forced by the Antifederalist Country party in order to preserve the dominance of their party in state office. But before adjournment, the proposed bill of rights and amendments were ordered to be printed and sent to the towns for the freemen to consider on 21 April, the annual election day. The present broadside—ESTC cites only three other copies, all in institution—records the eighteen declarations of rights and eighteen amendments to the Constitution proposed by the Rhode Island Convention for discussion and voting by the freemen in each town in the state, who would then instruct their delegates on how to vote. Eleven of the eighteen statements of rights were taken verbatim from the twenty statements proposed by the Virginia Ratifying Convention on 27 June 1788 (a copy of which was sent to Rhode Island and the eleven other states), and six more draw heavily from those proposed by that convention. Only the third statement of rights of the Rhode Island Convention—beginning “That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness …”—varies substantially from the Virginia proposals. Three of the eighteen proposed amendments are also taken verbatim from or closely follow amendments proposed by the Virginia Convention. Perhaps the most striking of the amendments proposed here is the seventeenth, which stated: "As a traffic tending to establish or continue the slavery of any part of the human species, is disgraceful to the cause of liberty and humanity—that Congress shall, as soon as may be, promote and establish such laws and regulations, as may effectually prevent the importation of slaves of every description into the United States." The freemen of the Town of Portsmouth, to whom this copy of The Bill of Rights and Amendments to the Constitution was sent, met on 26 April 1790. They passed the following instructions: “That it is the sense of this Town Meeting, that the Instructions given to their Delegates at the State Convention, held at South Kingstown the first Monday in March last past, be ratified, and again Recommended to the Delegates in order to Regulate their conduct at the Meeting of the adjournment of the said Convention, which is to meet at Newport the fourth Monday in May next, with this additional Instruction—that they do not by any means agree to another adjournment, but at said next Meeting Use all their Influenced and abilities to have the New Constitution as proposed by Congress agreed to and Ratified by this State.” These directions are signed by Abraham Anthony Jr. (1746–1829), Portsmouth’s town clerk. (Proceedings of Town Meeting in Portsmouth, April 26, 1790, Proceedings of Town Meetings and Instructions to Town Delegates, May 1790, Rhode Island State Digital Archives.) On 18 May 1790, the U.S. Senate barred all American ships from entering Rhode Island and all Rhode Island ships from entering other states. Commerce by land was likewise restricted under penalty of forfeiture of goods, a fine of $500, and imprisonment not exceeding six months. In addition, the Senate demanded that Rhode Island pay $25,000 to the United States by 1 December for its share of the expenses under the Articles of Confederation. The threat of these penalties spurred Rhode Island to action. The second session of the 1790 Convention met in Newport on 24 May. There was little action for several days, and the 27 May issue of The Newport Herald editorialized, “By the Adoption we have nothing to lose, but every thing to gain; By a Rejection we stab Commerce at its vitals, force the Farmer to hide the fruits of his labour in a napkin, and leave our Government like an isolated Column, tottering at the smallest breeze, and exposed to be thrown from its base, by every tempest.” After the defeat of a motion to adjourn by opponents of the Constitution, the Convention voted on ratifying the Constitution and amendments proposed by Congress. Rhode Island ratified the Constitution on 29 May—the last state to do so—by a vote of 34 to 32, with five Antifederalists voting to ratify and four not voting. (Ten previous similar conventions held in Rhode Island had all rejected the proposed U.S. Constitution, most by overwhelming margins.) From Portsmouth, Burrington Anthony and Peter Barker voted for the Constitution, but Giles Slocum was the only delegate from Newport County to vote against it. The Convention also passed the eighteen articles of the Bill of Rights and a series of twenty-one recommended amendments. (The amendments approved by the Convention did not include the eighteenth printed here and included the following additional amendments: “18. That the State Legislatures have power to recall, when they think it expedient, their federal Senators, and to send others in their stead. 19. That Congress have the power to establish an uniform rule of inhabitancy, or settlement of the poor, of the different States throughout the United States. 20. That Congress erect no company with exclusive advantages of commerce. 21. That whenever two members shall move that the yeas and nays, on any question, be taken, the same shall be entered on the journals of the respective Houses.”) Convention President Daniel Owen, who opposed ratification, immediately sent word to President George Washington that Rhode Island had ratified the Constitution, though he withheld sending the formal instrument of ratification until June 15 in an attempt to have antifederalists appointed as federal revenue officers. After the formal ratification was received, Washington responded on 19 June with congratulations that may have been tempered by some exasperation: “I take this opportunity of offering you my sincere congratulations upon this event, which unites under one general Government all the branches of the great American family; and I doubt not but it will prove as auspicious to the good people of your State as it is pleasing to other parts of the Union” (The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series, ed. Twohig, et al., 5:536–37). Curiously, this document records that the Convention adopted “the amendments proposed by Congress, in March, A.D. 1789,” except for the second article. And although it was the last to ratify the Constitution itself, Rhode Island approved eleven of the twelve amendments on 7 June 1790, making it the ninth state to ratify the ten amendments that became the Bill of Rights. A fascinating relic of the debate about ratification and a cornerstone document from the last of the thirteen colonies to join the United States. REFERENCE: Evans 22845; ESTC 36278 (locating one copy at the Huntington Library and two at the American Antiquarian Society); Alden, Rhode Island Imprints 1202

View 1 of Lot 4: The United States Constitution & Bill of Rights | “the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness”

the united states constitution & bill of rights | “the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness”

American Manuscripts & other Property from the Collection of Elsie and Philip Sang

Property from the Collection of Elsie and Philip Sang

Property from the Collection of Elsie and Philip Sang DOROTHY TODD PAYNE MADISON ("DOLLEY") AUTOGRAPH TRANSCRIPTION SIGNED ("DP MADISON"), QUOTING ONE OF THE "TOASTS FOR AN AMERICAN DINNER" WRITTEN BY JAMES MADISON IN JULY 1798 One page (5 7/8 x 3 5/8 in.; 150 x 95 mm) on a leaf of embossed ladies' writing paper, headed "A Toast prepared by Mr. Madison for the 4th of July 1798," Washington, 6 May 1848; a couple of very faint, small stains. In July 1798, during one of the few periods when he was not in government service (his congressional term having elapsed in March 1797 and his appointment as Secretary of State not commencing until May 1801), James Madison composed a series of eighteen toasts and some cryptic "Notes on an American Dinner." Decades after the event, Madison's widow occasionally wrote out transcriptions of some of the proposed toasts as souvenirs. Evidence suggests that the toasts—while mostly sincere testimonials to the founding and spirit of the young republic—were likely written, possibly for publication, to lampoon Independence Day dinners sponsored by Federalists. Among the "respectable Citizens" attending the dinner, Madison names Jonas Harpoon, Warren Shipyard, Jonathan Bullock, Sylvanus Penn, Christopher Kitefoot, Georgia Rice, and Nimrod West, all of whom drank the toasts with the "best American Cyder." Regardless of the genesis of the toasts, Dolley Madison found this one eloquent enough to transcribe half a century later: "'The examples of the American Revolution and Constitution.—Revolutions without blood and Governments without nobles or kings.'" Mrs. Madison wrote out this toast on at least one other occasion, 26 February 1849 (Christie's, 18 December 2003, lot 307). She also transcribed at least two other of the proposed toasts as souvenirs as well: "The Union—May it find an everlasting cement in the Revolution and the sacredness of the Constitution" (Marshall B. Coyne Collection; Sotheby's, 5 June 2001, lot 183) and "The Fedl. Judy. May it remember that it is the Expositor of the laws, not the Trumpeter of politics" (given to Eliza Lee, now in the Daniel Webster Papers, New Hampshire Historical Society). REFERENCE: Papers of James Madison, ed. Mattern, et al., 17:160–162 PROVENANCE: Stan. V. Henkels, Jr., 13 October 1933, lot 81 (undesignated consignor)

dorothy todd payne madison ("dolley") | an autograph quotation by dolley madison of her husband’s "toast … for the 4th of july 1798"

Fine Books and Manuscripts, Including Selections from the Collection of Barbara and Ira Lipman

Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, and John Jay

Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, and John Jay The Federalist: A Collection of Essays, written in favour of the new Constitution, as agreed upon by the Federal Convention, September 17, 1787. New York: Printed and sold by John and Andrew M'Lean, 1788 2 volumes, 12mo. Volume I bound in full contemporary calf, with Volume II bound in full contemporary calf to style. A rare thick paper copy — first edition of the most important work of American political thought ever composed ﻿The first edition of The Federalist comprises the first collected printing of the 85 seminal essays written in defense of the newly-drafted Constitution. The essays were first issued individually by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay in New York newspapers under the pseudonym "Publius" to garner support for the ratification of the Constitution. This first collected edition was published in early 1788: Volume I, published in March, contains the first 36 numbers; Volume II, published in May, includes the remaining 49, together with the text of the Constitution. Upon its publication, George Washington noted to Alexander Hamilton that the work "will merit the Notice of Posterity; because in it are candidly and ably discussed the principles of freedom and the topics of government, which will always be interesting to mankind" (George Washington, letter to Hamilton, 28 August 1788). The genesis of this "classic exposition of the principles of republican government" is to be found in the "great national discussion" which took place about the ratification of the Constitution, and the necessity of answering the salvos in print from the Anti-Federalists and other opponents of a strong Federal government (Bernstein, Are We to be a Nation? 242). The original plan was that James Madison and John Jay were to help Hamilton write a series of essays explaining the merits of their system, whilst also rebutting the arguments of its detractors. "Hamilton wrote the first piece in October 1787 on a sloop returning from Albany...He finished many pieces while the printer waited in a hall for the completed copy" (Brookhiser Alexander Hamilton: American 68-69). In the end, well over half of the 85 essays were written by Hamilton alone. Despite the intense time pressures under which the series was written "what began as a propaganda tract, aimed only at winning the election for delegates to New York's state ratifying convention, evolved into the classic commentary upon the American Federal system" (McDonald, Alexander Hamilton: A Biography 107). The Federalist is without question the most important commentary on the Constitution, the most significant American contribution to political theory, and among the most important of all American books. Thick paper copies are rare and desirable and largely done for presentation. George Washington's deluxe thick paper copy sold at Sotheby's in 1990 for $1,430,000. REFERENCE Church 1230; Cohen 2818; Evans 21127; Ford 17; Grolier American 100, 19; Howes H114, "c"; Printing and the Mind of Man 234; Sabin 23979; Streeter Sale 1049

hamilton, alexander, james madison, and john jay | first edition of the most important work of american political thought

Fine Manuscript and Printed Americana

WASHINGTON, GEORGE LETTER SIGNED ("G:O WASHINGTON"), AS PRESIDENT, TO JOHN ADAMS, RELATED TO THE CONTENTIOUS JAY TREATY 1 page (9 7/8 x 7 6/8 in.; 252 x 199 mm) 4to, blank integral leaf, 3 March 1795, marked "Duplicate," docketed by Adams; toned, primarily marginal stain. In half black morocco and marbled paper-covered board folding-case. A summons from the President "The President of the United States. To the Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate. Certain matters touching the public good requiring that the Senate shall be convened on Monday the 8th of June next; you are desired to attend at the Senate Chamber in Philadelphia on that day..." It was in the 8th of June that legislators began to debate the matter of the Jay Treat, or the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, Between His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, which was ultimately forged between the United States and Great Britain in 1795. The agreement resolved some of the issues that had remained outstanding since the Treat of Paris of 1783 (which ended the American Revolutionary War), and helped foster a decade of amicable trade between the U.S. and Britain during the French Revolutionary Wars. Alexander Hamilton was the architect of the Treaty, and it was supported by Washington. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it angered the French, and helped the pro-Treaty Federalists and the anti-Treaty Jeffersonian Republicans build momentum. Letters from Washington to Adams are rare, with only one other having appeared at auction in the last forty years.

washington, george. manuscript letter signed, to john adams, 3 march 1795

Fine Books and Manuscripts, Including Americana. Part 1

Jefferson, Thomas Autograph letter signed ("Th: Jefferson") as third President, to Benjamin Rush, discussing his inaugural address and his immediate plans as chief executive 2 pages (248 x 204 mm) on a bifolium of wove paper, Washington, 24 March 1801, with two autograph emendations, integral autograph address leaf directed to Dr. Rush at Philadelphia with franking signature by Jefferson (free | Th: Jefferson), postmark "Washington Mar 25," and "Free" postal stamp; lightly browned, seal tear repaired. Framed and double-glazed with an engraved portrait of Jefferson. A vitally important letter written at the dawn of Jefferson's presidency, addressing the party factionalism threatening the country and John Adams's "midnight appointments" of dozens of judgeships in his last hours of his presidency. The presidential election of 1800 was bitter and divisive. While the Republican Jefferson bested the incumbent Federalist Adams, he was left tied with Aaron Burr, his vice presidential running mate. The election was thrown to the House of Representatives, and while Jefferson's own party recognized him as the top of the ticket, Federalist congressmen schemed to deny him the White House and instead install Burr. Jefferson ultimately prevailed on the thirty-sixth ballot—and in 1804, the ratification of the Twelfth Amendment would require the states to vote for the president and vice president separately. Against this background, Jefferson made a speech urging unity and reconciliation, and he suggests to Rush that he was pleased with its reception: "I have to acknolege the reciept of your friendly favor of the 12th and the pleasing sensations produced in my mind by it’s affectionate contents. I am made very happy by learning that the sentiments expressed in my inaugural address give general satisfaction, and hold out a ground on which our fellow citizens can once more unite. I am the more pleased, because these sentiments have been long & radically mine, and therefore will be pursued honestly & conscientiously." (Rush, for his part, had praised the inaugural address extravagantly in the letter referenced by Jefferson: "You have opened a new Œra by your Speech on the 4th: of March in the history of the United States. Never have I seen the public mind more generally, or more agreeably affected by any publication. Old friends who had been seperated by party names, and a supposed difference of principle in politicks for many years, shook hands with each Other, immediately After reading it, and discovered, for the first time, that they had differed in Opinion only, About the best means of promoting the interests of their common country. It would require a page to contain the names of all the citizens (formerly called federalists) who have spoken in the highest terms of your Speech"). But Jefferson knew that good feelings could quickly evaporate when he began to fill government offices with members of his Republican party. "I know there is an obstacle which very possibly may check the confidence which would otherwise have been more generally reposed in my observance of these principles. this obstacle does not arise from the measures to be pursued, as to which I am in no fear of giving satisfaction: but from appointments & disappointments as to office. with respect to appointments I have so much confidence in the justice and good sense of the federalists that I have no doubt they will concur in the fairness of the position, that after they have been in the exclusive possession of all offices from the very first origin of party among us to the 3d. of March at 9. aclock in the night, no republican ever admitted, & this doctrine openly avowed, it is now perfectly just that the republicans should come in for the vacancies which may fall in, until something like an equilibrium in office be restored; after which "Tros, Tyriusque nullo discrimine habeatur' ["I shall allow no difference between the Trojan and Tyrian," Aeneid 1:574] but the great stumbling block will be removals, which tho’ made on those just principles only on which my predecessor ought to have removed the same persons, will nevertheless be ascribed to removal on party principles." Jefferson cannot, however, disguise from Rush his irritation with Adams's midnight appointments, which would cause a rift between the two statesmen that would last more than a decade (and which Rush would be instrumental in patching up; see next lot). "Imprimis I will expunge the effects of mr A’s indecent conduct in crouding nominations after he knew they were not for himself, till 9. aclock of the night, at 12. aclock of which he was to go out of office; so far as they are during pleasure. I will not consider the persons named, even as candidates for the office, nor pay the respect of notifying them that I consider what was done as a nullity. 2. some removals must be made for misconduct. one of these is of the marshal in your city [John Hall, Marshal of the district of Pennsylvania], who being an officer of justice, entrusted with the sacred function of chusing impartial judges for the trial of his fellow citizens placed at the awful tribunal of god & their country, selected judges who either avowed, or were known to him to be predetermined to condemn. and if the lives of the unfortunate persons were not cut short by the sword of the law, it was not for want of his good will." Perhaps to establish his objectivity, Jefferson claims to have taken similar action against David Meade Randolph in Virginia, despite his being "the dearest connection of my dearest friend," but he estimates that such dismissals for misconduct of marshals and attornies will affect "a very few individuals only, probably not 20. will be removed & these only for doing what they ought not to have done." The letter continues with further thoughts on appointing and removing officeholders. "2. or 3. instances indeed where mr A. removed men because they would not sign addresses &c to him, will be rectified, & the persons restored. the whole world will say this is just. I know that in stopping thus short in the career of removal, I shall give great offence to many of my friends. that torrent has been pressing me heavily, & will require all my force to bear up against. but my maxim is fiat justitia, ruat coelum' ["let justice be done, though heaven should fall"]. after the first unfavorable impressions of doing too much in the opinion of some, & too little in that of others, shall be got over, I should hope a steady line of conciliation very practicable, & that without yielding a single republican principle. a certainty that these principles prevailed in the breasts of the main body of federalists was my motive for stating them as the ground of reunion.—I have said thus much for your private satisfaction, to be used even in private conversation, as the presumptive principles on which we shall act, but not as proceeding from myself declaredly." Tiring of politics, perhaps, Jefferson closes the letter with a strong endorsement of George Cuvier's Leçons d’Anatomie Comparée (Paris, 1800), which had been sent to the American Philosophical Society by the American chemist Thomas Peters Smith: "information lately recieved from France gives a high idea of the progress of science there. it seems to keep pace with their victories. I have just recieved for the A.P. society 2. volumes of Comparative Anatomy by Cuvier, probably the greatest work in that line that has ever appeared. his comparisons embrace every organ of the animal economy, and from Man, to the rotifer. accept assurances of my sincere friendship & high consideration & respect." Jefferson eventually added the work to his own library (Sowerby, no. 999). REFERENCE: The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Oberg, 33:436–438; for Rush's letter of 12 March 1801, 33:260–262 PROVENANCE: Frederick M. Dearborn (according to the Jefferson Papers, the owner of the letter in 1949)

View 1 of Lot 1012: Jefferson, Thomas | "I will expunge the effects of mr A’s indecent conduct in crouding nominations … at 12. aclock of which he was to go out of office"

jefferson, thomas | "i will expunge the effects of mr a’s indecent conduct in crouding nominations … at 12. aclock of which he was to go out of office"

Fine Books and Manuscripts, Including Americana

HAMILTON, ALEXANDER, JAMES MADISON, AND JOHN JAY

HAMILTON, ALEXANDER, JAMES MADISON, AND JOHN JAY THE FEDERALIST: A COLLECTION OF ESSAYS, WRITTEN IN FAVOUR OF THE NEW CONSTITUTION, AS AGREED UPON BY THE FEDERAL CONVENTION, SEPTEMBER 17, 1787. NEW YORK: PRINTED AND SOLD BY JOHN AND ANDREW M'LEAN, 1788 2 volumes, 12mo (6 3/8 x 3 5/8 in.; 162 x 92 mm). Toned, a2-3 of vol. I (i.e. Preface and Contents leaves) on thicker paper. Expertly bound to style in full tree calf, flat spines tooled in gilt, red morocco labels. First edition of the most important work of American political thought ever written, and, according to Thomas Jefferson, "the best commentary on the principles of government" The first edition of The Federalist comprises the first collected printing of the eighty-five seminal essays written in defense of the newly-drafted Constitution. The essays were first issued individually by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay in New York newspapers under the pseudonym "Publius" to garner support for the ratification of the Constitution. This first collected edition was published in early 1788: volume I, published in March, contains the first 36 numbers, volume II, published in May, includes the remaining 49 together with the text of the Constitution. Upon its publication, George Washington noted to Alexander Hamilton that the work "will merit the Notice of Posterity; because in it are candidly and ably discussed the principles of freedom and the topics of government, which will always be interesting to mankind" (George Washington, letter to Hamilton, 28 August 1788). The genesis of this "classic exposition of the principles of republican government" (Bernstein, Are We to be a Nation? The Making of the Constitution, pg. 242) is to be found in the "great national discussion" which took place about the ratification of the Constitution, and the necessity of answering the salvos in print from the Anti-Federalists and other opponents of a strong Federal government. The original plan was for James Madison and John Jay to help Hamilton write a series of essays explaining the merits of their system, whilst also rebutting the arguments of its detractors. "Hamilton wrote the first piece in October 1787 on a sloop returning from Albany...he finished many pieces while the printer waited in a hall for the completed copy" (Brookhiser, Alexander Hamilton: American, pp.68-69). In the end, well over half of the 85 essays were written by Hamilton. Despite the intense time pressures under which the series was written "what began as a propaganda tract, aimed only at winning the election for delegates to New York's state ratifying convention, evolved into the classic commentary upon the American Federal system" (McDonald, Alexander Hamilton: A Biography, pg.107). The Federalist is without question the most important commentary on the Constitution, the most significant American contribution to political theory and among the most important of all American books. REFERENCE: Church 1230; Cohen 2818; Evans 21127; Ford 17; Grolier American 100, 19; Howes H114, "c"; PPM 234; Sabin 23979; Streeter Sale 1049

hamilton, alexander, james madison, and john jay. first edition of the most important work of american political thought ever written

Fine Books and Manuscripts, Including Americana. Part 2

Property of a New York Collector Paine, Thomas Autograph letter signed ("Thomas Paine") to the "Citizen Directer" (Philippe-Antoine, Comte Merlin, of Douai), attempting to influence a French judicial review against an American friend 2 1/2 pages (228 x 152 mm, untrimmed) on a bifolium, [Dieppe, France, ca. 1798-1799]; some foxing, short separation at foot of central fold. During the foment of the Quasi-War with France, Citizen Tom Paine writes on behalf of a Connecticut-born merchant-adventurer, Nathan Haley, who in 1797 had captured an American vessel, the Hare, supposedly because it carried British contraband: "It is at the request of several friends that I trouble you with this letter, the purport of which is, to remove an unfavourable impression from your mind with respect to the case of a prize cargo, in which Captain Hayley is concerned. It was condemned at Dieppe as a Prize to the Republic as if it had been a smuggled cargo, and the report was made to you in that manner whilst you were Minister of Justice. The appeal is now depending at Roen. I enter not into the case whether it was right or wrong in Hayley to make a prize of the cargo by the stratagem he employed. He had been cruelly treated by the British whilst he was their prisoner in the American Revolution, and, as I am informed, has been cheated by the London insurencers, {and besides those things the British made no ceremony of seizing American vessels} [phrase in angled brackets is written on the otherwise blank verso of the second sheet and indicated to be inserted by a caret]. I admit the supposition that under a sense of such injuries, he may have sought to redress himself by an act which though it appears right to him, may not appear in the same light to others." While living in Dieppe under the regime of the Directorate (1795–1799), Paine borrowed seven thousand livres from Haley, in part to underwrite the publication of Pacte maritime, Paine’s essay endorsing a compact that would protect the maritime rights and commerce of neutral nations during times of War. Paine’s letter continues, playing to his correspondent’s antipathy to Great Britain by referencing Haley’s delivering of Paine’s famous public letter to George Washington denouncing Jay’s Treaty, as well as his opposition to President Adams's incumbent Federalist party: "I know that his resentment against the British and the British Party in America are high. It was Hayley who carried my letter to America addressed to the ex-President Washington, on the subject of the British [Jay's] Treaty, to be printed. Your colleague Revilliere Lepeaux has read that letter in English; and I recompence the trust which Hayley executed for me by writing you this letter in his behalf. From every thing that I know of the case, and of the political sentiments of Hayley, who has been uniformly attached to the French Revolution, and has been engaged in several broils with the English Party in America [the Federalists] in supporting it, the cargo in question is not a smuggled cargo. The capture was a stratagem, and the tribunal of Dieppe has mistaken the stratagem for smuggling. Whether (as have just said) Hayley has done right or wrong in making the capture is not with me a question; but as he stands exposed to be pursued for it at some future day, by the owners or insurers of the cargo, it is no other than Justice that he be left with the means in his hands to defend himself, or to repair the injury if he has done one. But no error on his part can justify the Judgment at Dieppe. This, Citizen Director is my candid opinion of the case. …" The "stratagem" that Paine refers to was complicated and legally and ethically questionable, although the French courts did side with Haley, who sometimes subscribed his name as a French naval lieutenant, on appeal: "American Nathan Haley (or Halley) was captain of the privateer Entreprenant of Dieppe in March 1797 when he captured the Hare, whose papers also showed a Nathan Haley as captain. Although Charles Cotesworth Pinckney informed Timothy Pickering that the two men were cousins, Rufus King reported to the State Department that Haley had brought his own ship in as a prize. The lower French prize tribunal reached the same conclusion and declared the Hare good prize to the state; the higher tribunal reversed the decision and declared both ship and cargo good prize to Haley" (note to a letter from Fulwar Skipwith to James Madison, 3 March 1804, The Papers of James Madison, Secretary of State Series, ed. Hackett, et al., 6:539–544). Both Paine and Haley returned to America after the election of Thomas Jefferson and the defeat of the Federalist Party. In August 1803, Paine went to see Haley at Stonington, presumably to pay off some of his debt accrued in Dieppe. As Paine biographer John Keane notes, Paine ended up staying with Haley for several months, becoming an "itinerant lecturer on political affairs," prognosticating the imminent conquest of Britain by Napoleon. Haley, who continued to travel between France and the United States, was appointed U.S. consul at Nantes in 1839 (cf. John Keane, Tom Paine: A Political Life, 1995, pp. 489–92).

View 1 of Lot 1151: Paine, Thomas | Did privateer captain Nathan Haley turn in his own ship as a prize to the Directorate?

paine, thomas | did privateer captain nathan haley turn in his own ship as a prize to the directorate?

Making Our Nation: Constitutions and Related Documents. Sold to Benefit the Dorothy Tapper Goldman Foundation. Part 2

Massachusetts Debates, Resolutions and other Proceedings, of the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Convened at Boston, on the 9th of January, 1788, and continued until the 7th of February following, for the purpose of assenting to and ratifying the Constitution recommended by the Grand Federal Convention. Together with The Yeas and Nays on the decision of the Grand Question. To which The Federal Constitution is prefixed. Boston: Printed and sold by Adams and Nourse, in Court-Street; and Benjamin Russell, and Edmund Freeman, in State-Street, 1788 12mo (183 x 115 mm). Browning and spotting, a few primarily marginal closed tears, faint dampstaining to a few leaves, long closed tears to F4, H4, I1, J4 with old tape repairs, top of H2 torn costing one letter, top of I2 torn, more extensive tape repairs to X2, Z1 trimmed and with tape repair, paper flaws to a few leaves, shelfmark in ink to a few leaves. Contemporary brown calf; rebacked to style, rubbed. The debates of the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention"The Constitution might well be considered the central document of all American political discourse ... An evolving rather than static document, its text has never left a central place in American political discourse" (Federal). The struggle to ratify the Constitution can be viewed as the first national, grassroots political campaign in the United States. The differences between the Federalists, who advocated for passage of the new frame of government, and the Anti-Federalists, was significant and ratification was by no means assured. When the Confederation Congress resolved to send the Constitution to the states for ratification on recommendation by the Convention and George Washington himself, they intended it to be voted upon on its face. In Massachusetts, however, Anti-Federalist opposition was significant. In order to mollify their concerns, delegate to the convention Theophilus Parsons added nine amendments, which were presented by John Hancock (dramatically arising from his sick bed to deliver them). Thus, the Constitution was ratified by Massachusetts with the amendments added as a recommendation to "remove the fears, and quiet the apprehensions of many of the good people of this Commonwealth, and more effectually guard against an undue administration of the federal government." Three of these recommendations would become the Fifth, Seventh and Tenth Amendments of Constitution. The sixth state to ratify the Constitution, Massachusetts was the first to suggest amendments, which in turn led directly to the passage of the Bill of Rights. REFERENCE: Colonists, Citizens, Constitutions 13; ESTC W36221; Evans 21242; Federal Hundred 21; Liberty's Legacy USC-25; Sabin 45702 PROVENANCE: Lynn Public Library (bookplate to front pastedown)

View 1 of Lot 138: Massachusetts | Ratifying the Constitution in Massachusetts

massachusetts | ratifying the constitution in massachusetts

Fine Books and Manuscripts

The Patowmac Guardian, and Berkeley Advertiser

The Patowmac Guardian, and Berkeley Advertiser Number 1 of Vol. I–Number 207 of Vol. 4. Shepherd's-Town [later Martinsburg]: Printed and Published by N. Willis, at his Printing-Office, in New-Street, Monday, November 15, 1790–Monday, November 3, 1794 203 mostly four-page issues (407 x 257 mm) printed on bifolia of laid paper, printed in three columns (lacking Nos. 30, 40, 43, 92; No. 62 printed on a smaller bifolia; Nos. 63–66, 70, 170, 171 printed on single leaves only); first issue creased and a bit soiled, some browning, soiling, and marginal fraying throughout, text very occasionally shaved at foot or head, very occasional abrasion or wear causing loss of text, a quarter column of text neatly clipped from No. 203. Disbound, with many issues loose. (Despite the condition issues noted, the individual issues are sound, easily handled, and perfectly legible.) An unusually extensive run, extending almost four years, of the first newspaper printed in the area that would become West Virginia, including what is evidently a unique survival of the inaugural issue. Clarence Brigham's History and Bibliography of American Newspapers was able to locate no issue earlier than 27 June 1791 (no. 33)—and this remains the earliest issue located by the Library of Congress's "Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers." Indeed, the vast majority of the issues included in the present run seem to be unrecorded, with only single or scattered numbers from the first four years of publication available at a handful of institutions, including the American Antiquarian Society, the Houghton Library, the Library of Virginia, the New York Public Library, and the University of Kentucky Library. Willis inaugurated The Patowmac Guardian, and Berkeley Advertiser with a open letter "To the Public," in which he argued that "a Press conducted with a spirited prudence, has a manifest disposition to preserve the rights of freedom—to guard the glorious acquisitions of liberty—and to weaken despotic growth before it becomes too formidable to be subdued." He further claims that the recently ratified Federal Constitution, as well as "the obvious certainty of the great Federal City being established in the vicinity of this fertile retreat," make the establishment of a free and independent newspaper in western Virginia especially appropriate. His newspaper, Willis promises, will cover domestic politics, foreign politics, agriculture, commerce, manufactures and useful arts, essays and extracts, works of wit and fancy, and instructive and entertaining anecdotes. Domestic politics, in particular, dominated the pages of the Patowmac Guardian, including official proceedings of the House of Representatives, congressional acts, and presidential proclamations, including Washington's proclamation of 25 September 1794 escalating the response to the Whiskey Rebellion. The state politics of Virginia and Kentucky also receive extensive coverage. A blog post by the West Virginia University Libraries, reposted by the Library of Congress on its "Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers" site, provides a succinct summary of The Patowmac Guardian and Berkeley Adveriser: "Nathaniel Willis was the first of several great literary men in his family, including his grandson, author and poet, Nathaniel Parker Willis. Willis published the Independent Chronicle and Universal Advertiser in Boston during the American Revolution. He also participated in the Boston Tea Party and served as an adjutant in the Continental Army. Willis sold his interest in the Chronicle in 1784 and relocated to Winchester, Virginia, as the editor of Willis’s Winchester Gazette & Public Advertiser. He moved to Shepherdstown in 1790 and began to print the Potowmac Guardian and Berkeley Advertiser before moving a third time to Martinsburg, where the paper underwent two name changes (the Potomak Guardian and Berkeley Advertiser in 1795 and the Potomak Guardian in 1798). Willis presented his paper as a source of national and international news that curious readers could comment on through letters to the editor. Although the content on the first page varied, the second and third usually contained articles on major events and speeches from significant political figures. The fourth concluded with poetry, titled the 'Seat of the Muses,' and a series of advertisements. "The Early Republic was a fruitful era for newspaper content. The Age of Revolutions could be felt in France, Haiti, Greece, and Latin America. Anglo-Americans watched with interest from the United States in the aftermath of their own revolution. The adherents of Jeffersonian Republicanism who patronized the Potowmac Guardian and Berkeley Advertiser scanned its columns for the latest updates from France. They praised the French Revolution and celebrated 'the cause of democratic republicanism' in France, drawing comparisons between the French and American Revolutions. The Seat of the Muses published a poem 'by a citizen of Belfast' echoing the sentiments of Jefferson’s adherents: 'Should France be subdu’d—Europe’s liberty ends/if she triumphs—the WORLD will be free.' So 'let ev’ry true Patriot unite in her cause/a cause of such moment to man/let all whose souls spurn at tyrannical laws/lend her all the assistance they can.' Although the poet was presumably writing for an Irish audience, Jeffersonians recognized the call to 'spurn at tyrannical laws' as their own. "Willis and his Jeffersonian audience used the press to denounce laws that seemed tyrannical. They had to remain vigilant against tyranny if they wished to maintain their republican identities. The Jay Treaty (1794) and the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) afforded several opportunities for protesting tyranny and defending political virtue. The Jay Treaty mitigated the threat of war and promoted peaceful trade between Great Britain and United States during the French Revolutionary Wars. Jeffersonians believed the treaty would undercut republicanism at the expense of France, America’s would-be ally, and strengthen aristocracy. More than that, many felt it was a betrayal of France, who was at war with Great Britain. Willis published a letter that he attributed to the Minister of the French Republic, which lambasted America for scorning her friends in France. 'Those who went to brave tempests and death upon the ocean, forgot all dangers in order to indulge the hope of visiting that American continent where … the French colours had been displayed in favor of liberty,' the author asserted. 'Under the guarantee of the laws of nations … they expected to find in the ports of the United States an asylum as sure as at home.' Instead, they found a British-American alliance. Indignant Jeffersonians sympathized with the French and burned effigies of John Jay in contempt. "The Alien and Sedition Acts impacted Willis personally as a newspaper editor. The Sedition Act criminalized the making of false statements directed at the federal government during the Quasi War, an undeclared naval war with France. Critics of the act argued that Federalists were using the Quasi War to justify the suppression of dissent from Democratic-Republicans. Willis announced his opposition to the Sedition Act when he changed the header of the Potomak Guardian in 1799. The new header read, 'Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.' The audience of the Potomak Guardian agreed, sharing their opinions with Willis. A reader calling himself 'A True Republican' condemned the publication of 'impudent and scandalous falsehoods' and believed Congress could 'restrain by law the writing and publishing [of] any thing which tends to prevent the execution of any power vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States.' Those stipulations aside, he could not accept the Alien and Sedition Acts, which he deemed 'dreadful.' "Willis remained the editor and publisher until October 30, 1799, when Armstrong Charlton succeeded him, publishing the last known issue of the Potomak Guardian on January 8, 1800. Willis professed his intention to leave Martinsburg on December 4, 1799, and subsequently moved to Chillicothe, Ohio, where he established the Scioto Gazette" (https://news.lib.wvu.edu/2021/08/27/empotowmac-guardian-and-berkeley-advertiser-em-and-empotomak-guardian-em/; https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038410/). PROVENANCE: Wm. Winship (original subscriber's name written in the margin of the front page of many issues)

View 1 of Lot 1058: The Patowmac Guardian and Berkeley Adveriser |  An usually extensive run, with a perhaps unique survival of the first issue

the patowmac guardian and berkeley adveriser | an usually extensive run, with a perhaps unique survival of the first issue

View 1 of Lot 1007: United States Constitution | A first-day publication of the United States Constitution, with contemporary newspaper context

united states constitution | a first-day publication of the united states constitution, with contemporary newspaper context

(Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, and John Jay)

(Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, and John Jay) The Federalist: A Collection of Essays, Written in Favour of the New Constitution, as Agreed upon by the Federal Convention, September 17, 1787. New York: Printed and sold by J[ohn] and A[ndrew] M'Lean, 1788 2 vols, 12mo (165 x 97 mm; 160 x 90 mm). (1) Title-page with the ownership signature of David Stuart in ink, and an ownership inscription of a member of the 12th Massachusetts Infantry 1862 in pencil, Stuart’s marginalia throughout; trimmed, just slightly cropping marginalia, terminal blank cleanly detached, minor dampstaining and toning. Contemporary reverse calf, spine with red morocco lettering-piece; re-jointed in tan calf, hinges a bit weak, lacking the front free-endpaper, rear free-endpaper with long closed tear and cleanly detached. (2) Title-page; minor dampstaining and toning, stray spots. Contemporary calf, spine with red morocco lettering-piece and five false gilt bands; upper joint starting, rubbed with exposure to corners, lacking the rear free-endpaper. Housed in a half-morocco clamshell box. A historically significant Washington family copy of the first edition of The Federalist: one of the most important American contributions to political theory and a "classic exposition of the principles of republican government" (Bernstein). The anonymous essays that make up The Federalist, though written as expedient political propaganda for the purpose of supporting New York's ratification of the Federal Constitution, are not only apologias for the Constitution—they were also about the very promise of democracy in the modern age. Among the most significant of all American books, the first edition of The Federalist comprises the first collected printing of the 85 seminal essays written in defense of the newly drafted Constitution. The present copy, belonging to Dr. David Stuart, George Washington’s relative-by-marriage, ally, and confidante, bears his 1788 ownership signature and handwritten annotations. David Stuart came to know Washington when he became a virtual member of his family in 1783, upon marrying Eleanor Calvert Custis, the widow of Martha Washington's son, John Parke "Jacky" Custis. Stuart and Washington began their wide-ranging correspondence that same year, and the Virginia doctor quickly became a trusted friend and advisor to the soon-to-be president. A delegate to the Virginia General Assembly, Stuart corresponded with Washington about the Constitution at length during the debates over ratification. The Federalist essays, not only used for promoting Federalism amidst the heated pamphlet wars, were also used as a tool for interpreting the Constitution long before it was ratified. Washington early saw the importance of The Federalist essays in gaining the ratification of the new republican charter, and scarcely a month after they had begun to appear in New York newspapers; he wrote to Stuart on 30 November 1787, concerned that nothing supporting ratification had yet appeared in the press. Washington wrote, "As an antidote to these opinions, and in order to investigate the ground of objections to the Constitution which is submitted to the People, the Federalist, under the signature of Publius, is written. The numbers which have been published, I send you. If there is a Printer in Richmond who is really well disposed to support the New Constitution he would do well to give them a place in his Paper. They are (I think I may venture to say) written by able men; and before they are finished, will, if I am mistaken not, place matters in a true point of light” (Fitzpatrick 29:324). As Washington desired to maintain a low public profile with regard to the Constitution, he set up a clandestine network to distribute the Federalist essays; in the same letter as above, he writes “Altho' I am acquainted with some of the writers who are concerned in this work, I am not at liberty to disclose their names, nor would I have it known that they are sent by me to you for promulgation.” This secret channel of distribution placed Stuart at an essential juncture: James Madison would first pass the essays to Washington, who would then send them to Stuart, who, in turn, would give them to Augustine Davis (later the official printer to the Virginia Ratification Convention) for printing in the Virginia Independent Chronicle. The first seven numbers of the Federalist essays appeared in the Chronicle on 12, 19 and 26 December. On 22 December, Washington sent additional numbers under the signature Publius. Not only a confidante of the future president, Stuart was thus also an indispensable operator in the dissemination of Federalist views in a state with delegates sharply divided on the question of ratification. The ratification of Virginia would prove to be a pivotal moment in the history of American democracy. In the state, the Federalist faction, which favored the adoption of the Constitution, was led, unsurprisingly, by James Madison. As a delegate to the Philadelphia Convention, Madison largely set the agenda by introducing the “Virginia Plan” and who subsequently orchestrated many of the key compromises necessary in drafting the Constitution itself. The Anti-Federalist bloc of delegates was led by Patrick Henry, who feared federal encroachment on Virginia’s state liberties and government. Henry’s opposition to government under the Constitution rather than the Articles of Confederation remained so zealous that he declined appointments as Secretary of State and as a justice of the Supreme Court. Henry’s control of the Virginia legislature also allowed him to thwart Madison’s election to the United States Senate. David Stuart ended his legislative career representing Virginia’s Fairfax County at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, beating out Anti-Federalist George Mason (though he attended as a representative of Stafford County). The factions at the Convention, which met six days a week from 2 to 27 June, for a total of twenty-three sessions, fiercely debated the Constitution; neither side seemed to have a clear path to victory, with many delegates believing that the Convention was exactly divided on the question of ratification. They ultimately ratified on 25 June, and indeed Virginia was the state ratification that ensured the success of the United States Constitution. Although New Hampshire provided the necessary ninth state ratification of the Constitution on 21 June, just before the conclusion of the Virginia Convention, it is impossible to imagine that the compact would have held without the assent of Virginia. Not only was Virginia the most populous and wealthiest of the original thirteen states, New York, which ratified a month after Virginia did on 26 July, likely would have rejected the charter had Virginia done so. The present copy of The Federalist, then, is remarkable artifact from the very birth of the United States’ Constitution. Stuart was not only responsible for the dissemination of these essays in this most crucial state, an advisor to Washington, and a key figure in the state ratification, he was also an essential bridge to the eventual publication of this cumulative work—inarguably the most important political commentary on the Constitution. The principal force behind the entry of “Publius” (the pen name for all three authors) into the ratification pamphlet was Alexander Hamilton, but he also enlisted fellow New Yorker John Jay and Virginian James Madison as coauthors. The first essay by Publius appeared in the 27 October 1787 issue of The Independent Journal, and all or some of the subsequent numbers were also printed in The New-York Packet, The Daily Advertiser, and The New-York Journal. The first thirty-six Federalist essays were collected and published by the M’Lean brothers in March 1788, and the final forty-nine—together with the text of the Constitution—followed in volume 2 in May; in fact, the last eight essays were printed in book form before they appeared in newspapers. This first collected edition was published in early 1788: Volume I, published in March, contains the first 36 numbers; Volume II, published in May, includes the remaining 49, together with the text of the Constitution. Upon its publication, George Washington noted to Alexander Hamilton that the work "will merit the Notice of Posterity; because in it are candidly and ably discussed the principles of freedom and the topics of government, which will always be interesting to mankind" (George Washington, letter to Hamilton, 28 August 1788). The genesis of this "classic exposition of the principles of republican government" is to be found in the "great national discussion" which took place about the ratification of the Constitution, and the necessity of answering the salvos in print from the Anti-Federalists and other opponents of a strong Federal government (Bernstein, Are We to be a Nation? 242). The original plan was that James Madison and John Jay were to help Hamilton write a series of essays explaining the merits of their system, whilst also rebutting the arguments of its detractors. "Hamilton wrote the first piece in October 1787 on a sloop returning from Albany...He finished many pieces while the printer waited in a hall for the completed copy" (Brookhiser Alexander Hamilton: American 68-69). In the end, well over half of the 85 essays were written by Hamilton alone. Despite the intense time pressures under which the series was written "what began as a propaganda tract, aimed only at winning the election for delegates to New York's state ratifying convention, evolved into the classic commentary upon the American Federal system" (McDonald, Alexander Hamilton: A Biography 107). By any measure, a remarkable association copy. Stuart’s annotations reveal both his familiarity with, and his close reading of, this indispensable commentary. He notes the authorship of Number 3 (“Mr. Jay”), Number 10 (“Mr. Maddison”), Number 18 (“Hamilton & Maddison”), Number 20 (“H & Maddison”), and Number 28 (“Maddison”), and leaves notes for his reading, as in Number 18, where he has written “Observations on the confederacies of the Greeks.” But he also demonstrates his insight through his critical commentary throughout. In Number 10, though the trimming of the text-block has cost some of his marginalia, he appears to comment on page 54 that the “[B]ritish to have [envised?] [s]uch a [fac]tion” beside Madison’s definition of a “faction” as “a number of citizens … who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permeant and aggregate interests of the community.” In Number 11, on page 64, he comments “by the [h]as a [N]avy been [?]ppos[?]? […]g Mad,” next to the Hamilton’s assertion of the necessity of a Navy, in “influencing the conduct of European nations”; Stuart’s annotation appears to reference similar comments made by Madison in Number 41. On the following page, he has annotated Hamilton’s claim, “The rights of neutrality will only be respected when they are defended by an adequate power. A nation, despicable by its weakness, forfeits even the privilege of being neutral,” boldly underlining the second sentence. Stuart was known for his frank judgments, even toward his Federalist compatriots (going as far as to criticize Washington’s mannerisms directly to him, after becoming President). Here, in his annotations, one can see this same spirit in his annotation to Number 12. Where Hamilton argues for the self-evidence of the interwovenness of commerce and land value, writing “how apt a spirit of ill-informed jealousy, or of too great abstraction and refinement, is to lead men astray from the plainest truths of reason and conviction,” Stuart has boldly underlined “ill-informed jealousy” and in the margin scrawled, “the author is himself a melancholy proof of this.” His judgment of Hamilton’s character did not, however, impede his appreciation of his political thinking, as seen in his notes at the conclusion of Number 22; when Hamilton laments that the Confederation Congress had given rise “to the enormous doctrine of a right of legislative appeal,” Stuart notes that this echoes “Jeffersons ideas in his notes repeal in the State Constitution of Va,” and anticipates the very battles around ratification outlined above. Even beyond his already pivotal place in the foundations of American democracy, Stuart continued to be historically significant. After the Constitution was ratified, he was appointed by Washington as one of three commissioners responsible for the planning of the new federal city, Washington D.C. Working alongside Thomas Johnson and Daniel Carroll to survey land purchases and oversee the construction of public buildings, Stuart was Washington’s direct line for keeping tabs on the development of the Federal City. Further, his knowledge of French proved indispensable, as the commissioners were to approve of chief engineer Pierre L’Enfent’s work, and he would report the (many) issues back to Washington. Important association copies of The Federalist are rare, let alone ones so closely connected to Washington. This copy is made even more remarkable through its fundamental relationship to the ratification of the Constitution itself. REFERENCES: Bernstein, Are We To Be a Nation?, pp. 239–242; Church 1230; ESTC W5416; Evans 21127; Federal Hundred 19; Ford, Bibliotheca Hamiltoniana 17; Grolier, American 19; Printing and the Mind of Man 234; Sabin 23979; Streeter 2:1049 PROVENANCE: Vol. 1: David Stuart, 1753-1814, (ownership signature on title, dated 10 June 1789) — a member of the 12th Massachusetts Infantry, 1862 (pencil inscription on title). Vol 2: "Storm[?] 1796" (ownership inscription on front free-endpaper) — R. Reynolds (ownership inscription on initial blank, dated Baltimore, Maryland, 17 March 1873) — Carl Spices (ownership inscription on front free-endpaper dated 25 November 1957)

View 1 of Lot 23: (Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, and John Jay) | Washington family copy of the first edition of The Federalist

(hamilton, alexander, james madison, and john jay) | washington family copy of the first edition of the federalist

Property of a New York Collector Jefferson, Thomas Autograph letter signed ("Th: Jefferson") as third President, to his son-in-law John W. Eppes, commiserating on the death of Eppes's wife (and Jefferson's daughter) and anticipating his famous reconciliation with John Adams 2 pages (252 x 182 mm) written recto and verso on a sheet of wove paper, Washington D.C., 4 June 1804; worn and repaired at folds affecting a couple of letters of text, some light staining. "I have never withdrawn my esteem": an important and affecting letter, written by Jefferson shortly after the death of his daughter Maria, addressing his ruptured friendship with Abigail and John Adams: "I inclose you a letter I recieved lately from mrs Adams [not present]. the sentiments expressed in it are sincere. her attachment was constant. although all of them point to another object directly, yet the expressing them to me is a proof that our friendship is unbroken on her part. it has been a strong one, and has gone through trying circumstances on both sides. yet I retain it strongly both for herself and mr Adams. he & myself have gone through so many scenes together that all his qualities have been proved to me, and I know him to possess so many good ones, as that I have never withdrawn my esteem, and I am happy that this letter gives me an opportunity of expressing it to both of them. I shall do it with a frank declaration that one act of his life, & never but one, gave me personal displeasure, his midnight appointments. if respect for him will not permit me to ascribe that altogether to the influence of others, it will leave something for friendship to forgive. if Patsy [Jefferson's other daughter, Martha Jefferson Randolph] is with you, communicate the letter to her, and be so good as to re-inclose it to me. " The "midnight appointments" to which Jefferson refers, were John Adams’s appointments of several dozen judgeships in his last hours of his presidency. When Jefferson succeeded to the White House he and his secretary of state, James Madison, refused to honor these appointments, which they claimed had not been properly filed. These included William Marbury's appointment as Justice of the Peace for the District of Columbia. Marbury then sued Madison in the Supreme Court, asking that it issue a writ of mandamus to force the Jefferson administration to honor Adams's appointments. In the celebrated case that resulted, Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall, also an Adams appointee and an inveterate enemy of Jefferson, invoked the doctrine of judicial review to uphold the legitimacy of Adams's commissions. Jefferson felt that Adams had spitefully named Federalists to these positions, where they could only be removed by impeachment, when he should have allowed them to remain vacant until he assumed office and could fill the openings with candidates loyal to his Democratic-Republican party. Thomas Jefferson’s wife, Martha Wayles, had died nineteen years before he became president. His two daughters who survived to adulthood, Maria Eppes and Martha Randolph, each married to a talented Virginia politician, shared hostess duties at the White House. Maria, however, died at twenty-five on 17 April 1804, two months after giving birth to a namesake daughter, leaving behind a grieving husband and a devastated father. In the present letter Jefferson counsels his son-in-law on the upbringing his now motherless granddaughter and her three-year-old brother, Francis, while assuring Eppes that he will remain part of the president's family. "we consented to consign little Maria to the entreaties of mrs Eppes until August when she promised to bring her back herself. … while I live both the children will be to me the dearest of all pledges; and I shall consider it as increasing our misfortune should we have the less of your society. it will in no wise change my views at Pantops, and should considerations, which ought not to be opposed by me in the actual state of things, induce you to change the purpose of your residence at Pantops, I shall still do there what I had always proposed to you; expecting it will some day become the residence of Francis." Pantops had been Jefferson’s dowry to the couple on their wedding day in 1797. In 1787, the eight-year-old Maria made an indelible impression when she spent several weeks with the Adams family in London while travelling to Paris to join her father and older sister. Abigail Adams wrote to Jefferson that she had "never felt so attached to a child in my Life on so short an acquaintance," assuring him that "the pleasure she has given me is an ample compensation for any little services I have been able to render her." John Adams, for his part, confided to Jefferson, "I am extreamly sorry … that we are obliged to part with her so soon. In my Life I never saw a more charming Child." So when Mrs. Adams learned of Maria's death, she broke an epistolary silence of almost three years to write, 20 May 1804, the letter that Jefferson included with his own letter to Eppes (and which Eppes returned to him in his 14 June response). "Had you been no other than the private inhabitant of Montecello, I should e’er this time have addrest you, with that sympathy, which a recent event has awakend in my Bosom. but reasons of various kinds withheld my pen, untill the powerfull feelings of my heart, have burst through the restraint, and called upon me to shed the tear of sorrow over the departed remains, of your beloved and deserving Daughter, an event which I most sincerely mourn. The attachment which I formed for her, when you committed her to my care; upon her arrival in a foreign Land: has remained with me to this hour. … the tender scene of her seperation from me, rose to my recollection, when she clung arround my neck and wet my Bosom with her tears—saying, 'o! now I have learnt to Love you, why will they tear me from you[.]'" Jefferson may have taken Abigail's warm condolence as "a proof that our friendship is unbroken on her part," as he wrote to Eppes, but he should have noted that she closed her letter as one "who once took pleasure in Subscribing Herself your Friend." He answered her on 13 June, thanking her for her kind words—and her earlier kind acts—and regretting "that circumstances should have arisen which have seemed to draw a line of separation between us." But he also elaborated on his charge that her husband's "last appointments to office [were] personally unkind." This Mrs. Adams would not brook and she sent a withering response, 1 July, detailing her grievances against Jefferson, particularly his pardon of the pamphleteer James T. Callender, who had been prosecuted under the Alien and Sedition Act by the Adams administration. She also alluded to the removal of John Quincy Adams as a bankruptcy commissioner as "personally unkind" on Jefferson's part. The correspondence continued for another four letters before being terminated by Adams in October. Their disagreements, rooted in the party factionalism of the 1790s and the election of 1800, were still irreconcilable. "When Jefferson retired from the presidency in 1809, Dr. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration that Adams and Jefferson worked to create, took it upon himself to renew their suspended friendship. He had no success until 1811, when one of Jefferson's neighbors [Edward Coles] visited Adams in Massachusetts. The neighbor returned to Virginia with the report that he had heard Adams say, 'I always loved Jefferson, and still love him.' In response to these words, Jefferson wrote Dr. Rush: 'this is enough for me. I only needed this knolege to revive towards him all the affections of the most cordial moments of our lives.' He asked Rush to persuade Adams to renew their correspondence. A letter from Adams was forthcoming, and they continued to write until their deaths" ("John Adams" in Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia: https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/). In 1813, Mrs. Adams, who had closed her own correspondence with Jefferson nine years earlier, charmingly reopened it in a postscript appended to a letter from John to Jefferson of 15 July: "I have been looking for some time for a space in my good Husbands Letters to add the regards, of an old Friend, which are Still cherished and perserved through all the changes and vissitudes which have taken place since we first became acquainted, and will I trust remain as long as A Adams." REFERENCE: The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. McClure, 43:534–535, 458–459 (for Abigail Adams's letter of 20 May 1804); cf. The Adams-Jefferson Letters, ed. Cappon, 1:265–282, 2:283–289 PROVENANCE: Christie's New York, 19 June 2007, lot 263 (undesignated consignor)

View 1 of Lot 1013: Jefferson, Thomas | "one act of his life, & never but one, gave me personal displeasure"

Results for "The Federalist Papers"