The Works of Thomas Jefferson in Twelve Volumes. Federal Edition. Collected and Edited by Paul Leicester Ford.

(With translations from French provided)

Thomas Jefferson to Edmond C. Genet,

Philadelphia June 17, 1793.

Sir,--I shall now have the honor of answering your letter of the 15th instant, and so much of that of the 14th (both of which have been laid before the President) as relates to a vessel armed in the port of New York and about to depart from thence, but stopped by order of the Government. And here I beg leave to premise, that, the case supposed in your letter, of a vessel arming for her own defence, and to repel unjust aggressions, is not that in question, nor that on which I mean to answer, because not having yet happened, as far as is known to the Government, I have no instructions on the subject. The case in question is that of a vessel armed, equipped, and manned in a port of the United States, for the purpose of committing hostilities on nations at peace with the United States.

As soon as it was perceived that such enterprises would be attempted, orders to prevent them, were dispatched to all the States and ports of the Union. In consequence of these, the Governor of New York, receiving information that a Sloop, heretofore called the Polly, now the Republican, was fitting out, arming, and manning in the port of New York, for the express and sole purpose of cruising against certain nations, with whom we are at peace; that she had taken her guns and ammunition aboard and was on the point of departure, seized the vessel. That the Governor was not mistaken in the previous indications of her object, appears by the subsequent avowal of the citizen Hauterieve, consul of France at that port, who, in a letter to the Governor, reclaims her as "Un vaisseau armé en guerre, et pret à mettre à la voile," and describes her object in these expressions: "Cet usage etrange de la force publique contre les citoyens d'une nation amie qui se retmissent ici pour aller defendre leur frères," &c. and again "Je requiers, monsieur, l'autorité dont vous etes revetu, pour faire rendre à des Français, à des alliés &c. la liberté de voler au secours de leur patrie."

“A vessel armed in war, and pret to be put at the veil, "and describes her object in these expressions: "This strange use of the police force against the citizens of a friendly nation who retmissent themselves here to go defendre their brothers," &c. and again "I require, Sir, the authority of which you etes revetu, to make return to French, to allies &c. freedom to fly to the help of their fatherland.”

This transaction being reported to the President, orders were immediately sent to deliver over the vessel, and the persons concerned in the enterprise to the tribunals of the Country, that if the act was of those forbidden by the Law, it might be punished, if it was not forbidden, it might be so declared, and all persons apprized of what they might or might not do.

This we have reason to believe is the true state of the case, and it is a repetition of that which was the subject of my letter of the 5th instant, which animadverted not merely on the single fact of the granting commissions of war, by one nation, within the territory of another, but on the aggregate of the facts; for it states the Opinion of the President to be "That the arming and equipping vessels in the ports of the United States, to cruise against nations with whom we are at peace, was incompatible with the sovereignty of the United States; that it made them instrumental to the annoyance of those nations, and thereby tended to commit their peace"--and this opinion is still conceived to be not contrary to the principles of natural law, the usage of nations, the engagements which unite the two people, nor the proclamation of the President, as you seem to think.

Surely not a syllable can be found in the last mentioned instrument, permitting the preparation of hostilities in the ports of the United States. It's object was to enjoin on our citizens "a friendly conduct towards all the belligerent powers," but a preparation of hostilities is the reverse of this.

None of the engagements in our treaties stipulate this permission. The xviith article of that of commerce, permits the armed vessels of either party, to enter the ports of the other, and to depart with their prizes freely: but the entry of an armed vessel into a port, is one act; the equipping a vessel in that port, arming her, manning her, is a different one, and not engaged by any article of the Treaty.

You think, Sir, that this opinion is also contrary to the law of nature and usage of nations. We are of opinion it is dictated by that Law and usage; and this had been very maturely inquired into before it was adopted as a principle of conduct. But we will not assume the exclusive right of saying what that law and usage is. Let us appeal to enlightened and disinterested Judges. None is more so than Vattel. He says L. 3. §. 104. "Tant qu'un peuple neutre veut jouir suremerit de cet état, il doit montrer en toutes choses une exacte impartialité entre ceux qui se font la guerre. Car s'il farorise l'un au préjudice de l'autre, il ne pourra passe plaindre, quand celui-ci le traitera comme adhérent & associé de son ennemi. Sa neutralité seroit une neutralité frauduleuse, dont personne ne veut être la dupe.--Voyons done en quoi consiste cette impartialité qu'un peuple neutre doit garder.

“As long as neutral people want to enjoy suremerit this state, it must show in all things an exact impartiality between those which are made the war. Because if it farorise one with the damage of the other, it will not be able comes to feel sorry for, when this one treats it like member & associated with his enemy. Its neutrality seroit a fraudulent neutrality, of which nobody wants to be deceives it -- See done of what this impartiality consists which neutral people must keep.”

"Elle se rapporte uniquement à la guerre, & comwend deux choses, 10. Ne point donner de secours quand on n'y est pas obligé; ne fournir librement ne troupes, ni ames, ni munitions, ni rien de ce qui serf directement à la guerre. Je dis ne point donner de secours, & non pas en donner egalement; car il seroit absurde qu'un Etat secourût en même terns deux ennemis. Et puis il seroit impossible de la faire avec egalité; les mêmes choses, le même hombre de troupes, la même quantitié d'armes, de munitions, &e. fournies en des circonstances differentes, ne forment plus des secours equivalents. &c.

“It is referred only to the war, & comwend two things, 10. Not to give a help when one is not obliged there; not to provide troops freely, neither hearts, neither ammunition, nor nothing what serf directly to the war. I say not to give a help, & not to also give some; because it seroit absurd that a State helped into same terns two enemies. And then it seroit impossible to make it with egality; the same things, same the hombre of troops, the same one quantitié of weapons, of ammunition, &e. provided in different circumstances, do not form any more of the helps equivalents.”

If the neutral power may not, consistent with it's neutrality furnish men to either party, for their aid in war, as little can either enrol them in the neutral territory, by the law of nations. Wolf §. 1174, Says, "Puisque le droit de lever des soldats est un droit de majesté, qui ne peut être violé par une nation etrangere, il n'est pas permis de lever des soldats sur le territorie d'autrui, sans le consentement du maitre du territorie." And Vattel before cited L. 3. §. 15. "Le droit de lever des soldats appartenant uniquement à la nation, ou au souverain, personne ne peut en envoler en pays erranger sans la permission du souveraine:--Ceux qui entre prenant d'engager des soldats en pays erranger sans la permission du Souverain, et en general quiconque débauche les sujets d'autrui, viole un des droits les plus sacrés du prince & de la nation. C'est le crime qu'on appelle plagiat, ou vol d'homme. Il n'est aucun Etat police qui ne le punisse tres sévérement." &c.

“The right to pick up soldiers belonging only to the nation, or to the sovereign, to nobody can fly away some in country erranger without the permission of the souveraine: -- Those which enters taking to engage of the soldiers in country erranger without the permission of the Sovereign, and in general whoever discharges the subjects of others, violate one of the most crowned rights of the prince & the nation. It is the crime which one calls plagiarism, or flight of man. He is not any State organizes which does not punish it very sévérement.”

For I chuse to refer you to the passage, rather than follow it thro' all its developments. The testimony of these, and other writers, on the law and usage of nations, with your own just reflections on them, will satisfy you that the United States in prohibiting all the belligerent powers from equipping, arming, and manning vessels of war in their ports, have exercised a right, and a duty with justice, and with great moderation. By our treaties with several of the belligerent powers, which are a part of the laws of our land, we have established a state of peace with them. But without appealing to treaties, we are at peace with them all by the law of nature. For by nature's law, man is at peace with man, till some aggression is committed, which, by the same law, authorizes one to destroy another as his enemy. For our citizens then, to commit murders and depredations on the members of nations at peace with us, or combine to do it, appeared to the Executive, and to those with whom they consulted, as much against the laws of the land, as to murder or rob, or combine to murder or rob it's own citizens, and as much to require punishment, if done within their limits, where they have a territorial jurisdiction, or on the high seas, where they have a personal jurisdiction, that is to say, one which reaches their own citizens only, this being an appropriate part of each nation on an element where all have a common jurisdiction. So say our laws as we understand them ourselves. To them the appeal is made, and whether we have construed them well or ill, the constitutional Judges will decide. Till that decision shall be obtained, the Government of the United States must pursue what they think right with firmness, as is their duty. On the first attempt that was made the President was desirous of involving in the censures of the law as few as might be. Such of the individuals only therefore as were citizens of the United States, were singled out for prosecution. But this second attempt being after full knowledge of what had been done on the first, and indicating a disposition to go on in opposition to the laws, they are to take their course against all persons concerned, whether citizens, or aliens; the latter, while within our Jurisdiction and enjoying the protection of the laws, being bound to obedience to them, and to avoid disturbances of our peace within, or acts which would commit it without, equally as Citizens are.

Let us examine what Mr. Jefferson had to write about armed America Citizens, shall we? First, we'll start out with a quote from a letter just prior to the debate over the Bill of Rights;

"The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order. I hope in God this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted."

- Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787 letter to William S. Smith.



Next, let us examine what Mr. Jefferson wrote in another letter. This one, two months after the one above to Mr. Genet;

"Knowing of the war when she left Jamaica, & that our coast was lined with small French privateers, she armed for her defence, & took one of those commissions usually called letters of marque. She arrived here safely without having had any rencounter of any sort. Can it be necessary to say that a merchant vessel is not a privateer? That tho' she has arms to defend herself in time of war, in the course of her regular commerce, this no more makes her a privateer, than a husbandman following his plough, in time of war, with a knife or pistol in his pocket, is thereby made a soldier? The occupation of a privateer is attack and plunder, that of a merchant-vessel is commerce & self-preservation."

- Thomas Jefferson, 08/16/1793 letter to Gouverneur Morris. [The Works of Thomas Jefferson in Twelve Volumes, Federal Edition. Collected and Edited by Paul Leicester Ford].



Next, we shall see how Mr. Jefferson held the same sentiments throughout his political life;

“No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [ within his own lands] . * --
Proposed Va. Constitution.”

- Thomas Jefferson, The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, 1900. Ford ed., ii, 27. (June, 1776)

“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.”

- Thomas Jefferson, 'Commonplace Books' 1758-1772, quoting Cesare Beccaria.

"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks."

- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 19, 1785.

"I learn with great concern that [one] portion of our frontier so interesting, so important, and so exposed, should be so entirely unprovided with common fire-arms. I did not suppose any part of the United States so destitute of what is considered as among the first necessaries of a farm-house."

- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Jacob J. Brown, 1808. ME 11:432.

"Its principles and forms had entered little into our former education. We established, however, some although not all its important principles. The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved), or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press."

- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright. [Washington ed. vii, 356. < M. 1824 >. 1728. CONSTITUTIONS (American), Characteristics of. -- JCE1728. The Modern English Collection at the University of Virginia Electronic Text Center.]



It should be crystal clear to all, that Mr. Jefferson was most definitely refering to Individual ownership and use of private arms. The historical data referenced in the various linked articles contained herein. Shows that the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms was a pre-existent Natural Right. As shown here by Mr. Blackstone, an early American authority on the laws of England;

"The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
- William Blackstone, 1 Commentaries on the Laws of England 136, 1765–1769.

That was the Right of all British American 'Subjects' before the adoption of the United States Constitution. Notice how that it is limited by (arbitrary) “conditions”, degrees” and “allowances”. And it was routinely subjected to the arbitrary rule of various American colonial governments. In fact, it was the British infringement of that specific right, that was “the straw that broke the camel's back”. Which led directly to the start of the American Revoltuion. And this, by General Gage ordering the confiscation of arms of the colonists, (under false pretenses), in Boston, Mass.

The following quote, from another highly respected early American legal authority. Clearly shows the intended difference between our right, as it existed under English law. And, details the radical improvement of our Right as intended under the new U.S. Constitution;

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government...."

"....This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty....The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."

"...In America we may reasonably hope that the people will never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty..."

- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries, (1803).



The difference, between the Right of the British American 'subject'. In comparison to that of the new American Citizen are striking, yes? However, it is very apparent that the majority of governments in the United States. Are clearly either disregarding, or directly infringing upon our “unalienable” Right.


And, finally, one last quote from Mr. Jefferson;

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...”

- Declaration of Independence

 

Return to:

After The Fact

Also see:

Right to Keep and Bear Arms -

Origins

Precedent

HOME

2007 GunShowOnTheNet.com