Letters of Thomas Jefferson

1821 - 1822

“Bollingbroke and Paine”

DEAR FRANCIS, -- Your letter of the 1st came safely to hand.  I am sorry you have lost Mr. Elliot, however the kindness of Dr. Cooper will be able to keep you in the track of what is worthy of your time.

You ask my opinion of Lord Bolingbroke and Thomas Paine.  They were alike in making bitter enemies of the priests and pharisees of their day.  Both were honest men; both advocates for human liberty.  Paine wrote for a country which permitted him to push his reasoning to whatever length it would go.  Lord Bolingbroke in one restrained by a constitution, and by public opinion.  He was called indeed a tory; but his writings prove him a stronger advocate for liberty than any of his countrymen, the whigs of the present day.  Irritated by his exile, he committed one act unworthy of him, in connecting himself momentarily with a prince rejected by his country.  But he redeemed that single act by his establishment of the principles which proved it to be wrong.  These two persons differed remarkably in the style of their writing, each leaving a model of what is most perfect in both extremes of the simple and the sublime.  No writer has exceeded Paine in ease and familiarity of style, in perspicuity of expression, happiness of elucidation, and in simple and unassuming language.  In this he may be compared with Dr. Franklin; and indeed his Common Sense was, for awhile, believed to have been written by Dr. Franklin, and published under the borrowed name of Paine, who had come over with him from England.  Lord Bolingbroke’s, on the other hand, is a style of the highest order.  The lofty, rhythmical, full-flowing eloquence of Cicero.  Periods of just measure, their members proportioned, their close full and round.  His conceptions, too, are bold and strong, his diction copious, polished and commanding as his subject.  His writings are certainly the finest samples in the English language, of the eloquence proper for the Senate.  His political tracts are safe reading for the most timid religionist, his philosophical, for those who are not afraid to trust their reason with discussions of right and wrong.

You have asked my opinion of these persons, and, to you, I have given it freely.  But, remember, that I am old, that I wish not to make new enemies, nor to give offence to those who would consider a difference of opinion as sufficient ground for unfriendly dispositions.  God bless you, and make you what I wish you to be.

“The University and the Schools”

DEAR SIR, -- I learn, with deep affliction, that nothing is likely to be done for our University this year.  So near as it is to the shore that one shove more would land it there, I had hoped that would be given; and that we should open with the next year an institution on which the fortunes of our country may depend more than may meet the general eye.  The reflections that the boys of this age are to be the men of the next; that they should be prepared to receive the holy charge which we are cherishing to deliver over to them; that in establishing an institution of wisdom for them, we secure it to all our future generations; that in fulfilling this duty, we bring home to our own bosoms the sweet consolation of seeing our sons rising under a luminous tuition, to destinies of high promise; these are considerations which will occur to all; but all, I fear, do not see the speck in our horizon which is to burst on us as a tornado, sooner or later.  The line of division lately marked out between different portions of our confederacy, is such as will never, I fear, be obliterated, and we are now trusting to those who are against us in position and principle, to fashion to their own form the minds and affections of our youth.  If, as has been estimated, we send three hundred thousand dollars a year to the northern seminaries, for the instruction of our own sons, then we must have there five hundred of our sons, imbibing opinions and principles in discord with those of their own country.  This canker is eating on the vitals of our existence, and if not arrested at once, will be beyond remedy.  We are now certainly furnishing recruits to their school.  If it be asked what are we to do, or said we cannot give the last lift to the University without stopping our primary schools, and these we think most important; I answer, I know their importance.  No body can doubt my zeal for the general instruction of the people.  Who first started that idea?  I may surely say, myself.  Turn to the bill in the revised code, which I drew more than forty years ago, and before which the idea of a plan for the education of the people, generally, had never been suggested in this State.  There you will see developed the first rudiments of the whole system of general education we are now urging and acting on: and it is well known to those with thom I have acted on this subject, that I never have proposed a sacrifice of the primary to the ultimate grade of instruction.  Let us keep our eye steadily on the whole system.  If we cannot do every thing at once, let us do one at a time.  The primary schools need no preliminary expense; the ultimate grade requires a considerable expenditure in advance.  A suspension of proceeding for a year or two on the primary schools, and an application of the whole income, during that time, to the completion of the buildings necessary for the University, would enable us then to start both institutions at the same time.  The intermediate branch, of colleges, academies and private classical schools, for the middle grade, may hereafter receive any necessary aids when the funds shall become competent.  In the mean time, they are going on sufficiently, as they have ever yet gone on, at the private expense of those who use them, and who in numbers and means are competent to their own exigencies.  The experience of three years has, I presume, left no doubt that the present plan of primary schools, of putting money into the hands of twelve hundred persons acting for nothing, and under no responsibility, is entirely inefficient.  Some other must be thought of; and during this pause, if it be only for a year, the whole revenue of that year, with that of the last three years which has not been already thrown away, would place our University in readiness to start with a better organization of primary schools, and both may then go on, hand in hand, for ever.  No diminution of the capital will in this way have been incurred; a principle which ought to be deemed sacred.  A relinquishment of interest on the late loan of sixty thousand dollars, would so far, also, forward the University without lessening the capital.

But what may be best done I leave with entire confidence to yourself and your colleagues in legislation, who know better than I do the conditions of the literary fund and its wisest applications and I shall acquiesce with perfect resignation to their will.  I have brooded, perhaps with fondness, over this establishment, as it held up to me the hope of continuing to be useful while I continued to live.  I had believed that the course and circumstances of my life had placed within my power some services favorable to the outset of the institution.  But this may be egoism; pardonable, perhaps, when I express a consciousness that my colleagues and successors will do as well, whatever the legislature shall enable them to do.

I have thus, my dear Sir, opened my bosom, with all its anxieties, freely to you.  I blame nobody for seeing things in a different light.  I am sure that all act conscientiously, and that all will be done honestly and wisely which can be done.  I yield the concerns of the world with cheerfulness to those who are appointed in the order of nature to succeed to them; and for yourself, for our colleagues, and for all in charge of our country’s future fame and fortune, I offer up sincere prayers.

“A Dangerous Example”

SIR, -- I have duly received your letter of February the 16th, and have now to express my sense of the honorable station proposed to my ex-brethren and myself, in the constitution of the society for the civilization and improvement of the Indian tribes.  The object too expressed, as that of the association, is one which I have ever had much at heart, and never omitted an occasion of promoting, while I have been in situations to do it with effect, and nothing, even now, in the calm of age and retirement, would excite in me a more lively interest than an approvable plan of raising that respectable and unfortunate people from the state of physical and moral abjection, to which they have been reduced by circumstances foreign to them.  That the plan now proposed is entitled to unmixed approbation, I am not prepared to say, after mature consideration, and with all the partialities which its professed object would rightfully claim from me.

I shall not undertake to draw the line of demarcation between private associations of laudable views and unimposing numbers, and those whose magnitude may rivalise and jeopardise the march of regular government.  Yet such a line does exist.  I have seen the days, they were those which preceded the Revolution, when even this last and perilous engine became necessary; but they were days which no man would wish to see a second time.  That was the case where the regular authorities of the government had combined against the rights of the people, and no means of correction remained to them, but to organise a collateral power, which, with their support, might rescue and secure their violated rights.  But such is not the case with our government.  We need hazard no collateral power, which, by a change of its original views, and assumption of others we know not how virtuous or how mischievous, would be ready organised and in force sufficient to shake the established foundations of society, and endanger its peace and the principles on which it is based.  Is not the machine now proposed of this gigantic stature?  It is to consist of the ex-Presidents of the United States, the Vice President, the Heads of all the executive departments, the members of the supreme judiciary, the Governors of the several States and territories, all the members of both Houses of Congress, all the general officers of the army, the commissioners of the navy, all Presidents and Professors of colleges and theological seminaries, all the clergy of the United States, the Presidents and Secretaries of all associations having relation to Indians, all commanding officers within or near Indian territories, all Indian superintendants and agents; all these ex-officio; and as many private individuals as will pay a certain price for membership.  Observe too, that the clergy will constitute (*) nineteen twentieths of this association, and, by the law of the majority, may command the twentieth part, which, composed of all the high authorities of the United States, civil and military, may be outvoted and wielded by the nineteen parts with uncontrollable power, both as to purpose and process.  Can this formidable array be reviewed without dismay?  It will besaid, that in this association will be all the confidential officers of the government; the choice of the people themselves.  No man on earth has more implicit confidence than myself in the integrity and discretion of this chosen band of servants.  But is confidence or discretion, or is strict limit, the principle of our constitution?  It will comprehend, indeed, all the functionaries of the government; but seceded from their constitutional stations as guardians of the nation, and acting not by the laws of their station, but by those of a voluntary society, having no limit to their purposes but the same will which constitutes their existence.  It will be the authorities of the people and all influential characters from among them, arrayed on one side, and on the other, the people themselves deserted by their leaders.  It is a fearful array.  It will be said, that these are imaginary fears.  I know they are so at present.  I know it is as impossible for these agents of our choice and unbounded confidence, to harbor machinations against the adored principles of our constitution, as for gravity to change its direction, and gravid bodies to mount upwards.  The fears are indeed imaginary: but the example is real.  Under its authority, as a precedent, future associations will arise with objects at which we should shudder at this time.  The society of Jacobins, in another country, was instituted on principles and views as virtuous as ever kindled the hearts of patriots.  It was the pure patriotism of their purposes which extended their association to the limits of the nation, and rendered their power within it boundless; and it was this power which degenerated their principles and practices to such enormities, as never before could have been imagined.  Yet these were men; and we and our descendants will be no more.  The present is a case where, if ever, we are to guard against ourselves; not against ourselves as we are, but as we may be; for who can now imagine what we may become under circumstances not now imaginable?  The object too of this institution, seems to require so hazardous an example as little as any which could be proposed.  The government is, at this time, going on with the process of civilising the Indians, on a plan probably as promising as any one of us is able to devise, and with resources more competent than we could expect to command by voluntary taxation.  Is it that the new characters called into association with those of the government, are wiser than these?  Is it that a plan originated by a meeting of private individuals, is better than that prepared by the concentrated wisdom of the nation, of men not self-chosen, but clothed with the full confidence of the people?  Is it that there is no danger that a new authority, marching, independently, along side of the government, in the same line and to the same object, may not produce collision, may not thwart and obstruct the operations of the government, or wrest the object entirely from their hands?  Might we not as well appoint a committee for each department of the government, to counsel and direct its head separately, as volunteer ourselves to counsel and direct the whole, in mass?  And might we not do it as well for their foreign, their fiscal, and their military, as for their Indian affairs?  And how many societies, auxiliary to the government, may we expect to see spring up, in imitation of this, offering to associate themselves in this and that of its functions?  In a word, why not take the government out of its constitutional hands, associate them indeed with us, to preserve a semblance that the acts are theirs, but insuring them to be our own by allowing them a minor vote only?

(*) The clergy of the United States may probably be estimated at eight thousand.  The residue of this society at four hundred; but if the former number be halved, the reasoning will be the same.

These considerations have impressed my mind with a force so irresistible, that (in duty bound to answer your polite letter, without which I should not have obtruded an opinion,) I have not been able to withhold the expression of them.  Not knowing the individuals who have proposed this plan, I cannot be conceived as entertaining personal disrespect for them.  On the contrary, I see in the printed list persons for whom I cherish sentiments of sincere friendship; and others, for whose opinions and purity of purpose I have the highest respect.  Yet thinking as I do, that this association is unnecessary; that the government is proceeding to the same object under control of the law; that they are competent to it in wisdom, in means, and inclination; that this association, this wheel within a wheel, is more likely to produce collision than aid; and that it is, in its magnitude, of dangerous example; I am bound to say, that, as a dutiful citizen, I cannot in conscience become a member of this society, possessing as it does my entire confidence in the integrity of its views.  I feel with awe the weight of opinion to which I may be opposed, and that, for myself, I have need to ask the indulgence of a belief, that the opinion I have given is the best result I can deduce from my own reason and experience, and that it is sincerely conscientious.  Repeating therefore, my just acknowledgments for the honor proposed to me; I beg leave to add the assurances to the society and yourself of my highest confidence and consideration.

“A Unitarian Creed”

DEAR SIR, -- I have received and read with thankfulness and pleasure your denunciation of the abuses of tobacco and wine.  Yet, however sound in its principles, I expect it will be but a sermon to the wind.  You will find it as difficult to inculcate these sanative precepts on the sensualities of the present day, as to convince an Athanasian that there is but one God.  I wish success to both attempts, and am happy to learn from you that the latter, at least, is making progress, and the more rapidly in proportion as our Platonizing Christians make more stir and noise about it.  The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.

1.  That there is one only God, and he all perfect.

2.  That there is a future state of rewards and punishments.

3.  That to love God with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself, is the sum of religion.  These are the great points on which he endeavored to reform the religion of the Jews.  But compare with these the demoralizing dogmas of Calvin.

1.  That there are three Gods.

2.  That good works, or the love of our neighbor, are nothing.

3.  That faith is every thing, and the more incomprehensible the proposition, the more merit in its faith.

4.  That reason in religion is of unlawful use.

5.  That God, from the beginning, elected certain individuals to be saved, and certain others to be damned; and that no crimes of the former can damn them; no virtues of the latter save.

Now, which of these is the true and charitable Christian?  He who believes and acts on the simple doctrines of Jesus?  Or the impious dogmatists, as Athanasius and Calvin?  Verily I say these are the false shepherds foretold as to enter not by the door into the sheepfold, but to climb up some other way.  They are mere usurpers of the Christian name, teaching a counter-religion made up of the deliria of crazy imaginations, as foreign from Christianity as is that of Mahomet.  Their blasphemies have driven thinking men into infidelity, who have too hastily rejected the supposed author himself, with the horrors so falsely imputed to him.  Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian.  I rejoice that in this blessed country of free inquiry and belief, which has surrendered its creed and conscience to neither kings nor priests, the genuine doctrine of one only God is reviving, and I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die an Unitarian.

But much I fear, that when this great truth shall be re-established, its votaries will fall into the fatal error of fabricating formulas of creed and confessions of faith, the engines which so soon destroyed the religion of Jesus, and made of Christendom a mere Aceldama; that they will give up morals for mysteries, and Jesus for Plato.  How much wiser are the Quakers, who, agreeing in the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, schismatize about no mysteries, and, keeping within the pale of common sense, suffer no speculative differences of opinion, any more than of feature, to impair the love of their brethren.  Be this the wisdom of Unitarians, this the holy mantle which shall cover within its charitable circumference all who believe in one God, and who love their neighbor!  I conclude my sermon with sincere assurances of my friendly esteem and respect.

“Seriatim Opinions and the History of Parties”

DEAR SIR, -- I have deferred my thanks for the copy of your Life of Genl. Greene, until I could have time to read it.  This I have done, and with the greatest satisfaction; and can now more understandingly express the gratification it has afforded me.  I really rejoice that we have at length a fair history of the Southern war.  It proves how much we were left to defend ourselves as we could, while the resources of the Union were so disproportionately devoted to the North.  I am glad too to see the Romance of Lee removed from the shelf of History to that of Fable.  Some small portion of the transactions he relates were within my own knolege; and of these I can say he has given more falsehood than fact; and I have heard many officers declare the same as to what had passed under their eyes.  Yet this book had begun to be quoted as history.  Greene was truly a great man, he had not perhaps all the qualities which so peculiarly rendered Genl. Washington the fittest man on earth for directing so great a contest under so great difficulties.  Difficulties proceeding not from lukewarmness in our citizens or their functionaries, as our military leaders supposed; but from the pennyless condition of a people, totally shut out from all commerce & intercourse with the world, and therefore without any means for converting their labor into money.  But Greene was second to no one in enterprise, in resource, in sound judgment, promptitude of decision, and every other military talent.  In addition to the work you have given us, I look forward with anxiety to that you promise in the last paragraph of your book.  Lee’s military fable you have put down.  Let not the invidious libel on the views of the Republican party, and on their regeneration of the government go down to posterity as hypocritically masked.  I was myself too laboriously employed, while in office, and too old when I left it, to do justice to those who had labored so faithfully to arrest our course towards monarchy, and to secure the result of our revolutionary sufferings and sacrifices in a government bottomed on the only safe basis, the elective will of the people. You are young enough for the task, and I hope you will undertake it.

There is a subject respecting the practice of the court of which you are a member, which has long weighed on my mind, on which I have long thought I would write to you, and which I will take this opportunity of doing.  It is in truth a delicate undertaking, & yet such is my opinion of your candor and devotedness to the Constitution, in it’s true spirit, that I am sure I shall meet your approbation in unbosoming myself to you.  The subject of my uneasiness is the habitual mode of making up and delivering the opinions of the supreme court of the US.

You know that from the earliest ages of the English law, from the date of the year-books, at least, to the end of the IId George, the judges of England, in all but self-evident cases, delivered their opinions seriatim, with the reasons and authorities which governed their decisions.  If they sometimes consulted together, and gave a general opinion, it was so rarely as not to excite either alarm or notice.  Besides the light which their separate arguments threw on the subject, and the instruction communicated by their several modes of reasoning, it shewed whether the judges were unanimous or divided, and gave accordingly more or less weight to the judgment as a precedent.  It sometimes happened too that when there were three opinions against one, the reasoning of the one was so much the most cogent as to become afterwards the law of the land.  When Ld. Mansfield came to the bench he introduced the habit of caucusing opinions.  The judges met at their chambers, or elsewhere, secluded from the presence of the public, and made up what was to be delivered as the opinion of the court.  On the retirement of Mansfield, Ld. Kenyon put an end to the practice, and the judges returned to that of seriatim opinions, and practice it habitually to this day, I believe.  I am not acquainted with the late reporters, do not possess them, and state the fact from the information of others.  To come now to ourselves I know nothing of what is done in other states, but in this our great and good Mr. Pendleton was, after the revolution, placed at the head of the court of Appeals.  He adored Ld. Mansfield, & considered him as the greatest luminary of law that any age had ever produced, and he introduced into the court over which he presided, Mansfield’s practice of making up opinions in secret & delivering them as the Oracles of the court, in mass.  Judge Roane, when he came to that bench, broke up the practice, refused to hatch judgments, in Conclave, or to let others deliver opinions for him.  At what time the seriatim opinions ceased in the supreme Court of the US., I am not informed.  They continued I know to the end of the 3d Dallas in 1800.  Later than which I have no Reporter of that court.  About that time the present C. J. came to the bench.  Whether he carried the practice of Mr. Pendleton to it, or who, or when I do not know; but I understand from others it is now the habit of the court, & I suppose it true from the cases sometimes reported in the newspapers, and others which I casually see, wherein I observe that the opinions were uniformly prepared in private.  Some of these cases too have been of such importance, of such difficulty, and the decisions so grating to a portion of the public as to have merited the fullest explanation from every judge seriatim, of the reasons which had produced such convictions on his mind.  It was interesting to the public to know whether these decisions were really unanimous, or might not perhaps be of 4. against 3. and consequently prevailing by the preponderance of one voice only.  The Judges holding their offices for life are under two responsibilities only.  1.  Impeachment.  2.  Individual reputation.  But this practice compleatly withdraws them from both.  For nobody knows what opinion any individual member gave in any case, nor even that he who delivers the opinion, concurred in it himself.  Be the opinion therefore ever so impeachable, having been done in the dark it can be proved on no one.  As to the 2d guarantee, personal reputation, it is shielded compleatly.  The practice is certainly convenient for the lazy, the modest & the incompetent.  It saves them the trouble of developing their opinion methodically and even of making up an opinion at all.  That of seriatim argument shews whether every judge has taken the trouble of understanding the case, of investigating it minutely, and of forming an opinion for himself, instead of pinning it on another’s sleeve.  It would certainly be right to abandon this practice in order to give to our citizens one and all, that confidence in their judges which must be so desirable to the judges themselves, and so important to the cement of the union.  During the administration of Genl. Washington, and while E. Randolph was Attorney General, he was required by Congress to digest the judiciary laws into a single one, with such amendments as might be thought proper.  He prepared a section requiring the Judges to give their opinions seriatim, in writing, to be recorded in a distinct volume.  Other business prevented this bill from being taken up, and it passed off, but such a volume would have been the best possible book of reports, and the better, as unincumbered with the hired sophisms and perversions of Counsel.

What do you think of the state of parties at this time?  An opinion prevails that there is no longer any distinction, that the republicans & Federalists are compleatly amalgamated but it is not so.  The amalgamation is of name only, not of principle.  All indeed call themselves by the name of Republicans, because that of Federalists was extinguished in the battle of New Orleans.  But the truth is that finding that monarchy is a desperate wish in this country, they rally to the point which they think next best, a consolidated government.  Their aim is now therefore to break down the rights reserved by the constitution to the states as a bulwark against that consolidation, the fear of which produced the whole of the opposition to the constitution at it’s birth.  Hence new Republicans in Congress, preaching the doctrines of the old Federalists, and the new nick-names of Ultras and Radicals.  But I trust they will fail under the new, as the old name, and that the friends of the real constitution and union will prevail against consolidation, as they have done against monarchism.  I scarcely know myself which is most to be deprecated, a consolidation, or dissolution of the states.  The horrors of both are beyond the reach of human foresight.

I have written you a long letter, and committed to you thoughts which I would do to few others.  If I am right, you will approve them; if wrong, commiserate them as the dreams of a Superannuate about things from which he is to derive neither good nor harm.  But you will still receive them as a proof of my confidence in the rectitude of your mind and principles, of which I pray you to receive entire assurance with that of my continued and great friendship and respect.

“Religion and the University”

DEAR SIR, -- Your favor of October the 18th came to hand yesterday.  The atmosphere of our country is unquestionably charged with a threatening cloud of fanaticism, lighter in some parts, denser in others, but too heavy in all.  I had no idea, however, that in Pennsylvania, the cradle of toleration and freedom of religion, it could have arisen to the height you describe.  This must be owing to the growth of Presbyterianism.  The blasphemy and absurdity of the five points of Calvin, and the impossibility of defending them, render their advocates impatient of reasoning, irritable, and prone to denunciation.  In Boston, however, and its neighborhood, Unitarianism has advanced to so great strength, as now to humble this haughtiest of all religious sects; insomuch that they condescend to interchange with them and the other sects, the civilities of preaching freely and frequently in each others’ meeting-houses.  In Rhode Island, on the other hand, no sectarian preacher will permit an Unitarian to pollute his desk.  In our Richmond there is much fanaticism, but chiefly among the women.  They have their night meetings and praying parties, where, attended by their priests, and sometimes by a hen-pecked husband, they pour forth the effusions of their love to Jesus, in terms as amatory and carnal, as their modesty would permit them to use to a mere earthly lover.  In our village of Charlottesville, there is a good degree of religion, with a small spice only of fanaticism.  We have four sects, but without either church or meeting-house.  The court-house is the common temple, one Sunday in the month to each.  Here, Episcopalian and Presbyterian, Methodist and Baptist, meet together, join in hymning their Maker, listen with attention and devotion to each others’ preachers, and all mix in society with perfect harmony. It is not so in the districts where Presbyterianism prevails undividedly.  Their ambition and tyranny would tolerate no rival if they had power.  Systematical in grasping at an ascendency over all other sects, they aim, like the Jesuits, at engrossing the education of the country, are hostile to every institution which they do not direct, and jealous at seeing others begin to attend at all to that object.  The diffusion of instruction, to which there is now so growing an attention, will be the remote remedy to this fever of fanaticism; while the more proximate one will be the progress of Unitarianism.  That this will, ere long, be the religion of the majority from north to south, I have no doubt.

In our university you know there is no Professorship of Divinity.  A handle has been made of this, to disseminate an idea that this is an institution, not merely of no religion, but against all religion.  Occasion was taken at the last meeting of the Visitors, to bring forward an idea that might silence this calumny, which weighed on the minds of some honest friends to the institution.  In our annual report to the legislature, after stating the constitutional reasons against a public establishment of any religious instruction, we suggest the expediency of encouraging the different religious sects to establish, each for itself, a professorship of their own tenets, on the confines of the university, so near as that their students may attend the lectures there, and have the free use of our library, and every other accommodation we can give them; preserving, however, their independence of us and of each other.  This fills the chasm objected to ours, as a defect in an institution professing to give instruction in all useful sciences.  I think the invitation will be accepted, by some sects from candid intentions, and by others from jealousy and rivalship.  And by bringing the sects together, and mixing them with the mass of other students, we shall soften their asperities, liberalize and neutralize their prejudices, and make the general religion a religion of peace, reason, and morality.

The time of opening our university is still as uncertain as ever.  All the pavilions, boarding houses, and dormitories are done.  Nothing is now wanting but the central building for a library and other general purposes.  For this we have no funds, and the last legislature refused all aid.  We have better hopes of the next.  But all is uncertain.  I have heard with regret of disturbances on the part of the students in your seminary.  The article of discipline is the most difficult in American education.  Premature ideas of independence, too little repressed by parents, beget a spirit of insubordination, which is the great obstacle to science with us, and a principal cause of its decay since the revolution.  I look to it with dismay in our institution, as a breaker ahead, which I am far from being confident we shall be able to weather.  The advance of age, and tardy pace of the public patronage, may probably spare me the pain of witnessing consequences.

I salute you with constant friendship and respect.