Let it be signified to me through any channel, (say Mr. J. Rhea,) that he possession of the Floridas would be desirable to the United States, ind in sixty days it will be accomplished.

"The order being given for the possession of Amelia island, it ought to be executed, or our enemies, internal and external, will use it to the disadvantage of the government. If our troops enter the territory of Spain, in pursuit of our Indian enemy, all opposition that they meet with must be put down, or we will be involved in danger and disgrace. "I have the honor, &c.

"JAMES MONROE, President U. S."

"ANDREW JACKSON.

The account of the reception of this letter has been given; but Mr. Calhoun's "correspondence" contains no information of an answer, other than that Mr. Calhoun, after having perused the letter, said to Mr. Monroe, that it was a confidential one, which he (Mr. M.) must answer. Gen. Jackson in his "Exposition," says: "In accordance with the advice of Mr. Calhoun, and availing himself of the suggestion contained in the letter, Mr. Monroe sent for Mr. John Rhea, (then a member of congress,) showed him the confidential letter, and requested him to answer it. In conformity with this request, Mr. Rhea did answer the letter, and informed Gen. Jackson that the president had shown him the confidential letter, and requested him to state that he approved of its sug gestions. This answer was received by the general on the second night he remained at Big Creek, which is four miles in advance of Hartford, Georgia, and before his arrival at Fort Scott, to take command of the By the secret act of congress, the president was authorized, under circumstances then existing, to seize and occupy all Florida. Orders had been given which were sufficiently general in their terms to cover that object. The confidential correspondence and general understanding, made them, so far as regarded the parties, as effectually orders to take and occupy the province of Florida, as if that object had been declared on their face."

troops in that quarter.

The "Exposition" quotes from several letters subsequently written. to him by Mr. Calhoun, expressions of approval of the measures adopted by him to terminate the war; and adds: "On the 25th of March, 1818, I informed Mr. Calhoun that I intended to occupy St. Marks, and on the 8th of April, I informed him that it was done. Not a whisper of disapprobation or of doubt reached me from the government. On the 5th of May, I wrote to Mr. Calhoun that I was about to move upon Pensacola, with a view of occupying that place. Again, no reply was ever given disapproving or discountenancing this movement. On the

2d of June, I informed Mr. Calhoun that I had on the 24th of May entered Pensacola, and the 28th had received the surrender of the Baran cas. Again, no reply was given to this letter expressing any disapproval of these acts. In fine, from the receipt of the president's reply to my confidential letter of the 6th of January, 1818, through Mr. Rhea, until the receipt of the president's private letter, dated 19th July, 1818, I received no instructions or intimations from the government, public or private, that my operations in Florida were other than such as the presi dent and secretary of war expected and approved."

To show, farther, that his course was approved by Mr. Calhoun, the general gives extracts from letters of Col. A. P. Hayne, who had served in this campaign, and had gone to Washington to settle his accounts. He was a friend and fellow-citizen of Mr. Calhoun. Writing to Gen. Jackson on the 24th of September, 1818, he says: "The course the administration has thought proper to adopt, is to me inexplicable. They retain St. Marks, and in the same breath give up Pensacola. Who can comprehend this? [This is explained in the instructions to surrender the posts, but of which, probably, Col. Hayne was not then apprised.] Indeed, sir, I fear that Mr. Monroe has on the present occasion yielded to those about him. I can not believe that it is the result of his honest convictions. Mr. Calhoun certainly thinks with you altogether, although after the decision of the cabinet, he must of course nominally support what has been done." And in another letter, of Jan. 21, 1819, after stating that he had traveled through several states, and that the people of the states and the people of the United States at large approved the conduct of the general in every respect, says: "So does the administration, to wit: Mr. Monroe, Mr. Calhoun, and Mr. Adams. Mr. Monroe is your friend. He has identified you with himself. After the most mature reflection and deliberation upon all of your operations, he has covered your conduct. But I am candid to confess, that he did not adopt this line of conduct (in my mind) as soon as he ought to have done. Mr. Adams has done honor to his country and himself."

Gen. Jackson then gives the statements of several gentlemen, who had told him in 1823, '24, and '25, that he had blamed Mr. Crawford wrongfully, and that Mr. Calhoun was the instigator of the attacks made upon him. Many other facts are given by the general to substantiate his charge of duplicity against Mr. Calhoun; but we have, perbaps, already occupied too much space with details of this controversy -more, certainly, than we should have done, but for the additional light which this correspondence throws upon the transactions of the Florida war. Upon this subject we take occasion to remark, that,

whether Gen. Jackson did or did not strictly and literally conform to the orders of the government, an unprejudiced mind can scarcely resist the conclusion, after a careful examination of the question, that Gen. Jackson believed his proceedings fully authorized by his instructions from the government.

With respect to the main question, a correct opinion is not easily formed. The statements and testimony of the parties are so directly contradictory as to be irreconcilable with the honesty and veracity of all concerned in this affair; and yet, after the lapse of twenty-five years, when the public judgment is far less influenced by personal predilections, it would perhaps be as unsafe to fix the guilt upon any particular individual as it was at the time of the controversy. The integrity so generally conceded to Mr. Calhoun during a long public career, as well as the correctness of his private life, has been considered by his friends as sufficient to shield him even from a suspicion of falsehood. And yet, whatever may be the facts of the case, it will scarcely be alleged that the "correspondence," on the whole, is sufficient to sustain his charges against Gen. Jackson and Mr. Van Buren..

CHAPTER XLIV.

DISSOLUTION OF GEN. JACKSON'S CABINET.-MR. VAN BUREN'S REJECTION AS MINISTER TO ENGLAND.-CASE OF THE CHEROKEES.

SCARCELY had the last of the "Calhoun correspondence" been given to the public, when an event occurred which served to increase and protract the excitement which the controversy had produced. It was the dissolution of Gen. Jackson's cabinet-the consequence, as was alleged, of the rupture between the president and vice-president. Other occurrences, however, seem to have had a large share in producing the cabinet explosion.

Although the members of the cabinet were on friendly terms with each other, they differed in their preferences as to the successor of Gen. Jackson. The secretaries of the treasury and of the navy were the political friends of Mr. Calhoun. The secretary of war and the postmastergeneral favored Mr. Van Buren, secretary of state, the competitor of Mr. Calhoun for the succession. The vice-president, who had been the early supporter of Gen. Jackson had possessed a larger share of his

confidence than the secretary of state, who had more recently come over to his support. The latter, however, had at this time acquired a controlling influence over the president, and had secured his preference for the succession.

On the 7th of April, 1831, Mr. Eaton, the secretary of war, tendered his resignation to the president, assigning as the reason, that he had entered the cabinet contrary to his own wishes, intending at "the first favorable moment, after the administration should be in successful operation, to retire." This resignation was followed by that of Mr. Van Buren, on the 11th, who alleged, as the cause, the premature agitation of the question of Gen. Jackson's successor, which it had been his anxious wish and zealous endeavor to prevent. Continuing a member of the cabinet while occupying the relation to the country which he then did, (that of a candidate for the presidency,) might have an injurious effect upon the conduct of public affairs; and he therefore felt it his duty to resign.

Having been informed of the president's purpose to reorganize his cabinet, the secretaries of the treasury and of the navy communicated their resignations on the 19th of April; that of the attorney-general was delayed until the 15th of June. The letters of acceptance of the resignations of the retiring cabinet officers, bore full testimony to their integrity and fidelity in the discharge of their official duties. In these published resignations and the acceptance of them, there were no indications of any personal differences between any of these officers and the president.

The new cabinet was composed of Edward Livingston, of Louisiana, secretary of state; Louis M'Lane, of Delaware, (recalled from London for that purpose,) secretary of the treasury; Lewis Cass, of Ohio, secretary of war; Levi Woodbury, secretary of the navy; Roger B. Taney, of Maryland, attorney-general; and William T. Barry, of Kentucky, was continued postmaster-general, until 1835, when, having been appointed minister to Spain, he was succeeded by Amos Kendall, fourth auditor of the treasury. Mr. Van Buren was appointed minister to England in the place of Mr. M'Lane. Mr. Eaton was made governor of Florida, and, in 1836, was appointed minister to Spain in the place of Mr. Barry, deceased.

There had been much speculation as to the causes of the dissolution of the cabinet; and from certain remarks of Mr. Branch in a letter of May 3, 1831, to a friend in North Carolina, some interesting development was anticipated. Mr. B. says: "The people have a right to know the whole truth; from whence the alleged discord originated; by whom and for what purpose it had been fostered; and in what respect and

wherefore it has been connected with the public administration of the affairs of the nation." He had gone as far as a man of honor could go, to promote harmony in the cabinet; but he had been expected to go still farther, and not having done so, it had been held good cause for his dismissal.

The public anxiety was soon relieved. The United States Telegraph, which had become the organ of Mr. Calhoun and his friends, anticipated forthcoming disclosures by the following among other significant questions: "Will the Globe deny that Mr. Ingham, Gov. Branch, and Mr. Berrien were dismissed because they refused to compel their families to associate with that of Major Eaton ?" There had been unfavorable reports in circulation respecting Mrs. Eaton, who, though she may have been as chaste as the wife of Cæsar, was unfortunately not, like her, above suspicion. As these reports had seriously affected her standing in society at Washington, the three gentlemen above named had interdicted social intercourse between their families and Mr. Eaton's. Mr. Eaton and his wife being favorites of the president, this regulation of the two secretaries and the attorney-general excited his resentment; and Col. Johnson, a member of congress, it was alleged, had previously waited on them, and informed them that it was the president's determi nation to remove them unless they conformed to his wishes in this matter.

A few days before Mr. Ingham left Washington for his residence in Pennsylvania, he received a letter from Mr. Eaton, saying that the Telegraph contained the remark, that "the families of the secretaries of the treasury and of the navy and of the attorney-general refused to associate with her," (Mrs. Eaton ;) and as that paper was friendly to Mr. Ingham, he desired to know whether he (Mr. I.) sanctioned or would disavow this publication. Mr. Ingham, in a brief reply, considers the demand too absurd to merit an answer; and concludes by saying: "I take the occasion to say, that you must be not a little deranged to imagine, that any 'blustering of yours could induce me to disavow what all the inhabitants of this city know, and perhaps half the people of the United States believe to be true." The answer charges Mr. Ingham with having added insult to injury, and demands "satisfaction for the wrong." In his reply Mr. I. says: "I perfectly understand the part you are made to play in the farce you are made to act before the American people. I am not to be intimidated by threats, or provoked by abuse, to any act inconsistent with the pity and contempt which your condition and conduct inspire." Mr. Eaton closes the correspondence calls Mr. La "great coward"-a "contemptible fellow"--and says: “Nothing more will be received short of an acceptance of my demand of Satur«