Lewis Falley Allen - "Rural Architecture"

Elisabeth Woodbridge - "More Jonathan Papers"

Alexandre Dumas - "Le Capitaine Arena"

Charles Lamb and Mary Lamb - "Tales from Shakespeare"

Annual Bibliography of Commonwealth Literature 2007
This paper argues that discourses of love in Ghanaian market literature for youth offer a view into complex negotiations of agency and empowerment. Drawing on Deborah Durham's notion of youth as "social `shifters'" and Francis Nyamnjoh's conception of the "interconnectedness" of agency, I take Ghanaian market literature as one specific case of how African literature for youth foregrounds questions of continuity and change as African societies enter into increasingly complex global relations. In this literature for youth, received notions of love, often constructed out of impressions from American pop and hip hop music, carry new notions of agency that compete with existing "domesticated" forms. Authors like Ike Tandoh and Evelyn Tay employ discourses of love to offer youth alternative avenues for empowerment in a context of socio-economic disenfranchizement. In a creative process of "straddling", this writing both reveals and reproduces the contradictions that obtain in youth configurations of agency.

Memoirs of Aaron Burr, Volume 2.

M >> Matthew L. Davis >> Memoirs of Aaron Burr, Volume 2.






MR. JEFFERSON TO MR. MADISON.

"Washington, December 19, 1800.

"DEAR SIR,

"Mrs. Brown's departure for Virginia enables me to write
confidentially what I would not have ventured by the post at this
prying season. The election in South Carolina has, in some measure,
decided the great contest. Though, as yet, we do not know the actual
votes of Tennessee, Kentucky, and Vermont, yet we believe the votes to
be, on the whole, Jefferson, 73; Burr, 73; Adams, 65; Pinckney, 64.
Rhode Island withdrew one from Pinckney. There is a possibility that
Tennessee may withdraw _one_ from Burr, and Burr writes that there may
be one vote in Vermont for Jefferson. But I hold the latter
_impossible_, and the former _not probable_; and that there will be an
absolute parity between the two republican candidates. This has
produced great dismay and gloom on the republican gentlemen here, and
exultation in the federalists, who openly declare they will prevent an
election, and will name a president of the Senate _pro tem._ by what,
they say, would only be a _stretch_ of the constitution. The prospect
of preventing this is as follows. Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee,
Kentucky, Vermont, Pennsylvania, and New-York can be counted on for
their vote in the House of Representatives, and _it is thought, by
some, that BAER of Maryland and LINN of New-Jersey will come over._"

The preceding extract shows that Mr. Jefferson entertained no doubt
"that there would be an absolute parity between the two republican
candidates," notwithstanding his doubting remarks on that subject to
Colonel Burr. Hopes were also entertained "that Mr. Baer of Maryland
and _Linn of New-Jersey would come over._" Reference will hereafter be
made to these two states. The result of the electoral vote was as Mr.
Jefferson anticipated. _Seventy-three_ republican and _sixty-five_
federal.

Although the ballots for president and vice-president had not been
examined officially, yet it was well known that there was a tie
between Mr. Jefferson and Colonel Burr.

On the 5th of February, 1801, Mr. Bayard, in the House of
Representatives, offered a resolution declaring that, in case of a
tie, the house would continue to ballot until a choice of president
was made. It was referred to a select committee, and, on the 10th, it,
with other rules to govern the house during the balloting, was
adopted. The Senate passed a resolution that the ballots should be
opened with closed doors. William H. Wells, of Delaware, of the
Senate, and John Nicholas, of Virginia, and John Rutledge, of South
Carolina, of the House of Representatives, were appointed tellers.

On the 11th of February the ballots were opened. During the
performance of this ceremony a most extraordinary incident occurred.
As it is known to but few now living, and never been publicly spoken
of, it has been deemed proper to record it here, as a part of the
history of that exciting contest.

The Aurora of the 16th of February, 1801, remarks, that "the tellers
declared that there was some informality in the votes of Georgia; but,
believing them to be true votes, reported them as such." No
explanation of the nature of this informality was given; nor is it
known that any has ever been given since. Had it been announced at the
time, there can be no doubt it would have proved fatal to the election
of Mr. Jefferson. Whether the interest of our country would or would
not have been thereby promoted, is not a question for discussion here.

By the Constitution of the United States at that time it was provided,
Art. 2, sect. 1, "The electors shall meet in their respective states,
and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be
an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a
list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for
each, _which list they shall sign, and certify_, and transmit, sealed,
to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the
President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the
presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open _all the
certificates_, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having
the greatest number of votes shall be the president, if such number be
_a majority of the whole number of electors appointed_; and if there
be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of
votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose, by
ballot, one of them for president; and if no person have a majority,
then from the _five highest_ on the list the said house shall, in like
manner, choose the president. But, in choosing the president, the
votes shall betaken by states, and a majority of all the states shall
be necessary to a choice."

From the above extract it will be seen that the Constitution is
imperative as to the _form_ and _manner_ in which the electoral
returns are to be made. The ceremony of opening was performed in the
presence of the two houses. The package of a state having been opened
by the vice-president, it was handed by him to the tellers. Mr.
Jefferson was the presiding officer. On opening the package endorsed
Georgia votes, it was discovered to be totally irregular. The
statement now about to be given is derived from an honourable
gentleman, a member of Congress from the state of New-York during the
administration of Mr. Jefferson, and yet living in this state. He says
that Mr. Wells (a teller on the part of the Senate) informed him that
the envelope was blank; that the return of the votes was not
authenticated by _the signatures of the electors, or any of them,
either on the outside or the inside of the envelope, or in any other
manner_; that it merely stated in the inside that the votes of Georgia
were, for Thomas Jefferson _four, and for Aaron Burr _four_, without
the signature of any person whatsoever. Mr. Wells added, that he was
very undecided as to the proper course to be pursued by the tellers.
It was, however, suggested by one of them that the paper should be
handed to the presiding officer, without any statement from the
tellers except that the return was informal; that he consented to this
arrangement under the firm conviction that Mr. Jefferson would
announce the nature of the informality from the chair; but, to his
utmost surprise, he (Mr. Jefferson) rapidly declared that the votes of
Georgia were _four_ for Thomas Jefferson and _four_ for Aaron Burr,
without noticing their informality, and in a hurried manner put them
aside, and then broke the seals and handed to the tellers the package
from the next state. Mr. Wells observed, that as soon as Mr. Jefferson
looked at the paper purporting to contain a statement of the electoral
vote of the state of Georgia, his countenance changed, but that the
decision and promptitude with which he acted on that occasion
convinced him of that which he (a federalist) and his party had always
doubted, that is to say, Mr. Jefferson's decision of character, at
least when his own interest was at hazard. Mr. Wells further stated,
that if the votes of Georgia had not been thus counted, as it would
have brought all the candidates into the house, Mr. Pinckney among the
number, Mr. Jefferson could not have been elected president.

The same honourable member of Congress further stated, that some few
years after receiving the above information from Mr. Wells, he became
intimately acquainted with John Nicholas, who was one of the tellers
referred to, and who had removed from Virginia into the western part
of the State of New-York. Mr. Nicholas gave to the honourable member
the same statement in substance, not knowing that it had been
previously derived from Mr. Wells. Mr. Nicholas was a warm personal
and political friend of Mr. Jefferson, and declared that he never felt
so astounded in his life as when he discovered the irregularity. He
claimed some credit for the adroit manner in which he had managed Mr.
Rutledge, so far as to obtain his consent to hand the paper to Mr.
Jefferson without public explanation from the tellers, and which was
effected by a conciliatory appeal to the magnanimity of the member
from South Carolina.

The whole number of electoral votes given at the election in 1800 was
_one hundred and thirty-eight_: necessary to a choice, _seventy_. Mr.
Jefferson and Mr. Burr had each, according to the return made,
seventy-three. Georgia gave _four _votes. If that number had been
deducted from Jefferson and Burr, as illegally returned, of which
there is no doubt, they would have had only _sixty-nine_ votes each;
consequently they would not have had, in the language of the
Constitution, "a majority of the whole number of electors appointed,"
and the candidates out of which a choice of president must be made
would have been Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Burr, Mr. Adams, and Mr. Pinckney.
The federal members would then have said to the republicans, We will
unite with you in the choice of either of the gentlemen presented to
the house except Mr. Jefferson; and if the government is to be brought
to a termination by our failure to elect a president, the
responsibility will be on you. And is it to be believed, that in such
a case the _doubtful_ members who were sighing for office, if any such
there were, would have rejected the suggestion in toto?

The balloting continued from the 11th until the 17th of February
inclusive. _Nine_ states were necessary to a choice. On the first
ballot Mr. Jefferson had _eight_, Mr. Burr _six_, and _two_ states
were divided. At every ballot the same result was announced, until the
_thirty-sixth_ ballot, which was given on the 17th of February, when
Mr. Jefferson was declared duly elected, _ten_ states having voted for
him.

On the first ballot Mr. Jefferson received New-York, New-Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Georgia, and
Tennessee--_eight_.

Mr. Burr received New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
Connecticut, Delaware, and South Carolina --_six_.

Divided, Vermont and Maryland--_two_.

On the final ballot Mr. Jefferson received New-York, New-Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Georgia, Tennessee,
Maryland (_four_ votes and _four_ blanks), Vermont (_one_ vote and
_one_ blank)--_ten_.

Mr. Burr received New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and
Connecticut--_four_.

Delaware _blank_, South Carolina _no vote_.

During the balloting _one hundred and six_ members of the House of
Representatives were present. Of this number _fifty-one_, on the first
ballot, voted for Mr. Jefferson; and on no subsequent vote was that
number increased. The election was effected by the states of Maryland
and Vermont giving their vote, instead of remaining _equally divided_,
and thus having no vote; and that change was produced in Maryland by
Mr. Craick, Mr. Dennis, Mr. Baer, and Mr. Chew Thomas voting _blank_,
and Mr. Lewis R. Morris, of Vermont, in like manner voting blank,
leaving Mr. Matthew Lyon the sole representative of the state.

Previous to the balloting, Mr. Burr addressed to General S. Smith, of
Baltimore, a member of the House of Representatives, the following
letter. It will be seen by the date, that as soon as Colonel Burr
supposed that there was a probability of a tie, he constituted General
Smith his proxy to declare his sentiments.



EXTRACT.

"New-York, 16th December, 1800.

"It is highly improbable that I shall have an equal number of votes
with Mr. Jefferson; but, if such should be the result, every man who
knows me ought to know that I would utterly disclaim all competition.
Be assured that _the federal party can entertain no wish for such an
exchange_. As to my friends, they would dishonour my views and insult
my feelings by a suspicion that I would submit to be instrumental in
counteracting the wishes and the expectations of the United States.
And I now constitute you _my proxy to declare these sentiments_ if the
occasion should require." [2]

Baltimore, February 28, 1801.

Sir--Many of the citizens of Baltimore, who have just now heard of
your arrival among them, beg leave to congratulate you and themselves
upon the success of the late election of President and Vice-president
of the United States. They, in a particular manner, appreciate that
patriotism which disclaimed competition for the presidential chair
with that other eminent character who has finally been called to
it--as setting a just value upon the will of the people.

By order of the meeting.

THOMAS McELDERRY.

To Aaron Burr, Vice-president elect of the United States of America.



Footnotes:

1. Mr. Tucker, in his life of Jefferson, ascribes the defeat of the
federal party in South Carolina to General Hamilton's pamphlet. Its
premature publication, no doubt, contributed largely to produce this
result.

2. The effect of this letter upon public opinion may be judged of by
the following, among other testimonials which might be inserted.




CHAPTER VI.


This contest in Congress produced, almost immediately, strong feelings
of dissatisfaction between some of the friends of Mr. Jefferson and
Colonel Burr. Jealousies and distrust had previously existed. Mr.
Jefferson was anxious that Mr. Madison should be his successor in
office. The Clinton and Livingston families were prepared to unite in
a crusade against Colonel Burr; the chieftains of each section hoping
to fill the station from which he was to be expelled. General Hamilton
was in favour of the election of Mr. Jefferson, as opposed to Colonel
Burr. The result afforded him a triumph, and be was prepared, when
opportunity should present, to prostrate his late successful opponent.
Such was the state of parties, and such the feelings of leading and
distinguished partisans, when Colonel Burr entered upon the
vice-presidency, on the fourth of March, 1801. He was hemmed in on
every side by political adversaries, ready for the onset so soon as it
should be deemed expedient to make it. Every movement, every
expression at the convivial board or in the social circle, and every
action, was carefully watched and noted for future use, if, by the
exercise of ingenuity and misrepresentation, such expression or action
could be so tortured as to operate injuriously to him. These several
sections, each acting within its own sphere, impelled by conflicting
motives, were untiring in their efforts to accomplish the great
object--the ruin of the vice-president. They combined wealth, talents,
and government patronage.

The following short extracts from letters, written as early as 1794
and 1795, will show what were the wishes of Mr. Jefferson (so far as
any reliance can be placed on professions) in relation to Mr. Madison.



THOMAS JEFFERSON TO JAMES MADISON.

"Monticello, December 28, 1794.

"DEAR SIR,

"I do not see in the minds of those with whom I converse a greater
affliction than the fear of your retirement; [1] but this must not be,
_unless to a more splendid and more efficacious post_. [2]

There I should rejoice to see you; I hope I may say, I shall rejoice
to see you. I have long had much in my mind to say to you on that
subject; but double delicacies have kept me silent. I ought, perhaps,
to say, _while I would not give up my own retirement for the empire of
the universe_, how I can justify wishing one, whose happiness I have
so much at heart as yours, to take the front of the battle which is
fighting for my security."



THOMAS JEFFERSON TO JAMES MADISON.

"Monticello, April 27, 1795.

"DEAR SIR,

"In mine, to which yours of March the twenty-third was an answer, I
expressed my hope of the only change of position I ever wished to see
you make, and I expressed it with entire sincerity, because there is
not another person in the United States who, being placed at the helm
of our affairs, my mind would be so completely at rest for the fortune
of our political bark. The wish, too, was pure, and unmixed with any
thing respecting myself personally. * * * * * *

"If these general considerations were sufficient to ground a firm
resolution never to permit myself to think of the office (president),
or be thought of for it, the special ones which have supervened on my
retirement still more insuperably bar the door to it. My health is
entirely broken down within the last eight months; _my age requires
that I should place my affairs_ in a clear state; these are sound, if
taken care of, but capable of considerable dangers if longer
neglected; and, above all things, the delights I feel in the society
of my family, and in the agricultural pursuits in which I am so
eagerly engaged. _The little spice of ambition which I had in my
younger days has long since evaporated, and I set still less store by
a posthumous than present name_."


It is a remarkable fact, that, previous to the balloting in Congress,
all parties and sections of parties concurred in the opinion that the
election would finally be determined, as it was, by New-York,
New-Jersey, and Maryland. These _three_ states would render the
election of Colonel Burr certain; _two_ of them could elect Mr.
Jefferson. The vote, of New-York was to be decided by _Theodorus
Bailey_, of Dutchess county, and _Edward Livingston_, of the city of
New-York; the vote of New-Jersey by Mr. _Linn_, and the vote of
Maryland by Mr. _Dent_ or Mr. _Baer_.

In the Commercial Advertiser of the thirteenth of February, 1801, a
paper opposed to the election of Colonel Burr, there is published an
extract of a letter from a member of Congress, dated Washington,
February 10, which states that, upon the second ballot, it is expected
that New-York, New-Jersey, and Maryland will vote for Mr. Burr.

On the sixth of February, 1801, a leading and influential republican
member of Congress writes to his correspondent a letter, from which
the following is extracted:--

"I have not time to answer your letter as fully as I could wish, as it
would have been my desire to communicate to you not only facts, _but
some of the reasons which have induced us to adopt the steps we have
heretofore taken_. But, at all events, it is important that you should
have an immediate knowledge of the present situation of affairs.

"It is reduced to moral certainty, so far as any reliance can be
placed on the solemn determinations of men, that either Mr. Jefferson
will be chosen, or that there will be no choice made. The republican
majorities of eight states (including _Linn_ [3] of New-Jersey, and
the New-York representation, [4] the republican half of Maryland,
including Mr. Dent, [5] and Lyon of Vermont, are _pledged_ to
persevere in voting for Mr. Jefferson to the end, be the consequence
what it will."

Colonel Burr, soon after his election, gave his enemies an opportunity
to cavil. It would be impossible to enter into all the details
connected with this subject; but the principal charges which were made
against the vice-president, and assigned as reasons for opposing his
renomination, will be briefly presented. The replies to or
explanations of them, by the parties implicated, will also be given.

Late in November, 1801, when Mr. Burr was on his way to Washington to
take his seat in Senate as vice-president, he was addressed by certain
citizens of Baltimore, on which occasion he remarked, "Time will not
allow me to return you a written answer, but I must be permitted to
state my disapprobation of the mode of expressing public sentiment by
addresses." This gave offence to some, and, by the artful and
designing, was misrepresented. Mr. Burr, during the years 1798 and
1799, had beheld, with mortification and disgust, the adulatory, if
not sycophantic addresses presented to President Adams. This reproof,
therefore, of his friends, evinced his natural independence of
character as well as the purest republican notions.

In the month of January, 1802, a bill to repeal what was termed by the
republicans the federal midnight judiciary act, was pending before the
Senate. On the 27th of January, a motion was made to refer the bill to
a committee for the purpose of amendment. On this motion the votes
were, _ayes_, 14; _noes_, 14. The vice-president, Colonel Burr, was in
the chair. He said--"I am for the affirmative, because I never can
resist the reference of a measure where the Senate is so nicely
balanced, and when the object is to effect amendment that may
accommodate it to the opinions of a large majority, and particularly
when I can believe that gentlemen are sincere in wishing a reference
for this purpose. Should it, however, at any time appear that delay
only is intended, my conduct will be different."

This decision afforded the enemies of Colonel Burr an opportunity to
break ground more openly against him. He was now charged with aiding
the federal party in their efforts to embarrass the administration,
and with the design of defeating the wishes of the American people. As
yet, the charge of intriguing and negotiating with the federalists to
obtain the presidency in opposition to Mr. Jefferson had not been
made. The allies had not yet sufficiently poisoned the public mind
against the vice-president, nor had they subsidized the requisite
number of presses for carrying on the work of destruction. While the
grand assault was meditating, and these _feints_ were carrying on
against the vice-president, he was constantly receiving approbatory
letters from intelligent and well-informed citizens, many of whom
cowered beneath the storm when, in the height of its fury, it burst
upon the victim. From among a number the following are selected:--



FROM A. J. DALLAS.

Philadelphia, 3d February, 1802.[6]

DEAR SIR,

On the judiciary question, I wrote my sentiments to Mr. Wilson
Nicholas early in the session. I am sorry our friends have taken so
peremptory a position, as the very circumstance of having taken it
will render it difficult to move them. I cannot concur with them in
the policy or expediency of the measure. The business of the court
will not allow me to give my reasons in detail, but you shall have my
brief.

1. There never was a case in which a party could be more justified in
expressing their resentment, on account of the manner of passing the
act; the manner of organizing the courts; the nature of the opposition
to the repeal, denying its constitutionality, and menacing a civil
war.

2. The repeal would be constitutional, from a review of the
principles, and terms of the constitution itself; of the peculiar
situation of the country ; its growing population ; its extending
prospects; its increasing wants, pursuits, and refinements, &c.; of
the analogy to the Judiciary Institution of England, where independent
of the legislature is not within the policy or provision of the
statutes relative to the commissions of the judges; of the analogy to
the Judiciary Institutions of the sister states, which have all been
subject to legislative interference occasionally. In Pennsylvania
particularly, the constitution declares that the judges shall hold
their commissions during good behaviour; yet it expressly authorizes
the legislature to abolish the Court of Common Pleas, &c.; and of the
precedents in the existing act of Congress, which is an exercise of
the power _sub modo_.

3. But notwithstanding the indignation I feel, in common with our
friends, at the manner of passing the Circuit Court act; and
notwithstanding my perfect conviction that Congress has the power of
repealing the act, I think the repeal would be impolitic and
inexpedient. If it would be impolitic acting on party principles, it
would be inexpedient of course; but I mean, also, that it would be
inexpedient on account of the use that Pennsylvania (and I presume the
same as to other states) has derived from the institution:

1st. _It is impolitic_.

The republicans are not agreed on the constitutionality of the repeal.
The people at large have imbibed strong prejudices on the subject of
judicial independence. The repeal would be ascribed to party
animosity; and if future amendments should be made, it would be
considered as a personal proceeding, merely to remove the present
judges: the hazard of loss in public opinion is greater than the hope
of gain. There is a mass of the community that will not be fermented
by the leaven of party passions. By persons of this description, the
motive and effect will be strictly analyzed and purified. The mere
resuscitation of the old system will either expose the administration
of justice to inconceivable embarrassments, or demonstrate the motive
to be abstractedly a party one, by calling for an immediate reform.
The clamour of the federalists will at least have a reasonable
foundation.

2. _It is inexpedient_.

The mere repeal will reinstate a system which every man of common
sense and candour must deprecate. It will entirely destroy
institutions susceptible of being modelled into a form economical as
well as useful. It will deprive some states of tribunals which have
been found highly advantageous, to the despatch of business. I allude
particularly to Pennsylvania. In this state justice, as far as
respects our state courts, is in a state of dissolution, from the
excess of business and the parsimony of the legislature.

Copyright (c) 2007. topboookz.com. All rights reserved.