|
GEN. JAMES WILKINSON AND OF HIS CONNEXION WITH AARON BURR. [“Proofs” Pages 101-120] Daniel Clark  1766-1813 |
|
GEN. JAMES WILKINSON AND OF HIS CONNEXION WITH AARON BURR. [“Proofs” Pages 101-120] Daniel Clark 1766-1813 |
Note |
Each section below reflects a true page of this historical publication. Note links refer to the letters and documents that Daniel Clark used as evidence of his former friend's treachery. People and place-name links are to biographical and geographical pages in Encyclopedia Louisiana. Time links are to the Encyclopedia Louisiana Timeline. |
|
Page
***101*** |
meet, for I leave this country without the expectation of returning. With sentiments of great regard, I have the honour to be, Your most obedient servant, (Signed) JOHN GRAHAM. The Hon. DANIEL CLARK. It is extraordinary that the writer of this letter, relative to the facts before its date, should be resorted to as evidence to confirm suspicions which he there so explicitly disavows. This affidavit has been relied on, and I therefore break the thread of my narrative to insert it, that it may be compared with the letter, and that the reader may perceive on what correct inferences the suspicions against me are endeavoured to be hung. MR. GRAHAM'S EVIDENCE. (Interrogated by general Wilkinson.) Quest. DID Daniel Clark, of New Orleans, ever acknowledge, as a communication from himself, the paper now produced by you from the Department of State, endorsed "History of the "trade of Louisiana," an extract of which was published in the President's Message of the - day of January, 1808? Answ. Mr. Clark once asked for that paper; he had it in his hands, and spoke of it as one transmitted by himself; he mentioned that it was in the hand-writing of Mr. Chew, his clerk. |
|
Page
***102*** |
Quest. What conversation have you ever had with the said Daniel Clark concerning a Mexican expedition, or Burr's conspiracy? Answ. There have some communications passed between Mr. Clark and myself, which I would not wish, without an indispensable necessity, to make public, on the account of their bearing upon some delicate points in relation to a foreign nation. I will, however, relate the substance of what passed, and leave it to the discretion of the Court and the Judge-Advocate to decide, whether it would necessarily advance the purpose of justice to use it as evidence, and under what reserves and restrictions as to the publicity to be given to it. In the winter of 1805-6, while I was acting as the Secretary of the Orleans Territory, a gentleman of New Orleans informed me that Mr. Daniel Clark, of that city, had some important information, which he wished to communicate to the government, but which he did not choose to communicate through governor Claiborne. This produced an acquaintance between Mr. Clark and myself. He gave me some papers, extracts of which I copied, and sent to the Secretary of State. These papers related to the affairs of Mexico, and gave rise to the conversation about that country. Quest. Of what did these papers principally consist? Answ. That is a part of the subject, which, I confess, I would have wished in particular not to |
|
Page
***103*** |
speak of, as it might be disagreeable to Mr. Clark to have it known to the Spanish government he had been engaged in making such observations, while passing through their territory, as these papers seemed to indicate. I will, however, not hesitate to submit it to the discretion of the Court, upon the principles before mentioned. Among those papers were estimates of the military force of the country, both the regulars and the militia, particularly of the garrison towns between Vera Cruz and Mexico; also of the naval force at Vera Cruz. Mr. Clark, at the same time, showed me the Baron Humbold's statistical tables, in the Spanish language. Quest. Had Mr. Clark then lately returned from a journey through Spanish provinces? Answ. I understood he had lately returned from Vera Cruz. I was induced, by the apparent probability of a war with Spain, and by the belief that Mr. Clark's acquaintance with the situation of the country would enable him to give important information on the subject, to make several enquiries of Mr. Clark concerning Mexico. He was of the opinion that it might be invaded, with every prospect of success. I asked him, whether, if the United States should undertake the invasion, he would bear a part? He evinced an unwillingness to have any thing to do with an expedition carried on by government. but expressed a himself willing to join in such an enterprize, undertaken and carried out by individuals. He said, all the would want would be the permission, not the aid, of govern- |
|
Page
***104*** |
ment; that they would cut off all communication with the country they left. and establish a new empire of their own. He mentioned, hypothetically, addressing himself to me—now suppose such a person a yourself should join the expedition, you might be made a duke? I answered, that my republican notions would not allow me to aspire to any such situation, and that I would have nothing to do with any expedition not conducted by the government. Here the conversation of the subject ended. He asked several questions, what Burr was doing?—Col. Burr had been in New Orleans the summer preceding. I have endeavoured to give a faithful statement rather of the substance and effect of what passed, without pretending to a minute detail of every circumstance as it occurred, or of the precise language used. It did not strike me, at the time, as evidencing the real existence of any such design, but as being the wild talk of an eccentric restless man. Afterwards, however, when I was informed at Lexington (Kentucky) that Burr had drawn bills to a large amount on Mr. Clark at New Orleans, this circumstance combined itself in my mind with the preceding conversation, and appeared so suspicious, that I wrote to the Secretary of State the intelligence I received of the drawing of these bills. When I arrived at New Orleans, and found that no such bills had been taken up by Chew and Relf, I became uneasy at the apprehension of being instrumental in raising unjust suspicions against Mr. Clark, by my former communication to the Secretary of State, and I wrote a letter |
|
Page
***105*** |
to Mr. Clark, at ——, informing him of the suspicious intelligence I had received at Lexington, of my proceeding thereupon, and assuring him of the satisfaction with which I had received, at New Orleans, information doing away those grounds of suspicion. In May, 1807, Mr. Clark arrived at New Orleans. He took me one side, and said I would recollect he had formerly told me of the existence of the Mexican Society, and of Doctor Watkins being a member. I denied his ever telling me so, and expressed my utter astonishment at being charged with being a member. He insisted he had given me the information, but I was confident, and still am, that he never did. I recollect the surprize with which I first heard of the existence of the Mexican Society, which was subsequent to my former conversation with Mr. Clark. Blennerhasset was the first who told me of it. I proposed giving information of the charge made against him, - to which Mr. Clark seemed unwilling. I, however, did inform Doctor Watkins, who had some correspondence with Mr. Clark about it, but I do not know precisely how it ended. Mr. Clark at the same time remarked, that he would himself have nothing to do with the association, from which I understood that he had been applied to. Quest. Did not Aaron Burr visit New Orleans some time in the month of June, and leave there some time in the month of July, 1805? and was not Daniel Clark there at the same time? Answ. Yes. |
|
Page
***106*** |
The first part of this deposition relates to a paper published in general Wilkinson's plane tale. (See Note No. 1.) It is an extract from the memoir sent by me to Mr. Secretary Pickering, in the year 1798, on the trade of New Orleans with the country on the Ohio; and because in this paper I do not speak of the general's treason, he infers that I knew nothing of it. But I have a word or two of explanation to give on this point, which I believe will take away every argument to be drawn from it. Shortly previous to this time I had been extremely active in protecting Americans against the rapacity of the French privateers, and had used my influence with the Spanish government with so much effect in their favour, that though I was not then an American citizen, capt Guion, the commander of the troops in the Mississippi territory, and Mr. Ellicott, the commissioner for establishing the boundary, wrote to governor Gayoso, requesting that I might be allowed to exercise the functions of Consul until one should be appointed by the President. This was granted. I prosecuted the owners of French privateers, put an end to their depredations in that quarter, and succeeded in obtaining from the Spanish government the reduction of duties on imports, in American vessels, from 21 per cent. on fry goods, and 26 percent. on liquors, to 6 per cent. I thought it my duty not only to act, but to give information to the government which employed me; and I therefore wrote the memoir in question. Major |
|
Page
***107*** |
(now col.) Freeman of the American army, was then my guest, and was to be the bearer of this memoir. My new official order induced me, at first, (I confess) to entertain the idea of inserting all I knew of the general's Spanish connexion. I hinted this to col. Freeman; who told me, that he would deem it improper to take charge of any paper containing reflections on his commanding officer. This, and the reflection that I was writing a mere history of the commerce of the Mississippi, and not and account of political crimes, induced me to be silent on the subject at that time; and the general's subsequent assurances, as detailed in my affidavit, which took place very soon after, prevented my mentioning the subject afterwards, until I had reason to believe that he continued the connexion which he then promised to break, and until I was called on by my country to make the disclosure. The affidavit then states, that on my return from my first voyage to La Vera Cruz, in the winter of 1806, I communicated to MR. Graham, then secretary of the territory, important information as to the military and naval force in Mexico; and also Baron Humbold's statistical views; and that the interview, in which this information was communicated, was sought by myself. Astonishing! - the country was supposed to be on the eve of war with Spain, and I, with the most traitorous intentions, sent for the second officer of the territory (not being able to communicate with the first) and |
|
Page
***108*** |
then and there wickedly gave him information, that might be of the greatest use to my country in the approaching contest. And this is the evidence that is to convict me of being engaged in an attempt to overturn the constitution. As to the cock and the bull story of the conquest of Mexico, and Mr. Graham's being made a duke, I am persuaded it will make little impression on the public, as Mr. Graham confesses it did on him, and though tough the story of the bills made him revert to this circumstance, yet, when satisfied on this point, he tells us in his affidavit, that “he became uneasy at the apprehension of being the instrument in raising unjust suspicions against me, and that he had written the letter above quoted, assuring me of the satisfaction with which he had received at New Orleans information doing away those suspicions.” As to the latter part of the deposition, all I can say is, that I have a most perfect recollection of having given Mr. Graham the information therein referred to. Since he does not recollect it, it must have escaped his memory. But it is in no sort of material, whether I gave the information to him or not. It is proved that I induced col. Bellechasse to give it; and that, so far from being engaged in the plan, I used all the influence I possessed to counter act and defeat it, as soon as it came to my knowledge. The last query is, whether Burr did not visit New Orleans in 1805, and whether I was not then there? If the affirmative answer to this question is to imply guilt, |
|
Page
***109*** |
every part of the continent that he so rapidly visited in that year would be involved in it, and my immaculate accuser himself would scarcely escape suspicion; for I might in my turn ask,—Did not colonel Burr, in the year 1805, visit St. Louis, and was not general Wilkinson governor there? - Was he not received with distinction, and sent down with a military barge to New Orleans? Did not general Wilkinson correspond with colonel Burr, and was not that correspondence in cypher? But I anticipate another branch of my enquiry. I am now on the defensive, and will proceed to shew, that not only the general's witnesses, but the general himself, has attested my innocence of the charge he now makes, and that long after he must have known everything he now pretends to know. On the 10th of December, 1806, he writes to me, from New Orleans, as follows:—“I refer you to the bearer, Mr. Donaldson, for the interesting scenes which agitate our darling city and poor devoted Louisiana. I am here to defend her against revolution and pillage from a hand I have loved. Suspicion is afloat! and numbers are implicated. Thank God, your advice to Bellechasse, if your character was not a sufficient guarantee, would vindicate you against any imputation.” At the time this letter was written general Wilkinson had received all those letters, on which he has since founded his charge - he had had the post office at his command - he had exercised an inquisitorial power in procuring evi- |
|
Page
***110*** |
dence - and yet he was so far from finding any against me, that he sites that Mr. Bellechasse as being sufficient to vindicate me against any foul imputations. (See Note No. 70.) On the 8th day o f January, 1807, as appears by the post mark, he wrote a letter, without date or signature, directed, on the out side, to my partner, D. W. Coxe, at Philadelphia, but designed evidently for me, and directed, within, to D.C. Esq. This letter is in the hand-writing of Wilkinson, and is highly characteristic of the man. He wished to create an obligation towards him for supporting my character, which he falsely insinuates was implicated, knowing the facts I possessed against him, fearful that I might discover that he had broken the engagement, entered into at Loftus's Heights, of quitting his Spanish connexion, and that I might then feel myself at liberty to expose his guilt; and he therefore, while he acknowledges my innocence, wishes to make believe that he has been at some pains to support it. “It is a fact,” he says, “that our FOOL has written to his CONTEMPTIBLE FABRICATOR, that you had declared, if you had children, that you would teach them to curse the United States as soon as they were able to lisp, and he gives the Mayor and Gurley for authors. Cet Bete is at present up to the chin in folly and vanity. He cannot be supported much longer; for, Burr of no Burr, we shall have |
|
***111*** |
a revolt , if he is not removed speedily. The moment Bonaparte compromises with Great Britain will be the signal for a general rising of the French and Spaniards; and if the Americans do not join, they will not oppose, Take care! Suspicion is abroad; but you have a friend worth having.” (See Note No. 71.) Let us stop here, to contemplate the finished perfidy of this character. At this moment he was cajoling Claiborne, and flattering Mr. Jefferson, by the most fulsome adulation; yet he calls one a fool, and the other a contemptible fabricator,—he was assuring the people of Orleans of his highest confidence and regard for the old inhabitants, yet he anonymously denounces them at the seat of government as malcontents, ready for insurrection. The truth is, he wanted Claiborne's place, and thought that, by exposing his imbecility, and raising a fear of war, he would secure it. I communicated this letter, as son as it was received, to Mr. Madison, who appeared astonished at the duplicity and perfidy of the writer. The next assurance which I received from him was dated the 20th of March, and also unsigned, tho' in his hand-writing. It is headed (Confidential.) and will be found in the Appendix, (No. 72 .) He there says,—“It has been hinted, that much pains have been employed to induce you to believe that general Wilkinson is hostile to you, and even reported you. |
|
***112*** |
This is a stale device to augment the numbers of a desperate party; for the suggestion is without the shadow of foundation.” On the 24th of May, in another letter, (No. 73,) he declares, “that it shall be his peculiar duty, pending the highly important developments which are at issue, to watch over and defend your fame.” Finally, in a letter dated July, 1807, from Richmond, he says:— Extract from a letter of James Wilkinson's. dated Washington, 10th July, 1807. DEAR SIR, THE papers will expose to you the proceedings had in the case of Burr, and the artifices of the little scoundrel to excuse himself by criminating me,—as if my sins would lessen his guilt. It would seem that he has made very free with your name, as it appears, from sundry depositions, that he offered bills on you and Ogden, indifferently, declaring that you were one of his bankers. I, however, have the satisfaction to assure you, that I did not understand your name was mentioned to or by the Grand Jury, and where it has been uttered elsewhere, in my presence, I have put every injurious idea to ridicule. The Hon. D. Clark Hearing, however, that I had been subpoenaed |
|
***113*** |
by colonel Burr, he became alarmed, and he wrote the letter, (No. 74,) dated the 19th of October, 1807, from Richmond, of which he sent a duplicate in the note, (No. 75,) by lieutenant Murray, whom he directed to wait my arrival. In this communication it will be perceived how greatly the style is changed. Instead of testimonials of innocence, here are inuendoes of charges, of blind accusations, with which he endeavours to deter me from giving testimony. My memoir to Mr. Pickering is resorted to as a certificate of his innocence; my tale of a tub letter, as he once called it, is now proof of my guilt. After perusing this correspondence, it will be naturally asked, when did general Wilkinson become suspicious of Mr. Clark's Burrism? when was he convinced of his guilt? The answers may be taken from his won record, He had not a doubt of my innocence, until he believed I was about to testify against him, and he became fully persuaded of my guilt, the moment my duty obligated me to appear as his accuser. I had forgotten, in this enquiry, to notice two letters which the general has thought fit to publish, as proof, I suppose, of my connexion with Mr. Burr. I have not been able to discover, after the closest attention, that they have the slightest bearing on the subject. I annex them, however, (No. 76 and 77,) that the reader may exercise his ingenuity in the same way. The passages in the first, printed in italics, and capitals, are noticed |
|
***114*** |
in that way by the general. Why I know not—unless perhaps he would have it understood, that by the thorny path I had entered, and the trouble I expected, that I meant a confession of my being entered into the path of treason, and that I expected to be hanged. But what then means my request of his advice to direct me? If indeed, I had intended to enter that path, I could not have applied to a better guide. But of what use would be “the letters to members of Congress disposed to favor Louisiana," in such a journey? All comments on this are ridiculous. I was just setting out for Congress, to be the sole representative of an immense country in a high deliberative assembly, and I ask his advice and letters of recommendation. If this can be tortured into proof of treason, no one is innocent. Here ends the proof against several charges that have been made to invalidate my testimony, at least such as have come to my knowledge. As I live at a distance, others may be in circulation, which have never been communicated to me. This publication will produce enquiry. It will then become the interest of general Wilkinson to substantiate any charge he can make. Without seeking for celebrity, I may say that I court enquiry into my character, my morals, and every action of my life. I am conscious of none that will render me unworthy the friendship of good men; and with the bad ones, I desire no further communication than that I have unfortunately had. |
|
***115*** |
I come not to perform that part of my promise, which relates to gen. Wilkinson's connexion with col. Burr. Enough has already appeared before the public to convince everyone, who will take the trouble of reflecting, that if the plan did not originate with Wilkinson, he was at least one of the chief conspirators. This plain, palpable evidence has been looked on with an indifference that has astonished me. That he betrayed his associates is but an equivocal merit, when we recollect the period at which his disclosure was made; and the forlorn situation of Burr's affairs will show us that it was the impracticability, not the wickedness of the scheme, that induced Wilkinson to abandon it. At any rate, though his disclosure might excuse him from punishment, it ought scarcely to have entitled him to confidence. The King's evidence, by hanging his accomplice, sometimes slips his won neck out of the halter, but I never yet heard that it gave him a claim to any office of profit or trust. Nor would it, I think, be deemed wise to put the city watch under the command of a robber, because he had quarrelled with and impeached the rest of the gang. A little attention to the subject will show this to be literally the predicament of the COMMANDER IN CHIEF of the American army. We have seen, from a question put by general W. to Mr. Graham, that he thinks my being in New Orleans at the time of Mr. Burr made a visit of ten days there is a cause of suspicion. What then shall we say to the closest intimacy for a series of |
|
***116*** |
years, to the warmest professions of confidence, and to the highest degree of friendship, if indeed such a sentiment can exist with such men? What shall we say to a confidential correspondence kept up in cypher? To visits paid at the distance of may thousand miles, and conferences procured by traversing a pathless wilderness? What shall we say to these? that they prove guilt? No; we will not be so unjust. The intimacy might have have existed without a communication of illegal designs,—the friendship might have had a purer basis, might itself account for the extraordinary interviews,—and the correspondence might have been on innocent subjects. Thus would a candid man reason; if these circumstances alone were urged as proofs of the charge. But when others are disclosed,—when this intimate friend speaks of the other as his associate in treason,—when part of the correspondence is discovered,—when it is confessed to be of a treasonable nature,—when the party prevaricates as to the subject of the frequent conferences, and denies a knowledge of designs which it can be proved were communicated to him,—then these circumstances, which it would have been unjust to urge before, become presumptions of the deepest guilt, presumptions sufficient in themselves to convict, unless destroyed by the fullest exculpation, but which, unhappily for the honour of our nation, are turned, by other incontrovertible evidence, into damning proofs. The very long and very close intimacy between |
|
***117*** |
general Wilkinson and Burr is not only proved, but admitted. We have seen that the former had engaged in a scheme for the separation of the western country from the United States, and I think the evidence I have adduced incontestably proves, that he received the wages of a foreign power for his co-operation in that treason. At an interval of about ten years we find col. Burr engaged in a plan, of which the same dismemberment forms a principal feature. During the whole of this interval, the closest, the most mysterious intimacy subsists between the leaders of the two attempts. During the period in which it is acknowledged that the latter plan was in agitation, they correspond in cypher, they have secret interviews, and the intercourse is broken off precisely at the period when it was demonstrated that the scheme must fail. Then, and not till then, the general accuses his accomplice, and, by a kind of political pantomime, the wand of executive favour changes the conspirator into a saviour of his country. Are not these circumstances of strong presumption? Do they not require the fullest disclosure of the nature of the correspondence, of the basis of the intimacy, of the subject of the conferences? yet what satisfaction on these interesting points has been given? Why, truly, the intimacy was the effect of pure friendship - the correspondence cannot be declared, without a breach of delicacy (a) - and the journies to Massac and to St. (a) See the evidence of general W. as communicated to Congress, page 311, where he says:—“Between the period |
|
***118*** |
Louis were undertaken by Burr, merely to assure general W. that he had a great project, which the general did not think proper to interrogate hi about, though he says he afterwards wrote several letters, to draw from him the nature of his scheme. The winter of 1804 was the last period of Mr. Burr's term of office as Vice-President. Wilkinson passed that winter with him at Washington, and in the spring the latter was named to the first, and the brother-in-law of the former to the second, office in the territory of Louisiana; and Burr himself was to proceed to the western country, furnished with letters of recommendation from gen. Wilkinson. (See gen. W.'s evidence, Pres. Mess. p. 309.) On the 26th March, the 30th April, and the 19th of May, Burr writes three letters to Wilkinson (letters which would no doubt throw great light on this subject, but which the general's delicacy forbids him to produce) and having spent six weeks in the western country, on the 8th of June had an interview with general Wilkinson at fort Massac, on the Ohio. Here is the first period at of Mr. Burr's leaving St. Lewis (August, 1805) and May, 1806, I received six letters from him. I have said that those letters blended matters political with matters personal. I have considered those letters confidential; they were so received, and I will not expose them, but in the last extremity, without col. Burr's permission; but if I have that permission, I will do it now. I have asked it, and do again ask it. Those letters were of an ambiguous aspect, speaking of some enterprises, without designating any, and were calculated to inculpate me, should they be exposed.” |
|
***119*** |
which I have positive proof of the general's participation in Burr's plans. “Col. Burr,” the general says in his evidence, “the next day prosecuted his voyage to New Orleans.” How long he staid I know not; but while there, the general furnished him with a letter of introduction to me, in the following words: Massac, June 9th, 1805, MY DEAR SIR, THIS will be delivered to you by colonel Burr, whose worth you know well how to estimate. If the persecutions of a great and honourable man can give title to generous attentions, he has claims to all your civilities and your services. You cannot oblige me more than by such conduct, and I pledge my life to you it will not be misapplied. To him I refer you for many things improper to letter, and which he will not say to any other.—I shall be at St. Lewis in two weeks, and if you were there we could open a mine, a commercial one at least. Let me hear from you—Farewell, do well, and believe me always your friend. JA. WILKINSON. Daniel Clark, Esq. What were these things improper to letter, for which I was referred to col. Burr, and which he would not say to any other, I can only tell from the public exposition that afterwards took place; for col. Burr, during our short acquaintance, hazarded no proposition of an illegal or improper nature to |
|
***120*** |
me. Neither the tenor of my conversation, nor my circumstances, nor standing, could invite any confidence of this sort, and col. Burr has never been charged with dulness of perception on such points. The things, however, which it was improper to letter, to me were pretty plainly expressed in a communication made about the same time to general Adair. The letter is dated Rapids of Ohio, May 28th, 1805, 11 o'clock, and contains these expressions:—“I was to have introduced my friend Burr to you, but in this I have failed by accident. He understands your merits, and reckons on you. Prepare to meet me, and I will tell you all. We must have a peep at the unknown world beyond me.”—(see Note No. 78.) The letter to me I think fully proves that some secret plan of Burr's was known to Wilkinson in May, 1805. That to general Adair leaves no doubt on the subject. Immediately after this he went to St., Louis, where his very first act, before he had broken bread in the territory, was an endeavour to bring major Bruff into his plans. He tells him that he had a “grand scheme,” that would “make the fortunes “of all concerned;” and though major Bruff's manner of receiving this overture put a stop to any further disclosure, yet we may judge of its nature, for it was introduced by a philippic against democracy, and the ingratitude of republican governments. (See President's Message to Congress, communicating the evidence in Burr's trial, page 81, & seq.) In the same year the general wrote another letter to colonel M'Kee, enquiring whe- |
|
|