Chapter LIII (2)

"The shape in which this proposition was made is variously
stated. Mr. Calhoun, in the printed correspondence, page 15,
says: 'I was of the impression that you had exceeded your
orders, and acted on your own responsibility, but I neither
questioned your patriotism nor your motives. Believing that
where orders were transcended, investigation as a matter of
course ought to follow, as due in justice to the government and
the officer, unless there be strong reasons to the contrary,
I came to the [cabinet] meeting under the impression that the
usual course ought to be pursued in this case, which I supported
by presenting fully and freely all the arguments that occurred
to me.'

"Mr. Crawford, in his letter to Mr. Forsyth, published in the
same correspondence, page 9, says: 'Mr. Calhoun's proposition in
the cabinet was, that General Jackson should be punished in some
form, or reprehended in some form, I am not positively certain
which.'

"Mr. Adams, in a letter to Mr. Crawford, dated 30th July, 1830,
says: 'The main point upon which it was urged that General
Jackson should be _brought to trial_, was, that he had violated
his orders by taking St. Marks and Pensacola.'

"Mr. Crowninshield, in a letter to Mr. Crawford, dated 25th
July, 1830, says: 'I remember too, that Mr. Calhoun was severe
upon the conduct of General Jackson, but the words particularly
spoken have slipped my memory.'

"From the united testimony it appears that Mr. Calhoun made a
proposition for a court of inquiry upon the conduct of General
Jackson, upon the charge of having violated his orders in
taking St. Marks and Pensacola, with a view to his ultimate
trial and punishment, and that he was severe in his remarks
upon that conduct. But the President would listen to no such
proposition. Mr. Crawford, in his letter to Mr. Calhoun, dated
2d October, 1830, says: 'You remembered the excitement which
your proposition produced in the mind and on the feelings of the
President, and did not dare to ask him any question tending to
revive his recollection of that proposition.' This excitement
was very natural. Hearing the very member of his cabinet whom he
had consulted upon the subject of General Jackson's confidential
letter, and who had advised the answer which had approved
beforehand the capture of St. Marks and Pensacola and who on the
8th September, 1818, wrote to General Jackson, that 'St. Marks
will be retained till Spain shall be ready to garrison it with
a sufficient force, and Fort Gadsden, and any other position
in East or West Florida within the Indian country, which may
be deemed eligible, will be retained so long as there is any
danger, which, it is hoped, will afford the desired security,'
make a proposition which went to stamp his character with
treachery, by the punishment of General Jackson for those very
acts, it was impossible that Mr. Monroe should not be excited.
He must have been more than human, or less, to have beheld Mr.
Calhoun uttering violent philippics against General Jackson for
those acts, without the strongest emotion.

"Mr. Calhoun's proposition was rejected, as he knew it would be,
and he came from behind the veil of cabinet secrecy all smiles
and professions of regard and friendship for General Jackson!
It was then that by his deceitful conversations he induced
Colonel Hayne and others to inform General Jackson, that so
far from thinking that he had violated his orders and ought to
be punished, he disapproved and only nominally supported the
more friendly decision of the cabinet, and thought with him
altogether! There was no half-way feeling in his friendship!
So complete and entire was the deception, that while General
Jackson was passing through Virginia the next winter on his way
to Washington, he toasted '_John C. Calhoun_,' as '_an honest
man, the noblest work of God._' Who can paint the workings of
the guilty Calhoun's soul when he read that toast!!

"But Mr. Calhoun was not content with the attack made by him
upon General Jackson's character and fame in the dark recesses
of Mr. Monroe's cabinet. At the next session of Congress
the same subject was taken in hand in both houses. Mr. Cobb
came forward with his resolutions of censure in the House of
Representatives, where, after a long discussion, the assailants
were signally defeated. Mr. Lacock headed a committee in the
Senate which was engaged in the affair from the 18th December,
1818, to the 24th February, 1819, when they made a report
full of bitterness against General Jackson. It charged him
with a violation of the laws and constitution of his country;
disobedience of orders; disregard of the principles of humanity,
and almost every crime which a military man can commit.

"It was not suspected at the time that this report owed any of
its bitterness to Mr. Calhoun, yet that such was the fact is now
susceptible of the strongest proof!

"While the attacks upon General Jackson were in progress in
Congress his presence in the city was thought to be necessary by
his friends. Colonel Robert Butler, then in Washington, wrote to
him to that effect. A few days afterwards Mr. Calhoun accosted
him, and asked him in an abrupt manner why he had written to
General Jackson to come to the city. Colonel Butler answered,
'that he might see that justice was done him in person.' Mr.
Calhoun turned from him without speaking another word with an
air of anger and vexation which made an indelible impression
on the colonel's mind. It was obvious enough that he did not
desire, but rather feared General Jackson's presence in the
city. Colonel Butler's letter to General Jackson, dated the 9th
June, 1831, is in these words:

"'When in Washington in the winter of 1818-'19, finding the
course which Congress appeared to be taking on the Seminole
question, I wrote you that I esteemed it necessary that you
should be present at Washington. Having done so, I communicated
this fact to our friend Bronaugh, who held the then Secretary
of War in high estimation. The succeeding evening, while at
the French Minister's, he came to me and inquired in a tone
somewhat abrupt, what could induce me to write for General
Jackson to come to the city--(Bronaugh having informed him that
I had done so)--to which I replied, perhaps as sternly, "_that
he may in person have justice done him_." The Secretary turned
on his heel, and so ended the conversation; but there was a
something inexplicable in the countenance that subsequent events
have given meaning to. After your arrival at Washington, we
were on a visit at the Secretary's, and examining a map--(the
Yellow Stone expedition of the Secretary's being the subject of
conversation)--Mr. Lacock, of the Senate, was announced to the
Secretary, who remarked--"Do not let him come in now, General
Jackson is here, but will soon be gone, when I can see him."
There was nothing strange in all this; but the whispered manner
and apparent agitation fastened on my mind the idea that Mr.
Calhoun and Lacock understood each other on the Seminole matter.
Such were my impressions at the time.'

"On my arrival, however, in January, 1819, Mr. Calhoun treated
me with marked kindness. The latter part of Colonel Butler's
letter, as to Mr. Lacock, is confirmed by my own recollection
that one day when Mr. Calhoun and myself were together in the
War Department, the messenger announced Mr. Lacock at the door:
Mr. Calhoun, in a hurried manner, pronounced the name of General
Jackson, and Mr. Lacock did not come in. This circumstance
indicated an intimacy between them, but I inferred nothing from
it unfavorable to Mr. Calhoun.

"In speaking of my confidential letter to Mr. Monroe (printed
correspondence, page 19), Mr. Calhoun states, that after
reading it when received, 'I thought no more of it. Long after,
I think it was at the commencement of the next session of
Congress, I heard some allusion which brought that letter to my
recollection. It was from a quarter which induced me to believe
that it came from Mr. Crawford. I called and mentioned it to Mr.
Monroe, and found that he had entirely forgotten the letter.
After searching some time he found it among some other papers,
and read it, as he told me, for the first time.'

"The particular '_quarter_' whence the '_allusion_' which
called up the recollection of this confidential letter came,
Mr. Calhoun has not thought proper to state. Probably it was
Mr. Lacock, who was the friend of Mr. Crawford. Probably he
applied to Mr. Calhoun for information, and Mr. Calhoun went
to the President, and requested a sight of that letter that he
might communicate its contents to Mr. Lacock. Mr. Lacock was
appointed upon the committee on the Seminole war, on the 18th
December. On the 21st of that month the recollection of the
confidential letter was first in the mind of Mr. Monroe, for on
that day, in a letter to General Jackson, he gives an account
of its reception, and the disposition made of it. Probably,
therefore, it was about the time that Mr. Lacock undertook the
investigation of this affair in the Senate, and that it was for
his information that Mr. Calhoun called on Mr. Monroe to inquire
about this letter.

"Nay, it is _certain_ that the existence and contents of this
letter _were_ about that time _communicated to Mr. Lacock: that
he conversed freely and repeatedly with Mr. Calhoun upon the
whole subject: that he was informed of all that had passed: the
views of the President, of Mr. Calhoun, and the cabinet, and
that Mr. Calhoun coincided with Mr. Lacock in all his views_.

"These facts are stated _upon the authority of Mr. Lacock
himself_.

"The motives of these secret communications to Mr. Lacock by Mr.
Calhoun cannot be mistaken. By communicating the contents of the
confidential letter, and withholding the fact that an approving
answer had been returned, he wished to impress Mr. Lacock with
the belief that General Jackson had predetermined before he
entered Florida, to seize the Spanish posts, right or wrong,
with orders or without. Acting under this impression, he would
be prepared to discredit and disbelieve all General Jackson's
explanations and defences, and put the worst construction upon
every circumstance disclosed in the investigation. By this
perfidy General Jackson was deprived of all opportunity to make
an effectual defence. To him Mr. Calhoun was all smiles and
kindness. He believed him his friend, seeking by all proper
means, in public and private, to shield him from the attacks
of his enemies. Having implicit confidence in Mr. Calhoun and
the President, he would sooner have endured the tortures of
the inquisition than have disclosed their answer to his letter
through Mr. Rhea. The tie which he felt, Mr. Calhoun felt
not. He did not scruple to use one side of a correspondence
to destroy a man, his friend, who confided in him with the
faith and affection of a brother--when he knew that man felt
bound by obligations from which no considerations short of a
knowledge of his own perfidy could absolve him, to hold the
other side in eternal silence. General Jackson had no objection
to a disclosure of the whole correspondence. There was nothing
in it of which he was ashamed, or which on his own account he
wished to conceal. Public policy made it inexpedient that the
world should know at that time how far the government had
approved beforehand of his proceedings. But had he known that
Mr. Calhoun was attempting to destroy him by secretly using
one side of the correspondence, he would have been justified
by the laws of self-defence in making known the other. He saw
not, heard not, imagined not, that means so perfidious and
dishonorable were in use to destroy him. It never entered his
confiding heart that the hand he shook with the cordiality of a
warm friend was secretly pointing out to his enemies the path by
which they might ambuscade and destroy him. He was incapable of
conceiving that the honeyed tongue, which to him spake nothing
but kindness, was secretly conveying poison into the ears of Mr.
Lacock, and other members of Congress. It could not enter his
mind that his confidential letters, the secrets of the cabinet,
and the opinions of its members, were all secretly arrayed
against him by the friend in whom he implicitly confided,
misinterpreted and distorted, without giving him an opportunity
for self-defence or explanation.

"Mr. Calhoun's object was accomplished. Mr. Lacock made a
report far transcending in bitterness any thing which even in
the opinion of General Jackson's enemies the evidence seemed
to justify. This extraordinary and unaccountable severity is
now explained. It proceeded from the secret and perfidious
representations of Mr. Calhoun, based on General Jackson's
confidential letter. Mr. Lacock ought to be partially excused,
and stand before the world comparatively justified. For most of
the injustice done by his report to the soldier who had risked
all for his country, Mr. Calhoun _is the responsible man_.

"As dark as this transaction is, a shade is yet to be added.
It was not enough that General Jackson had been deceived and
betrayed by a professing friend; that the contents of his
confidential correspondence had been secretly communicated
to his open enemies, while all information of the reply was
withheld: it was not enough that an official report overflowing
with bitterness had gone out to the world to blast his fame,
which must stand for ever recorded in the history of his
country. Lest some accident might expose the evidences of the
understanding under which he acted, and the duplicity of his
secret accuser, means must be taken to procure the destruction
of the answer to the confidential letter through Mr. Rhea. They
were these. About the time Mr. Lacock made his report General
Jackson and Mr. Rhea were both in the city of Washington. Mr.
Rhea called on General Jackson, as he said, at the request
of Mr. Monroe, and begged him on his return home to burn his
reply. He said the President feared that by the death of General
Jackson, or some other accident, it might fall into the hands
of those who would make an improper use of it. He therefore
conjured him by the friendship which had always existed between
them (and by his obligations as a brother mason) to destroy it
on his return to Nashville. Believing Mr. Monroe and Mr. Calhoun
to be his devoted friends, and not deeming it _possible_ that
any incident could occur which would require or justify its use,
he gave Mr. Rhea the promise he solicited, and accordingly after
his return to Nashville he burnt Mr. Rhea's letter, and on his
letter-book opposite the copy of his confidential letter to Mr.
Monroe made this entry:--

"_'Mr. Rhea's letter in answer is burnt this 12th April, 1819.'_

"Mr. Calhoun's management was thus far completely triumphant.
He had secretly assailed General Jackson in cabinet council,
and caused it to be publicly announced that he was his friend.
While the confiding soldier was toasting him as 'an honest man,
the noblest work of God,' he was betraying his confidential
correspondence to his enemy, and laying the basis of a document
which was intended to blast his fame and ruin his character in
the estimation of his countrymen. Lest accident should bring the
truth to light, and expose his duplicity, he procures through
the President and Mr. Rhea the destruction of the approving
answer to the confidential letter. Mr. Rhea was an old man and
General Jackson's health feeble. In a few years all who were
supposed to have any knowledge of the reply would be in their
graves. Every trace of the approval given beforehand by the
government to the operations of General Jackson would soon be
obliterated, and the undivided responsibility would forever
rest on his head. At least, should accident or policy bring to
light the duplicity of Mr. Calhoun, he might deny all knowledge
of this reply, and challenge its production. He might defend
his course in the cabinet and extenuate his disclosures to Mr.
Lacock, by maintaining before the public that he had always
believed General Jackson violated his orders and ought to have
been punished. At the worst, the written reply if once destroyed
could never be recalled from the flames; and should General
Jackson still be living, his assertion might not be considered
more conclusive than Mr. Calhoun's denial. In any view it was
desirable to him that this letter should be destroyed, and
through his management, as is verily believed, it was destroyed.

"Happily however for the truth of history and the cause of
public justice, the writer of the reply is still alive; and
from a journal kept at the time, is able to give an accurate
account of this transaction. He testifies directly to the
writing of the letter, to its contents, and the means taken to
secure its destruction. Judge Overton, to whom the letter was
confidentially shown, testifies directly to the existence of the
letter, and to the fact that General Jackson afterwards told him
it was destroyed.

"These, with the statement of General Jackson himself, and the
entry in his letter-book which was seen by several persons many
years ago, fix these facts beyond a doubt.

"Certainly the history of the world scarcely presents a parallel
to this transaction. It has been seen with what severity
Mr. Calhoun denounced Mr. Crawford for revealing the secret
proceedings of the cabinet: with what justice may a retort of
tenfold severity be made upon him, when he not only reveals to
Mr. Lacock the proceedings of the cabinet, but the confidential
letter of a confiding friend, not for the benefit of that
friend, but through misrepresentation of the transaction and
concealment of the reply, to aid his enemies in accomplishing
his destruction. It was doubtless expected that Mr. Lacock would
produce a document which would overwhelm General Jackson and
destroy him in public estimation. In that event the proceedings
of the cabinet would no longer have been held sacred. The
erroneous impression made on the public mind would have been
corrected, and the world have been informed that Mr. Calhoun
not only disapproved the acts of General Jackson, but had in
the cabinet attempted in vain to procure his punishment. As
the matter stood, the responsibility of attacking the General
rested on Mr. Crawford, and had the decision of the people been
different, the responsibility of _defending_ him would have
been thrown exclusively upon Mr. Adams, and Mr. Calhoun would
have claimed the merit of the attack. But until the public
should decide, it was not prudent to lose the friendship of
General Jackson, which might be of more service to Mr. Calhoun
than the truth. It was thus at the sacrifice of every principle
of honor and friendship that Mr. Calhoun managed to throw all
responsibility on his political rivals, and profit by the result
of these movements whatever it might be. It cannot be doubted,
however, that Mr. Calhoun expected the entire prostration of
General Jackson, and managed to procure the destruction of Mr.
Rhea's letter, for the purpose of disarming the friend he had
betrayed, that he might, with impunity when the public should
have pronounced a sentence of condemnation, have come forward
and claimed the merit of having been the first to denounce him.

"The people however sustained General Jackson against the
attacks of all his enemies, public and private, open and secret,
and therefore it became convenient for Mr. Calhoun to retain
his mask, to appear as the friend of one whom the people had
pronounced their friend, and to let Mr. Crawford bear the unjust
imputation of having assailed him in the cabinet.

"It must be confessed that the mask was worn with consummate
skill. Mr. Calhoun was understood by all of General Jackson's
friends to be his warm and able defender. When, in 1824, Mr.
Calhoun was withdrawn from the lists as a candidate for the
Presidency, the impression made on the friends of General
Jackson was that he did it to favor the election of their
favorite, when it is believed to be susceptible of proof that he
secretly flattered the friends of Mr. Adams with the idea that
he was with them. It is certain that for the Vice-Presidency
he continued to secure nearly all the Adams votes, most of the
Jackson votes, and even half of the Clay votes in Kentucky. But
never did the friends of General Jackson doubt his devotion
to their cause in that contest, until the publication of his
correspondence with General Jackson. In a note, page 7, he
undeceives them by saying:

"'When my name was withdrawn from the list of presidential
candidates, I assumed a perfectly neutral position between
General Jackson and Mr. Adams. I was decidedly opposed to a
congressional caucus, as both those gentlemen were also, and as
I bore very friendly personal and political relations to both, I
would have been well satisfied with the election of either.'

"I have now given a faithful detail of the circumstances and
facts which transpired touching my movements in Florida, during
the Seminole campaign.

"When Mr. Calhoun was secretly misinterpreting my views and
conduct through Mr. Speer to the citizens of South Carolina,
I had extended to him my fullest confidence, inasmuch as I
consulted him as if he were one of my cabinet, showed him the
written rules by which my administration was to be governed,
which he apparently approved, received from him the strongest
professions of friendship, so much so that I would have scorned
even a suggestion that he was capable of such unworthy conduct.

"ANDREW JACKSON."

Such is the paper which General Jackson left behind him for publication, and which is so essential to the understanding of the events of the time. From the rupture between General Jackson and Mr. Calhoun (beginning to open in 1830, and breaking out in 1831), dates calamitous events to this country, upon which history cannot shut her eyes, and which would be a barren relation without the revelation of their cause. Justice to Mr. Monroe (who seemed to hesitate in the cabinet about the proposition to censure or punish Gen. Jackson), requires it to be distinctly brought out that he had either never read, or had entirely forgotten General Jackson's confidential letter, to be answered through the venerable representative from Tennessee (Mr. John Rhea), and the production of which in the cabinet had such a decided influence on Mr. Calhoun's proposition--and against it. This is well told in the letter of Mr. Crawford to Mr. Forsyth--is enforced in the "Exposition," and referred to in the "correspondence," but deserves to be reproduced in Mr. Crawford's own words. He says: "Indeed, my own views on the subject had undergone a material change after the cabinet had been convened. Mr. Calhoun made some allusion to a letter the General had written to the President, who had forgotten that he had received such a letter, but said if he had received such an one, he could find it; and went directly to his cabinet and brought the letter out. In it General Jackson approved of the determination of the government to break up Amelia Island and Galveston; and gave it also as his opinion that the Floridas should be taken by the United States. He added it might be a delicate matter for the Executive to decide; but if the President approved of it, he had only to give a hint to some confidential member of Congress, say Mr. Johnny Ray (Rhea), and he would do it, and take the responsibility of it on himself. I asked the President if the letter had been answered. He replied, No; for that he had no recollection of having received it. I then said that I had no doubt that General Jackson, in taking Pensacola, believed he was doing what the Executive wished. After that letter was produced unanswered I should have opposed the infliction of punishment upon the General, who had considered the silence of the President as a tacit consent. Yet it was after this letter was produced and read that Mr. Calhoun made his proposition to the cabinet for punishing the General. You may show this letter to Mr. Calhoun, if you please." It was shown to him by General Jackson, as shown in the "correspondence," and in the "Exposition;" and is only reproduced here for the sake of doing justice to Mr. Monroe.