Image above and transcript below from the original letter at the Library of Congress

---

New York Partition Street No 63

July 8th, 1808.

Dear Sir

On the 21st Jany I presented a Memorial to Congress and after waiting a considerable time and hearing nothing of it, I wrote to George Clinton Junior who presented the Memorial to Congress desiring some information of it. In his answers of March 19 he says, “I am desired by Mr. Holmes Chairman of the Committee of Claims to inform you That the business of the Memorial is progressing and that as soon as they received certain information from the President and Vice President a report would be made.”— No report however has been made, and I write this letter to request you to inform Mr. Holmes or the Committee of Claims have made any application to you on this subject.

I now pass on from this disagreeable affair to what I like much better – Public Affairs. The british Ministry have outschemed themselves. It is not difficult to see what the motive and object of that Ministry were in issuing the orders of Council. They expected those orders would force all the Commerce of the United States to England and then by giving permission to such Cargoes as they did not want for themselves to depart for the Continent of Europe, to raise a revenue out of those Countries and America. But instead of this they have lost revenue, that is they lost the revenue they used to receive from American imports, and instead of gaining all the commerce they have lost it all.

This being the case with the british Ministry it is natural to suppose they would be glad to tread back their steps if they could do it without too much exposing their ignorance and obstinacy. The Embargo law empowers the President to suspend its operation whenever he shall be satisfied that our ships can pass in safety. It therefore includes the Idea of empowering him to use means for arriving at that event. Suppose the President were to authorize Mr. Pinckney to propose to the british Ministry that the United States would negociate with France for rescinding the Milan Decree, on Condition the english Ministry would rescind their orders of Council and in that case the United States would recall their Embargo. France and England stand now at such a distance that neither can propose any thing to the other, neither are there any neutral powers to act as mediator. The U. S. is the only power that can act.

Perhaps the british Ministry, if they listen to the proposal will want to add to it the Berlin decree which excludes english Commerce from the Continent of Europe; but this we have nothing to do with, neither has it any thing to do with the Embargo. The british orders of Council and the Milan decree are parallel cases, and the cause of the Embargo.

Yours in friendship

Thomas Paine

from the Public Advertiser (New York), August 18, 1807.

THE election for Charter Officers last year was carried by the federal and quid trick of fortifications, and now the people are to be amused and duped to a new obstructions.

The only eligible mode of obstruction is that proposed by Franklin for the Delaware in ’76, an account of which was given in the Public Advertiser of the 6th, and republished in the Philadelphia Aurora of the 8th August.

The plan of obstruction now proposed for New York is by blocks, that is, by solid bodies of stone or earth in the manner of wharves. This was first suggested by Selah Strong, Chairman of the Committee of the Corporation, and in a publication by Mr. Stevens of Hobuck, which contains many just observations on ships and batteries, he adopts the same unfortunate idea of obstruction by blocks. The blocks to be “25 or 30 feet square or larger; at the distance of 50 or 60 feet from each other.” And the editor of the New York American Citizen in introducing Mr. Smith’s piece in his paper of Saturday last, says, Why not,”to make assurance doubly sure, to give us in fact protection, carry the obstruction by blocks or otherwise entirely cross from Robin’s Reef to Mud Flat.”

This, most certainly, would prevent Hostile Ships coming to the city, and it is equally as certain it would prevent the tide coming up and lay the wharves at New York dry, and be the ruin of all the towns on the North River that depend for commerce on tide water. This, the projectors of obstructors by blocks never thought of; but projectors should think of every thing or they will make ruinous work. If Selah Strong’s project is adopted New York is ruined, for the obstruction by blocks cannot afterwards be removed.

Every alteration made in the channel of a water course, whether it be in the natural current of a river or the current of a tide, will cause another alteration some where else.

If the obstruction be across the natural current of a river like the obstruction of a mill dam, the water will continue rising till it overtops the obstruction or overflow the country above; for as the daily supply from the source will continue the same it will have a passage somewhere.

If the obstruction be to the tide water, the effect will be, that the tide water will rise to the same height at the place where the obstruction is, as it did before and no higher, but the channel above the obstruction will be deprived of tide water.

The stone piers of a bridge lessen the quantity and extent of tide water above the bridge. This every body knows that knows anything of hydraulics. But to know it as a fact, if any person will look into Salmon’s Geography or Guthrie’s Geographical Grammar, he will find, in their account of rivers and bridges in England, that before Westminster bridge was built, which was begun in 1738, the tide flowed up to Kingston, about 17 or 18 miles above Westminster, but since the bridge has been built it flows no higher than Richmond, which is four miles short of Kingston. Now, if the piers of a bridge lessened the quantity of tide water, and shortened its extent four miles out of 17 or 18 miles, what must be the effect of a total, or even semi-total, obstruction by blocks of the channel between Robin’s Reef and Mud Flat on the wharves at the city and on the long course of the North River?

In projecting obstructions two things are absolutely necessary to be taken into view. The one is, the least possible obstruction to the water up or down; the other is, that the obstruction be such as can be removed afterwards. Neither of these entered the mind of the projectors of blocks, and both are embraced in the plan of Franklin. His frames had very little effect on the tide or the stream; and after the enemy went away they were taken up; but all the power and art of Man could not remove solid blocks of stone or earth 25 or 30 feet square, sunk several feet below the surface of the water.

If the channel between Robin’s Reef and Mud Flat is not more than about 36 feet, it can be obstructed as the Delaware was, and the obstruction can be defended by gun boats and batteries, and the militia can defend the shore as the people of Norfolk have done; but for men to be always employing themselves on imaginary fortifications or sculking behind, or within obstruction like a turtle within his shell, lest the crows should pick him, has a very cowardly appearance. It is not the spirit of “the times that tried men’s souls.”

THOMAS PAINE.

From the records of the Annals of Congress, 10th Congress, 2nd Session.

NEW YORK, March 7, 1808.

SIR:

I wrote you a week ago, prior to the date of this letter, respecting my memorial to Congress, but I have not yet seen an account of any proceedings upon it.

I know not who the Committee of Claims are, but if they are men of younger standing than “the times that tried men’s souls,” and, consequently, too young to know what the condition of the country was at the time I published Common Sense (for I do not believe independence would have been declared had it not been for the effect of that work) they are not capable of judging of the whole of the services of Thomas Paine. The President and Vice President can give you information on those subjects, so also can Mr. Smilie, who was a member of the Pennsylvania Legislature at the times I am speaking of. He knows the inconveniences I was often put to, for the old Congress treated me with ingratitude, they seemed to be disgusted at my popularity, and acted towards me as a rival instead of a friend.

The explanation I sent to the committee respecting a resolve of the old Congress while they sat at New York should be known to Congress, but it seems to me that the committee keep everything to themselves, and do nothing. If my memorial was referred to the Committee of Claims, for the purpose of losing it, it is unmanly policy. After so many years of service my heart grows cold towards America.

Yours, in friendship,

THOMAS PAINE.

Hon. Speaker of the House of Reps.

P. S. I repeat my request, that you would call on the Committee of Claims to bring in their report, and that Congress would decide upon it.

From the records of the Annals of Congress, 10th Congress, 2nd Session.

New York, Partition Street, No. 63, February 28, 1808

SIR:

I addressed a memorial to Congress dated January 21, which was presented by George Clinton, Junior, and referred to the Committee of Claims. As soon as I knew to what committee it was referred, I wrote to that committee, and informed them of the particulars respecting a vote of the old Congress of $3,000 to me, as I mentioned I would do in my memorial; since which I have heard nothing of the memorial or of any proceedings upon it.

It will be convenient to me to know what Congress will decide on, because it will determine me whether, after so many years of generous services, and that in the most perilous times, and after seventy years of age, I shall continue in this country, or offer my services to some other country. It will not be to England, unless there should be a revolution.

My request to you is, that you will call on the Committee of Claims to bring in their report, and that Congress would decide upon it. I shall then know what to do.

Yours, in friendship,

THOMAS PAINE.

The Honorable the SPEAKER of the House of Representatives.

From the records of the American State Papers, No. 189, 10th Congress, First Session.

To the honorable the Senate of the United States: New York, January 21, 1808.

THE purport of this address is to state a claim I feel myself entitled to make on the United States, leaving it to their representatives in Congress to decide on its worth and its merits. The case is as follows:

Towards the latter end of the year 1780, the continental money had become so depreciated, a paper dollar not being more than a cent, that it seemed next to impossible to continue the war.

As the United States were then in alliance with France, it became necessary to make France acquainted with our real situation. I therefore drew up a letter to Count de Vergennes, stating undisguisedly the true case; and concluding with the request, whether France could not, either as a subsidy or a loan, supply the United States with a million sterling, and continue that supply, annually, during the war.

I showed the letter to Mr. Marbois, secretary to the French minister. His remark upon it was, that a million sent out of the nation exhausted it more than ten millions spent in it. I then showed it to Mr. Ralph Isard, member of Congress for South Carolina. He borrowed the letter of me, and said, “We will endeavor to do something about it in Congress.”

Accordingly Congress appointed Colonel John Laurens, then aid to General Washington, to go to France and make representation of our situation, for the purpose of obtaining assistance. Colonel Laurens wished to decline the mission, and that Congress would appoint Colonel Hamilton; which Congress did not choose to do.

Colonel Laurens then came to state the case to me. He said he was enough acquainted with the military difficulties of the army, but that he was not enough acquainted with political affairs, nor with the resources of the country, to undertake the mission; “but,” said he, “if you will go with me, I will accept it;” which I agreed to do, and did do.

We sailed from Boston in the Alliance frigate, Captain Barry, the beginning of February, 1781, and arrived at L’Orient the beginning of March. The aid obtained from France was six millions livres as a present, and ten millions as a loan, borrowed in Holland, on the security of France. We sailed from Brest in the French Resolve frigate the 1st of June, and arrived at Boston the 25th of August, bringing with us two millions and a half of livres in silver, and convoying a ship and a brig laden with clothing and military stores. The money was transported in sixteen ox teams to the National Bank at Philadelphia, which enabled the army to move to Yorktown to attack, in conjunction with the French army under Rochambeau, the British army under Cornwallis. As I never had a cent for this service, I feel myself entitled, as the country is now in a state of prosperity, to state the case to Congress.

As to my political works, beginning with the pamphlet Common Sense, published the beginning of January, 1776, which awakened America to a declaration of independence, as the President and Vice President both know, as they were works done from principle, I cannot dishonor that principle by asking any reward for them. The country has been benefited by them, and I make myself happy in the knowledge of it. It is, however, proper to me to add, that the mere independence of America, were it to have been followed by a system of Government, modelled after the corrupt system of the English Government, it would not have interested me with the unabated ardor it did. It was to bring forward and establish the representative system of Government, as the work itself will show, that was the leading principle with me in writing that work, and all my other works during the progress of the revolution. And I followed the same principle in writing the Rights of Man, in England.

There is a resolve of the old Congress, while they sat at New York, of a grant of three thousand dollars to me. The resolve is put in handsome language, but it has relation to a matter which it does not express. Elbridge Gerry was chairman of the committee who brought in the resolve. If Congress should judge proper to refer this memorial to a committee, I will inform that committee of the particulars of it.

I have also to state to Congress, that the authority of the old Congress was become so reduced towards the latter end of the war, as to be unable to hold the States together. Congress could do no more than recommend, of which the States frequently took no notice; and, when they did, it was never uniformly.

After the failure of the five per cent. duty recommended by Congress, to pay the interest of a loan to be borrowed in Holland, I wrote to Chancellor Livingston, then Minister for Foreign Affairs, and Robert Morris, Minister of Finance, and proposed a method for getting over the whole difficulty at once; which was, by adding a continental Legislature to Congress, who should be empowered to make laws for the Union, instead of recommending them; so the method proposed me their full approbation. I held myself in reserve, to take the subject up whenever a direct occasion occurred.

In a conversation afterwards with Governor Clinton, of New York, now Vice President, it was judged that, for the purpose of going fully into the subject, and to prevent any misconstruction of my motive or object, it would be best that I received nothing from Congress, but leave it to the States individually to make me what acknowledgment they pleased.

The State of New York made me a present of a farm, which, since my return to America, I have found it necessary to sell; and the State of Pennsylvania voted me five hundred pounds, their currency. But none of the States to the east of New York, or the south of Philadelphia, ever made the least acknowledgment. They had received benefits from me, which they accepted, and there the matter ended. This story will not tell well in history. All the civilized world know I have been of great service to the United States, and have generously given away talent that would have made me a fortune.

I much question if an instance is to be found in ancient or modern times of a man who had no personal interest in the cause he took up, that of independence and the establishment of a representative system of Government, and who sought neither place nor office after it was established, that persevered in the same undeviating principles as I have done, for more than thirty years, and that in spite of difficulties, dangers, and inconveniences, of which I have had my share.

THOMAS PAINE.