Madison, after enduring one “refusal of all our overtures in a haughty tone,” suggested that another be invited. The slightly patronizing air which characterized Jefferson’s attitude toward Madison, but which he never betrayed toward Gallatin, was explained by this want of directness in Madison’s nature, and by the habitual slowness of his decisions. The action suggested by Madison threw the control of events into the hands of France. This at least was the opinion of Jefferson, whose mind was wrought by the news from Pinckney to a state of steadily growing alarm. “I think the _status quo_, if not already proposed, should be immediately offered through Bowdoin,” wrote Jefferson, August 4, before receiving Madison’s letter of August 2.[50] “Should it even be refused, the refusal to settle a limit is not of itself a sufficient cause of war, nor is the withholding a ratification worthy of such a redress. Yet these acts show a purpose, both in Spain and France, against which we ought to provide before the conclusion of a peace. I think, therefore, we should take into consideration whether we ought not immediately to propose to England an eventual treaty of alliance, to come into force whenever (within ---- years) a war shall take place with Spain or France.” Three days later he wrote again, and his alarm had increased:[51]-- “The papers now enclosed to you confirm me in the opinion of the expediency of a treaty with England, but make the offer of the _status quo_ [to Spain] more doubtful; the correspondence will probably throw light on that question. From the papers already received I infer a confident reliance on the part of Spain on the omnipotence of Bonaparte, but a desire of procrastination till peace in Europe shall leave us without an ally.” Ten days more passed; the whole mortification became evident; the President’s anger and alarm rose to feverishness.[52] He wrote to Madison, August 17,-- “I am anxious to receive opinions respecting our procedure with Spain, as should negotiations with England be advisable they should not be postponed a day unnecessarily, that we may lay their result before Congress before they rise next spring. Were the question only about the bounds of Louisiana, I should be for delay. Were it only for spoliations, just as this is as a cause of war, we might consider if no other expedient were more eligible for us. But I do not view peace as within our choice. I consider the cavalier conduct of Spain as evidence that France is to settle with us for her,--and the language of France confirms it,--and that if she can keep us insulated till peace, she means to enforce by arms her will, to which she foresees we will not truckle, and therefore does not venture on the mandate now. We should not permit ourselves to be found off our guard and friendless.”