ANTON CHAITKIN (1984), Treason in America -- From Aaron Burr to Averell Harriman
PART II - The True History of the Civil War
Chapter 7 - How Boston's Brahmins Sought to Destroy the United States, pps. 95-108
In the spring of 1808, the future President of the United States, Senator John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts, held an urgent and confidential meeting with President Thomas Jefferson. Adams's message was that members of his own party the New England Federalists, were engaged in a plot to bring about a secession of the states of New England from the United States.(1)
Reduced to the most essential points, what Senator Adams revealed to President Jefferson was the following: A group of leading merchant and banking families of the Federalist Party in New England called the Essex Junto, was working in close collaboration with agents of the British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) operating out of Boston. in their effort to bring about an early secession these treasonous plotters were playing upon the discontent caused by the President's total embargo against all foreign trade.
Adams advised the President to change the terms of the foreign-trade embargo, to limit the prohibition on foreign trade only to trade with Britain and France. It had been the naval forces of Britain and France which had been preying among U. S. shipping. Jefferson accepted Adams's advice. The advice successfully weakened the secessionists' organizing efforts for the moment.
This incident leads us directly to the true causes of the great civil war which destroyed a half-million American lives during 1861-1865, equal to the combined total U.S. deaths in World Wars I and II.
In the series of chapters composing the present, second section of our report on Treason in America, we focus our attention on those leading New England families which gave us such institutions as the Bank of Boston and such notable figures as William and McGeorge Bundy today. We document the leading features of their plot to destroy the United States, a plot which we trace here from their effort to elect the traitor Aaron Burr President of the United States, in 1800, into their role in creating the Confederacy from the inside during the 1850s, in close collaboration with Britain's Lord Palmerston and the British Secret Intelligence Service. The general flavor of the New England plotters' outlook is shown by examining sections of the correspondence among some of the leading members of the plot during the years 1803-1804, four years before Senator Adams's report to President Jefferson.
At the time Senator Adams delivered that report, leading members of the Essex Junto were known to have included the following prominent personalities:
- Massachusetts Senator George Cabot;
- the recently deceased Judge John Lowell (ancestor of the Bundys) and his son, John ("The Rebel") Lowell;
- former Secretary of State Timothy Pickering;
- merchant Stephen Higginson;
- Massachusetts Supreme Court Justice Theophilus Parsons; and
- Aaron Burr's brother-in-law, Judge Tapping Reeve of Litchfield, Connecticut.
plotters are taken.
George Cabot to Timothy Pickering, February 14, 1804:
At the same time that I do not desire a separation at this moment, I add that it is not practicable without intervention of some cause which should be very generally felt and distinctly understood as chargeable to the misconduct of our southern masters . . . the essential alteration which may in the future be made to amend our form of government will be the consequences of only a great suffering, or the immediate effects of violence.... Separation will be unavoidable, when our loyalty to the union is generally perceived to be the instrument of debasement and impoverishment. If a separation should, by and by, be produced by suffering, I think it might be accompanied by important ameliorations of our theories.(2)A picture of the fellow-plotter to whom George Cabot wrote those observations is provided by excerpts from two items Timothy Pickering's correspondence. The first is addressed one Richard Peters, and is dated December 24, 1803:
Although the end of all our Revolutionary labors and expectations is disappointment, and all our fond hopes of republican happiness are vanity, and the real patriots of '76 are overwhelmed by modern pretenders to that character, I will not yet despair: I would rather anticipate a new confederacy, exempt from the corrupt and corrupting influence of the aristocratic Democrats of the South. There will be-- and our children at farthest will see it--a separation. The white and the black population will mark the boundary. The British Provinces, even with the assent of Britain, will become members of the Northern confederacy. . . "(3)and, the second, to George Cabot, dated January 29, 1804:
I do not believe in the practicability of a long-continued union. A Northern confederacy would unite congenial characters, and present a fairer prospect of public happiness; while the Southern States, having similarity of habits, might be left "to manage their affairs in their own way." . . . I greatly doubt whether prudence should suffer the connection to continue much longer.... But when and how is a separation to be effected? ... If ... Federalism is crumbling away in New England, there is not time to be lost ... Its last refuge is New England; and immediate exertion, perhaps, its only hope. It must begin in Massachusetts. The proposition would be welcomed in Connecticut; and could we doubt of New Hampshire? But New York must be associated; and how is her concurrence to be obtained? She must be made the centre of the confederacy. Vermont and New Jersey would follow of course, and Rhode Island of necessity. Who can be consulted, and who will take the lead?(4)From the correspondence of plotter Tapping Reeve, to Connecticut Senator Uriah Tracy, on February 7, 1804:
I have seen many of our friends; and all that I have seen, and most that I have heard from, believe that we must separate, and that this is the most favorable moment. The difficulty is, How is this to be accomplished?(5)The immediate origin of this conspiracy, the Essex Junto, had been the organizing activities of a topmost British SIS intelligence operative, Sir John Robison, during the years 1796-1797. Robison, long a British spy and diplomat in the Russian part of SIS's service, had been promoted to high rank
at the Edinburgh office of SIS, from whence he had been deployed to conduct operations on the ground inside the United States.
Although, as we shall see, the kernel of the conspiracy had been New England partners of the Aaron Burr network dating from the outbreak of the War of 1776- 1783--New England families closely tied to the pro-British Tories during that war--it was Robison's activities which aided most in crystallizing such treasonous potentialities into the plot concocted during 1796-1797. From then, to the present day, the family traditions and financial connections of those circles have been intimately associated with the British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), and to the British East India Company and its spin-offs. Every step taken by the traitors was taken in concert with Britain, and frequently also in collaboration with powerful financier families of Venice, as well as such Swiss families as the Mallet, de Neuflize, and Schlumberger.
The Eastern Establishment
Apart from these families whose names are still well-known today, the terrible war of 1861-1865 was brought into being by other traitors, whose names are generally unknown today, but who include nonetheless prominent national figures of the United States in their time. These included men such as John Slidell, the political boss of Louisiana, who was an important but clandestine architect of the war.
Although this report is based on primary documents from the pens of the principal figures of each part of the period covered, the truth of this matter is systematically avoided in popular and university accounts of our nation's history. What we are reporting is the actual history of the United States during these periods, not the forgeries bought and paid for after the fact by later generations of the guilty families, nor the fraudulent history of the United States manufactured by such as Charles A. Beard, Walter Lippmann, and Arthur Schlesinger.
We wish to stress once again, at this point, that what we are reporting is not merely the truth about decisive aspects of the past history of our nation. The same general philosophical world-out-look expressed by the traitorous plotters of the 1776-1861 period, is the ruling philosophy of such institutions as the famous New York Council on Foreign Relations today. The plottings and projects today may be different than those of more than a hundred years ago, but the philosophy governing the choice of such policies and objectives remains, in all essentials, the same. The important fact is not purely and simply that the families of those traitors of then are dominant in the ranks of ruling families of our Eastern Establishment today. The connection is not merely biological; in the greater part, these families have transmitted the philosophical outlook under the treasonous projects of the past into the mental life of their heirs of the present.
Not only is our Eastern Establishment of today a continuation of the philosophical outlook of the traitors Burr and the "Essex Junto" of then, by and large. These families and the new families, such as the Morgans and Harrimans, recruited to enlarge their ranks since, have had a persistently erosive influence upon our national institutions over the entire period since the War of 1776-1783. Our government, our political parties, prevailing policies in matters of law, our educational system, our news-media, our public entertainments, and in general prevailing currents of popular opinion, have all been cumulatively influenced by such erosive influence of this powerful grouping within our national life. To understand what we as a nation so often do to damage ourselves, we must understand this powerful grouping, its origins, its philosophical outlook, its traditions, and its history.
The account we give is therefore shocking, but true, and also necessary and long overdue.
We resume the account, picking up the thread in Boston, in the year 1800. In the presidential election of that year, the Essex Junto, as part of the British plots centered around Aaron Burr, had witnessed near-success of the effort to make Aaron Burr President of the United States. Although Burr was the vice-presidential running-mate of the Republican (Democratic-Republican predecessor of the Democratic Party) Thomas Jefferson, the plotters had rigged the election to the purpose of making Burr, not Jefferson, the elected President. The plot had been foiled almost single-handedly by Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton deplored Jefferson's policies, but regarded him as no traitor, and vowed it a matter of the national security of the republic that Jefferson, not Burr, be awarded the victory.
This defeat of Burr's ambition led into the events of 18031804, concerning which John Quincy Adams wrote of "the design of certain leaders of the Federal Party to effect a dissolution of the Union, and the establishment of a Northern confederacy. This design had been formed in the winter of 1803-1804.... That project . . . had gone to the length of fixing upon a military leader for its execution.... "(6) The central feature of the plotting referenced in cited correspondence of the plotters themselves, was to secure Burr's election as the Governor of the State of New York. Burr would then set up a breakaway Northern confederacy of New York, New Jersey, the New England states, and, if possible, also Pennsylvania. Hamilton again intervened, by wrecking Burr's reputation, and pamphleteering to expose the threat to the Union. When Burr lost the election, he challenged Hamilton to the famous duel, and killed him.
The new plottings of the Essex Junto in 1807-1808 were dampened when John Quincy Adams exposed his fellow-Federalists to President Jefferson.. It was only a delay. More treason was soon to come.
Britain escalated its war on U.S. commerce, seizing U.S. ships and taking thousands of U.S. sailors as virtual British slaves. The election of the "warhawks," Kentucky's Henry Clay and South Carolina's John Calhoun, in 1812, enabled the patriots of the nation to force a war against Britain upon the most-reluctant administration of President Madison. The powerful, Jacobin figure of the Swiss, Albert Gallatin, within the administration, was de facto a British Secret Intelligence agent, as he showed himself at many points during the war itself. President Madison's wife, Dolly, had been a hand-picked selection of Aaron Burr, himself. It was the newly elected Henry Clay, promptly made Speaker of the House of Representatives, who forced the prosecution of the war on a most-reluctant administration, and the small, but able U. S. Navy which swept the mammoth British sea power from much of the Atlantic Ocean, securing the Malvinas Islands to the future nation of Argentina, and forcing the British to make peace in 1815.
For about two years, beginning with the Declaration of War on June 12, 1812, the Essex Junto shamelessly, publicly sabotaged the war-effort of the United States. They blocked recruitment and deployment of troops, they threatened those who purchased U. S. government bonds, while raising funds for, and smuggling money and war-materiel to the enemy forces operating in Canada. President Madison alluded to the treasonous antics of the Boston gang in his Second Inaugural Address of March 4, 1813. In this address, he attacked the intrigues of "British commanders": "Now we find them, in further contempt of the modes of honorable warfare, supplying the place of a conquering force by attempts to disorganize our political society, to dismember our confederated Republic."(7)
The Essex Junto was busily engaged with its British masters once again. They corroborated the President's cautious allusion during the course of 1814. The Junto called for a convention to be held at Hartford, Connecticut, where the "grievances" of the New England states might be crystallized into forceful anti-governrnent acts on a region-wide, or "sectional" basis.
Before this Hartford Convention could be convened, Philadelphia's Mathew Carey dropped a political bomb on the Junto, with the first publication of a book entitled The Olive Branch. Carey was a leading figure of the early history of our republic. An Irish republican fleeing British dogs, he arrived in Paris during the War of 1776-1783 to enter into a close collaboration with Dr. Benjamin Franklin. He settled in Philadelphia, promoting Franklin's scientific and technological projects there, and becoming a leading figure of the U.S. secret-intelligence service, as well as the leading U. S. economist of the post-1815 period. Carey's The Olive Branch proposed bipartisan action by the patriots of both parties, and detailed with cruel and elaborated accuracy the treasonous activities of the Boston crowd, among others.
For the moment, Carey's book sent the traitors scuttling into quiet corners. The Hartford Convention occurred, in December 1814, but the northern secessionist movement was thoroughly discredited. The Convention, chaired by George Cabot, held only secret sessions. The inconsequential resolutions published by the Convention were disregarded, as the war ended weeks later. Thereafter, popular opinion of the United States everywhere equated the Hartford Convention with treason, until the 1830s Nullification Movement in South Carolina revived the Hartford Convention as a source of precedent for new efforts to destroy the Union.
The letters referenced above were later published by John Quincy Adams's grandson, Henry Adams, during the 1870s, in his Documents Relating to New England Federalism. Although this collection was edited by a Henry Adams who was himself a notorious anglophile, at political odds with his famous grandfather, that editing does not conceal what is most essential. The documentation shows the persistence of the disunion project, over the span of a decade. It shouts also that this treason was not caused by any sectional special interest of some part of the nation, nor for any reason of domestic issues at all. The inspiration and guidance of the plot was not American in origin. The plotters were determined to stop the American experiment in constitutional federal government.
What were the plotters' motives?
Why did they commit themselves to so blatantly treasonous an enterprise?
We shall come to that matter in due course within the report. George Cabot provides a hint in his cited letter to Timothy Pickering of February 14, 1804:
All the evils you describe and many more are to be apprehended; but I greatly fear that a separation would beno remedy, because *the source of them is in the political theories of our country and in ourselves*.... *We are democratic altogether;* and I hold democracy, in its natural operation, to be the *government of the worst*. . . . At the same time that I do not desire a separation at this moment, I add that *it is not practicable* without intervention of some cause which should be very generally felt and distinctly understood as chargeable to the misconduct of our southern masters.... If no man in New England could vote for legislators who was not possessed in his own right of two thousand dollars value in land, we could do something better; but neither this nor other material improvement can be made by fair consent of the people. I incline to the opinion that the essential alterations which may in future be made to amend our form of government will be the consequences only of great suffering, or the immediate effects of violence....(8)To round out the state of mind of the plotters of 1803-1804, the following passage of a letter from Stephen Higginson to Timothy Pickering on March 17, 1804 suffices:
It would be imprudent even to discuss the question, we must wait the effects of still greater outrage and insult from those in power before we prepare for the only measure which can save the New England States from the snares of Virginia . . . without some favorable events, the democrats will succeed another year, and we shall be revolutionized, and the other States will follow.(9)The state of mind reflected in this correspondence, most notably the features of the George Cabot item whose key passages are noted above, for that reason, is best appreciated by reference to Sir [sic] John Robison's Proofs of a Conspiracy, 1797, [the author was Professor Robison, the father of the knight.] later republished with enthusiastic endorsement by the John Birch Society (10) in the 1960s. In modern language, Robison "brainwashed" President John Adams and many others, into believing that the French government of Lazare Carnot, which had crushed the Jacobins, was complicit in conduiting the Jacobin insurrections of Albert Gallatin et al. into the United States. In fact, the British, together with the suppressed Jesuits and the Swiss bankers allied to London, had created and directed the Jacobins. By aid of the lying information as to the foreign source of the Jacobin insurrections inside the U.S.A., Robison et al. were able to crystallize the anti-democratic tendencies among the New England crowd, to the effect which Cabot's letter above echoes most clearly. In consequence, the Essex Junto became the foremost backers of the same Gallatin as a member of the Jefferson and Madison cabinets! Sic transit gloria Boston.
Over the interval between those letters of 1804 and the 1813-1814 period, the process leading toward the Newburyport plotting of the 1861 breakup of the Union took clearer form in the correspondence of the plotters. The plan which was to emerge during the 1840s and 1850s was only a hint by 1813-1814, but the hint is there. Consider these passages from a letter of Timothy Pickering, dated July 4, 1813, to George Logan:
If the Southern States should ever open their eyes to see that their real interest is closely connected with that of the other Atlantic States, and, by a union with them in apportioning the public burdens, lay an equitable share of them on the Western States, that moment the latter will declare off, take to themselves the Western lands, and leave the enormous war debt they have occasioned on the shoulders of the Atlantic States.... if I should reach fourscore years, I may survive the present Union. Entertaining that opinion, I cannot think, of course, that a separation at this time would be an evil.
On the contrary, I believe an immediate separation would be a real blessing to the "good old thirteen states." . . . I throw out this idea for the consideration of yourself and [name edited out], to whom I request you to mention it. "(11)The idea of conspiring with elements of the "Southern States" to arrange a dissolution of the Union out of common, if skewed self-interests in such an outcome, was beginning to emerge in the thinking of the plotters at this point in their search for a dissolution of the republic. It would not be until the Scottish Rite Freemasonry, which had taken over Boston, in opposition to Franklin's Free and Accepted Freemasonry, spread deeply throughout the southern states, that the working basis for such a plot could emerge as a well-defined proposition. The impulse in that direction was, however, already there.
The last in this sampling of treasonous plotters' correspondence is something shaken out of McGeorge Bundy's family tree. It is a passage from a letter, dated December 3, 1814, from John Lowell, nicknamed "The Rebel," to Timothy Pickering. The writer of the following passage was the son of Judge John Lowell, and the chief public spokesman of the Essex Junto's anti-war movement of the 1812-1814 war with Britain, the "Peace Party," and the author of the pamphlets issued on behalf of that "Peace Party"--the Tom Hayden of 1814, so to speak. He was also the leading spokesman for disunion ideology at Harvard University, and performed the same specialized role in that curious Boston concoction called the Unitarian Church:
. . . On the subject of the Convention at Hartford . . . my feelings ... I perceive, are very similar to yours.... I gave great offense during the sitting of our legislature by openly opposing the calling [of] a convention. . . until I explained my reasons, which were that I was convinced that the convention would not go far enough, and that the first measure ought to be to recommend to the States to pass laws to prevent our resources in men and money to be withdrawn.In short, to prohibit support from the States for conduct of an openly declared war of the United States against a mortal adversary! The letter-writer continues:
. . .The people en masse will act in six or twelve months more.... People . . . pretend to fear a civil war, if we assert our rights.... The wrath of the Southern States ... is too ludicrous to require an answer. Under the best circumstances, it would be a pretty arduous undertaking for all the Southern states to attempt the conquest of New England; but reduced as they now are to indigence, it would be more than Quixotic. What a satire it is that the moment the British take possession of any part of our country, and relieve it from the yoke of its own government, its inhabitants are happy and grow rich! Its lands rise in value, every species of property is enhanced in price, and the people deprecate the prospect of being relieved by their own government. Yet such is the fact in the two lower counties of this State. Let no man fear the discontents of our own people. They will hail such events as blessings. (12)Before tracing the relevant events which were to follow the abortive Hartford Convention, we review some of the principal characters of the treasonous circle we have now broadly defined. We shall review summarily the matter of the curiously gothic community called Newburyport and the quality of that fabled species known around the world as the "Boston Brahmins."
1. Documents Relating to New England Federalism. See also Young, Andrew M., The American Statesman: A Political History, published by N.C. Miller, New York, 1862; pp. 431-458. Young demonstrates (p. 431-439) that a forgery of Thomas Jefferson's views was produced after his death, to injure John Quincy Adams' reputation,. to protect the Boston traitors, and perhaps most important, to falsely impute to Jefferson anti-Union views.
2. Documents Relating to New England Federalism, pp. 346-349.
3. ibid. D. 338.
4. ibid, pp. 338-342.
5. ibid, pp. 342-343.
6. ibid, pp. 52, 56.
7. Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States, House Document 91-142; United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 1969. n.27.
8. See footnote 2.
9. Documents Relating to New England Federalism, p. 361.
10. Robison, John, Proofs of a Conspiracy, 1798 edition printed by George Forman, New York, reprinted by Western Islands, Belmont Massachusetts. Thomas Jefferson, in his retirement, roundly contradicted the Robison thesis by saying that the British ran the ("left-wing") anarchists in the French Revolution, and were running the Boston ("right-wing") insurrectionists in the period of the War of 1812: "The foreigner gained time to anarchise by gold the government he could not overthrow by arms, to crush in their own councils the genuine republicans, by the fraternal embraces of exaggerated and hired pretenders, and to turn the machine of Jacobinism from the change to the destruction of order; and in the end, the limited monarchy [the republicans] had secured was exchanged for the unprincipled and bloody tyranny of Robespierre.... " The British have hoped more in their Hartford Convention. Their fears of republican France being now done away, they are directed to republican America, and they are playing the same game for disorganization here which they played in your country. The Marats, the Dantons, and Robespierres of Massachusetts are in the same pay, under the same orders, and making the same efforts to anarchise us, that their prototypes in France did there."--Jefferson to the Marquis de Lafayette, Feb. 14, 1815, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. X1V. pp. 246-251.
11. Documents Relating to New England Federalism, p. 391.
12. ibid, p 410 ff.