Raab Collection: Catalog 61 (FALL 2009)

T he R aab C ollection ~Philadelphia~

T he R aab C ollection

C atalog 61

P.O. Box 471 Ardmore, PA 19003 (800) 977-8333 www.raabcollection.com

All material is guaranteed to be genuine, without time limit, to the original purchaser. We want you to be satisfied, so any item not purchased on layaway may be returned (in the same condition as received) for a full refund within 5 days of receipt. We accept Mastercard, Visa, American Express, check or money order. A layaway plan is also available and can be customized to fit your needs. The cost of shipping and insurance is $40 on invoices under $10,000.

1

Page 3

John Quincy Adams Invites a Political Foe to Dinner - So Long As He Brings the Champagne This letter was hand-delivered by Henry Clay’s slave, Frederick In 1811, Jonathan Russell was named U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain, and in that capacity he had the momentous duty to deliver the Declaration of War in 1812. He thereafter returned home.

To end the war, in late 1814, President Madison sent him, along with John Quincy Adams, former Speaker of the House Henry Clay, just-retired Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin, and James A. Bayard, as peace commissioners to Ghent. The war had been a costly affair for the Americans, businesses throughout the country, especially in New England, were going bankrupt, and the British had burnt Washington D.C. earlier in the year. So there was pressure to bring an end to the conflict. The American delegation was comprised of strong, conflicting personalities (like Adams and Clay), and was plagued by disagreement and bickering. Moreover, the U.S. negotiating team found the British commissioners intransigent, and in the end they were obliged to conclude a treaty short of American expectations. A subject of particular disagreement within the U.S. team was a British proposal to trade free American navigation of the Mississippi River in exchange for recognition of British rights to the Northeast Atlantic fisheries. Clay and Russell voted to reject this demand, while the other Americans voted to accept it, and it passed and became part of the treaty. As a result of their work together, Russell became convinced that Adams had conceded too much in order to curry favor with the British, and became one of his greatest political foes. On the other hand, he respected Clay, and became a strong supporter of Clay’s future ambitions.

In 1815, after the war was over, Adams was appointed Ambassador to Great Britain. There he worked to lessen the tension between the two nations by welcoming Lord Castlereagh’s friendly overtures. Jonathan Russell was also given an ambassadorship - to Sweden. In late 1815, he found himself in London, and there received what must have been a surprising invitation from John Quincy Adams. The Willink referred to was the United States’ banker in Amsterdam, who had done much to support the U.S., financially and otherwise.

Autograph Letter Signed, London, November 14, 1815, to Russell. “Mr. W. Willink of Amsterdam, the father, is here, with his Lady, and will dine with us this day. They proceed tomorrow morning on their journey home. We have asked Mr. and Mrs. Meulemeester to meet them. May we hope for the pleasure of your company too?

Mr. Clay’s servant Frederick takes this.

Will you have the goodness to send by him the champagne which you mentioned to me a day or two since?” Joseph-Charles de Meulemeester was a Belgian artist and is likely the person referenced.

A few years later, Russell would attack Adams in a pamphlet designed to damage his career and thereby promote Clay’s, but the tactic did not work.

Adams counterattacked, hurting Russell’s reputation badly. This letter was obtained by us direct from the Russell descendants and has never before been offered for sale. $2,500

Page 4

2

Benjamin Franklin Signature As President of Pennsylvania Franklin returned to Philadelphia from France in 1785. Though in his 80th year, he resumed active roles in the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery, the American Philosophical Society, and the University of Pennsylvania. In special balloting on October 18, 1785, he was unanimously elected the sixth President of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania, replacing John Dickinson. The office of President of Pennsylvania was analogous to the modern position of Governor. Franklin held that office for slightly over three years, serving the Constitutional limit of three full terms. In mid-term, he attended the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and although he was too weak to stand, his good humor and gift for compromise helped to craft and pass the Constitution of The United States. Officially, Franklin’s term concluded on November 5, 1788, but there is some question regarding the de facto end of his term, suggesting that the aging Franklin may not have been actively involved in the day-to-day operation of the Council toward the end of his time in office.

A beautiful signature of Franklin signed as President of Pennsylvania, probably between 1785-7. It is perfect for framing. $4,900

3

American Peace Negotiators John Adams and John Jay Exchange Secret Documents Contained Proof that the British and Dutch would recognize American Independence The Dutch Negotiations in The Hague Support for the American Revolution was strong in the Netherlands, where the ideas of `The Age of Reason’ were extremely popular and hopes for greater freedom were excited. After France recognized the new American republic in 1778 and declared war on England, a strong party developed that wanted the Dutch government to follow the same policy. But the Netherlands and Great Britain had been official allies for a hundred years and this pro-American policy was not universal. The Netherlands was composed of sovereign provinces that had united to form a federal government. Provincial legislatures controlled by longestablished local families elected representatives and sent them to the States-General that was the parliament of the nation. The head of state, the “stadtholder”, was the hereditary “crowned” ruler of the Dutch Republic. Caution if not opposition existed in both the ruling families in the provinces, who were concerned that freedom would erode their power, and in the Stadholder, William of Orange, who was reluctant to offend his cousin, the British King. Moreover, Dutch commercial interests, though in principle favoring American independence, were worried about losing the profitable trade they carried on with the fledgling U.S. from their holdings in the West Indies. An alliance with America might imperil that trade, since British sea power could easily disrupt it.

Page 5

In January 1781, John Adams arrived as Minister to the Netherlands and was charged with the task of obtaining political and financial support in the form of a treaty of friendship and commerce. His initial task in Holland was to persuade the Dutch government to recognize him as the formal diplomatic representative of the United States. He met with formidable obstacles, not the least of which was that Count Vergennes, the French foreign minister, was working behind the scenes to block Dutch recognition and thus maximize American dependence on France. The war was not going well at home either, and the simple military facts hindered his mission. So in the spring, Adams made a daring move and went out of diplomatic channels with an appeal direct to the States General and the Dutch people. On April 19, he wrote a 16-page letter proposing that the two countries enter into a treaty, suggesting that such a treaty would result in profitable trade relations and considerable financial gain for the Netherlands. He also drew parallels between the American and Dutch Republics, writing “In the liberality of sentiments in those momentous points of freedom of inquiry, the right of private judgment and the liberty of conscience…the two nations resemble each other more than any other.” The document was translated into English, French and Dutch and widely distributed as a pamphlet. In the words of biographer David McCullough, when the Dutch government refused to accept his diplomatic credentials, Adams “took his case to the people of the Netherlands,” urging the Dutch public to petition its government to recognize the United States. He lobbied States-General delegations, visiting personally representatives from 18 cities in the province of Holland alone. In every place, McCullough writes, “the reception was the same - approval, affection, esteem for the United States.”

Then, in October 1781, British forces under General Lord Cornwallis surrendered to a combined French and American force at Yorktown, Virginia, and on November 23 word reached Amsterdam. This event convinced many in Europe that the Americans were likely to prevail in the war, but the Dutch were the first to act. In February 1782, the province of Friesland instructed its States General delegates to move to acknowledge Adams as an official diplomatic representative. That April, the Netherlands extended its formal acceptance of his credentials, which constituted de facto recognition that the United States was an independent nation. On April 23, 1782, Adams proceeded to his primary mission, and wrote the States General proposing “a treaty of amity and commerce between the two republics,” and requesting that it name negotiators “with full power to confer and treat with him on this important subject.” It did so and he submitted a draft treaty soon after. Months of negotiations followed, made all the more complex because on the Dutch end, the States-General, Stadtholder, Foreign Ministry and Admiralty were all involved.

The British Negotiations in Paris The capture of Cornwallis and his army in October 1781 convinced all parties in England of the folly of a further prosecution of the war. In March 1782, Parliament resolved on peace. Lord North resigned, the Marquis of Rockingham succeeded him in office, and Lord Shelburne and Charles Fox (a known supporter of American independence) were made secretaries of state. Thomas Grenville was sent to France and concluded an informal agreement that a treaty would contain an acknowledgment of American independence as a basis. While these early talks were just getting under way, Rockingham died and was succeeded in office by Lord Shelburne. Richard Oswald, a wealthy British merchant whose long residency in America made him many friends among the future revolutionaries, succeeded Grenville, and was clothed with full powers to negotiate a treaty of peace with the United States.

In July 1782 Oswald met with the head of the American negotiating team, Benjamin Franklin. John Jay, who had arrived on June 23 to assist Franklin, was ill and did not attend. The two men agreed that the war would end and that basic terms would include American independence, withdrawal of British troops, boundaries to be the Mississippi and Canada, and the huge fishing industries of both nations to have freedom of the seas. Based on this preliminary understanding, Shelburne sent Alleyne Fitzherbert to Paris to be his conduit in the communications with the French, Dutch and Americans. Also, to avoid any misunderstanding about the authority of the British negotiators, he ordered a commission to be drawn up for Oswald over Fitzherbert’s signature stating that his emissaries had full powers to conclude a treaty, and pledged that the King’s government would sign whatever might be concluded with the American negotiators. However, rather than explicitly recognize the independence of the United States, this commission named the colonies one by one, saying Oswald could “treat with the colonies and with any or either of them, and any part of them, and with any description of men in them, and with any person whatsoever, of and concerning peace.”

On August 6, Oswald presented the British negotiator ’s commission to Jay and Franklin. This document led to a material difference of opinion between Jay and Franklin. When the commission was submitted to Vergennes, that minister held that it was sufficient, and advised Fitzherbert to that effect. Franklin believed it “would do.”

But Jay declined to treat under the description of “colonies” or on any other than an equal footing, and saw the French approval as a trap. This fear appeared to be confirmed when Fitzherbert claimed that Vergennes had implied that France did not think the time ripe for American independence. Oswald then showed them an article in his instructions that authorized him to make the concession of independence, if insisted upon. Jay continued to veto American participation and Oswald applied to the foreign ministry for new instructions. Jay’s friend and

Page 6

ally in the Netherlands, John Adams, agreed with his position, believing that England could only be dealt with on an equal footing. On September 1, 1782, Jay wrote to inform Adams that he was sticking to his guns and that Oswald is therefore sending to London for further instructions. Jay also encloses a copy of Oswald’s unsatisfactory commission for Adams to review, adding that FitzHerbert has been sent to discuss preliminaries with the French court, but that he [Jay] will do nothing until Oswald receives further instructions. “We shall then,” he tells Adams, “be enabled to form some judgment of the British Ministry’s real intentions.”

The French sent a representative to London seeking to design a peace to suit its motives, going right to British government officials behind the backs of its American allies, and at the same time the British received a letter that Jay had written, meaning it to reach them, arguing that the British had much to gain by befriending the Americans and signing a separate treaty with them that did not include the French. When these facts were placed before the King’s cabinet in September, as Shelburne’s biographer relates, “It became clear to the Cabinet that a profound feud had sprung up between the Americans and their European allies, and that all they [the British cabinet] had to do was avail themselves of it. They at once decided to accept the American proposition.” Another commission was issued to Oswald and Fitzherbert on September 21 agreeing to deal with the American team as representing an established, unified nation and on the 27th it arrived in Paris, to Jay’s delight. The next day he wrote Adams, saying Oswald received yesterday a commission to treat “with the commissioners of the United States of America.” He requests that Adams say nothing about this “until you see me, which I hope and pray may be soon.”?

Meanwhile, Adams had heard from the Dutch government. On August 26, it provided him with revisions of his draft. The journal of the States General relates that Adams responded and that the Foreign Ministry indicated “that all difficulties that had occurred [were] entirely removed.”?A new treaty draft was given to Adams and on September 6 he indicated his approval. The Foreign Ministry then requested formal instructions from the States General on whether to execute the treaty, and the members conferred with their home provinces. On September 17, the States General instructed that the treaty be concluded and signed, and an engrossed copy of the treaty was ordered to be produced. Adams was made aware of the decision but was not provided with a copy of the States General’s instructions, as they were an internal Dutch government document; these, however, he received through the back door. The treaty was signed and publicly announced on October 8, 1782, and formally recognizing the independence of the United States, and establishing strong commercial and financial links, was a key step in the U.S. effort to take its rightful place in the world community of nations as a sovereign state.

It is worth noting that although the treaty with France in 1778 came first, the world recognized in France a self-interested party long at war with Britain. Thus this Dutch treaty was the first indicator of a broader acceptance of American independence.

Though the Dutch decision to sign the treaty had not yet been officially announced and was not public knowledge, Adams sat down to write Jay informing him of the great news but making clear that the communication was confidential. Considering Adams’ hesitancy to trust Benjamin Franklin or provide him with any information, this notification of the Dutch recognition of American independence was likely Adams’ first such communication to the American negotiators in Paris (and indeed perhaps to any American) on the subject. Moreover, Adams by then had received word of something every bit as important - word from England that Oswald and Fitzherbert had a new and likely satisfactory commission - and wanted to be sure Jay found out immediately if he did not know already.

Autograph Letter Signed, The Hague, October 1, 1782, to John Jay in Paris, documenting these two epochal events in American history - treaty recognition by the Dutch and the final decision by the British to accept the independence of the United States. “Your favor inclosing a certain copy I have received, and in exchange send you two others - Fitzherbert’s Commission and the Dutch instructions. The first you may have seen or may not. The other may have been communicated to you in part. I need not say to you that it ought not to be known from whence either of them comes to you, or to me.” Thus, we see that both documents came to Adams through his secret sources and were not yet officially available either to him or the other American negotiators.

Peace negotiations now began in earnest. In late October, Adams would arrive in Paris to take part as well, and on November 30, they resulted in the Treaty of Paris, ending the American Revolution. $39,000

Page 7

Page 8

4

Lafayette Suspects the British Are Stalling the End of Peace Talks with the U.S. because of Internal Disagreements, During the Lead-Up to the War of 1812 He is sending Thomas Jefferson a book for his library at Monticello

In 1810, businessman/banker Jonathan Russell was appointed U.S. Ambassador to France by President Madison.

William Pinckney was then serving in the comparable post in Great Britain. The Americans were caught in the middle of the ongoing hostilities between Napoleonic France and its supporters, and a coalition of Napoleon’s opponents led by the British. Issues like impressment of seamen were bringing the U.S. to the edge of hostilities, but with which party? That summer Napoleon determined to make a show of placating the U.S., and Madison hoped to use this to wring concessions out of the British. In late 1810, Pinckney was in London still trying (after two years) to negotiate a settlement of Anglo-American problems, but the British were not interested in avoiding the slide towards war and the talks were failing. So in December, Pinckney played one last card. He asked the British government for his passport and a formal audience of leave, thinking perhaps that the imminent end to the talks would bring the British to reason. But he initially heard nothing back, and some read this as a positive sign. However, when he did here in February 1811, his requests were simply granted and the negotiations allowed to terminate. In the weeks between his requests and their being granted, well-informed people were awaiting the British response and hoping for the best.

The Marquis de Lafayette was one of those people. He maintained a lively interest in American affairs, all the more because France would be affected by the outcome. And he had an understanding of the English and the state of the situation there. He was well acquainted with Ambassador Russell’s family, from the time Russell’s uncle served under him in the American Revolution, and Lafayette kept in touch with Russell during his residency in

Page 9

Paris. In January 1811, he was anxious for news, but thought that the English were stalling because of disagreements among themselves on how best to reply to the Americans.

Autograph Letter Signed in English, Paris, January 13, 1811, to Russell. “I send you the note of Mr. Humboldt corrected by him and closed with his own hand. While you address it to the President or Secretary of State, I have got another copy for Monticello where I know it will be very welcome. What news have you from England? I am afraid the Parliamentary waverings will delay the answer expected by Mr. Pinckney. Do you mean to dispatch the Navy officer before you have got in? Have you any account of the Rotterdam packet, Mr. Forbes or Mr. Russell? Begging pardon for my inquiries...” The letter is addressed to Russell in Lafayette’s hand in French, so it was likely hand delivered. It was obtained by us direct from the Russell descendants and has never before been offered for sale.

Alexander von Humboldt was a noted naturalist and one of the founders of modern geography. He was particularly interested in the Western Hemisphere, and his travels, experiments, and knowledge transformed science in the 19th century. He visited the U.S. in 1804, met frequently with President Jefferson, and the two became good friends. Notes by von Humboldt on Western Hemisphere geography would have been of great interest, and not merely to Jefferson. The Forbes mentioned was likely diplomat John Murray Forbes. $4,200

5

Walt Whitman Photograph, Signed to Commemorate the Nation’s Centennial in 1876 A truly beautiful signed photograph One of the world’s most prophetic literary minds, who along with Emily Dickinson, is credited with having created modern American poetry. He is well known for the poems “Song of Myself,” “Out of the Cradle Endlessly Rocking,” and his homage to President Abraham Lincoln, “Oh Captain My Captain.”

Whitman’s career as a poet began in 1843 after reading Ralph Waldo Emerson’s essay, “The Poet,” in which Emerson called for America to have its own unique voice. Whitman set out to answer Emerson’s call with his collection of poems, Leaves of Grass.

When that volume was first published in 1855, the enthusiastic Whitman sent a copy to Emerson, who responded in a letter, calling the book, “the most extraordinary piece of wit and wisdom America has yet contributed.” Emerson’s letter helped launch the book to success. Whitman even printed excerpts of the letter as reviews within the book, much to Emerson’s surprise.

In 1875, Whitman decided to publish a book to coincide with the nation’s centennial celebration the following year. He thought of this work as “…my contribution to our National Centennial.”

The book, which was published in 1876, was titled Two Rivulets and would be, as he explained, “two flowing chains of prose and verse, emanating the real and ideal” - the “real” being represented by prose and the “ideal” by poetry. In this book Whitman experimented by combining both prose and poetry on the same page with a line on the page to separate the two. The poetry was written at the top of the page and the prose ran along the bottom This Centennial Edition was fittingly limited to 100 copies. Each volume contained a copy of a G.F.E. Pearsall photograph of Whitman pasted onto a sheet of paper and inserted just before the title page, indicating: “Photo’d from Life, Sept., ‘72, Brooklyn, N.Y.” Whitman personally signed all 100 copies. It is this signed portrait that we offer for sale, removed at some time in the past from one of the books.

Signed Photograph. A beautiful 4 by 7 inch photograph of the poet who found America’s voice, signed in celebration of its Centennial, “Walt Whitman / born May 31 1819.” $5,800

Page 10

6

After Arnold’s Treason, George Washington Sends His Spymaster to Gather Intelligence on the British Find “in what manner the British Army is at present disposed...I am anxious to receive intelligence” In September of 1780, Gen. Benedict Arnold, planning his treason, secured the command of West Point. He then met with British head of intelligence John Andre, and it was agreed that when British troops ascended the river, Arnold was to apply to Washington for reinforcements, and after making a show of resistance, was to surrender the post.

The British would follow by falling upon the approaching American reinforcements, probably led by Washington himself. So, at one blow, Washington’s army was to be ruined and he was to be seized. The plot was discovered when on September 23, Andre was stopped near Tarrytown, N.Y. by some American militiamen, and suspicious papers were found upon his person.

Fortunately, at this point Maj. Benjamin Tallmadge returned from a scouting foray and saw the papers. He was Washington’s intelligence chief and had established a strong and successful chain of spies throughout the New York area, thus creating an early secret service in America. Tallmadge was very suspicious of Andre and sent a letter with the found papers to Washington, who appreciated their significance.

Thus Arnold’s plot was foiled in part through Tallmadge’s quick thinking. Arnold escaped but Andre was hanged as a spy on Oct. 2. With Arnold now a British general, and suspecting that the British had planned additional military moves in conjunction with his treason, Washington watched and waited for British action. This was expected in or around the Hudson River Valley, on Long Island or in New Jersey. But the British were mainly looking South.

By order of the British commander in America, Gen. George Clinton, on October 16, 1780, Gen. Alexander Leslie, with several English regiments, left New York for the Southern states. This was a considerable force, and word got back to Washington that British troops were on the move. He needed to determine the significance of the movement, and immediately wrote Tallmadge, instructing him to gather information. In his letter, he first dealt with a problem of Tallmadge’s, that the gold coins that he had been given to fund his activities had been shaved, and were worth less than the amount he required.

Letter Signed, Head Quarters near Passaic Falls (New Jersey), October 20, 1780, to Tallmadge. “I have recd your favor of the 17th. If you will return the five pieces of Gold which are too light, I will replace them. I have not the means of weighing them, and therefore may be again mistaken. Be pleased to find an appointment as soon as possible of obtaining the following information, with accuracy. Of what number of Men and of what Corps the late embarkation consisted? Whether Sir Henry Clinton went with them? Whether a reinforcement arrived lately from Europe - the number, and whether of which Corps or Recruits? In what manner the British Army is at present disposed - designating as nearly as possible the Corps which lay at the different places? I am anxious to receive intelligence of the foregoing particulars, and you will oblige me by obtaining it Speedily.”

The letter is in the hand of Col. Tench Tilghman, Washington’s aide-de-camp, and has Washington’s bold signature. It is published in The Writings of George Washington, which states the “five pieces of Gold” mentioned by Washington were for “secret services.” Washington had every reason to be anxious for information on the British embarkation. Were the troops few in number or a significant force, did Gen. Clinton go with them, and had they been recently reinforced? What was the British Army’s present disposition? This information was crucial for both attack and defense and would disclose which positions of Washington were in danger and the destination of the embarkees.

The answers Washington received would have indicated the course of the war, as it moved from North to South.

Leslie’s men, including some German troops but not accompanied by Gen. Clinton, reported to Lord Cornwallis, where they made up a significant percentage of his force. They participated in Cornwallis’s entire campaign through North Carolina and Virginia and surrendered with him at Yorktown. An extraordinary letter from Washington to his spymaster, relating both to Arnold’s treason and the movement of the war to the Southern theater, where it culminated in victory. $85,000

Page 11

Page 12

7

Henry Clay Slams John Quincy Adams For Handing Spain a Diplomatic Victory, in Criticizing the Adams-Onis Treaty The Adams-Onis Treaty was signed in February 1819 by the United States and Spain. By the terms of this treaty, the United States gained both East and West Florida, it agreed that Texas was on the Spanish side of the boundary line, and Spain agreed to give up its claim to the Northwest Territory north of forty-two degrees. Also, the U.S. agreed to pay $5 million in claims of U.S. citizens against Spain, and to recognize as valid previous land grants made

by Spain. The treaty, the chief negotiator of which was John Quincy Adams, was approved by the U.S. Senate on February 24, 1819.

Most Americans thought the treaty a coup for the United States, but some did not; they were opposed to payment of money and recognition of land holdings. Jonathan Russell and Henry Clay were among these. Curiously, the Spanish government seemed for a time to agree with the Americans who considered the treaty a U.S. victory, as it balked at ratification for two years. So at the end of 1819, it remained a half-ratified treaty, which, as Clay maintains here, is no treaty at all.

Autograph Letter Signed, House of Representatives, Washington, December 27, 1819, to Russell. “If I have not before offered to you my congratulations upon your safe return to your country and to your friends, you must attribute the omission to any other cause than that of a diminution of my friendship for you, which remains unshaken and unaltered. I transmit to you by this day’s mail the message and documents. You will experience, from their perusal, mortification at the triumph which has been obtained, in diplomacy, over us, by the Dons. I do not think it likely that Congress will concur in the strange opinion that a treaty is binding upon both parties which has been executed by one only; for if it be not obligatory, that the party who has the disadvantageous side of the bargain should hold himself bound, whilst the other remains free.” This letter was obtained by us direct from the Russell descendants and has never before been offered for sale.

Clay’s hope that Congress would somehow step in and repudiate the treaty, or that Spain (the Dons, as he calls them) would refuse to ratify, were overly optimistic. It was fully ratified by both sides in February 1821.

Despite Clay’s feelings about Adams, in the Presidential election of 1824, Clay threw his support to Adams to make him President over Andrew Jackson, whereupon Adams named Clay Secretary of State, a very strange result to a long-simmering antipathy between the two men. $2,350

Related items for your collection Madison and Monroe Appoint a Head of Military Procurement and Distribution During the War of 1812 $3,500

On The Eve of the 1824 Election, John Quincy Adams Withdraws His Support of John C. Calhoun $6,000

8

Page 13

Jonathan Russell’s Official Notification That He Had Been Nominated For Congress In the early 19th century, before the advent of the telegraph and telephone, candidates who had been nominated by conventions were generally notified of this fact in person by a delegate or committee sent by the convention for that purpose. In 1808, Jonathan Russell was selected to run for Congress on the Republican ticket that was headed by James Madison. Russell lost the election to a Federalist, but his loyalty to the party was remembered

by Madison, who started him on his diplomatic career in 1810 and eventually named him Ambassador to Sweden.

This is official notification of nomination, handed to him in person. “At a Republican Convention held at East Greenwich on the 9th day of August, 1808. It was unanimously voted & resolved that Henry Smith, Esq. be & he hereby is appointed to wait upon Jonathan Russell, Esq., and inform him of his being unanimously nominated by the convention to the people of this state a candidate for member of Congress, & to request him become a candidate for that office.” It is signed

by Henry Wheaton, Secretary and docetted by Ruseell on the verso. This letter was obtained by us direct from the Russell descendants and has never before been offered for sale. $400

Page 14

9

John Hancock Unifies the North and South Behind the American Cause in the Revolution The Continental Congress orders the first Northern troops to defend the South, telling them to prepare immediately In June, 1775, at the order of the Continental Congress, George Washington assumed command of the fledgling American army which was encircling British forces in Boston. The troops which poured into his camp were initially from New England, but soon their number swelled men from Virginia, Maryland and other colonies. Although the primary attention of the country was on the front in Boston, neither the Congress nor the individual colonies were under any illusions that the war would be confined to New England, and in the colonies recruiting was undertaken for troops to be used wherever needed. Congress was also active in recruiting, and in November, 1775, authorized the formation of battalions in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. On November 25, the Journal of the Continental Congress states that it elected field officers for the Pennsylvania Battalion, and that “John Bull, Esq. was elected colonel.” This was the senior command position of the Battalion. Bull was then 41 years of age, and a natural choice for command. He had been an officer in the French and Indian War and had commanded Fort Allen, served at Fort Duquesne, and been instrumental in the negotiations with the Indians in his sector. After his election by Congress, Bull immediately began organizing and training Pennsylvania troops.

Trouble was brewing in Virginia. The British governor, the Earl of Dunsmore, was rallying Tories, and headquartered in Norfolk, began raiding Tidewater plantations. On November 7, 1775, he issued a proclamation declaring martial law, calling on all citizens to actively support the Crown, and offering freedom to the slaves of those in rebellion who would join his cause. Virginia was in an uproar and asked Congress for help to overcome this royalist threat.

On December 4, 1775, Congress acted. Its Journal notes that it voted to urge Virginia to resist Dunsmore, and ordered three companies of the Pennsylvania Battalion to “immediately march under the command of the Lieutenant-Colonel Irvine [Bull’s second in command] into Northampton County in Virginia for the protection...and for the defense thereof against the designs of the enemies of America.” Thus did Congress take an important step in the unification of the colonies, ordering the first northern troops to help defend the south in the Revolutionary War. With southerners ordered to New England and northerners to the south, all could see that there was but one cause.

This resolution was sent by John Hancock in this Autograph Letter Signed, Philadelphia, “Congress Chamber, December 4, 1775,” to “Colonel Bull.” “Sir: I am to inform you that the Congress have this day come into the resolution which I now inclose you, and you will immediately determine upon the companies, & see that they are properly equip’d, & when ready inform me thereof, that you may receive the further orders of Congress as to your particular route. I am Sir, Your very huml. servt., John Hancock, Presidt. It is probable the companies will embark on board vessells in this river.” The next night, pursuant to this letter, Bull met with his company captains.

A few days after this letter was written, Virginia troops, aided by some nearby North Carolinians, defeated Dunsmore at Great Bridge and eliminated him as a threat to the colony. (Dunsmore did, however, burn Norfolk as he left, which made a great impression throughout America.)

What is crucial is the vision of Congress, seeing that the war was national in scope, and its action to make assistence reciprocal and treat the separate colonies as one country. Just seven months later, the very principles manifested by this letter led the same men to declare American independence, and to pledge to each other not merely military aid, but “our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”

As for Col. Bull and his men, Congress ordered them on January 19, 1776, to head for Canada to assist Gen. Schuyler in the unsuccessful adventure there. However, although the men went, Bull did not; he had resigned effective January 22. Congress must have had complete trust in him, as on February 13, it entrusted him with the task of carrying money from the treasury in Philadelphia to Gen. Washington at Cambridge, Mass., and advanced him $150 for personal expenses. Later in the war, Bull was a commissioner at the Indian Treaty in Easton in 1777, and then became Adjutant General of Pennsylvania. He returned to command the 2nd Pennsylvania Brigade and set up defenses on the Delaware River to protect Philadelphia. He had an active career after the war, and served in the Pennsylvania Assembly, dying in 1824 at age 90.

$55,000

Page 16

10

During the Revolution, Robert Treat Paine, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, Moves to Confiscate a Loyalist’s Property Peter Johonot, whose wife was a granddaughter of Massachusetts Governor Dudley, was a Boston distiller with Tory sympathies. In March 1776, he was one of the committee sent to British General Howe to obtain his forbearance from destroying property in the city. Later in 1776, he fled to Nova Scotia and then went on to England. In 1778, the patriot government of the state proscribed and banished him.

After the Declaration of Independence, states adopted a policy that both helped finance the war and punish Loyalist dissenters - confiscation. Laws were passed making the taking of real estate and other property possible.

In Massachusetts, which had a small percentage of Loyalists, many of them were men of means. So with plenty of incentive and little popular opposition, that state maintained a vigorous confiscation program. In 1779 alone, it seized 600,000 pounds worth of property, four times the amount of Pennsylvania. In 1780, it moved to legally confiscate Johonot’s property.

Manuscript Document Signed, with his holograph additions, 2 pages, Suffolk Co., Mass., January 5, 1780, being the state’s original draft for its complaint in the case of the State vs. Peter Johonnot. Johonnot is accused of having: “...levied War and Conspired to levy War against the Government & People of this Province, Colony & State, & then adhered to the King of Great Britain,...and did give to them aid and comfort...[and] did withdraw himself from this Province, Colony & State...That the said Petet Johonot hath freely renounced all political relations...and hath become an Alien...”. The document then sets forth a description of property owned by Johonnot which the State proposed to confiscate, and Paine’s signature follows. Paine was Attorney General at the time. The effort was successful and the property taken.

Johonot, who is listed in the book “The Loyalists of Massachusetts,” never did return to his native land. He died on London in 1809, leaving no descendants. Ironically, his brother ’s wife, Elizabeth Quincy, was related to Abigail Adams. $2,500

11

Page 17

Thomas Jefferson Hopes for “The Prosperity of the Plough” - That His Beloved Agriculture Will Thrive He refers to himself whistfully as a retired farmer.

Jefferson considered himself first and foremost a farmer. In 1795, he wrote, “I am to become the most industrious and ardent farmer of the canton...” He said that his day was spent “From breakfast, or noon at the latest, to dinner, I am mostly on horseback, attending to my farm or other concerns, which I find healthful to my body, mind, and affairs.” His farm was indeed his first love, and as he looked back on his career, wrote “There has never been a moment of my life in which I should have relinquished for it the enjoyments of my family, my farm, my friends & books.” He confided to George Washington, “Agriculture is our wisest pursuit, because it will in the end contribute most to real wealth, good morals, and happiness.”

Jefferson had an abiding interest in improving the technology of farming. One of his more important contributions to agriculture was the moldboard plow. Invented in 1794, in 1814 he began to have the moldboards cast in iron. He informed Charles Willson Peale in 1815 that the plow with his iron moldboard was “so light that the two small horses or mules draw it with less labor than I have ever before seen necessary. It does beautiful work and is approved by everyone.” Just how widely Jefferson’s moldboard was adopted by others is unclear. He never sought to patent it so that others could freely use it, and sent numerous models to friends at home and abroad, where his design met with general approval.

Jonathan Russell was a young, rising light in the Jeffersonian Republican Party in 1800, and an excellent orator. He campaigned for Thomas Jefferson in the election that year and continued as a party loyalist thereafter.

He came to note because his roots were in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, and New England was a Federalist stronghold; the Republicans were weak there. Russell shared Jefferson’s interest in agriculture, and spoke on the subject in an “Address delivered before the Worcester Agricultural Society, September 27, 1821.” Russell was vice president of that organization, and his speech mirrored the Jeffersonian philosophy completely, praising husbandmen, detailing and approving agricultural improvements, and speaking expansively of the centrality of the plow to agriculture, and indeed of the plow as a symbol of agriculture. Russell also conflated freedom and agriculture, saying “To ensure the practical improvement of agriculture, a people must be civilized and free.” Farmers were guarantors of a nation’s liberties, and in liberated soil would flourish agriculture. The speech was printed

by Manning and Trumbull later that year, and Russell sent a copy to Monticello.

Autograph Letter Signed with an oversize signature at the start of the letter, Monticello, January 5, 1822, to Russell, referring to himself as a retired farmer, and reinforcing his continued personal interest in the plow, which term he uses metaphorically below to encompass the work of the plow - agriculture itself. “Th. Jefferson returns thanks to Mr. Russell for the agricultural address he has been so kind as to send him. Retired from such occupations himself, he receives it as a mark of friendly recollections and good will from Mr. Russell, which he reciprocates sincerely; and with best wishes for the prosperity of the plough, he salutes Mr. Russell with great esteem and respect.” This letter was obtained by us direct from the Russell descendants and has never before been offered for sale. A copy of Russell’s speech is included.

$13,500

Page 18

12

John C. Calhoun Will Honor an Appointment Requested by Jonathan Russell Jonathan Russell was elected to the Seventeenth Congress (March 4, 1821–March 3, 1823,) and was chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Congressmen then had a strong say into who received appointments for posts in their home districts and could also intervene to secure for their constituents certain appointments in Washington.

Autograph Letter Signed, War Department, Washington, March 30, 1822, to Russell, saying he is appointing his first choice to a position. “I received your note of yesterday in due season. On examining the candidates from Massachsuetts, it was found that only one of them you recommended will be appropriate. Mr. Daniels, standing first on your list, was selected. His appointment is herewith enclosed with the request that you will give it its proper direction.” This letter was obtained by us direct from the Russell descendants and has never before been offered for sale. $600

13

Page 19

Henry Clay Gives a Treatise on the Need for an Active and Effective Opposition in a Democracy “Do you believe that the silence of opposition would rectify the errors of administration...? That silence would be presumed acquiesence...If men are to be united to achieve any great object, you must hang out a banner, present hope, and point it to a path of honor or glory. ” He also assesses his chances in the upcoming 1832 election.

It was clear by late 1831 that Henry Clay would be the 1832 Presidential nominee by acclamation of his Whig Party when its convention met in December. And there was a certainty that President Andrew Jackson would run again, so the two protagonists were set. Many in Clay’s own party thought the Whigs could not beat Jackson in 1832 and that Clay should concentrate on the 1836 election and let a lesser candidate lose in 1832. Clay would not hear of this, as it violated his fundamental beliefs of how the American political system should operate - the opposition should, and must, speak out and act as a check on those in power. Here he gives a detailed and very moving exposition of those principles, enabling us to see why and how Abraham Lincoln considered Clay his “beau ideal” of a man.

John Law was an Indiana prosecuting attorney from 1825-1828 and judge of the seventh judicial circuit in 18301831. He had been a supporter of Henry Clay and the Whigs, but as the 1832 Presidential election neared, he seems to have begun shifting his political positions, as his ambivalence about Clay’s making a run of the White House against Andrew Jackson seems to indicate. President Van Buren named him receiver of the land office at Vincennes in 1838, indicating that he might have become a Democrat by then, and he supported the Democrat Polk over Clay in the 1844 election. Law was appointed by President Franklin Pierce judge of the court of land claims and served from 1855 to 1857. He was then elected as a Democrat to the Thirty-seventh and Thirty-eighth Congresses (March 4, 1861-March 3, 1865).

Autograph Letter Signed, Ashland, Kentucky, October 1, 1831, to Law. “I have received your favor of the 20th ultimo and retain such a general recollection of you, and possess such a knowledge of your standing and character as to justify a frank reply...Of our prospects in the...contest, our friends and I believe that we have a reasonable probability of 11 states: Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Delaware, Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont and Rhode Island.

We have also a hope of New York, founded upon the known fact of their being a majority in it against Jackson. We do not despair of Pennsylvania and Virginia. But N.Y. alone, with the 11 states above enumerated will be sufficient. I agree with you that there is no probability of Illinois or Missouri. I have not time to enter into debates by which these

Page 20

results are deduced. If the Anti-Masons should unite with us there is almost a certainty of our success. They hold the balance in N.Y., Penna. and Vermont. Judge McLean will probably have been nominated at Baltimore and I think that he will not accept the nomination, or if he accepts it, that he will ultimately be abandoned from the utter hopelessness of his success. In either contingency, the mass of that party will come to us. I have done nothing to identify myself with either party to that controversy between the Masons of the North and the Anti-Masons. I believe the general government has Constitutionally nothing to do with it; and therefore that it is not a suitable topic to introduce into the discussions between the parties contending for the Presidency. If we have our difficulties and uncertainties, so has the Jackson party. Can they count upon more certain votes than we can? I believe not. They are the losing, we the gaining party. And the same current of loss and gain will probably continue to the end of the contest.

‘You ask why urge the contest? Will you believe me when I most truly say, I wish I was out of it? How can I get out of it? If I were to proclaim my own withdrawal, should I not be chargeable with infidelity to the friends of our cause and to the fate of the country? But do you believe that the silence of opposition would rectify the errors of administration, or if it persisted in them, being a speedier remedy? That silence would be presumed acquiesence and this would add strength to instead of weakening the administration. There must be opposition if there be cause for opposition; for if there be no resistance, all will join in plaudits to the powers that be, or at least all who are interested, all who are wicked, and all that inert mass which coheres to the dominant party, whatever that dominant party may be. It may do in Christianity (though I doubt it) but will not in politics, when one cheek is smote to turn the other to the assailant. If men are to be united to achieve any great object, you must hang out a banner, present hope, and point it to a path of honor or glory. Passive obedience and non-resistance will never enlist recruits nor disarm or conciliate opposition.

‘I was not a careless or indifferent spectator of your late contest. My hopes went with you, and I shared largely in your disappointment, although you have had a success almost equal to a complete victory. I intend visiting my son this fall, but I wish to make the journey unnoticed, unhonored, unwept. At the same time, it will give me pleasure to see, without any parade or ceremony, such of my fellow citizens of Indiana as I may casually meet. Among them I certainly hope you may be one...” This letter was obtained by us direct from the Law descendants and has never before been offered for sale.

This is the finest political letter of Clay we can recall seeing. He may have been right about most of the points he made above, but his powers of prediction were off. In the 1832 election, Clay won just 5 states and Jackson won handily. $6,200

14

Thomas Jefferson Free Frank Addressed to Congressman Jonathan Russell A frank “Free, Th. Jefferson,” addressed in Jefferson’s hand to Congressman “Jonathan Russell, Esquire, Washington, or perhaps at Worcester, Mass.” It was mailed from Milton, Virginia on January 8, 1822, three days after the letter it contained was written. “Washington or perhaps Worcester, Mass.” is a rather broad sweep for a piece of mail to arrive at its destination, but this one did, as is shown by the fact that we obtained it direct from the Russell descendants; it has never before been offered for sale. $5,500

15

Page 21

Madison and the Jefferson Administration Prepare to Prohibit U.S. Trade With Haiti Their goal had long been to isolate the new state, run by black former-slaves The French Revolution of 1789, with its promise of “liberté, egalité, fraternité”, had a powerful impact on the slaves in French-held Saint Domingue (now Haiti). When their hopes for freedon were thwarted by the great sugar plantation owners, the slaves revolted. Led by Toussaint L’Ouverture, a black army successfully fought the French in 1793. He then turned his attention to the Spanish, who owned the adjacent colony of Santo Domingo (now the Dominican Republic), and the British (who were seeking to dominate the entire island of Hispaniola, which the two colonies shared). Toussaint’s army defeated them all, winning seven battles in one week against the British. Spain ceded its colony in 1795 to France, and Toussaint and his followers, considering that they had replaced the French government, claimed the entire island. Thus a black leader and a black army ruled a black de facto nation (still technically in revolt against France) just a stone’s throw from the United States. Many poweful people in Europe and the Americas, including slaveholders in the American South, eyed these events with extreme alarm.

After John Adams became president in 1797, the U.S. became engaged in a quasi-war with France, which was plundering American trade on the high seas. This resulted in a suspension of trade between the U.S. and both France and its dependencies. Seeing an opportunity, Toussaint approached Adams with a promise that if the U.S. would support him, he would deny France the use of Haiti as a platform for maneuvers in North America.

This offer was attractive to Adams and his Secretary of State, Timothy Pickering, both of whom in any event sympathized with the former slaves’ aspirations for freedom. On May 22, 1799 Toussaint signed a trading treaty with the Americans, and on June 13, a secret treaty blocking France that stated, “No expedition shall be sent out against any of the possessions of...the United States of America.” And that was not all. On June 26, Adams issued a Proclamation Regarding Commerce with St. Domingo, allowing U.S. trade to resume with the lands under Toussaint’s control. It referenced “the arrangements which have been made for the safety of commerce of the United States, and for the admission of American vessels into the island,” and opened the ports of Cape Francois and Port Republican. In October 1799, with the aid of American arms and ships, Toussaint defeated an insurrection (Pickering even instructed Navy Capt. Silas Talbot to give “protection to every part of the island under Toussaint’s control”). Then Toussaint turned his forces against the remaining Spanish in Santo Domingo and defeated them.

By May 1800, he held sway over the whole of Hispaniola. To take this into account, on May 9, 1800, Adams issued a second proclamation expanding American trade “to all ports and places on the said island of Hispaniola.” This was followed in September 1800 by a third Adams proclamation, setting up a procedure that all vessels engaged in the trade must have passports issued by Toussaint’s government and the U.S. consul.

This policy was not to last long, however. In March 1801, slaveholder Thomas Jefferson became president. He promptly reversed Adams’ de-facto recognition of Toussaint’s government and began to work towards a prohibition on American trade with Haiti. Moreover, he told Napoleon, against whose regime the rebellion was theoretically taking place, that if he wanted to crush Toussaint, America would help him. Napoleon wanted colonists to return France’s Caribbean territories to their earlier profitability as plantation colonies. So while denying he was trying to reinstate slavery, Napoleon sent General Leclerc to regain French control of the island in 1802. He had some initial success and managed to kidnap Toussaint, who died in captivity. One of Toussaint’s chief lieutenants, Jean-Jacques Dessalines, led the continuing black uprising, and in 1804 declared Haiti independent.

Meanwhile, to avoid a contagion of ideas, President Jefferson got Congress to enact legislation to ban from the U.S. all African slaves who had witnessed the Haitian Revolution or who had made a stopover in Haiti. In 1805, he instituted restrictions on trade with Haiti. These proved ineffective, as many vessels evaded the restrictions and continued to carry on the profitable sugar trade. The French foreign minister, Talleyrand, complained to the U.S. minister to France in August, that despite Jefferson’s policies to the contrary, American ships from the northern states were leaving from Philadelphia or Boston, cleared for shipment to the English colonies, and then traveling on to the ports of Haiti. He expressed his opinion that the American government was not doing enough to stop this trade. Going farther, in January 1806, General Turreau, the French minister to the U.S., wrote Secretary of State James Madison that “...trade with Saint Domingue undermines the rule of law.”

The Jefferson administration determined to stop trade with black Haiti once and for all, and asked Congress to pass a law prohibiting it. Any such law would, of course, abrogate the three Adams proclamations authorizing the trade. Likely to have the texts of the proclamations at hand when drafting the new prohibition, James Madison was asked for certified copies of them, which he provided.

Document Signed, 7 pages, Washington, February 20, 1806, certifying “that the writing on the three annexed sheets

Page 22

of paper has been compared with the three several proclamations whereof it purports to be copies and is found to agree therewith exactly.� Madison attached copies of the Adams proclamations. The State Department seal and blue tieribbons are still present on these papers, which represent an important instance of the impact of slavery on U.S. policy. By the end of the year, Congress banned trade with Haiti, joining the French and Spanish boycotts. These embargos crippled the Haitian economy, and helped prevent the new black nation from making a success of its independence. $4,500

Related items for your collection James Monroe Sends Notification of the Appt of a Commissioner For Prisoners $1,800

James Madison, Father of the Constitution, Advances His Interpretation of Powers of Congress $20,000

16

Page 23

President James Monroe Issues Important Diplomatic Instructions to the U.S. Ambassador to Sweden, Even As He Is Consumed by His Upcoming Tour of the North and West Jonathan Russell served as U.S. Ambassador to Sweden. His primary instruction was to secure a treaty of amity and commerce between the two nations. This was done and a treaty was signed in 1816. However, in February 1817, the United States Senate refused to ratify the treaty in toto because it objected to tariffs on goods brought by America ships from the West Indies to Sweden, and to the definition of goods produced in the two signatory countries. Instead, it agreed subject to deletion of the offending clauses. When this occurred, Russell was on leave and in the United States, and he was somewhat reluctant to return to Sweden. President Monroe still wanted a treaty, though in the form the Senate approved. He understood that the situation was delicate, and saw the need, now more than ever, for someone experienced in U.S.-Swedish affairs to explain the issue to the Swedes and still secure their agreement to the treaty. He insisted that Russell return to his post, in this very letter.

To build national trust and spirit after the divisive War of 1812, President Monroe made two extensive national tours in 1817, one throughout the north and one to what was then the west but is now the midwest (Ohio). Frequent stops allowed innumerable ceremonies of welcome and good will. The Federalist Party was diminishing and partisan activity was at a low ebb. The people of the U.S. revelled in this moment, and it came to be called the “Era of Good Feelings.”

In this letter, Monroe both refers to his epochal, upcoming tour, and provides Russell with instructions.

Autograph Letter Signed as President, Washington, May 17, 1817, to Russell. “My late visit to Virginia preparatory to the tour I propose making soon to the northward and westward prevented an earlier answer to your last letter. The views respecting the mission to Sweden communicated to you when here have undergone no change. It is still intended that you should return and remain there a certain time, leaving Mr. Hughes charge d’affairs when you take leave of that government. The new modification of the convention made necessary by the vote of the Senate gives additional force to the reasons in favor of your return to Stockholm.

Mr. Rush will forward to you in due time the necessary instructions to enable you to fulfill the objects of the government. You will be so good as to inform him when it is probable you will be ready to sail. Accept my congratulations on the late important change in your situation, and my best wishes for your own happiness and that of your lady.” With Russell’s docket on the verso. Rush was Attorney General Richard Rush, who was working with the President on this situation. The change Monroe refers to in the last sentence was Russell’s recent marriage. This letter was obtained by us direct from the Russell descendants and has never before been offered for sale.

On May 31, 1817, just two weeks after this letter, Monroe left Washington on his tour; the Era of Good Feeling was in full swing.

As for the treaty, the Swedes accepted the Senate’s modifications and it was ratified in 1818. $5,000

Page 24

17

Napoleon Orders the Seizure of American Vessels and Cargos Even while negotiating with Pres. Madison, he writes, “Do not suffer any commerce…with the English or the Americans” Great Britain was an important force in encouraging and financing resistance to Napoleonic France. Napoleon lacked the resources to attempt a cross-channel invasion or to defeat the Royal Navy at sea. His main attempt to do so ended with defeat at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805. Napoleon resorted instead to economic warfare. As a result of the Industrial Revolution, Great Britain was emerging as Europe’s manufacturing and industrial center, and Napoleon believed it would be vulnerable to an embargo on trade with the European nations under his control.

Napoleon’s Continental System began with the promulgation of the Berlin Decree of November 21, 1806, which, among other things: a) declared the British Isles “to be in a state of blockade;” b) required the imprisonment of certain British subjects found in foreign ports; c) prohibited the trade of any British goods; d) authorized that any vessel engaged in the above should be seized and its cargo taken; e) provided that these terms be strictly enforced throughout the Empire; f) and placed regional ministers in charge of enforcement. The British followed suit soon thereafter, though U.S. Secretary of State James Monroe was informed that no action would be taken against any vessels from neutral nations. Napoleon’s Milan Decree of November 1807 was designed to enforce his measures by arming French and allied vessels with a broader power of seizure of cargo and of ships. Because the Milan Decree dictated that any vessel engaging in commerce with England, or any which allowed itself to be inspected by the British, was thereafter denationalized and subject to seizure, the line of neutrality was being blurred. Napoleon’s Bayonne Decree of April 17, 1808 went even farther. It ordered the seizure of American ships in European ports, resulting in over ten million dollars in United States goods and ships being confiscated.

In March of 1809 the United States enacted a Non-Intercourse Act providing that any French or British ship entering an American port could be confiscated. Despite his claim that he was unaware of the Non-Intercourse Act, Napoleon refers to it in a note written in December 1809. Napoleon responded with the Rambouillet Decree declaring all American ships entering a French port subject to confiscation, regardless of the intent of the vessel.

The decree was made retroactive to May 20, 1809, the date of the American Non-Intercourse Act. These efforts were not a booming success for Napoleon. British goods were highly sought after and American shipping was adept at evading capture. Napoleon found that much commerce was taking place through the back door, in a portion of Italy controlled by Austria. This he aimed to change.

The Illyrian Provinces, today the Balkans, were created by the Treaty of Schönbrunn in 1809 when the Austrian Empire ceded these territories after the defeat at the Battle of Wagram. According to Napoleon and the Transformation of Europe by Alexander Grab, “Most importantly, the Emperor formed the Illyrian Provinces in order to tighten the Continental Blockade and close the Adriatic ports to commerce… [He] hoped to dislodge the British by turning the Adriatic sea into a French lake.” In December 1809, Napoleon established a General Government for the Illyrian Provinces, and in early 1810 formally installed its first Governor-General, August-Frederic Marmont, Duc de Raguse, a veteran officer and formerly Governor of Dalmatia.

In January 1810, at the first meeting of his council of state of the year, Napoleon attempted to find a way out of his dilemma with the US. He suggested that under certain terms he would allow American vessels to trade, with only a proof of registration. On February 15, 1810, he proposed to the American minister that they rework Franco-American relations to “consolidate the commerce and the prosperity of America,” in return for America’s cooperation in resisting British blockade efforts. Napoleon seemed to have forgotten his previous promise to do just this, wrote the American negotiator, as this was hardly a new proposal. But it may have been a measure designed to confuse rather than the result of forgetfulness. Peter Hill, in his authoritative Napoleon’s Troublesome Americans, suggests that British overlapping orders of Parliament, and America’s reticence to align against England, made Napoleon fear a close connection between the two English speaking countries, though none existed.

Page 25

While simultaneously offering negotiation, his policies toward both countries were often similar, if not the same.

Was Napoleon simultaneously offering hope of free commerce and interdicting it? The evidence is below.

Letter Signed, February 24, 1810, Paris, to Marshall Duc de Raguse, specifically targeting US commerce. “I have learned that American ships have been received in Trieste. Give the order that all American vessels docking in the ports of Illyria will be sequestered and the cargo confiscated. Take your hand personally to the execution of this order and do not suffer any commerce at Trieste with the English or the Americans.� Letters of Napoleon directly relating to the United States are rare. A search of auction records going back more than three decades fails to turn up any other letter of his specifically ordering the seizure of American ships or cargo. $9,000

Page 26

18

Last Act of the Napoleonic Era: The Emperor Is Laid in His Eternal Resting Place, Les Invalides The Prime Minister of France receives the keys to the Emperor’s sarcophagus Following the French defeat at the Battle of Waterloo on June 18, 1815, by coalition forces under the command of the Duke of Wellington, Napoleon was imprisoned and exiled on the island of St. Helena, a British territory in the south Atlantic Ocean some 1,250 miles west of Africa and some 4,500 miles from France. He died there May 5, 1821. In a codicil to his will executed less than three weeks earlier, Napoleon expressed his desire to be buried “on the banks of the Seine, in the midst of this French people who loved me so much.” The British governor decided, however, that Napoleon would be buried on St. Helena instead. There remained a nascent French movement to return the former leader and it was a not infrequent presence in parliamentary debates.

In 1840, the French government obtained British permission to return Napoleon’s remains to France. French King Louis-Philippe approved an expedition to St. Helena and then Prime Minister Louis-Adolphe Thiers appointed Rohan Chabot, the attaché to the French ambassador to Britain, to supervise the exhumation of Napoleon’s body.

On July 7, 1840, the frigate Belle Poule left France. The expedition reached St. Helena on October 8 and the body was exhumed on October 14. When the lid was finally removed from the innermost coffin, Napoleon’s body appeared, resting comfortably with his head on a cushion and his forearms and hands on his thighs. His chest bore the red ribbon of the Légion d’honneur, and his hat rested on his thighs. Rohan Chabot and others wept at the sight. The whole assembly consisted of five coffins and weighed some 2,600 pounds.

By this time, a new ministry presided over by Nicolas Soult succeeded Thiers. Soult was not only the current Prime Minister but also had been a major general of the French army at Waterloo and was one of the few surviving marshals of Napoleon. He would play a central role in the enormous and momentous procession that would lead to the Hotel des Invalides, an area consisting of several military museums and famous burial sites. The back of the car was made up of a trophy of flags, palms and laurels, with the names of Napoleon’s main victories.

The funeral was held in Paris on December 15, 1840. Victor Hugo evoked this day in his Les Rayons et les Ombres: “Glossy sky! Pure sun! Oh! It shines in history! Triumphal funeral, imperial torch! Let the people forever guard you in their memory.” Napoleon’s coffin rested briefly under the Arc de Triomphe, which was built on his orders in 1806, but only completed in 1836, and was then taken over the Champs Elysees, across the Seine, to the Dome des Invalides. 36 sailors from La Belle-Poule carried the coffin through the park in front of the church, to the entrance. As it passed, the great assemblage was swayed by an extraordinary emotion. There they were met by King Louis Philippe, the Royal Family, government and diplomatic officials, military officers, and old field-marshall Moncey, who was in charge of the Hotel des Invalides. The King descended from his throne and advanced to meet the cortege. “Sire,” said the Prince of Joinville, “I present to you the body of Napoleon, which, in accordance with your commands, I have brought back to France.” “I receive it in the name of France,” replied Louis Philippe.

Beside the King stood an officer, bearing a cushion; on it lay the sword of Austerlitz. Marshal Soult handed it to the King, who, turning to Bertrand, said: “General, I commission you to place the emperor ’s glorious sword on the bier.” Napoleon’s body was placed into yet another sarcophagus, the below mentioned “Pewter.” This was then laid in its permanent resting place and the funeral (and era of Napoleon) ended.

From December 16-24, 1840, the Invalides was opened to the public. At the end of this time period, the Count of Rohan, responsible for Napoleon’s journey back to France and keeper of the keys to the Emperor ’s tomb, officially forwarded the precious keys to Prime Minister Soult, who responded with this letter.

Manuscript Letter Signed by Maréchal, Duc De Dalmatie, as Prime Minister, to the Count of Rohan, one page, with integral leaf attached, Paris, December 29, 1840. “Your Lordship, I have received the letter that you have honored me by writing on the 23rd of this month, as well as the three keys of which two have the honor of belonging to the pewter sarcophagus containing the exhumed coffin of the Emperor Napoleon, and closed at St. Helena by the representatives of the governments of France and Great Britain. This last act in the performance of a commission as honorable as it was full of

Page 27

dignity gives me the opportunity, Your Lordship, to remind you specifically of the very special interest with which I have followed all stages of this memorable mission in which you have so completely justified the great faith that the King has in you. The keys that you have given me will be delivered to Field Marshal, His Grace the Duke of Conégliano, Governor of the Royal Military Pensioners Hospital who from now on will be their holder as he already is of the sealed coffin containing the mortal remains of the Emperor. I am, Your Lordship, yours very truly, The President of the Cabinet, Secretary of State and Minister of War, Maréchal, Duc Du Dalmatie.” $13,000

Page 28

19

At the Dawn of Transcendentalism, Samuel Taylor Coleridge Articulates His Philosophy in Assessing William Ellery Channing Coleridge’s letter to the first American Romantic painter evokes, in stirring language, the schism between the Unitarians and the nascent Transcendental movement “I have been more absorbed in the depth of the Mystery of Spiritual Life - he more engrossed by the loveliness of the manifestations” The 19th century saw the emergence of a native American literary and philosophical movement, Transcendentalism. In the town of Concord, Mass., Ralph Waldo Emerson, Margaret Fuller, Henry David Thoreau, Bronson Alcott and others, raised in an environment of bleak Calvinism, turned inward for answers, rejected establishment doctrine and wrote prolifically and famously on self reliance. But this movement grew from a seed planted on the other side of the Atlantic, where a British literary giant translated the works of German philosophers like Schiller and Kant for the eyes of English-speakers to read.

Samuel Taylor Coleridge was a poet, philosopher, and romantic visionary, an inescapable presence in early 19th-century England. John Stuart Mill coupled him with Jeremy Bentham as “the two great seminal minds of England of their age.” In 1796, after making waves in backing the Unitarian movement at Cambridge, Coleridge took up the study of German and brought back with him many works he would translate.

Coleridge matched the German metaphysical bent with his romantic inclinations. He would eventually abandon Unitarianism altogether. “I make the greatest difference between ans and isms. I should deal insincerely with you if I said I thought Unitarianism was Christianity,” he wrote, “but God forbid that I should doubt that..many...

Unitarians...are very good Christians.” This was in 1805.

The next year, intrigued by an exhibition he had seen in London, he went to Rome to meet the young Washington Allston, the similarly minded American romantic artist. Allston would paint his portrait, now at Harvard. Both men had that unique transcendental outlook that placed perception and reason, intuition, on a high plane. Both had lofty and romantic ambitions and the two remained lifelong friends. Coleridge, along with Wordsworth, would launch the British Romantic age; Allston would pioneer the American Romantic movement. This relationship would form Coleridge’s transatlantic bridge. In 1812, he published The Friend, which presented the philosophy of Friedrich Schelling in elegant and inspirational English. In 1817, he published the enigmatic and dense Biographia Literaria, in which he made a vital contribution to Transcendental poetic theory in his discussion of the Imagination.

With these two works he established himself on the American screen. But the link was not complete. Dr. William Ellery Channing was an active Unitarian minister, the leading preacher of that church in the U.S., whose productive years predated and anticipated many of the ideas adopted by Emerson and Theodore Parker, in particular, so much that Emerson would say respectfully, “He is our Bishop.” Unlike Emerson, Channing never broke with the church and so his interactions with his contemporaries of that school are a fascinating window into its development. What we now know as Transcendentalism first arose among liberal New England Congregationalists who opposed the Puritan picture of inescapable human depravity. They emphasized unity rather than the “Trinity” of God (hence the term “Unitarian,” originally a term of abuse that they came to adopt). Channing’s sermon “Unitarian Christianity” (1819) helped give the Unitarian movement its name. Emerson began as a minister there and famously split with it later. This mirrors Coleridge’s progression. Channing never formally left.

In 1823, Channing left New England for Europe to recover his failing health. While there, he sought a meeting with Coleridge and to do so, he turned to his brother in law, Washington Allston. Channing would be the first of that American philosophical circle to meet with Coleridge. The two straddled the Transcendental line at the very dawn of its creation, the one a man of the church, the other now an outsider looking in. Allston was the pivot point for all that followed, providing an introduction, a sounding board for Coleridge and a window for a growing American school of thinking to the sources of information from which they culled much of their greatest accomplishments. What did Coleridge think of this free thinking Unitarian? He wrote Allston, and showed some of the appreciation that would cause so many strict Transcendentalists to love Channing, while simultaneously highlighting the differences. It is also evocative of the great philosophical debates that would happen a decade

Page 29

later when Emerson would meet Coleridge and Thomas Carlyle. In this letter, Coleridge spells out in Transcendental terminology his life’s aims.

Autograph Letter Signed, Highgate, June 13, 1823, to “My dear Allston. It was more than a gratification - it was a great comfort for all of us to see, sit, walk and converse with two such dear and dearly respected friends of yours as Mr. and Mrs. Channing. Mr. C. could not be said to have known in part before. It is enough to add that the reality differed from my previous conception of it only by being more amiable, more discriminating, and more free from prejudices than my experience had permitted me to anticipate. His affection for the Good as the Good, and his earnestness for the True as the True, with that harmonious subordination of the latter to the former without encroachment on the absolute worth of either, present in him a character which in my heart’s heart I believe to be the very rarest on earth. If you will excuse a play on words in speaking of such a man, I will say that Mr. Channing is a philosopher in both the possible renderings of the word. He has the Love of Wisdom and the Wisdom of Love. I was unfortunately absent (at Sir George Beaumont’s) evening. Had they been prevented from reparting their visit, I should have been vexed indeed - and yet not so much vexed as (I now know) I should have had reason to be. I feel convinced that the few differences in opinion between Mr. Channing and myself not only are, but would by him be found to be, apparent not real - the same Truth seen in different relations. Perhaps I have been more absorbed in the depth of the Mystery of Spiritual Life - he more engrossed by the loveliness of the manifestations.

“But what should I say of Mrs. Channing? I was no little pleased, but that I dislike the phrase, I should say flattered, by the opinion or fancy of Mrs. Gilman & her sisters, that there was a likeness in her of my countenance. She certainly reminded me strongly of my half sister, who was the very image of my Father. Be this as it may, Mrs. Channing is one of those women who seem made for a man of sense and sensibility to have been mad in love with under thirty, and to love and honor truly and cordially even to his 80th year - or for five score and ten, if he lived so long.

“Thus I, and thus your affectionate friends Mr. and Mrs. Gilman think of your dear relatives. What they think of us, and how we all are, you will hear from them. The only thing that gave us any pain - and we could not so entirely conquer ourselves as to hear it unpained - is the small or no chance of your returning to England, even as a sojourner. You will hear from Leslie of Haydon’s affairs - his debts (Sir George B. told me) amount to L10,000!! And O! that that were the worst

Page 30

of the evil. That worthy man, Wilkie, is indefatigable in his exertions for him. I will not speak of Haydon’s colossal picture of Lazarus - for one of the very few disagreements in matters of taste between you and me was our appreciations of his genius.

God bless you, my dear friend Allston! and your affectionate friend, S.T. Coleridge.

“P.S. Sir George’s Lady B. always enquires after you, & at least half an hour’s talk follows of you & your works. He spoke on Tuesday of Haydon’s Lazarus as almost worthy of Michelangelo. I told him frankly and with perfect sincerity that I had never heard that said without thinking it a great exaggeration, one only instance accepted. And that was your dead man revived by touching the bones of the prophet. I did not see Haydon till the morning after I went with Lady B. I strove to divest my mind of every prejudice, but could not do away or recover from my first impression - that that it was a very commonplace, theatrical conception - the true ghost stalk & ghost stare.”

Coleridge’s references in the second part of this letter are to Benjamin Haydon and his work, the Resurrection of Lazarus, which was completed but put him into serious debt. He would end up in debtors prison as a result.

C.R. Leslie was another artist friend of Allston. Coleridge and Allston often forged their philosophical debates around art.

In 1825, Coleridge wrote Aids to Reflection, and in 1829 it was published in the U.S. with an introduction by Dr. James Marsh, the president of the University of Vermont. This book, which almost single-handedly initiated the American Transcendentalist movement, refuted the sensationalist school of John Locke, fused the material and the spiritual, and advanced the crucial distinction between the Reason and the Understanding.

What did Channing think of Coleridge? He would later claim that he owed more to Coleridge than almost any other philosopher. As Octavius Frothingham, the first historian of Transcendentalism wrote, “The brilliant men of his period acknowledged his surpassing brilliancy; the deep men confessed his depth; the spiritual men went to him for inspiration...the name of Coleridge was spoken with reverence, his books were studied industriously, and the terminology of transcendentalism was as familiar in the circles of divines and men of letters.”

Channing returned to the pulpit to preach his brand of Unitary doctrine, though his frailty required an assistant.

As Charles Brooks writes in William Ellery Channing: A Centennial Memorial, “It was now that Dr. Channing established his literary fame.” His sermon on a “modern ministry” appeared in 1824. His articles were also published beginning in 1825 in the Christian Examiner, in which his conviction in the divinity of the human soul was evident.

20

This famous letter was obtained from the descendants of Washington Allston and has never been offered for sale before. It has been published in The Life of William Ellery Channing, by William Ellery Channing; The Coleridge Connection, by Thomas McFarland; and The Correspondence of Washington Allston, by Washington Allston.

$12,500

Ralph Waldo Emerson Prepares to Deliver His Peace Address in Concord He writes Rev. Dr. William Ellery Channing for the return of the manuscript Dr. William Ellery Channing was an active Unitarian minister, the leading preacher of that church in the U.S., whose productive years predated and anticipated many of the ideas adopted by Emerson. In fact, Channing was Emerson’s bishop before he split with the church. What we now know as Transcendentalism first arose among liberal New England Congregationalists who rejected the traditional Puritan concept of inescapable sin and depravity. They emphasized unity rather than the “Trinity” (hence the term “Unitarian”). Channing’s sermon “Unitarian Christianity” helped give the movement its name. In 1815, Channing formed, in his study, the Massachusetts Peace Society.

On September 8, 1836, the day before Ralph Waldo Emerson’s publication of “Nature,” he and like minded friends met at Willard’s Hotel in Cambridge to plan a periodic gathering of people who were disenchanted with the current climate in America and sought something more. This was the Transcendental Club, and it would meet for nearly a decade. Among the attendees were William Ellery Channing and Bronson Alcott.

In March 1838, The American Peace Society sponsored a series of lectures, and on the 12th of the month, Emerson gave the keynote lecture, “The Peace Principle.” It was later published in his collected works under the name “War.” In it, suprisingly, he begins by noting the uses of war, but swiftly moves to an overall condemnation of contemporary conflict, and the prediction of a “congress of nations” as a forum for dispute resolution. “If peace is to be maintained, it must be by brave men who have come up to the same height as the hero...who have gone one step beyond the hero and will not seek another man’s life.” In attendance was Alcott, who noted with approval the speech in his journal as “Emerson’s lecture on peace.”

Page 31

Whether Channing first heard of the lecture at one of these meetings or from another person in the peace group is unclear. Most likely, Alcott, present at the March 12 gathering, recommended it to Channing, who borrowed it from Emerson. Then Emerson was invited by his fellows in Concord and East Lexington to deliver the same address on April 5. There appears to have been just one working copy, which Emerson required to deliver his address.

Autograph letter signed, Boston, likely between March 12 and April 5, 1838, addressed in Emerson’s hand to Channing. “May I ask that my Lecture on Peace may be returned to the bearer if it is not in use. An unexpected request has been made to me to read it to some neighbors of mine. With great respect, your friend and servant, R.W. Emerson.�

$2,500

Page 32

21

President Andrew Jackson’s Original Instructions to the “Civilized” Indian Tribes to Move West The very letter read in person to their chiefs, with Jackson’s cajoling language, just discovered Nothing has more poignantly defined American colonization and dominion than relations with the native tribes. The way in which these two civilizations first contacted each other, dealt with each other, and lived on shared land is a central element of our national identity. In 1829, these issues burst forth onto the national agenda, and the response, led by Andrew Jackson, would, for more than a century, define not only our relations with the native tribes but our westward expansion - an expansion that was the essence of America. This letter, previously lost, represents the initiation of a new and determined policy with broad ramifications, one designed to establish a precedent for dealing with other Indian tribes in the future.

Up until the early 19th century, the principle was recognized that the Indians were sovereign on their lands, and that treaties were necessary to divest them of their holdings. Although Congress came to take the position that Indians were subject to federal law, the practice of treaty-signings and a spirit of joint occupation of the territory imbued relations between the United States and the Indians tribes in those years.

From time immemorial, five Native American tribes in the South - the Chickasaw, Choctaw, Cherokee, Seminole and Creek - occupied a great domain from which portions of the states of Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi would be formed. These together are often referred to as the Five Civilized Tribes. As the 19th century began, white settlers began to move into their lands, and seeing the Indians as an impediment, petitioned the government for their removal. In Washington and in state capitals, Indians were increasingly viewed as the main obstacle to westward expansion. States and territories in which the Five Civilized Tribes lived established policies that the people of a state or territory were sovereigns within that jurisdiction’s lands, and that Indians were simply residents of that state or territory like any citizen. However, without active cooperation from Washington, these did not result in Indian removal. An 1802 federal law provided for the relocation of the tribes in Georgia to the new Louisiana Purchase as soon as could be amicably accomplished. Still no tangible action was taken to implement the law.

Andrew Jackson occupies a unique role in the history of this clash of civilizations. In 1814, Major General Jackson led an expedition against the Creek Indians climaxing in the Battle of Horse Shoe Bend (in present day Alabama near the Georgia border), where Jackson’s force soundly defeated the Creeks and destroyed their military power.

He then forced upon the Indians a treaty whereby they surrendered to the United States over twenty-million acres of their traditional land, about one-half of present day Alabama and one-fifth of Georgia. His next salvo was the 1820 Treaty of Doak’s Stand, also known as Treaty with the Choctaw. Jackson was sent as commissioner to conclude the treaty; this reflected the official perception at that time that the Indians’ concurrence by treaty was a necessity. The convention began on October 10 with a talk by “Sharp Knife,” the nickname given to Jackson, to more than 500 Choctaws. Chief Pushmataha accused Jackson of deceiving them about the quality of land west of the Mississippi. Jackson reportedly shouted “If you refuse ... the nation will be destroyed.” On October 18 the treaty was signed. The Choctaw agreed to give up approximately one-half of their homeland.

As the 1820’s developed, Jackson publicly took the position that these Native Americans were simply residents of a jurisdiction like anyone else. This translated well into his brand of popular democracy, which placed power and sovereignty in the hands of the people of a state or territory. He rode to victory in the 1828 Presidential election and was inaugurated on March 4, 1829. According to the Jackson Papers, he had two pressing concerns on taking office. The second was dealing with cabinet issues (the Peggy Eaton affair).

However, first and foremost was adopting an Indian policy, as Indian issues were a boiling fire. Between the time Jackson was elected and his inauguration, the states of Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi passed laws making tribes subjects to state dominion. But enforcement was an issue and local efforts to cajole tribes to move West hit a wall. Politicians bemoaned the contrast between the stated policy of removal and the laxity with which it was pursued. After he entered the White House, the clamor among Jackson’s core constituency for removal had risen to a high pitch. In his first address to Congress, the President supported this goal. In September 1829, he began iterating his policy in an organized way to these constituents, with his stated intention to remove the tribes. He circulated copies of his position to white supporters.

In October, Jackson received a letter from an influential Mississippi military man and mail contractor, Major David Haley. Haley, well known in the Choctaw nation, wrote that only action by Jackson himself would con-

Page 33

vince the Indians to move West. “The chiefs cannot prepare the indians for a treaty. This must be done by the government through some person that the Indians are well acquainted with who has influence with them. This person must go through the nation and call the indians in council in the different towns and reason with them...

This power must come directly from you.” Haley volunteered to do just this. He also included letters from others attesting to Choctaw unwillingness to submit to local law. They warned that any chief that dared advocate removal would be endangering his life. We know that Jackson met personally in the White House with Haley for two reasons. First, he has docketed Haley’s letter with the words, “Major Haley to be seen and conversed with on the within subject.” The second reason is this letter, newly discovered.

Jackson believed in the principle that leadership would come from him, and that the national government must take active leadership in forcing the issue. He accepted Haley’s offer, thus taking the first step in not only his active involvement but in dealing with the Indian problem decisively and ending it.

The President dictated a letter he handed to Haley, and it was taken by Haley himself to the seats of power in the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations, which were where this first confrontation would take place. The letter was to be read aloud by Haley, who was to assure them of its authenticity. It was carried by Haley throughout the southeastern stretches of the U.S. and was read to hundreds of Native Americans and their leaders. The original of this letter was lost to time, though from a draft it became famous and is quoted in countless books on the subject, such as Fathers and Children: Andrew Jackson and the Subjugation of the American Indian by Michael Paul Rogin. Until now, the real content of the letter Jackson gave Haley has been unknown. Some text has been lost, but the following is the final Letter Signed, likely in the hand of his nephew Andrew Jackson Donelson, Washington City, October 15, 1829, to Haley, presented and not mailed, and carried throughout the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations.

“Having kindly offered to be the bearer...of any communications to the Indians [through the] countries you will pass on your [way] home, which I might think proper to make to [them, I], take the liberty of placing in your hands [copies] of a talk made by me last Spring, to the [Creeks] which I wish you to show to the Chiefs of the...Choctaws. As far as this talk relates to the present situation and future prospects, it is their white brothers and my wishes for them to remove beyond the Mississippi, it [contains] the [best] advice to both the Choctaws and Chickasaws, whose happiness and...will certainly be promoted by removing [beyond] the Mississippi.

“Say to them as friends and brothers to listen [to] the voice of their father, & friend. Where [they] now are, they and my white children are too near each other to live in harmony & peace. Their game is destroyed and many of their people will not work & till the earth. Beyond the great river Mississippi, where a part of their nation has gone, their father has provided a co[untry] large enough for them all, and he ad[vises] them to go to it. There, their white...[will not trou]ble them, they will have no claim to [the l]and, and they & their children can live upon [it as] long as grass grows or water runs, in peace and plenty. It shall be theirs forever. For the improvements which they have made in the country where they now live, and for the stock which they [can]not take with them, their father will [sti]pulate, in a treaty to be held with them, [to] pay them a fair price.

“Say to my red Choctaw children, and my Chickasaw children to listen. My white children of Mississippi have extended their laws over their country; and if they remain where they now are...must be subject to those laws. If they will [remove] across the Mississippi, they will be free [from] those laws, and subject only to their own, and the care of their father the President. Where they now are, say to them, their father the President cannot prevent the operation of the laws of Mississippi. They are within the limits of that state, and I pray you to explain to them, that so far from the United States having a right to question the authority of any State to regulate its affairs within its own limits, they will be obliged to sustain the exercise of this right. Say to the chiefs & warriors that I am their friend, that I wish to act as their friend, but they must, by removing from the limits of the States of Mississippi and Alabama, and by being settled on the lands I offer them, put it in my power to be such.

“That the chiefs and warriors may fully understand this talk, you will please [go] among them and explain it; and tell [them] it is from my own mouth you have...it and that I never speak with a [forked] tongue.” Here a portion of a page is unclear.

However, using the text of the draft and extant final segments, it continues:

Page 34

“Whenever [they make up their] minds to exchange [their lands]...[for land] west of the river Mississippi, [that I will direct] a treaty to be held with them, [and assure them, that every] thing just & liberal shall [be extended to them in that treaty.]

Their improvements [will be paid for], stock if left will be paid [for, and all who] wish to remain as citizens [shall have] reservations laid out to cover [their improv]ements; and the justice due [from a] father to his red children will [be awarded to] them. [Again I] beg you, tell them to listen. [The plan proposed] is the only one by which [they can be] perpetuated as a nation....the only one by which they can expect to preserve their own laws, & be benefitted by the care and humane attention of the United States. I am very respectfully your friend, & the friend of my Choctaw and Chickasaw brethren. Andrew Jackson.”

Jackson’s changes are subtly interesting. In the published version, paragraph one, Jackson told the Indians that they must remove if they wanted to “preserve their Nation.” This threatening language was removed in the final.

In paragraph two he added that he was the Indians’ “father & friend.” In paragraph three, he adds that if the Indians “remain where they now are [they] must be subject to those [state] laws.” In the last paragraph, he underlines “Tell them to listen” and adds that only by listening can they “be benefitted by the care and humane attention of the United States.” So he is both shaving away some overtly threatening language while thrice insisting rather threateningly that the Indians listen, and also adding some points he saw as useful to his presentation.

This letter shows Jackson’s apparent view of the limitations on Presidential power under the Constitution. It also gives a glimpse of how the Constitution was maneuvered around to ignore its treaty-making provisions, and to unilaterally claim for states powers of supremacy over the federal government they did not have. It also is an irony that just four years later, this same President Jackson was denying that state laws could nullify federal power in his altercation with South Carolina.

On November 29, the message reached Choctaw Chief David Folsom. On December 14, the Missionary Herald reports that the Chief rejected removal. Folsom had fought side by side with Jackson years earlier and was the son of a white man and himself a Christian. The stage was set for a confrontation the Indians could not win.

In May 1830, in direct response to this rejection, Jackson promoted through Congress and signed into law the Indian Removal Act, allowing him to implement his goals under U.S. law. Then commenced the Trail of Tears. In 1831, the Choctaw were the first to be removed, and they became the model for all other removals. After the Choctaw, the Seminole were removed in 1832, the Creek in 1834, then the Chickasaw in 1837, and finally the Cherokee in 1838. $90,000

Page 35

Page 36

22

“If honored by election to the Presidency,” Zachary Taylor will remain “Uncommitted to the principles of either party” All through the beginning of 1848, the Whigs held meetings that acclaimed Taylor as their choice for the party’s presidential nomination. They tapped him because his long military record would appeal to northerners, while his ownership of slaves would lure southern votes. The potential candidate, though he clearly sympathized with the Whigs, was not enthused about running.

By the spring, however, he had been convinced to accept the nomination that would surely be tendered to him when the Whig convention met in June. The Taylor family tradition relates that he reluctantly agreed to accept the nomination when convinced it was for the good of the country. In June the Whig convention formalized his nomination. His campaign did not dwell on the details of matters in controversy, instead stressing that he would be a national rather than a regional president and that principle would prevail over politics.

As his biographer, K. Jack Bauer states, “Taylor viewed himself as a non-partisan figure attracting support from all parties.” His Democratic opponent, Lewis Cass, favored letting the residents of territories decide for themselves whether they wanted slavery, which in practice was a pro-southern position. The following campaign statement sets forth Taylor ’s core principles during his presidential campaign.

Letter Signed as virtual Whig nominee for president, Baton Rouge, La., March 26, 1848 to Dr. John Kearsley Mitchell, a noted Philadelphia physician and chemist who lectured in chemistry from 1833-1838 at the Franklin Institute and was professor of medicine at the Jefferson Medical College from 1841-1858. He was the father of the eminent physician, S. Weir Mitchell. “Your letter of March 7 has been duly received and perused with much pleasure.

I avail myself of this acknowledgment to express my sincere thanks for the kindness shown in the terms and views of your letter. Permit me to add, that I am now, as before so repeatedly avowed, in the hands of the people of the country. If honored by election to the Presidency I will strive to execute with fidelity the trust reposed in me, uncommitted to the principles of either party. But should they cast their votes for another, I shall truly rejoice that one more able than I is charged with the responsible duties of the Executive Chair. Should I visit Philadelphia, which is at this time a matter of very great improbability, I shall be most happy to remember your very courteous invitation.”

Taylor kept the campaign promise made here, and had he lived the Civil War might well have been avoided. When he took office in 1849, the issue that was pressing was the extension of slavery into the territories newly conquered from Mexico. Taylor strongly opposed the proposed Compromise of 1850,

Page 37

which he saw as opening up partisan competition to settle and control the territories, leading the nation into constant agitation and danger (as so it proved).

Under his plan, Taylor urged settlers in New Mexico and California to draft constitutions and apply for statehood immediately, bypassing the territorial stage altogether. This would save years of further bitter controversy and satisfy opponents of the expansion of slavery, since neither state constitution would be likely to permit that institution, as things stood then. Taylor was a slaveowner committed to defending slavery where it was already established and did not outright oppose any expansion of it. Thus, he believed, southerners whose position on slavery was less extreme could be brought along with him, isolating and marginalizing the “fire-eaters.”

In February 1850, Taylor held a stormy conference with extreme southern leaders who threatened secession. He told them that if necessary to enforce the laws, he personally would lead the army south and persons “taken in rebellion against the Union, he would hang...with less reluctance than he had hanged deserters and spies in Mexico.” A few months later he died mysteriously and his successor scrapped his plan and signed the Compromise of 1850. Taylor ’s family still remains convinced he was poisonsed. $7,200

23

James Garfield Signed Quotation on Tariffs in a Likely 1880 Presidential Campaign Statement Autograph Quotation Signed. “We provide for the common defence, and promote the general welfare of the nation by a tariff that protects its laborers.”

Tariffs had been fought over since the beginning of Washington’s first term, and were always a political football. However, from the 1850’s through the years leading directly up to Garfield’s presidential candidacy, tariffs had taken a far back seat to slavery, the Civil War and Reconstruction policies, emerging again as a major issue only during the 1880 campaign. Garfield and the Republicans supported a high tariff to protect U.S. industry and discourage imports, while Hancock and the Democrats supported one “for revenue only.”

Thus, while this statement could have been written just about anytime in Garfield’s post-war career, it seems most likely that it was written during the 1880 campaign, perhaps as a statement for publication. This is the only signed quotation by Garfield we have seen. Very good, with a few ink spots. $2,000

Page 38

24

President Millard Fillmore Signed Document Crawford Bell was one of the first pharmacists in Evansville, Indiana. He and his brother owned their own shop, and he was so popular among the physicians that they made him an honorary member of the Vanderburg County Medical Society. Perhaps to supplement his income, perhaps to make his shop a center of postal activity, he managed to secure a Federal postal appointment.

Document Signed as President, Washington, June 3, 1851, appointing Crawford Bell as Deputy Postmaster at Evansville, Indiana. Bell resigned a year later, apparently to concentrate on his pharmacy business. Sadly, he died in 1856 at age 36. This document has remained in the hands of his descendants until now. $1,200

Related items for your collection James Buchanan: The United States Needs to Be Governed by the Democratic Party $5,400 President Fillmore Has Faith That the North Will Come Around and Support The Compromise of 1850 $7,500

25

Page 39

Senator Andrew Johnson Endorsed Paycheck For Serving As the Only Southerner in Congress Fighting The Secession Wave in Early 1861 By the end of February 1861, South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas had seceded from the Union. Their representatives in Congress had all returned from Washington to their native states.

Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee were awaiting events, but their leaders were showing sympathy with their fellow-Southern states and insisting that they must not be coerced into remaining in the Union.

Thus, it was clear that their secession was a distinct possibility if the Federal government mounted a military response against already seceeded states. There was only one Southerner in Congress who took a position in opposition to secession no matter what it took - Senator Andrew Johnson of Tennessee, who in December 1860 made a firey anti-secession speech.

He followed up on this in an address on the floor of the Senate delivered on February 5-6, 1861, in which Johnson stated that he “planted myself...in vindication of the Union and the Constitution, and against the doctrine of nullification or secession...I am against this doctrine entirely. I commenced making war on it - a war for the Constitution and the Union - and I intend to sink or swim upon it.” He attacked the doctrine of secession in detail, pleaded that it was illegal and would destroy the government, and ended by saying, “I intend to stand by that flag, and by the Union of which it is an emblem...God preserve my country from treason and traitors!” He also warned that war could result from secession.

By May, all of the Southern states, including Johnson’s Tennessee, had seceded. But he did not return to Tennessee, he stayed at his desk in the Senate, representing not merely Tennessee, but the proposition that secession was illegal and that the Southern states were not truly out of the Union.

Just days before giving this speech, on February 1, 1861, Johnson’s pay as a Senator was due. He received this imprinted check drawn on the Treasurer of the U.S. for $510.21, and labeled at left as “Compensation,” made out to A. Johnson, and signed by Asbury Dickins, who was in his last year as Secretary of the U.S. Senate. The check is endorsed by Johnson in full on the verso, and a notation in another hand indicates that Johnson took the funds in gold. So here Johnson is paid for his work as the only Southrn Congressman not merely opposing secession, but fighting it.

A search of auction records fails to turn up another official paycheck for any person who became President in either the 18th or 19th centuries, nor can we recall having seen any. $4,000

Page 40

26

President Lincoln Aids General McClellan in Creating a Staff to Command in the Upcoming Peninsula Campaign

After the disappointing and embarrassing loss of the Battle of Bull Run on July 21, 1861, President Lincoln realized that the Union cause depended upon finding a new commander and developing a more professional army.

Impressed by Gen. George B. McClellan’s successful West Virginia campaign, Lincoln appointed him commander of the Army of the Potomac on July 26. McClellan reorganized and trained the army, and brought a high degree of discipline and spirit to its men. On November 1, feeling that the post needed the energy of a younger man, the elderly Winfield Scott, General-in-Chief of the Union armies, retired from his post. McClellan was named as his replacement on November 5, 1861. With this senior position in hand, and the support of the President and War Department, McClellan was now in a position to make strategy, develop master plans and move great armies. He quickly set about concepting an invasion of Virginia that would come to be known as the Peninsula Campaign, and building the command infrastructure that would be necessary to accomplish it.

McClellan addressed the President himself to secure appointments of the men he desired to be his staff officers.

Autograph Letter Signed, Head Qtrs. of the Army, Washington, December 10, 1861, to Lincoln. “I have the honor to request that Mr. Wm. F Biddle of Phila. may be appointed an aide de camp on my staff with the rank of Captain.” He signed the letter “Geo. B. McClellan, Maj. Gen. Comdg.” The President was anxious to comply, writing this Autograph Endorsement Signed, Washington, on the same date: “Let the appointment be made according to Gen. McClellan’s request. A. Lincoln.”

Records indicate that William F. Biddle was appointed one of McClellan’s aides de camp the same day, though his nomination for the rank of Captain came through somewhat later. He served on the General’s staff during the Peninsula Peninsula and was prominent enough to rate mention in a fine history of that campaign: To the Gates of Richmond by Stephen Sears, as well as in McClellan’s biography.

Lincoln’s honeymoon with McClellan was short-lived. The President soon became concerned about the general’s inaction and secrecy, while the general considered Lincoln an incompetent. The two men would square off in the 1864 Presidential election.

Page 41

Wardate letters of McClellan are uncommon enough. However, this letter, addressed to Abraham Lincoln and containing Lincoln’s return written endorsement complying with McClellan’s request, stands on its own as an exceptional rarity. Our search of auction records over the past 30 years shows no other. $13,500

Page 42

27

U.S. Grant Fully Approves Strong Reconstruction Measures, Despite Pres. Johnson’s Opposition In the lead-up to Johnson’s impeachment, Grant lauds General Meade’s removal of the Georgia Governor and Treasurer under the Reconstruction Acts In early 1867, Congress passed three Reconstruction measures.

On March 2, 1867, it enacted the First Reconstruction Act - “An Act to provide for the more efficient Government of the Rebel States”. This placed the South under military rule, set up 5 military districts, provided that a general be appointed to head each, and gave him authority to suppress southern opposition. This was supplemented on March 23, 1867 by the Second Reconstruction Act, that authorized the military commanders to supervise elections.

Johnson vetoed both acts, but his vetos were overridden. He then consulted Gen. U. S. Grant, and on March 11 selected the generals to administer the military districts, appointing John Pope for the district including Georgia.

In December 1867, a group convened in Atlanta to create a new state constitution, and in accordance with the demands of the Radical Republicans in Congress, to ratify the 13th and 14th Amendments and grant blacks the right to vote.

They instituted these reforms and more, protecting small farmers and giving women the right to own property.

The plantation, business and political interests that had traditionally maintained power, as well as many others in Georgia, were not too pleased by this interference (as they saw it.) The next month, Gen. George G. Meade, a colleague of Grant’s and former commander of the Army of the Potomac, succeeded Pope. He ordered the state to pay for the constitutional convention, but Treasurer John Jones refused, and the Governor, Charles Jenkins, fled the state with the executive seal and the Treasury funds. He deposited them in a New York bank to prevent Meade getting his hands on them. Using his power under the Reconstruction laws, and over President Johnson’s objection, Meade then removed both the Treasurer and Governor from office.

Grant was then commander-in-chief of the United States Army, and had just finished serving as interim secretary of war at President Johnson’s request. He was also the clear favorite for the 1868 Republican Presidential nomination, and widely considered a sure bet to be the nation’s next chief executive. His opinion on Reconstruction mattered. Here, amidst the Georgia controversy, he gave it, writing to Meade that he approved of his actions. He also made a rather snide reference to President Johnson, giving an insight into his true feelings about him.

Autograph Letter Signed on his Headquarters, Army of the United States letterhead, Washington, February 27, 1868, to Meade in Atlanta. “I am much obliged to you for your letter of the 22nd of February enclosing me copy of the President’s dispatch to you. I had been called upon for copies of the same correspondence by the President, and had furnished it, but I assume he expected to direct me in mutilating it. Before you removed the state Treasurer and Governor, the President received a dispatch from the latter notifying him that you contemplated such action. I told the President that I had received a dispatch from you in which you meditated removing the Treasurer but said nothing about removing the Governor.

This was before your final action which I heartily approved of, including the removal of the Governor.”

Johnson had his own troubles. Just the day before this letter was written, he replaced Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, despite Congress’s objection, and two days after, he was impeached. $6,000

28

Page 43

Gen. William T. Sherman Approves Battle Honors For the Flag of One of His Best Artillery Units Taylor’s Battery was organized early in the Civil War

by Ezra Taylor and was accepted into Federal service in July 1861 as Company B of the First Regiment, Illinois Volunteer Light Artillery. Approximately 207 members from the greater Chicago region fought under Generals William T. Sherman and Ulysses S. Grant, and they were recognized as one of the finest light artillery units in the Army. The battery’s six guns were heard at most of the great battles of the West.

Most people interested in the Civil War have seen pictures illustrating that in that conflict, units could put the names of battles in which they had participated directly on their flags. These were called “battle honors” and they could not be simply placed their on a unit’s whim; they had to be approved as worthy by boards of officers who sat to make just such determinations. Lieut. Israel Rumsey, in immediate command of the battery, felt, with justification, that his men deserved to be serving alongside flags with battle honors and wrote the Board of Officers for authorization.

Letter Signed by Rumsey, camp near Big Black River, Mississippi, August 8, 1863, to the Board of Officers to be convened at Corps Headquarters on August 12, 1863. “In pursuance of orders from headquarters 15th Army Corps...I herewith submit my claim that the battery of which I am commanding officer has ‘for gallantry and good conduct’ entitled itself to inscribe upon its banners the names of the following battles in which it has participated, I think with honor.” He then lists seven battles, including Belmont, Fort Donelson, Shiloh and Vicksburg, among others. On the verso, the request is approved by Maj. Ezra Taylor, who says he takes “great pride in endorsing this application.” That same day, Sherman agrees as well, asking that the document “be submitted to the Board.” The request was undoubtedly granted, as a flag from this unit from 1864 survives, and it has a number of these battle honors plus some additional ones.

In all our years in this field, this is the first letter relating to battle honors on flags that we have seen. We acquired it from the descendant of a Civil War general in whose family it had remained all these years. $3,500

Page 44

29

The Credo of Robert E. Lee A person’s life should “be marked by truthfulness, integrity, piety, ...virtue & usefulness” As he matured and his life and career progressed, Lee developed principles that he felt should clearly govern a person’s thoughts and actions. These were nothing less than principles to live by - a creed or credo. He saw these beliefs as outgrowths not merely of his philosophy but of his religion, and measured himself and others by how closely they adhered to - or lived up to - these measures. They were the source of his private motivations and his public personna. It was precisely because he was known as a man who held himself to the highest principles that he was selected to command the Confederate armed forces and was able to lead them so inspiringly. After the Civil War, Lee became a revered and even iconic figure, exerting extraordinary moral influence, again because he embodied those highest principles.

In “Reading the Man: A Portrait of Robert E. Lee Through His Private Letters” by Elizabeth Brown Pryor and Robert Edward Lee, the authors state Lee’s personal creed as “duty and diligence.” In “The Debate on the American Civil War Era,” author Hugh Tulloch claims them as “duty and selfcontrol.” In his monumental biography of Lee, Douglas Southall Freeman writes: “Equally was his religion expressed in his unquestioning response to duty. In his clear creed, right was duty and must be discharged...It was a high creed - right at all times and at all costs - but daily self-discipline and a clear sense of justice made him able to adhere to it.”

What did Lee himself have to say on this critical subject? Before the Civil War, he shared aspects of his credo in letters of advice to his children. In 1857, he wrote his daughter to be “satisfied in doing what is right & perfecting yourself in all usefulness.” Taking another and somewhat different tack after the war, on September 4, 1865, he wrote to a magazine publisher, “It should be the object of all to avoid controversy, to allay passion, give full scope to reason and to every kindly feeling. By doing this and encouraging our citizens to engage in the duties of life with all their heart and mind, with a determination not to be turned aside by thoughts of the past and fears of the future, our country will not only be restored in material prosperity, but will be advanced in science, in virtue and in religion.”

He also stated, “Duty is the most sublime word in our language. Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more. You should never wish to do less.” But perhaps the best statement of Lee’s credo came in a piece of private correspondence.

In January 1869, Mr. and Mrs. M.L. Karr of Carrollton, Kentucky had a son. There was a tradition in the Karr family of naming sons after the great men of the age; there was a George Washington Karr and a Thomas Jefferson Karr. This time, the Karrs were inspired by the example of Robert E. Lee and named their new son after him. Mrs. Karr wrote to the General to tell him, and he responded with a clear and broad exposition of his credo - words for the young man to live by, by the older man who indeed lived by them.

Autograph Letter Signed, Lexington, Va., February 13, 1869, to Mrs. M.L. Karr. “I am much obliged to you for the photograph of my young namesake. I trust that

Page 45

his present appearance betokens the future man. He has my fervent prayers that his career through life may be marked by truthfulness, integrity, piety, & that virtue & usefulness may be his constant aim.” The original post-marked envelope in Lee’s hand is also present. This letter was obtained by us directly from the Karr descendants and has never previously been offered for sale.

So we see that Lee here expanded upon some of his themes: “doing what is right,” as he advised his daughter, he essentially defined as “truthfulness” and “integrity;” he included and clarified religion by adding “piety”; and he defined duty as consisting of “virtue & usefulness.” This is the first time in our decades of experience that we can recall seeing a letter of Lee expounding his credo reach the market, nor does our search of auction records reveal another example in the past thirty years. $14,000

30

Robert E. Lee Twice Signed CDV, with an Additional Inscription to His Namesake on the Verso On May 3rd or 4th, 1869, just after visiting newly inaugurated President U.S. Grant at the White House, Robert E. Lee sat for noted photographer Mathew Brady. Brady produced CDVs of the photographs he took, and Lee himself obtained some copies.

Some months after receiving the above letter from Lee, the General sent the Karrs an autographed CDV from that sitting, with the Brady backstamp on the verso. Lee’s signature on the recto is somewhat faded. He also signed it on the verso to his young namesake, constituting another signature. $3,200

Page 46

31

Gen. George A. Custer Asks One of His Senior Officers to Command a Wing of the 7th Cavalry on His Black Hills Expedition Against the Sioux The expedition brought on a gold rush and war with the Sioux, which ended for Custer at Little Big Horn

The Black Hills in Dakota Territory was part of the Lakota Sioux reservation guaranteed by the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868. There had always been rumors of gold there, however, and by 1874 the frontier settlements, and indeed all those who sought to exploit the area, were putting pressure on the United States government to permit exploration. President Grant was not in favor of making an incursion into Sioux lands, but both the army commander, Lieut. Gen. Philip B. Sheridan, and the ranking general serving in the Dakotas, George A. Custer, were. With Grant not willing to forbid it outright, Sheridan ordered the reconnaissance of the Black Hills, allegedly to look for a site on which to build a fort.

The reconnaissance was organized and led by Custer, who brought along a photographer, several newspapermen and two prospectors — but who never once mentioned building a fort.

Custer prepared for the expedition into the Sioux lands at Fort Abraham Lincoln, which had been built just the year before near present-day Bismarck, North Dakota. There he brought together ten companies of his 7th Cavalry, obtained supplies, and hired guides and teamsters, as well as a large contingent of Indian scouts. Then he determined to divide the expedition force into two battalions, and set about selecting senior field officers to command them; and this would not prove to be easy. Joseph Green Tilford was a full major and brevet colonel, and he and Maj. Marcus Reno commanded the companies in Custer ’s 7th U.S. Cavalry. Reno was detached on another assignment, and as for Tilford, he was in ill health and had initially been given the choice of going or staying. Disliking Custer, he did not want to leave garrison duty on this hazardous venture. Custer secured one of Sheridan’s aides, Gen. George Forsyth, to command his right wing, but only Tilford seemed appropriate for the left wing, as he was nearby and familiar with the troops and terrain.

Letter Signed, Headquarters, Black Hills Expedition, Fort Lincoln, Dakota Territory, June 17, 1874, to Tilford, requesting that he join the expedition. “On the 13th instant, I addressed a communication to you making inquiries in regard to your desire to accompany the Black Hills Expedition, to which communication no reply has been received. Upon receipt of this communication, you will please inform these headquarters as to whether in your opinion you are able to take the field. I will add what I have stated in my former communication, that I strongly desire you to accompany the Expedition should there be no obstacle to your so doing.” Tilford hesitated in making his decision, or at least did not respond fast enough for Custer. This letter comes directly from the Tilford descendants and has never before been offered for sale. $8,500

32

Page 47

Gen. George A. Custer Implores Col. Tilford to Command a Wing on His Black Hills Expedition With the expedition set to start in less than a week, Custer still had no commander for half of his force. He virtually orders Tilford to accept the command.

Autograph Letter Signed, Fort Lincoln, Dakota Territory, June 26, 1874, to Tilford. “As the services of another field officer are greatly required by the cavalry of the expedition and as you had previously announced your readiness to take the field, while the medical officer reports you physically qualified, I have decided it best to give the expedition the

benefit of your services and in so doing I am sure the interests of the service will be promoted, since personally I will be extremely gratified.” As with the previous letter, this comes directly from the Tilford descendants and has never before been offered for sale. Tilford surely thought his duty was to lead his men at this important juncture and agreed, serving as wing commander on the expedition.

The expedition set out from Fort Lincoln on July 2, 1874. There were 110 wagons and about a thousand men in all. It reached French Creek on July 30, where the prospectors Ross and McKay immediately found a few flecks of gold in what is now the town of Custer. Gold was found in greater quantities three miles further east, where a “Permanent Camp” was established August 1-5.

Reconnaissance parties explored to the south and east while photographer W.H. Illingworth recorded a number of views in the surrounding area. Some of those who stayed behind sank a prospect shaft and filed the first gold claims. August 14 was the expedition’s last day in the Black Hills. Three weeks earlier this had been a completely unknown place, but soon the white world would be reading extensive stories and reports from the trail.

Not only was the expedition itself dramatic and eventful, but it would play a pivotal role in some of the bestknown events in the West. Newspaper stories lured a band of prospectors to the Black Hills within a matter of weeks, the first of thousands who would enter illegally despite treaty rights of the Sioux. The gold rush made white settlement a fait accompli and ruined any chance of peace with the Cheyenne and Sioux, who became bitter and refused to run from Custer in Montana two years later at Little Big Horn. The Sioux and the 7th Cavalry would face each other again in 1890, when an effort to disarm a band of Ghost Dancers went terribly wrong at Wounded Knee.

Tilford was on leave in 1876 and was not at Little Big Horn. He ended up serving 22 years in the cavalry, retiring as a Brigadier General on July 1, 1891. He is buried at Arlington National Cemetery. $11,000

Page 48

33

Alexander Graham Bell Acts Quickly to Corner the Market For Telephones Just three years after opening the 1st telephone exchange in the Unites States in 1877, he moves to the international scene The utility of the telephone was immediately obvious and its rise was a rapid one. However, it was the drive of its inventor, Alexander Graham Bell, that made its acceptance and installation happen so quickly.

Bell received a U.S. patent for the invention of the telephone on March 7, 1876. He soon displayed it at the Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia.

On June 25, 1876, at one end of the huge Machinery Hall, Bell demonstrated the invention by speaking into what looked to be an odd-shaped instrument attached to a wire. At the same time, a fair official at the far end of the hall heard the voice through a second instrument. This public demonstration was the first physical proof that the human voice could be carried through a wire. Attendees, including the Emperor of Brazil, marveled; Lord Kelvin saw it as “the most wonderful thing” he had seen in America. The Exhibition ended in November 1876. In 1877, Bell formed the American Bell Telephone Company, and that very year it opened the first telephone exchange (in New Haven, Connecticut) and laid the first long-distance telephone line. By the end of 1877, Mark Twain and President Rutherford Hayes became two of the first people to have a telephone.

Bell installed a phone booth inside the White House just outside the Oval Office; there would not be a telephone on a President’s desk for decades.

In 1879, the first telephone numbers were issued in Lowell, Massachusetts. Before that the operator had to memorize or look up people by their proper names to connect them. By 1880, Bell, through his parent company and its affiliates and subsidiaries, was expanding throughout the United States. This was an aggressive timetable that saw Bell start from scratch in Connecticut in 1877 and reach the Pacific coast in 1880.

But Bell was not satisfied with limiting his plans to the United States; he wasted no time whatever in going international. The Continental Telephone Company, an offshoot of Bell, received its charter in January 1880 and was assigned rights to the telephone patents internationally. Its first step would have to be to obtain national patents for the telephone in each target nation, for both the transmission of electronic sound waves (telephonics), as well as the equipment necessary (kindred contrivances) to give it practical use and commercial value. Such patents would enable Bell to sew up the market for the telephone in these countries.

Just months after receiving its charter, perhaps recalling the Brazilian Emperor ’s excitement, Continental Telephone was already moving to make the telephone a reality in South America.

Document Signed, Washington, May 7, 1880, giving the American Consul in Valparaiso, Chile, Jose D. Husbands, power of attorney to apply for patents for “any inventions connected with Telephonics and kindred contrivances in Chile.” Accompanying this is three other documents: one is a signed statement by Philip Mauro, attesting that this was signed in his presence by Bell; the second is a document signed by D.K. Carter, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, attesting that Mauro is a Notary Public in his jurisdiction; and the third is a document signed by Secretary of State William Evarts that Carter was in fact the Chief Justice of that court.

There is paper loss to the lower portion of the State Dept. form affecting Evarts signature, and some paper loss and repairs to the statement of witness by Mauro. However, interestingly, on the back there is an original label of The Continental Telephone Company, H.S. Russell, President, which identifies that company as owner of Bell’s Patents and Inventions in Russia, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Central and South America, and The West Indies.

This document both shows Bell’s brilliant, original business plan in action, and actually documents the initial spread of the telephone within three years of its inception. It is the first formative document of the telephone that we have had or recall seeing, and a search of auction records over the past three decades discloses no other.

$22,000

Page 49

Page 50

34

The Complete Inventory of a Slave-Holding Plantation Later Destroyed by the British During the War of 1812 This estate was the subject of an Act of Congress and a Federal Court Case Several years after the War of 1812, Congress set about compensating those families whose property and goods had been destroyed during that conflict. This included the passage in Congress of bills to give restitution, with the money to come out of the Treasury Department.

During the War of 1812, American troops were holding out at the plantation house of Michael Fenwick on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. The British arrived on the scene, burned the house and stole most of its contents.

House Resolution (H.R.) 586, on December 24, 1834, was passed and signed into “For the relief of the heirs of Michael Fenwick, deceased.” The family was paid $5,000 but in order to do so had to provide proof of the content and values of M. Fenwick’s estate at the time of their destruction.

Document Signed, Oversized, 8 full pages, “An Inventory of all and singular the goods and Chattels of Doctor Michael Fenwick, late of Saint Mary’s County.” August 15, 1805. This lists, among many other things, the name, age and value of his more than 20 slaves, his considerable livestock and farming tools, his furniture and dressings, his china and other kitchen utensils, a bust of Benjamin Franklin, and his set of books, among them Rush’s Inquiries, History of the French Revolution, Medical Pocket Book, Machbrides Practice of Physics, etc.... Among the other miscellaneous entries: “A parcel of old Physic Bottles,” “1 negro man called Frank aged about 60 years, 60 dollars. 1 negro man named Bill (rough carpenter), 25, 400 dollars... 3 work steers.” The total value of the estate reached $5,228.52, or about $100,000 in today’s currency, which is approximately the money later paid by the Treasury Department.

Separations at folds.

In addition to having its own interesting history, this is a rare glimpse into the daily life of a late 18th century / early 19th century family, with hundreds of listings stretching 8 full pages. This is the family document, the copy of the original filed in court. It is signed by the registrar of wills and was delivered by Nicholas Fenwick, administrator of Michael’s estate.

The estate of Fenwick later had to sue to have returned the papers delivered to prove the value of the estate, perhaps including this very document, as it was obtained from a descendent of Fenwick. The attorney for the government argued that it had the right to retain the papers, with the prosecution arguing contra.

This case appears in Cases Civil and Criminal in the United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia from 1801 to 1841. As Federal Court reporter William Cranch notes, the justice found in favor of the plaintiff. $2,000

35

Page 51

Gen. John J. Pershing Says Farewell to One of His World War I Commanders Upon His Retirement

James Dean Tilford was born in 1877 at Fort Lincoln, Nebraska, where his father (who was one of Custer ’s senior commanders) was serving with the 7th U.S. Cavalry. He joined the U.S. Army in 1898 and saw service during the Spanish-American War and in the Philippines during the insurrection. He was involved in the Ute Indian Campaign in South Dakota in 1907, the second Cuban Intervention in 1908 and was in Mexico in 1914 with the force commanded by General John J. Pershing. While in Cuba, he superintended the return of the remains of the USS Maine to the United States. When the U.S. entered World War I, Tilford was a major of cavalry and was quickly promoted to Colonel in command of the 314th Ammunition Train, 89th Infantry Division. He served in the St. Mihiel offensive and the Toul Sector, then was part of the post-war occupation force.

In 1923, his health led him to resign.

General Pershing knew Tilford well, from during the incursion in Mexico. Here he bids Tilford a farewell from the U.S. Army.

Typed Letter Signed on his Chief of Staff letterhead, Washington, March 1, 1923, to Tilford. “It is with regret that I note your retirement from active service on account of physical disability. I trust that being relieved from the exacting requirements of military service, you will fully regain your health, and good fortune will attend you in the new sphere of life which you have entered.” We obtained this letter from the Tilford descendants and it has never before been offered for sale.

$1,000

Page 52

36

Herbert Hoover: Stand For the Right in the Great Issues Before Us “The question as to who wins in these contests is to me of less importance than that we keep faith...”

When World War I began, Hoover was a consulting engineer in the mining industry, yet six years later his name was already being included in lists of potential presidential nominees. This letter gives us an insight into why.

In 1914 he was asked to organize and direct an American Relief Committee to aid U.S. citizens stranded in Europe. This was followed by his appointment as head of the Commission for Relief in Belgium, where his fine work in this highly visible office brought him fame.

When the U.S. entered the war in April of 1917, President Wilson appointed Hoover food administrator, with instructions to increase food production, reduce consumption, eliminate waste, stabilize prices and improve distribution. After the war ended, he went to Europe and established the American Relief Administration to assist in economic restoration and the feeding of millions of undernourished children. Returning to the U.S. in September 1919, with success after success to his credit, Hoover ’s friends launched a campaign to secure for him the Republican nomination for president. Here are the principles he intended to bring to the job.

Typed Letter Signed on American Relief Administration letterhead, 1 page 4to, June 22, 1920, to Robert Marden.”This is just a personal note to express in part my gratitude for the generous support which you have given to me.

It has indeed been a great honor to have you feel that I am fitted for the great office of President. The question as to who wins in these contests is to me of less importance than that we keep faith in the great issues before us. We shall have years of great trial in the solution of most difficult questions and, although we have not had our own way as to the tools for their solution, we have no less obligation to stand vigorously for the right handling of these issues.”

While he did not get the nomination, Americans were enthusiastic about Hoover ’s stands on principle. The new president, Warren G. Harding, made him Secretary of Commerce, a position he continued to hold under Harding’s successor, Calvin Coolidge. As head of the Department of Commerce, Hoover strengthened and expanded its activities, especially relating to federal regulation of the new technologies of radio broadcasting and commercial aviation. When Coolidge withdrew from the 1928 presidential race, the Republicans nominated Hoover on the first ballot. Hoover ’s letters seldom contain his political philosophy, so this one is exceptional. $1,500

37

Page 53

The Last Will and Testament of Warren G. Harding Signed the very day he left Washington for the final time Harding is much maligned as one of America’s worst presidents. His administration is commonly pictured as a failure, and he as a dim-wit snookered by his appointees (some of whom were found to be corrupt). This opinion was initially generated by the muck-raking books written during the Great Depression which saw the Roaring Twenties as a binge that led to disaster, and found in the deceased and defenseless president a convenient target.

However, his contemporaries felt very differently during his term, and he was widely respected and extremely popular. Moreover, his administration had some real accomplishments. It slashed taxes, established the Federal Budget Bureau, restored a protective tariff, and saw the postwar depression give way to a new surge of prosperity.

The Five Power Naval Treaty of 1922 made large cuts in the world’s navies, a significant step toward peace. Moreover, Harding openly advocated civil rights, at a time when it was certainly not fashionable. However, even as he worked to fulfill his responsibilities as president, Harding was not a well man. In midJanuary 1923, he caught what was thought of as a cold or influenza, but may have been abdominal angina. It lingered on and on, and by late February the President was weak and lacked stamina; nonetheless he pushed himself to take a strenuous trip to Florida. After he returned his intimates began to see troubling signs that Harding was ill, signs that would today be readily recognizable as cardiac disease but were less easily diagnosed then. His valet told one of the Secret Service detail that Harding couldn’t sleep at night, nor lie down, as he needed to be propped up to catch his breath. He was also short of breath playing golf, having to drag himself from hole to hole.

With the presidential election of 1924 was just a year away, Harding then planned a fateful trip to the west for June. He labelled it as a “Voyage of Understanding,” and designed it to show himself to the people and bring directly to them his administration’s programs and proposals. Harding’s political concept for the trip was sound, but he was not up to it physically. Mrs. Harding was sufficiently concerned to insist that physicians accompany them and remain as close to the President as possible at all times. On June 20, 1923, the day of departure, the presidential train was scheduled to leave Washington for St. Louis at 2:00.

Harding was already tired before leaving and this caused concern. In such a situation it was determined that the President should make his Last Will and Testament prior to getting underway.

Document Signed as president, 3 pages folio on carbon-like paper, Washington, D.C., June 20, 1923, being Harding’s actual will with his notation “Only true copy - signed and witnessed” on the first page. The will contains 15 clauses. The President leaves his wife real estate in their hometown of Marion, Ohio, including part of his old newspaper offices (“the east half of the Star office building”), and their home (“our residence on Mount Vernon Avenue”). He also gives her the income from most of his investments, stocks and bonds, during her life, providing that the principal be paid at her death to his brothers and sisters. She receives their personal property, with a specific notation that she may exercise her judgment in making gifts or donations of “any articles of historical value to any society, organization or person.”

Harding left his father the use of a home and some income on bonds and securities, and remembered with a small sum his wife’s grandchildren. His own nieces and nephews, however, received what was then the considerable sum of $10,000 each. He remained loyal to two of his chief employees from his newspaper days, giving them money “as a mark of my appreciation of the faithful service rendered to me in the conduct of The Marion Star.”

Other bequests were to two churches in Marion, and to the city of Marion itself, which he left fully $25,000 “to be applied in the creation of some permanent improvement...in any one of the three city parks.” Most interesting of all, in a sense, was his self-effacing request “that no part of my estate shall be expended for a monument other than a simple marker at my grave.” The will was witnessed by his long-time aide and secretary, George Christian, Charles Hard, and by Harding’s corrupt Attorney General, Harry Daugherty.

Our information is that a few small changes in this will were suggested by Daugherty, and that another copy was executed immediately after which superceded this one. Thus this copy was never probated and is not in a public record office in Ohio.

Page 54

Harding’s trip saw him cross the country by rail, meeting and speaking with the public and officials along the way. It was successful but so grueling that the President told his advance man that the return schedule needed to be modified to give him more rest, as “It will kill me. I just cannot keep up such a pace without dire consequences...”

After leaving Alaska, he was unwell in Vancouver. In Seattle he read his speech listlessly and appeared confused, then pronounced himself “exhausted.” The decision was taken to go immediately to San Francisco and stay for a few days of rest. On the way there Harding was breathless, uncomfortable and breathing heavily. His usually high blood pressure had dropped, and an examination disclosed that his heart was dilated and he had congestive heart failure. He was rushed to a suite in the Palace Hotel upon arrival, where his heart problem worsened. On August 2 the President was dead of a heart attack.

The nation was plunged into mourning. As the president’s ceremonial procession traveled from San Francisco to Washington, D.C., the New York Times said, “The public’s response is the most remarkable expression of affection, respect and reverence in U.S. history.”

Not wanting to worry the public, during his final days Harding’s advisors issued misleading bulletins from his bedside which stated that there was nothing seriously wrong with him, or which mentioned food poisoning, or that he was recovering. These did Harding a disservice, as rumors that he had been poisoned or had died suspiciously circulated widely. Thus rumors, rather than his accomplishments, were the focus of conversations about his death, though the truth was innocent. A unique document in our experience - the Last Will and Testament of a dying president, executed the day he left Washington for the last time. From the Forbes Collection. $9,500

38

Page 55

Franklin Roosevelt: Tammany Hall and Its Members Are Not “all objectionable” Tammany Hall was the name given to the Democratic political machine that dominated New York City politics for almost a century, directing the flow of money, patronage and votes in state and local elections. Roosevelt first came to public attention starting in 1911 as a reformer persistently fighting Tammany, a reform stance that cost him the 1914 Democratic U.S. senatorial nomination. After that, he held Tammany Hall at arm’s length, but avoided direct confrontations. He soon came to feel that the touch of Tammany was not always poisonous, and become a dedicated supporter of Al Smith, a progressive and effective governor but a Tammany man.

Once FDR was himself governor, however, he again sought to diminish Tammany’s power, helping force its Mayor James J. Walker from office. Roosevelt’s election as president was a dual setback for the machine.

The New Deal helped alter the demographic landscape of New York by making people less dependent on Tammany for jobs and assistance, and the election of anti-Tammany reformer and Roosevelt protege Fiorello LaGuardia removed City Hall from Tammany’s immediate control.

Still, it retained some of its power and Roosevelt maintained a nuanced position towards it - being essentially in opposition to the machine but not holding the fact of membership in Tammany against otherwise-qualified people.

James B.M. McNally was a New York Democrat and Tammany member. Roosevelt liked his qualifications and named him U.S. District Attorney for the Southern District of New York in 1943. There was initially opposition to the nomination on the grounds of McNally’s Tammany affiliation, but FDR stuck with him and the opposition dissipated. McNally went on to a distinguished career as Justice of the New York Supreme Court. This letter defending his choice perfectly illustrates FDR’s stance on Tammany Hall.

Typed Letter Signed as President on White House letterhead, Washington, June 29, 1943, to his long-time personal friend, Charles C. Burlingham, a New York lawyer and perhaps the leading municipal reformer of the time. “I am glad to have your second note about McNally and to know that the Bar Association has withdrawn its objection to him. I fully understand your point of view - even though I have never voted in New York City. The fact remains that tens of thousands of people in New York City voted the Democratic ticket and tens of thousands of people are members of Tammany Hall.

I do not think they are all objectionable for that reason!”

This is our first Roosevelt letter on the subject of the Tammany machine, and it is an extremely frank one. Only in a letter to someone he trusted implicitly would the normally reticent FDR have confided his true, mixed feelings about Tammany. $3,700

Page 56

39

Churchill Letter as Prime Minister, Just Days After Receiving the Nobel Prize For Literature

1953 was a great year for Churchill. He was two years into his second and final term as Prime Minister, and had the pleasure of holding that office during the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II in June. In April, during the lead-up to that event, Churchill accepted an offer by the Queen to become a member of the Order of the Garter, which comes with a title, an honor he had declined after World War II. Thus he not only attended the coronation as the nation’s leader, but as Sir Winston Churchill. Then, on December 10, in Stockholm, Sweden’s King Gustav Adolf handed out the 1953 Nobel Prizes, with the Literature Prize going to Churchill. It was received for him by Lady Churchill.

Canadian G.C. Temple was a friend of fellowCanadian Lord Beaverbrook, who was also a friend of Churchill’s.

Typed Letter Signed on 10 Downing Street letterhead, London, December 18, 1953, to Temple, who had written him with some verses of approval, likely at Beaverbrook’s suggestion. “I am indeed obliged to you for your letter of December 17, which has given me much pleasure.” The original postmarked envelope is still present. Letters of Churchill as Prime Minister are uncommon, and we obtained this one direct from the Temple descendants; it has never before been offered for sale. $3,000

Related items for your collection President Franklin Roosevelt Seeks a Back Channel to the British Leadership $9,000

During Britain’s Finest Hour, Winston Churchill Thanks the American People for Their Support $24,000

40

Page 57

President Harry Truman Seeks Support For His Civil Rights Legislation “Our goal should be the protection and security that can be given all our people under a civil rights program designed to meet the needs of our times.”

Harry S. Truman was the first President of the United States in the 20th century to take action on civil rights because of moral imperative. In 1946, he named a President’s Committee on Civil Rights, which in late 1947 presented him with a report that was radical for its time. Truman embraced, rather than shyed away from, its contents. Just a few months later, in February 1948, in an election year when his position would surely cost him more votes than he could hope to gain, Truman sent the first Special Message to Congress to deal specifically with civil rights. He wrote Congress that his first goal “is to secure fully our essential human rights. I am now presenting to the Congress my recommendations for legislation to carry us forward toward that goal...We shall not, however, finally achieve the ideals for which this Nation was founded so long as any American suffers discrimination as a result of his race, or religion, or color, or the land of origin of his forefathers...We cannot be satisfied until all our people have equal opportunities for jobs, for homes, for education, for health, and for political expression, and until all our people have equal protection under the law.” A Gallup poll indicated that a majority of the American people opposed Truman’s civil rights proposals. This was especially so in the South, where opposition arose that resulted in Strom Thurmond running for President as a Dixiecrat, with the aim of taking enough votes from Truman to make the south the swing bloc and be in a position to dictate civil rights policy. Congress balked at passing the measures Truman sought.

On July 26, 1948, after forcing a pro-civil rights platform on a hesitating Democratic National Convention, Truman issued executive orders desegregating the armed forces and ending discrimination in the Federal work force.

This was a major victory for civil rights advocates. In the election in November, Truman won but barely avoided finding the Dixiecrats as kingmakers, which would have derailed hopes for civil rights at the time. After his inauguration in 1949, Truman remained dedicated to his civil rights program; but while he could issue executive orders and make discrimination-free appointments (naming the first black Federal judge, William Hastie, that year), he was unable to get Congress to pass civil rights legislation. He began looking for support everywhere he could.

Typed Letter Signed as President, Washington, March 20, 1949, to New York State Supreme Court judge Meier Steinbrink, chairman of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith. That organization had taken a strong civil rights stand and given Truman an award for promoting democracy. “I am sincerely grateful to have been selected as the recipient of the America’s Democratic Legacy Award, given annually by your distinguished organization...I am aware of the vigorous educational program and the practical efforts by your organization to foster an understanding of democratic rights and responsibilities. Your definition of America’s democratic legacy is admirable. It is indeed a force in the hearts and minds of the people. Our goal should be the protection and security that can be given all our people under a civil rights program designed to meet the needs of our times.

Such a program I have placed before Congress...In the effort to have it translated into law, I shall look forward to the support of organizations such as yours.”

Truman never did manage to get a civil rights program through Congress, though his Supreme Court appointees began making important rulings finding that the “separate but equal” premise of segregation was a farce and thus chipping away at segregation itself. Shortly before leaving office, Truman’s Justice Department filed an amicus brief in Brown vs Board of Education, advocating an end to segregation in schools. A year after he left office, the Supreme Court supported that position by forcing desegregation, in one of the most important cases it ever adjudicated. It would take until 1964 for Congress to act. $3,000

Page 58

41

“Brown vs Board of Education” - The Complete Opinion For the Most Important Case of the 20th Century, Signed by Chief Justice Earl Warren From the Civil War until 1954, race relations in the U.S. had been dominated by racial segregation. This policy had been endorsed in 1896 in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson, which held that as long as the separate facilities for the separate races were “equal,” segregation did not violate the Constitution.

There developed a pervasive scheme of segregation laws in many states, all based on the fiction that separate facilities were equal. In 1951, as directed by the NAACP leadership, thirteen black parents attempted to enroll their children in the closest neighborhood school but were each refused enrollment and directed to the segregated schools. A class action suit was filed by the parents against the Board of Education of the City of Topeka, Kansas in the U.S. District Court. The plaintiffs claimed that the policy of the school board was unconstitutional, despite Plessy v.

Ferguson.

The case made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and that Court determined to make a sweeping ruling on Constitutionality that would effect the nation rather than make a limited one that would be restricted to the particular facts of the case. With Chief Justice Earl Warren writing the opinion, on May 17, 1954, the Court rejected and overturned the “separate but equal” doctrine adopted in Plessy v. Ferguson, thus attacking the very root of the problem, and held that state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students denied black children equal educational opportunities and were thus unconstitutional. As Warren wrote for a unanimous Court, “We come then to the question presented: does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other ‘tangible’ factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does...We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Typescript of the entire opinion, 9 pages, signed by Warren at the conclusion. The document comes from the collection assembled by Eugene Gerhart, a prominent attorney in upstate New York and the biographer of Justice Robert Jackson. It is just the second such signed Brown opinion we have seen in our decades in the field. Judging from the surviving invoice of a companion piece, this was likely obtained by Gerhart in 1970.

Not since the Dred Scott case pushed the country closer to Civil War a century previous has a Supreme Court decision had such impact. It not merely led to desegregation of schools, but paved the way for the civil rights movement, with the end of Jim Crow laws, widespread integration, and a different conception altogether of race relations. $7,000

Page 59

Page 60

42

“Brown vs Board of Education II” - The Complete Opinion For the Case That Set the Standard “With all deliberate speed,” Signed by Chief Justice Earl Warren Many Southern states and school districts responded to the Brown case decision by resisting, delaying, and avoiding significant integration, using such tactics as closing down school systems, using state money to finance segregated “private” schools, and token integration where a few carefully selected black children were admitted to former white-only schools but the vast majority remained in underfunded, unequal black schools. These actions were clearly inadequate to comply with the ruling. Moreover, school districts ordered to desegregate were requesting clarification on timing and relief from the imminent burdens of this task.

In 1955, the U.S. Supreme Court considered arguments made by them and issued a new decision, which became known as “Brown II.” With Chief Justice Earl Warren writing the opinion, on May 31, 1955, the Court delegated the task of carrying out the details of school desegregation to district courts, with orders that desegregation occur “with all deliberate speed.” That phrase became the best known of all standards related to desegregation.

The Court reaffirmed “the fundamental principle that racial discrimination in public education is unconstitutional.” It then went on to set the standard for desegregation, holding that “the courts will require that the defendants make a prompt and reasonable start toward full compliance with our May 17, 1954, ruling. Once such a start has been made, the courts may find that additional time is necessary to carry out the ruling in an effective manner.

The burden rests upon the defendants to establish that such time is necessary in the public interest and is consistent with good faith compliance at the earliest practicable date. To that end, the courts may consider problems related to administration, arising from the physical condition of the school plant, the school transportation system, personnel, revision of school districts and attendance areas into compact units to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis, and revision of local laws and regulations... The...cases are remanded to the District Courts to take such proceedings and enter such orders and decrees consistent with this opinion as are necessary and proper to admit to public schools on a racially nondiscriminatory basis with all deliberate speed the parties to these cases.”

Typescript of the entire opinion, 4 pages, signed by Warren at the conclusion. The document comes from the collection assembled by Eugene Gerhart, a prominent attorney in upstate New York and the biographer of Justice Robert Jackson. It is the only signed copy of the Brown II opinion we have ever seen. Its original surviving invoice indicates that this was obtained by Gerhart in 1970 from noted dealer Paul Richards. $3,500

Page 61

Page 62

43

Ronald and Nancy Reagan Sign Photographs to James and Sarah Brady To James and Sarah Brady

James Brady achieved a lifelong career goal with his appointment by President Ronald Reagan in January of 1981 to be Assistant to the President and White House Press Secretary.

However, his service was interrupted on March 30, 1981, when John Hinckley attempted to assassinate the President, and shot both Reagan, Brady, and two law enforcement officers. Although seriously wounded by the gunshot wound to the head, and unable to actually serve, Brady remained the official White House Press Secretary until the end of the Reagan Administration.

After Reagan left office, Brady and his wife Sarah dedicated themselves to the campaign for stronger gun control laws. Sarah became the chair of Handgun Control, Inc. and has been particularly outspoken and effective. As a result of their efforts, on November 30, 1993, President Clinton signed into law the “Brady Bill”, which requires a national waiting period and background check on all handgun purchases through licensed dealers.

Signed photographs. We offer two 8 by 10 inch color photographs in the White House: one shows the President with Mrs. Brady, and is inscribed “Dear Sarah - With Warmest Regard &Friendship, Ron”; the other shows both Reagans with the Bradys, and is inscribed “To my Y & H, with my love, Nancy”. Y&H [young and handsome] was Mrs. Reagan’s nickname for Brady. This latter photograph has the date April 7, 1983 stamped on the back, indicating that the inscriptions were written out during the Reagans’ White House years. $2,500

Related items for your collection Johnson Foreshadows Silicon Valley in Supporting “high technology R&D efforts” $3,500 Reagan Invites ex-CIA Director McCone to Be an Honorary Delegate to 1972 Republican Convention $2,000